INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION REPORT
InPlant Systems, Inc. S^FC 0.5 Oleofiltration System
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
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-0048. This document has been subjected to EPA's peer and administrative reviews and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document, j Mention of trade names or commercial products does
i
not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Superfund Innovative Technology
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Ac:
EPA Office of Research and Development
the development and use of innovative
waste sites. This purpose is accomplished through
performance and cost data on selected technologies
(ORD)
cleanup technologies applicable to Superfund:
of a
This report summarizes the findings
evaluate the InPlant Systems, Inc. SFC 0.5
American Technologies Group, Inc. The technology
reprocessing site. The demonstration provided
technology. This Innovative Technology Evaluation
discusses the potential applicability of the technology
demonstration conducted under the SITE Program to
Oleofiltration System, marketed exclusively by North
demonstration was conducted at a former oil
information on the performance and cost of the
Report provides an interpretation of the data and
A limited number of copies of this report
Environmental Research Information, 26 West Martin
569-7562. Requests should include the EPA document
limited supply is exhausted, additional copies can be
Service (NTIS), Ravensworth Building, Springfield
will be available at EPA libraries in the Hazardous
Clearinghouse Hotline at (800) 424-9346 to inquire
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Evaluation, (SITE) Program was authorized by the
(SARA) of 1986. The program is administered by the
The purpose of the SITE Program is to accelerate
and other hazardous
technology demonstrations designed to provide
will be available at no charge from EPA's Center for
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513)
number found on the report's cover. When the
purchased from the National Technical Information
, Virginia 22161, (800) 553-6847. Reference copies
Waste Collection. You can also call the SITE
about the availability of other reports.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
i
Oleofiltration is an innovative hydrocarbon recovery technology that utilizes amine-ccated,
oleophilic granules to separate suspended andj mechanically emulsified hydrocarbons from aqueous
solutions. The granules are also reported to sep|arate several types of chemical emulsions and to reduce
concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons. The technology was developed by Exxon Research, and
Engineering Company and is manufactured under exclusive license and patent by InPlant Systems, Inc.
(InPlant) of Houston, Texas. j
!'
The InPlant SFC Oleofiltration System (SFC System) is a water treatment unit consisting of an
innovative, vertical-fin, coalescing separator connected to a patented, amine-coated, ceramic granule
filtration system (the Oleofilter). According to InPlant, the SFC System is capable of treating virtually
any insoluble hydrocarbon/water mixture. The stated advantage of the SFC System is its ability to
separate hydrocarbon/water emulsions that are not treatable by conventional oil/water separation
techniques. When the hydrocarbon/water mixture entering the granules contains less than 500
milligrams/liter (mg/L) of total recoverable petrbleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and less than 50 mg/L of
suspended solids, InPlant claims that the SFC System will produce a treated water effluent that contains
15 mg/L or less of TRPH. j
The SFC 0.5 System (2.2 gallons-per-minute treatment capacity) was evaluated under the EPA
SITE Demonstration Program at a former oil reprocessing facility hi Pembroke Park, Florida. An
emulsion was to be produced for the demonstration by mixing groundwater and waste oil recovered from
the site. However, the waste oil recovered for the demonstration was significantly more viscous than the
oil previously collected for pre-demonstration tre^tability studies. Consequently, 30 gallons of the waste
I
oil were thinned with 15 gallons of virgin, lighter-weight motor oil prior to being emulsified with site
groundwater and fed into the SFC System. !
l
The unit was evaluated over five separate operating cycles ("runs"). The feed stream was the
same for all runs except Run 4. The feed stream for Run 4 was a 3-to-l mixture of the previously
thinned oil and kerosene, which was then emulsified with groundwater. The amount of oil mixed with
the groundwater was increased for Run 4, resulting in a TRPH concentration hi the feed stream ranging
I
I iv
-------
from two to five times higher than the concentrations for the other runs. These changes in Run 4 were
implemented in an attempt to resolve filter backflushing difficulties associated with treating the viscous
oil. I
i
j
Three critical objectives were proposed for the demonstration. The first critical objective was
to evaluate whether the SFC System could rembve at least 90 percent of the TRPH from the emulsified
oil/water influent stream. Data indicate that the SFC System met this goal for all runs except Run 4,
which experienced filter breakthrough. The second critical objective was to determine whether the SFC
System could reduce TRPH concentrations in tjie treated water exiting the system to 15 mg/L or less.
When data are combined and evaluated for the; runs where the system operated within normal design
parameters (Runs 1 and 5), this goal was met. ^or the other runs, the 15 mg/L threshold was exceeded.
The third critical objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the oleophilic granules by comparing the
TRPH concentrations of oil/water emulsion before and after it passed through the granules. Combined
data for the runs with similar feed streams (Runs! 1, 2, 3, and 5) show the granules achieved a 95 percent
reduction in TRPH concentration. A 65 percent reduction in TRPH was obtained in Run 4.
Several noncritical objectives were evaluated for the demonstration. One of these objectives was
evaluation of the relative effectiveness of the SFJC System hydrocarbon-capturing components. Results
indicate that the coalescing separator accounted for 45 to 62 percent of the total TRPH removed by the
SFC System; the oleophilic granules removed th|e corresponding 55 to 38 percent. Another noncritical
objective was to evaluate the ability of the SFCJSystem to remove suspended solids (measured as non-
filterable residue, or NFR) from the oil/water iifluent. NFR removals ranged from 27 percent to 58
percent; NFR values in the oil/water influent wke generally below 50 mg/L. The ability of the SFC
System to remove selected semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) was another noncritical objective.
SVOC concentrations in the oil/water influent fpr Runs 1, 2, 3, and 5 were too low to support any
conclusions about removal effectiveness. RunJ4 had higher SVOC concentrations in the oil/water
influent. For this run, 78 percent removal of naphthalene and 81 percent removal of 2-methylnaphthalene
were achieved.
During the demonstration, the SFC Systeqi did not achieve steady-state operating conditions. The
lack of steady-state conditions apparently resulted from treating the unexpectedly high-viscosity oil during
a short-duration evaluation of the technology. !
: V
-------
A treatment cost estimate was
which has a treatment capacity appropriate
remediations. Equipment costs, as well as
supplied by InPlant; other remediation costs
information. The cost estimate is $2.36 per 1,
cost of several site-specific factors, such as
many aspects of site preparation.
prepared based upon the use of a full-scale unit, the SFC 8 System,
small to average size soil flushing or groundwater
, water, and compressed air requirements were
estimated from engineering textbooks and vendor
gallons treated. This estimate does not include the
permitting, effluent/residuals disposal, sample analysis, and
for
electrical,
were
.000
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
NOTICE
FOREWORD
ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABBREVIATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
r.
Background
Brief Description of Program an'd Reports
Purpose of the ITER and Other bemonstration Program Reports
Technology Description . . . . i.
Key Contacts [
2. Technology Applications Analysis
2.1 Objectives - Performance Versus ARARs
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act 1
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Clean Air Act 1
Safe Drinking Water Act
Clean Water Act .... 1
Toxic Substances Contro'l Act
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Requirements . . .
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Operability of the Technology
Applicable Wastes
Key Features of the SFC Systenc
Availability and Transportability
Materials Handling Requirements
Site Support Requirements .
of the Equipment
11
iii
iv
x
xi
xii
xiv
xv
1
1
2
4
5
9
10
10
10
13
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
19
20
20
20
Vll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
Page
2.8 Limitations of the Technology |. 21
i
2.8.1 Technology Limitations^ 21
2.8.2 Granule Losses Due to JAttrition 21
2.8.3 Granule Degradation Diie to Chemical Conditions 21
2.8.4 Anionic Surfactants . .! 22
2.8.5 Fouling of Granules . J 22
2.8.6 Pre-granule Water Concentration Limitation 23
3. Economic Analysis 1 24
3.1 Basis of Economic Analysis . .: 24
3.2 Issues and Assumptions .... I 26
3.2.1 Site Preparation . . . . | 27
3.2.2 Permitting and Regulatory 28
3.2.3 Equipment '. . 28
3.2.4 Startup and Fixed Costs; 29
3.2.5 Labor (During Treatment) 31
3.2.6 Supplies ! 31
3.2.7 Consumables 31
3.2.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal 32
3.2.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transport 33
3.2.10 Analytical Services . .; 33
3.2.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 33
3.2.12 Site Demobilization . . j. 33
i
3.3 Results of Economic Analysis |. 34
3.4 Summary and Conclusions . . .! 36
i
i . ,
4. Treatment Effectiveness | 38
4.1 Performance Data j. . 38
4.2 Process Residuals I 47
i -
i viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
i
Section | Page
5. Other Technology Requirements 49
j
5.1 Environmental Regulation Requirements 49
5.2 Personnel Issues ! 49
5.3 Community Acceptance . . . .| 50
I
6. Technology Status '. 51
i
!
7. References ! 52
I
Appendix A . . . j. 53
' ' ' ' i* '
i
Appendix B j. _ 54
-------
LIST :OF TABLES
I
Number j Page
1
1 Summary of Project Objectives, Results, and Conclusions .................. xvi
I
2 Potential Federal and State ARARs for the Treatment of Contaminated Water
by the SFC System at a Superfund Site^ .... ........................ H
3 Nine Evaluation Criteria for the SFC System .............. ............ 14
[
4 Fully-Burdened Salaries for Onsite Personnel Using the SFC 8 System ...... .... 30
I >
5 Treatment Costs for the SFC 8 System Treating 50 Million Gallons ............ 35
6 Treatment Costs as a % of Total Costs for the SFC 8 System
Treating 50 Million Gallons ...... i ......................... 35
i
7 Treatment Costs for the SFC 8 System Operating with a 95% On-line Factor ...... 37
8 Treatment Costs as a % of Total Costs for the SFC 8 System Operating with a
95% On-line Factor ........... ] ....................... 37
9 Summary of TRPH Analyses 41
10 Summary of NFR and Specific SVOC Ankyses 42
A-l NATGI Treatability Study, Oil and Grease Results 53
B-l Experimental Data j . 57
B-2 Economic Evaluation of Oleofilter and Activated Charcoal Absorber for
Treatment of Drain Water .1 59
j
B-3 Oil Removal Efficiencies for Mina al Fahal Field Trials 63
B-4 InPlant Unit Field Trials in Mina al Fahal; 65
B-5 Particle Size Distribution Measurements (Particle Concentrations in PPM) 68
B-6 Details of Marmul Field Trials ...... .| 74
B-7 Particle Size Distribution Measurements (Particle Concentrations
in PPM) . .! 78
!
B-8 Oil and Grease Analytical Results } 82
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
I
i .
i
Number j page
1 SFC 0.5 System Configuration ..... . I . . . ................. ... ..... 6
i
2 Generation of Oleophilic Amine-Coated Granules .............. ..... .... 8
t
3 Run 1 TRPH and NFR Effluent Results for SFC 0.5 System SITE
Demonstration ........ ....... [ ....................... ..... 43
4 Run 2 TRPH and NFR Effluent Results for SFC 0.5 System SITE
Demonstration ............... 1 4/1
..............
5 Run 3 TRPH and NFR Effluent Results for SFC 0.5 System SITE
Demonstration ........ ....... i ............... ............. 44
6 Run 4 TRPH and NFR Effluent Results fdr SFC 0.5 System SITE
Demonstration ............... 1 ............................ 44
i
7 Run 5 TRPH and NFR Effluent Results for SFC 0.5 System SITE
Demonstration j 45
j
B-l Configuration of Oleofiltration Bench-scale Unit 56
i
B-2 Configuration of Mina al Fahal Treatment! Plant 61
i
B-3 Oil in Water Concentrations for Mina al Fahsi Field Trials 64
I
B-4 TSS and Oil Removal Efficiencies . . . . J 69
i , ,
B-5 Configuration of Marmul Production Station 71
B-6 Configuration of Marmul Water Treatment Plant 72
B-7 Oil Concentrations at Marmul ' 73
I
B-8 Total Suspended Solids Measurement Results 76
B-9 TSS and Oil Removal Efficiencies
B-10 Storm Water Discharge Map
i
77
80
B-ll Site Storm Water Collection System . . . J . 81
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
ACA
API
ARARs
ASTM
ATTIC
BTX
CAA
CERCLA
CERI
CFR
CLU-IN
COD
CWA
EPA
gpm
in. Hg
ITER
kVA
kW
kWh
MCL
mg/L
NAAQS
NATGI
NFR
NPDES
NTIS
OIW
ORD
OSHA
OSWER
PAHs
PCBs
POTW
PPC
PPE
ppm
psi
QA
RCRA
RREL
I
activated charcoal absorption '
American Petroleum Institute 1
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
American Society for Testing Materials
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
benzene, toulene, xylene i
Clean Air Act j
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Center for Environmental Research Information
Code of Federal Regulations i
Cleanup Information Electronic'Bulletin Board
chemical oxygen demand j
Clean Water Act j
Environmental Protection Agency
gallons per minute |
inches of mercury
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
kilovolt-amp I
kilowatt
kilowatts per hour
Maximum Contaminant Level j
micrograms per liter j
milligrams per liter j
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
North American Technologies Group, Inc.
non-filterable residue ;
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Technical Information Service
oil in water j
Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyls !
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Petroleum Products Corporation
personal protective equipment
parts per million
pounds per square inch
quality assurance !
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Risk Reduction Engineering Labpratory
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)
SARA Superfund Amendments and Rejauthorization Act of 1986
scf standard cubic feet j
scftn standard cubic feet per minute j
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SFC System Separator/Filter/Coalescer Oleofiltration System '
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SVOC semivolatile organic compounds!
t time J
TER Technology Evaluation Report |
TRPH total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act !
TSD treatment, storage, and disposal!
TSS total suspended solids j
VISITT Vendor Information System for 'innovative Treatment Technologies
VOCs volatile organic compounds j
xui
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
i -
i
I
I _
This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Ms. Laurel Staley, Project
Manager with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program at the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) hi Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA RREL contributors and reviewers for this' report were Mr. Guy Simes, Ms. Ann Leitzinger,, Ms.
Kim McClellan, Mr. Steve Rock, Ms. Teri Richardson, and Mr. Robert Stenburg.
Mr. James Impero and Mr. Robert DeRoche of North American Technologies Group, Inc. and
Ms. Cathryn Wimberly of Aprotek, Inc. provided vendor comments.
l
|
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in Cincinnati, Ohio prepared this report
for the EPA SITE Program under Contract No.i 68-CO-0048. Mr. George Wahl wrote the report, with
assistance from Ms. Evelyn Meagher-Hartzell and Ms. Deana Jenigen. SAIC reviewers included Ms.
Margaret Groeber, Ms. Claire Fluegeman, Ms. Lisa Kulujian, Mr. Joseph Evans, and Mr. Joseph Peters.
The SAIC Work Assignment Manager for the pjroject was Mr. Kurt Whitford.
XIV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
i
i
This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the Separator/Filter/Coalescer
Oleofiltration System (SFC System) manufactured by InPlant Systems, Inc. under exclusive license and
patent from Exxon Research and Engineering Company, and marketed by North American Technologies
Group, Inc. (NATGI). The SFC System combines an innovative vertical-fin coalescing unit and a
patented, amine-coated, oleophilic granule filtration system (the Oleofilter) into one system reportedly
capable of separating mechanical emulsions | of hydrocarbons in water that are not treatable by
conventional oil/water separators. The granules also can separate many chemical emulsions and reduce
concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons. Thelevaluation was performed under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative! Technology Evaluation (SITE) Demonstration Program.
As part of this evaluation, a demonstration wasjconducted at the Petroleum Products Corporation (PPC)
Superfund site in Pembroke Park, Florida. During this demonstration, the SFC 0.5 System (2.2 gallons
per minute treatment capacity) was used to treat an oil/water emulsion created by blending groundwater
from the site with viscous recovered product (Waste oil) that had been thinned with virgin motor oil to
reduce viscosity. Performance data from five evaluation periods (runs) were collected. The results of
the demonstration and technical information supplied by InPlant/NATGI at the request of EPA constitute
the basis for this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (TTER).
i
i
Table 1 presents a summary of the demonstration objectives, results, and conclusions. Critical
objectives directly relate to evaluation of InPlant's claims of technology performance and are supported
by a high level of quality assurance (QA) data. Noncritical objectives are designed to generate additional
performance information on the SFC System arid do not require the level of QA data needed to support
critical objectives. Due to operational differenqes among some of the runs (resulting from backflushmg
difficulties associated with treating oil of unexpectedly high viscosity), demonstration data have been
evaluated using several scenarios. Since Runs- 1, 2, 3, and 5 used the same feed oil, individual data
points from each of these runs were pooled and evaluated together (i.e., data points from all of these runs
were combined and average contaminant concentrations were calculated for the combined data). Within
1
this group, only Runs 1 and 5 were initiated vsjith the Oleofilter backflushed sufficiently for the initial
pressure differential across the granule bed to approach the developer's specification of zero niches of
XV
-------
Table 1. Summary of Project Objectives, Results, and Conclusions
Objective
Results1
Conclusions
Critical Objectives
Evaluate claim of 90%
minimum removal of total
recoverable petroleum
hydrocarbons fTRPH)
from oil/water emulsion.2
Evaluate claim of IS
mg/L maximum TRPH
concentration in effluent.
(Reject claim if sample
mean is greater than 15
mg/L.)2
Determine TRPH removal
effectiveness of oleophilic
granules.
Noncritical Objectives
Determine the relative
contributions to TRPH
removal of the coalescing
unit and oleophilic
granules. (Determine the
percentage of total TRPH
removal accomplished by
the coalescing unit and by
the granules.)
Evaluate the SFC
System's ability to
remove non-filterable
residue (NFR) from the
influent.2
Examine the difference in
% moisture between feed
oil and oil effluent.
Evaluate the ability of the
SFC System to remove
, naphthalene, 2-methyl-
naphthalene and 1,2-
dichlorobenzene.2
Determine whether mass
balance closures of 80-
120% can be achieved for
TRPH and total materials.
Establish a +50 to -30%
treatment cost estimate
The overall TRPH removals were:
98.0 ± 0.5% - Runs 1,2,3, and 5
(98.6 ± 0.5% - Runs 1 and 5 only)
81.3 ± 19.3% -Run4, all data
(98.2 ± 0.6% - Run 4, data prior to
breakthrough)
The average effluent concentrations were:
18.7 ± 2.6 mg/L - Runs 1,2,3; and 5
(15.7 ±3.0 mg/L - Runs 1 and 5)
414.3 ± 424.8 mg/L - Run 4, all data
(39.2 ± 12.0 mg/L - Run 4, data prior to
breakthrough) j
The TRPH removals for granules were:
95.0 ± 1.1% -Runs 1,2,3, andS
(96.4 ± 1.0% - Runs 1 and 5)
65.4 ± 35.8% - Run 4, all data
(96.8 ± 1.2%-Run 4, data prior to
breakthrough)
The TRPH removals for coalescing unit/granules
were: !
61%/39% - Runs 1,2,3, and 5 j
(62%/38% - Runs 1 and 5) |
57 %/43 % -Run 4, all data ;
(45%/55% - Run 4, data prior to
breakthrough) )
The NFR removals were: !
56.7 ± 6.7% - Runs 1,2,3, and 5
(58.5 ± 7.6% - Runs 1 and 5)
33.6 ± 19.0% - Run 4, all data
(27.4 ± 28.8% - Run 4, data;prior to
breakthrough)
Could not be evaluated as system did not reach
steady-state conditions during demonstration.
The removals were: J
77.8 ± 26.8% - Naphthalene for Run 4, afl data
81.5 ± 26.7% - 2-MethymaphthaleneforRun
4, all data j
i
j
Mass balance closures were not possible due to
lack of steady-state conditions, i
Cost for treating 50,000,000 gallons of water
(95% on-line time) is $2.36 per 1,000 gallons
Runs 1,2,3, and 5 met the objective. Rung 1 and 5 met
the objective. Objective not met using all Run 4 data.
Objective met using data from Run 4 prior to
breakthrough.
The average of Runs 1,2,3, and 5 is statistically greater
than the objective. The average of Runs 1 and 5 is not
statistically greater than the objective. For Run 4, the
TRPH concentration in the pro-granule water exceeded
the developer's stated limits. Therefore, no conclusions
about this objective are stated for Run 4.
The granules were able to significantly reduce TRPH
concentrations.
For Runs 1,2,3, and 5, the coalescing unit removed more
TRPH than the granules by a factor of 1.56. For Run 4,
the coalescing unit removed more TRPH than the
granules by a factor of 1.32.
For Runs 1,2,3, and 5 and Runs 1 and 5, the NFR
removal was significant. The NFR removal was less
using all Run 4 data and using data from Run 4 prior to
breakthrough.
No conclusions can be made regarding the effectiveness
of the internal oil/water separator.
No conclusions can be made regarding the removal of
specific SVOCs for Runs 1,2,3, and 5 due to low influent
concentrations. The SFC System significantly removed
both naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene during Run 4.
(1,2-dichlorobenzenewas not detected.)
No conclusions can be made regarding either TRPH or
total mass balance closure.
Cost estimates are highly dependent on site-specific
factors. Actual costs may vary significantly.
1 Indicated results were obtained by combining data from specified runs (e.g., "Runs 1 and 5" indicates data pooled from those Runs only). Data .
from Runs 1,2,3, and 5 were combined due to feed stream similarity. Data from Runs 1 and 5 were combined due to feed stream and operational
similarity. Run 4 used a different feed oil and experienced breakthrough.
2 Evaluated at the 90% confidence level. , I
XVI
-------
!
of mercury (in. Hg). Consequently, evaluation of demonstration objectives state a result for all
measurements from Runs 1, 2, 3, and 5 (13 data points), and a result for all measurements from Runs
1 and 5 only (eight data points). |
{
i
Since Run 4 used a different type of feed oil and oil feed rate (in an attempt to resolve the
backflushing difficulties), data from this run were evaluated separately. During this run,, the
concentration of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) present in the water entering the
granule bed (955 to 1,470 mg/L) exceeded InPfent's stated limitation of 500 mg/L. Consequently, the
demonstration objective of achieving 15 mg/L ojr less in the treated water effluent was not evaluated for
this ran. Additionally, the developer claimed that the pressure differential across the granule bed at
which backflushing was triggered (16 in. Hg) was set to accommodate the 500 mg/L maximum TRPH
concentration, and the higher concentration wasj responsible for the apparent filter breakthrough during
Run 4. Therefore, Run 4 was evaluated.by itself using the data for the entire run (five data points) and
also using only the data prior to filter breakthrough (three data points).
1
i
i
Because the feed oil used was higher in viscosity than expected, and because of the short duration
of the demonstration, the SFC 0.5 System did notjachieve steady-state operating conditions during testing.
This situation precluded the evaluation of two nojncritical objectives. A comparison of the effectiveness
of the vertical-fin coalescing unit at separating oil from water, as determined by the percent water in the
concentrated oil effluent, could not be made. Increased agitation occurred during backflushing, resulting
in the backflush water overflowing into the concentrated oil effluent stream. An acceptable materials
mass balance closure could not be achieved since the amount of oil retained in the unit was not constant
across the runs.
A treatment cost estimate was prepared based upon the use of a full-scale unit, the SFC 8 System,
which has a treatment capacity appropriate for small to average size soil flushing or groundwater
remediations (22 gallons per minute). Equipmenf costs, as well as electrical, water, and compressed air
requirements were supplied by InPlant. Other remediation costs were estimated from engineering text-
books and vendor information. ;
i '
i
i
i
A number of additional conclusions canjbe drawn when considering the entire demonstration.
Overall, the technology appears to be effective at significantly reducing TRPH concentrations in oil/water
emulsions. i
Ixvii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
I
i
|
This section provides background information about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program and the InPlant Systems, Inc.
(InPlant) Separator/Filter/Coalescer Oleofiltraljion System (SFC System) SITE demonstration. Included
is a brief description of the SITE Program and its standard reports. The purpose of the Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report (TTER) and a description of the innovative technology demonstrated are
presented. Key contacts for the SITE Program and the demonstrated technology are also listed.
1.1 Background
Oleofiltration is an innovative hydrocarbon recovery technology that utilizes amine-coated
oleophilic granules to separate suspended and mechanically emulsified hydrocarbons from aqueous
solutions. The granules are also reported to separate many chemical emulsions and to be able to reduce
concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons. The technology was developed by Exxon Research and
Engineering Company and manufactured under |exclusive license and patent by InPlant of Houston, Texas.
North American Technologies Group, Inc. (NATGI) is the sole marketer of the technology.
I
The InPlant SFC System combines an innovative, vertical-fin, coalescing separator and a patented,
amine-coated, ceramic granule filtration system (the Oleofilter) into one unit capable, according to
InPlant, of treating virtually any insoluble hydrjacarbon/water mixture. When the granules are presented
i '
with wastewater containing up to 500 milligrams/liter (mg/L) of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
(TRPH) and less than 50 mg/L of suspended sblids, InPlant claims that the SFC System will produce a
treated water effluent that contains 15 mg/L or less of TRPH. SFC Systems operate at atmospheric
I
pressure and are available in sizes capable of trjeating 2.2 to 44 gallons per minute (gpm). For treatment
of larger flow rates (up to 1,000 gpm), the coalescing unit is manufactured as a separate stand-alone
component from the Oleofilter. The Oleofilters designed to treat larger flow rates operate under low
pressure [less than 30 pounds per square inch (psi)]. The units can be operated independently or installed
in series on a single skid. The latter configuration provides the same treatment capabilities as the SFC
System. i
-------
The SFC 0.5 System was evaluated under the EPA SITE Demonstration Program at the Petroleum
i
Products Corporation (PPC) Superfund site in Pembroke Park, Florida. This former oil reprocessing
facility has a layer of free product (waste oil) floating on groundwater that is contaminated with a variety
of organic and inorganic constituents. Demonstration activities were initiated on June 2, 1994, and were
concluded on June 18, 1994. This report presents the results of the demonstration, as well as additional
1
technical and economic information on the SFC {System. The SFC 0.5 System has a treatment capacity
of 2.2 gpm. The waste oil recovered for the demonstration was significantly more viscous than the oil
collected for the pre-demonstration treatability study. Consequently, the feed stream to the SFC 0.5
System was generated by first thinning the waste oil with virgin, lighter-weight petroleum products and
then emulsifying the thinned oil and site groundwater using an air-powered inline blender. The unit was
evaluated over five separate operating cycles ("runs"). Each run used the same flow rate: 2.2 gpm. The
feed stream was the same for all runs except Run 4. The feed stream for Run 4 was a 3-to-l mixture
of the thinned oil to kerosene emulsified in groundwater. The TRPH concentration in the feed stream
for Run 4 was 2 to 5 tunes higher than the concentrations for the other runs. These differences in Run
4 were implemented in an attempt to resolve filter backflushing difficulties associated with treating the
viscous oil. [
]
}
1.2 Brief Description of Program and Reports
In 1986, the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of
Research and Development (ORD) established t^ie SITE Program to promote the development and use
of innovative technologies to clean up Superfund sites across the country. Now in its ninth year, the
SITE Program is helping to provide the treatment technologies necessary to implement new Federal and
state cleanup standards aimed at permanent remedies rather than quick fixes. The SITE Program is
composed of four major elements: Demonstration Program, Emerging Technologies Program,
Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program, and Technology Transfer Program.
i
i
The first element of the SITE Programj the Demonstration Program, is designed to provide
engineering and cost data for selected technologies. To date, the Demonstration Program has not
provided funding to technology developers for performance of SITE demonstrations. EPA and developers
participating in the program share the cost of i the demonstration. Developers are responsible for
delivering, assembling, operating, and demobilizing their innovative systems at mutually agreed upon
locations, usually Superfund sites. EPA is responsible for sampling, analyzing, and evaluating all test
results. The result is an assessment of the technology's performance, reliability, and costs. This
I
. i 2
-------
information is used in conjunction with otherj data to select the most appropriate technologies for the
cleanup of Superrund sites. j
| .
j
Developers of innovative technologies apply to the Demonstration Program by responding to
EPA's annual solicitation. EPA also accepts proposals any time a developer has a Superrund waste treat-
ment project scheduled. To qualify for the program, a new technology must be available as a plot- or
full-scale system and offer some advantage over existing technologies. Mobile technologies are of
particular interest to EPA.
I '-'---
I
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, EPA and the developer work with the EPA Regional Offices
and State agencies to identify a site containing waste suitable for testing the capabilities of the technology.
EPA prepares a detailed sampling and analysis plan designed to evaluate the technology thoroughly and
to ensure that the resulting data are reliable. The duration of a demonstration varies from a few days to
several months, depending on the length of time and quantity of waste needed to assess the technology.
After the completion of a technology demonstration, EPA prepares two major reports and several smaller
documents, which are explained in more detail j in Section 1.3. Ultimately, the Demonstration Program
leads to an analysis of the technology's overall j applicability to Superrund problems.
j ' .
The second element of the SITE Program, the Emerging Technologies Program, fosters the
further investigation and development of treatment technologies that are still at the laboratory scale.
Successful validation of these technologies at the bench- and pilot-scale stage can lead to the development
of a system ready for field demonstration and pjarticipation hi the Demonstration Program.
The third element of the SITE Program, the Measurement and Monitoring Technologies Program,
provides assistance in the development and demonstration of innovative technologies designed to improve
monitoring, measuring, and characterization of Superfund sites. These technologies are used to identify
contaminants, determine the extent of contamination, and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of
treatment technologies. j
i
i
The fourth element of the SITE Program, the Technology Transfer Program, reports and
distributes the results of Demonstration Program studies. Emerging Technologies studies, and
Measurement and Monitoring Technologies studies. Demonstration Program reports include an TTER,
a Technology Evaluation Report (TER), a SITE Technology Capsule, and a Demonstration Bulletin.
-------
Emerging Technologies Program reports includ? an Emerging Technology Bulletin, a Project Report, and
a Project Summary. |
j
1.3 Purpose of the ITER and Other Demonstration Program Reports
The ITER contains a comprehensive description of the SITE Program demonstration and its
results. It gives descriptions of the technology, the waste used for the demonstration, sampling and
analyses during the test, and a summary of the jlata generated. The ITER includes descriptions of other
laboratory and field applications of the technology, projected Superfund applications, and estimated costs
for the use of the technology in site remediation. It also discusses the advantages, disadvantages, and
limitations of the technology. j
I
|
Costs of the technology for different applications are estimated based on available data from pilot-
and lull-scale applications. The ITER discusses the factors, such as site and waste characteristics, that
have a major impact on costs and performance.'
i
The amount of available data for the evaluation of an innovative technology varies widely. Data
may be limited to laboratory tests on synthetic Waste or may include performance data on actual wastes
treated at the pilot- or full-scale level. In addition, mere are limits to conclusions regarding Superfund
applications that can be drawn from a single field demonstration. A successful field demonstration does
not necessarily ensure that a technology will be widely applicable or fully developed to the commercial
scale. The ITER attempts to synthesize whatever information is available and draw reasonable
conclusions. This document is very useful to those considering a technology for Superfund cleanups and
represents a critical step in the development and commercialization of the treatment technology.
i
I
!
In addition to the ITER, a Demonstration Bulletin, Technology Capsule, and TER are produced
for each technology mat is demonstrated. The jDemonstration Bulletin provides remediation personnel
with a concise, two-page discussion of the technology. Information presented includes technology
description, waste applicability, and field demonstration results. The Technology Capsule provides
additional detail on the technology and the SITE demonstration. Designed to be a "scaled-down" version
of the ITER, this document includes the following sections: Introduction, Abstract, Technology
Description, Technology Applicability, Technology Limitations, Process Residuals, Site Requirements,
Performance Data, Technology Status, Sources of Further Information, and References. The TER is a
summary of all laboratory and field data obtained during the demonstration. A detailed discussion of the
-------
quality assurance (QA) program is also included;. Additionally, the TER compiles the Demonstration Plan
and Quality Assurance Project Plan. Although not published, inquiries on the TER can be directed to
the EPA Work Assignment Manager. As a setjthe Demonstration Bulletin, Technology Capsule, ITER,
and TER provide an increasingly detailed analysis of the technology evaluated under the SITE
Demonstration Program. Potential users can then obtain information on the technology at a level of detail
commensurate with their level of interest. i
1.4 Technology Description
SFC Systems, which contain only one internal moving part (a liquid-level control float), are
designed to be explosion-proof, and are operated at atmospheric pressure. Figure 1 shows the
configuration and cross-sectional view of tlie liquid flow through the SFC 0.5 System. The
hydrocarbon/water mixture (oil/water influent jstream) feeds into the top of the unit through Port A,
moves downward inside the outer shell, and flows upward past the vertical-fin coalescing plates. Free-
floating and emulsified hydrocarbons passing over the plates combine with droplets already adsorbed on
the plate surfaces. !
I .
, , i
i
The hydrocarbon droplets continue to increase in size until the buoyancy of the droplets
overcomes the adsorptive forces. The droplets ;then release from the plates, float toward the top of the
unit, and are discharged from the system through Port B as the concentrated oil effluent stream. Final
hydrocarbon filtration occurs as the remaining emulsified and dissolved hydrocarbons flow upward
through the center of the unit and gravity flow through me bed of amine-coated, oleophilic granules. The
majority of remaining hydrocarbons attach to the amine and the treated water (treated water effluent
stream) exits the system through Port C. !
i
When the Oleofilter becomes saturated with hydrocarbons and suspended solids (InPlant states
that 15 to 20 liters of hydrocarbons can be retained by 100 liters of oleophilic granules), the granule bed
regenerates itself automatically by backflushing.; Backflushing is activated when the system reaches a set
pressure differential across the bed. The pressure drop that initiates backflushing can be adjusted by the
operator to optimize filtration time, while preventing filter breakthrough.
-------
Concentrated Oil
Outlet (Port B)
Coalesced Oil
Treated Water
Outlet/Backwash
Water Inlet (PortC)
Coalescing Plates
Note: The backwash water outlet
(Port D) is not shown in this view.
Source: Adapted from SFC 0.5x
Operating Manual, 1992.
Oil/Water Inlet
(Port A)
Water for
Oleophilic Filtration
Oleophilic Granules
Figure 1. SFC 015 System configuration.
6
-------
The backflush cycle takes 20 minutes tio complete. Water for backflushing is pumped into the
bottom of me system through Port C. During (the first 4 minutes of the backflush cycle, only water is
; ' f "£ T.
introduced. During the next 8 minutes, both air (supplied by an external compressor) and water are
I
flushed through the filter. (If compressed air is unavailable, another nonflammable gas may be used.)
The air increases the agitation that physically strips the hydrocarbons from the granules. During the last
8 minutes of the backflush cycle, a water-only! rinse is performed. The backflush water flow rate is
equal to the nominal throughput of the filter (2i2 gpm for the SFC 0.5 System) and the air flow rate is
0.3 standard cubic feet per minute (scfin) per gpm of water flow (0.66 scfm for the SFC 0.5 System).
Therefore, the amount of air exiting the SFC System during backflushing is approximately 5 scf. The
hydrocarbon/water mixture generated during backflushing (backflush water effluent stream) gravity flows
from Port D near the top of the unit (not shown hi Figure 1) to a sump or holding tank. The coalesced
hydrocarbons within the mixture rapidly separate (within 10 to 30 minutes) by gravity and can be
reprocessed through the SFC System, leaving only the concentrated hydrocarbons to be recycled or
disposed. j
i
Although the design of the vertical-finjcoalescing plates within the SFC System is novel, the
amine-coated oleophilic granules are the innovative component of the system. The granules separate
emulsions not treatable by conventional oil/water separators. The oleophilic granules use a
montmorillonite (clay) base that has been heated to 800°C [1, p.2]*. The high temperature decomposes
the montmorillonite into an aluminum silicate that assumes a crystalline, ceramic structure. The
aluminum silicate is then crushed into granules with diameters between 0.6 and 1 millimeter (mm).
I .
i
The granules are subsequently treated to attach the oleophilic amine (see Figure 2). Through a
series of substitution reactions, an amine molecule bonds to a silica atom, leaving a long hydrophobic
(and oleophilic) chain (CuK^) to which hydrocarbons are attracted [2, pp. 15-16]. As the filtration
process continues, hydrocarbons flowing past the granules agglomerate with the amine-attracted
hydrocarbons, fanning droplets. The hydrocarbons remain attached to the amine, while the separated
water exits the system. The magnitude of hydrocarbon uptake is inversely proportional to each
compound's solubility hi water and is controlled by a partitioning process [3, p. 2054].
[reference number, page number]
-------
Only the significant jparts of the mineral base,
consisting of silica molecules and hydroxyl groups,
are shown below.
OH
I
SI
/ X
OH
I
SI
/ X
OH
I
SI
/ X
Substitution of chlorines (chloride ions) for
hydroxyl groups, j
Reaction with SO2CL2
CL
SI
X
i f
i si
\S X
OH
SI
/ X
Substitution of amines for chlorines.
i
Reaction with RNH2 amine. R=C18 H33
H R
X /
N
I
SI
/ X
H R
X /
: N
i I
SI
L/ X
T
si
/ X
Figure 2. Generation of oleophilic amine-coated granules. Source: [2]
During backflushing, the hydrocarbon droplets and hydrocarbon-laden solids are physically
stripped from the amines and, along with other entrained solids, exit the unit with the backflushing water.
The hydrocarbons in the backflushing water are predominantly coalesced and now can be removed by
conventional oil/water separation techniques. jlnPlant has installed several systems where the hydro-
carbon/water mixture from backflushing is fed back into the system, and the coalesced hydrocarbons are
removed by the vertical-fin coalescing platesl Any emulsified hydrocarbons are captured by the
oleophilic granules. This approach eliminates jthe need for disposal of the hydrocarbon/water mixture
resulting from backflushing. i
-------
1.5 Key Contacts j
i
For more information on the demonstration of the SFC System, please contact:
Ms. Laurel Staley
EPA SITE Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Ms. Cathy Wimberly
SFC System SITE Contact
Aprotek
3316CorbinWay
Sacramento, CA 95827
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 I (916) 366-6165
(513) 569-7863 I
i
For more information on EPA's SITE Program,) consult the following sources:
Mr. Robert A. Olexsey i "
Director, Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther Kong Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513-569-7861) I
FAX: 513-569-7620 i
i
I
The Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) data base,
which provides summarized information on innovative treatment technologies
(703-908-2138). j
j
The Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT)
data base and users manual (EPA/542/R-94/J503) which is available from the Center for
Environmental Research Information (CERI) (513-569-7562).
' I - " '
The Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) electronic bulletin board, which contains
information on the current status of SITE demonstrations (301-589-8366).
-------
SECTION 2
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section provides information on the ability of the SFC System to meet regulatory and
i
operational requirements associated with the remediation of Superfund sites. It includes a discussion on
how use of this technology would satisfy the, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) for Superfund site remediations. Also ^included in this section is information on the operability,
applicability, key features, availability and transportability, material handling requirements, site support
requirements, and limitations of the SFC System.
I
i
2.1 Objectives - Performance Versus ARARs
i
ARARs consist of Federal, State, and locial regulatory requirements that must be considered when
remediating Superfund sites. These requirements include seven major Federal statutes discussed in the
i
subsequent subsections. Each statute may have corresponding State or local laws that can be more
stringent than their Federal counterparts. Table 2 lists ARARs that should be considered when using
the SFC System at a Superfund site. |
2.1.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, provides for Federal
funding to respond to releases of hazardous substances to air, water, and land. Section 121 of SARA,
Cleanup Standards, states a strong statutory preference for remedies that are highly reliable and provide
long-term protection. It strongly recommends! that remedial actions use onsite treatments that "...
permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances." In
addition, general criteria that must be addressed jby CERCLA remedial actions include:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs I
Long-term effectiveness and permanency
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
10
-------
Table 2. Potential Federal and State ARARs for the Treatment of Contaminated
Water by the SFC System at a Superfund Site
Process Activity
Waste
characterization
(untreated waste)
Storage prior to
processing
Waste processing
Storage after
processing
Waste
characterization
(treated waste)
ARAR
RCRA1 40 CFR2 Part 261 or
state equivalent
TSCA3 40 CFR Part 761 or
state equivalent
< 90 days: RCRA 40 CFR
Part 262 or state equivalent
>90 days: RCRA 40 CFR
Part 264 or state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or
state equivalent
CAA4 40 CFR or state
equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 or
state equivalent
TSCA 40 CFR Part 761 .65
RCRA 40 CFR Part 261 or
state equivalent
TSCA 40 CFR Part 761 or
state equivalent
Description
Identification and characterization of
the waste to be treated.
Standards that apply to the treatment
and disposal of wastes containing
PCBs.
Standards applicable to the storage of
hazardous waste in containers or tanks.
Standards applicable to the treatment of
hazardous waste at permitted facilities.
Standards applicable to emissions from
treatment equipment.
Standards that apply to the storage of
hazardous waste in containers or tanks.
Standards that apply to storage of
wastes containing PCBs.
Identification and characterization of
treated water and concentrated
hydrocarbons.
Standards that apply to the treatment
and disposal of wastes containing
PCBs.
Basis
A requirement of RCRA prior to managing the
waste.
During waste characterization, PCBs may be
identified in the waste and, if present above
regulatory thresholds, (50 ppm for TSCA), the
waste would be subject to TSCA regulations.
Contaminated water meeting the definition of
hazardous waste must meet substantive
requirements of RCRA storage regulations.
Treatment of hazardous waste must be conducted
in a manner that meets the substantive
requirements of a RCRA Part B permit. This
treatment process occurs in a tank.
Air emissions may have to be controlled.
The treated water may be placed in tanks prior
to further treatment or disposal.
Concentrated hydrocarbons may contain PCBs
above regulatory thresholds, even if untreated
water did not.
A requirement of RCRA prior to managing the
waste.
Concentrated hydrocarbons may contain PCBs
above regulatory thresholds, even if the
untreated water did not.
Response
Chemical and physical analyses must
be performed.
Analysis for PCBs must be
performed if potentially present.
Ensure storage containers and tanks
are in good condition, provide
secondary containment, where
applicable, and conduct regular
inspections.
Equipment must be operated and
maintained daily. Tank integrity
must be monitored and maintained to
prevent leakage or failure.
Emission control devices may need
to be installed to treat backflush air
emissions
The treated water must be stored in
containers or tanks that are well
maintained.
Ensure disposal of TSCA regulated
hydrocarbons within 1 year of place-
ment into storage.
Chemical and physical tests must be
performed on treated water.
Analysis for PCBs must be per-
formed on concentrated hydro-
carbons if potentially present.
1 RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
2 CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations.
3 TSCA is the Toxic Substances Control Act.
4 CAA is the Clean Air Act.
5 CWA is the Clean Water Act.
6 SDWA is the Safe Drinking Water Act.
-------
Table 2. Potential Federal and State ARARs for the Treatment of Contaminated
Water by the SFC System at a Superfund Site (Continued)
Process Activity
Concentrated
hydrocarbons
disposal Of
or waste oil)
Transportation
for offsite
i-»
S)
Treated water
diicharge
ARAR
RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 or
state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 279 or
Mate equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 or
state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 or
date equivalent
DOT 49 CFR
CWA5 40 CFR Parts 301,
304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and
403
SDWA* 40 CFR Parti 144 and
145
Description
Hazardoui waste generator
requirement! for ensuring proper
disposal.
Used oil specifications.
Manifesting, packaging, and labeling
requirements prior to transporting.
Packaging, labeling, and transportation
standards.
Standards that apply to discharge of
wastewater into sewage treatment plants
or surface water bodies.
Standards that apply to the disposal of
contaminated water in underground
injection wells (including infiltration
galleries).
Basis
Concentrated hydrocarbons that are hazardous
waste must be properly disposed at authorized
facilities.
Used oil meeting regulatory specifications is
subject to minimal RCRA requirements.
The concentrated hydrocarbons may need to be
manifested and managed as a hazardous waste.
Transporters of hazardous waste must be
licensed by EPA and meet specific requirements.
Hazardous materials must meet specific
packaging and labeling requirement*.
The treated water may not meet local
pretreatment standards without further treatment
or may require a NPDES permit for discharge to
surface water bodies.
Injection of the treated water may be an integral
part of remediation (e.g., soil flushing).
Response
Ensure disposal at a facility with
Part B disposal permit or regulatory
exemption.
Chemical and physical analyses must
be performed.
An identification (ID) number must
be obtained from EPA.
A transporter licensed by EPA must
be used to transport the hazardous
- waster -
Shipments of material must be
properly containerized and labeled.
Determine if treated water could be
discharged to a sewage treatment
plant or surface water body without
further treatment. If not, the water
may need to be further treated to
meet discharge requirements.
If underground injection is selected
at a disposal means for treated
water, permission must be obtained
from EPA to use existing permitted
underground injection wells, or to
construct and operate new wells.
-------
Short-term effectiveness
* Implementability
Cost
* State acceptance
* Community acceptance
Table 3 presents an evaluation of the SFC System using these nine criteria.
2.L2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
all
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
ing hazardous waste activities. Although a RCRA
Superfund sites, the SFC System must meet
waste. Administrative RCRA requirements
applicable for onsite actions. Subtitle C of
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
for CERCLA sites producing hazardous waste
fraction of waste, it is possible that the influent to
the concentrated oil effluent will be. In order
employing the SFC System must obtain an
requirements stipulated under Part 262 of Title
(TSD)
If the influent to the SFC System is a
a Part B Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Hazardous Waste Manifest must accompany offsite
must comply with Federal Department of Transportati
transportation regulations. The receiving TSD
standards. The RCRA land disposal restrictions
waste that fails to meet stipulated treatment standards
to the residuals produced by the SFC System
treated and the residuals generated. Wastes
treatment to bring the wastes into compliance with the
is granted.
Act (RCRA) is the primary Federal legislation govern-
permit is not required for onsite remedial actions at
of its substantive requirements if treating a hazardous
such as reporting and recordkeeping, however, are not
RCRA contains requirements for generation, transport,
waste. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory
onsite. Since the SFC System concentrates the oily
the system may not be a RCRA hazardous waste, but
maintain compliance with RCRA in this situation, sites
generator identification number and observe storage
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 262).
to
EPA
RCRA hazardous waste, the substantive requirements of
permit may be required. Invariably, a Uniform
shipment of RCRA hazardous wastes, and transport
tion (DOT) hazardous waste packaging, labeling, and
facility must be permitted and in compliance with RCRA
(40 CFR 268) preclude the land disposal of hazardous
i. The technology or treatment standards applicable
be determined by the characteristics of the material
do not meet these standards must receive additional
standards prior to land disposal, unless a variance
that
13
-------
Table 3. Nine Evaluation Criteria for the SFC System
Evaluation Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Compliance with Federal ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment
' Performance
Provides both short-term and long-term protection by reducing
contaminants in groundwater.
Prevents further groundwater contamination and offsite migration
caused by emissions during treatment.
Demonstrated capability of reducing TRPH concentrations in
oil/water mixtures to 15 mg/L.
Concentrates but does not destroy contaminants.
Effluent needs to be treated further to meet Federal Drinking
Water Standards if being re-injected directly into the ground.
Effluent must meet pretreatment standards for release to a POTW.
May have to meet substantive requirements of RCRA treatment
permit if treating hazardous wastes.
May have to meet substantive requirements of CAA permit for air
discharge during backflush if VOCs are present.
Concentrated oil effluent may be regulated under TSCA if PCBs
are present.
Residuals treatment or recycling may be required (effluent water,
concentrated oil, oily water from backflushing).
The technology concentrates the contaminants, reducing the
volume of the waste, but does not change the contaminants'
mobility or toxicity.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Community/workers will be protected due to minimal emissions
during treatment.
Minimal environmental impact during installation/operation.
The time required to complete remediation depends on the volume
of water treated and the capacity of the SFC System.
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Most systems are shipped pre-assembled or as modules that are
easily connected.
Pretreatment of feed stream is typically not required.
System is explosion-proof.
If VOCs are present, a release (5-106 scf) of contaminated air will
occur during backflushing.
Additional treatment options may be needed for residuals.
Oleophilic granule usage life is shortened if treating solutions with
pH > 10.5 (granules become brittle) or chlorinated solvents with
concentrations >100 mg/L (weakens amine bonds).
Backflush initiation needs to be adjusted if treating oils of various
viscosities to prevent hydrocarbon breakthrough prior to
backflushing.
The cost to remediate 50 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater (22-gpm system with 9556 on-line time) is
approximately $2.36 per thousand gallons.
Since this system will most often be used as a component in a
treatment train, acceptance is tied to overall treatment
acceptability.
i
Should be generally acceptable to the public since emissions
during treatment are minimal.
I 14
-------
If the SFC System is concentrating used oil from the feed stream, the concentrated oil effluent
may be regulated under 40 CFR 279. This section of the Federal regulations sets thresholds for metals,
flash point, and total halogens above which used oil must be managed as hazardous waste fuel. Used oil
i
that does not exceed these thresholds, is not!mixed with hazardous waste, and does not display a
hazardous characteristic (other than ignitability) is subject to greatly reduced regulatory requirements.
.]'
2.1.3 dean Air Act \
The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
the protection of public health and emission limitations for six criteria air pollutants designated by the
EPA. Requirements under the CAA are administered by each state as part of the State Implementation
Plans developed to bring each state into compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The ambient air quality standards listed for specific pollutants may be applicable to operation
of the SFC System due to potential air emissions. Air pollution control equipment may be required
i
depending on the characteristics of the waste stream. Additional control may be required if emissions
i
constitute a major source of hazardous air pollutants. The need for operating permits and allowable
!
emission limits must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
2.1.4 Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establishes primary and secondary national drinking water
standards. CERCLA refers to these standards,! and Section 121(d)(2) explicitly mentions two of these
standards for surface water or groundwater: Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Federal Water
Quality Criteria. Alternate Concentration Limits may be used when conditions of Section 121 (d)(2)(B)
are met and cleanup to MCLs or other protective levels is not practicable. Included in these sections is
guidance on how these requirements may be applied to Superfund remedial actions. The guidance, which
is based on Federal requirements and policies, may be superseded by more stringent promulgated State
requirements, resulting hi the application of even stricter standards than those specified hi Federal regula-
tions. If the treated water effluent from the SFC System is being injected into the ground (as when an
infiltration gallery is used), compliance with SDWA and State regulations is required.
! 15
-------
2.1.5 Clean Water Act
i
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates direct discharges to surface water through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. These regulations require point-source
discharges of wastewater to meet established water quality standards. The discharge of wastewater to a
sanitary sewer requires prior approval from State and local regulatory authorities that the wastewater is
in compliance with applicable pretreatment standards.
i
Depending on the applicable CWA regulations and site conditions, the treated water effluent, from
the SFC System may have to be further treated prior to discharge. Discharge to a publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW) will typically be regulated according to the industrial wastewater pretreatment
standards of the POTW. These standards are specified in 40 CFR 401-471 for certain industries.
Depending on the type of site, the treated water may fall into one of the specific industrial categories.
If it does not, the pretreatment standards for the treated water will be determined by the POTW and
j
depend on site-specific parameters such as the flow rate to the POTW, the contaminants present, and the
design of the POTW. I
i
i
Discharge of the treated water effluent to a surface water body must meet the substantive
requirements of an NPDES permit if pollutants' are present in the effluent. Since the SFC System, does
i
not perfonn tertiary treatment, direct discharge of treated water must be hi compliance with the provisions
of 40 CFR 122, et seq. In order to meet either NPDES discharge limits or POTW pretreatment
standards, further treatment of the treated water effluent will often be required.
!
j
I
2.1.6 Toxic Substances Control Act \
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) grants EPA the authority to prohibit or control the
manufacturing, importing, processing, use, and disposal of any chemical substance that presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. These regulations are found hi 40 CFR
761. With respect to waste regulation, TSCA jfbcuses on the use, management, disposal, and cleanup
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Materials with less than 50 parts per million (ppm) PCBs are
classified as non-PCB, those with PCB concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm are classified as PCB-
contaminated, and those with PCB concentrations greater than or equal to 500 ppm are classified as
PCBs. State PCB regulations may be more stringent than TSCA.
16
-------
Although the oil used for the SITE demonstration did not contain sufficient concentrations of
! '
PCBs to be regulated under TSCA, it is reasonable to assume that full-scale SFC Systems could be
- I , , ,..- '
utilized to treat oil/water emulsions that contain PCBs. The separation process could result hi elevated
PCB concentrations in the concentrated oil effluent. If the concentrations of PCBs in this output stream
exceed 50 ppm, the stream will need to be managed as a TSCA-regulated waste.
i
I
2.L7 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Requirements
j
i
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires personnel employed in
hazardous waste operations to receive training ;and comply with specified working procedures while at
hazardous sites. These regulations (29 CFR 1910) stipulate that workers must receive appropriate training
to recognize hazardous working conditions andjto protect themselves adequately from those conditions.
This training typically includes a 24- or 40-hour course and an annual 8-hour refresher class.
When the SFC System is hi operation, potential exposure to hazardous materials is small.
Exposures could occur if the equipment malfunctions (e.g., a feed line ruptures), if the worker is
downwind during backflushing, or if the backflush water or concentrated oil is spilled. Depending on
the contaminants in the influent, compliance with 29 CFR 1910 may require minimal tune and resources,
or may necessitate additional training, protectivje equipment, and personnel.
j
i
2.2 Operability of the Technology j
i
SFC Systems are designed for continuous operation and minimal operator attendance. Other than
routine inspection and replacement of mechanical parts, maintenance consists of the replenishment of
approximately 8 percent of the granules every 12 months. The replenishment is required because some
of the granules are broken and flushed out of the unit during backflushing.
i
For the SITE demonstration, planned activities included three evaluation periods with a duration
of 8 hours each. At the anticipated 2.2 gpm flow rate, 3,168 gallons of water were to be treated. Oil
collected from the site was to be introduced to the groundwater and blended. A target oil concentration
of 1,000 ppm was established. i
17
-------
The actual duration of the evaluation periods was considerably less than 8 hours. The decreased
duration was caused, in part, by the type of oil used in the demonstration. Since the PPC site's full-scale
remediation system had not been operating lotig enough to recover sufficient quantities of oil for the
demonstration, oil from another area of the site had to be obtained. This oil had an unexpectedly high
viscosity, which resulted in poor backflush j efficiency. Since the granules were not thoroughly
backflushed, initial backpressures for subsequent evaluation periods were significantly increased from
InPIant's specification of zero inches of mercury (in. Hg), thus decreasing the time until the next
backflush was triggered. j
Two additional evaluation periods were' included to partially compensate for the short run times.
I
The total run time for all five periods was 985 minutes. This reduced the actual quantity of water treated
to 2,116 gallons. The flow rate ranged from 2. i to 2.2 gpm. Analytical results indicated that the TRPH
i
concentration of the free and emulsified oil hi the oil/water influent ranged from 322 to 2,802 mg/L.
]
I
It was anticipated that the demonstration could be completed hi 8 days. This included 3 daiys of
setup and shakedown, 3 days of operation, and 2 days of decontamination and demobilization. The actual
duration of the demonstration was 16 days (5 days of setup and shakedown, 2 days of operation, 5 days
of troubleshooting, 2 days of additional operation, and 2 days of decontamination and demobilization).
The additional setup and shakedown tune was required in order to locate an air compressor properly sized
to operate the SFG System and the inline blender. A smaller portion of the additional setup and
shakedown time, as well as the troubleshooting tune, was associated with backflushing difficulties caused
by the high viscosity oil.
23 Applicable Wastes
According to InPlant, the amine-coated granules can effectively treat almost all hydrocarbons
(including gasoline, crude oil, diesel, and jet j fuels), pentachlorophenols, polychlorinated biphenyls,
benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, trichloroethylene, trichloro-
ethane, and suspended solids. The granules can also be used to remove vegetable-based oils and fats.
i
The SFC System has been designed for various applications including the remediation of
contaminated groundwater, in-process oil/water [separation, wastewater filtration, onsite waste reduction
and recovery, and bilge and ballast water treatment.
18
-------
1
The SFC System's ability to treat hydrocarbon/water emulsions not treatable by conventional
oil/water separation technologies makes this technology especially applicable to waste streams where
hydrocarbons have been mechanically or chemically emulsified in water. According to InPlant, emulsions
entering the oleophilic granules that contain up to 500 mg/L of TRPH can be separated, producing a
TRPH concentration of less than 15 mg/L in the treated water effluent. Although this level of separation
was not consistently met during the SITE demonstration, significant reductions in TRPH concentrations
!
were observed. \
\
The SFC System is reportedly effective hi treating chemical emulsions containing cationic and
nonionic surfactants. Anionic surfactants affect the ability of the granules' amine coating to attract and
retain hydrocarbons. The presence of anionic surfactants hi a waste stream may reduce the applicability
of the technology to that waste. j
i
i
According to InPlant, waste streams containing any amount of free oil and a combined total of
less than approximately 1,000 mg/L of emulsified oil and solids are best suited for this technology.
When the combined concentration of emulsified oil and solids is greater than 1,000 mg/L, the economics
of using the SFC technology becomes unfavorable. For maximum operational life, waste streams should
have a pH less than 10.5 and less than 100 mg/L of chlorinated organics. A 50 percent increase hi
attrition rate of the granules can be expected if either of these two parameters are exceeded for prolonged
periods. {
i . - -
i
The ability of the oleophilic granules] to separate oil/water emulsions and reduce dissolved
hydrocarbon concentrations to levels consistent with other secondary treatment systems indicates the
potential for the SFC System to be used in conjunction with other treatment technologies. Technologies
that generate oily water wastes, such as steam injection-vapor extraction and soil flushing, could use the
SFC System as a component of a treatment j train. When used hi this way, the technology can
significantly reduce hydrocarbon loading to other downstream treatment equipment, such as air strippers
i
and carbon filtration units. i
2.4 Key Features of the SFC System j
Listed below are the key features of the SFC System:
|
« Treats emulsions not separated by conventional oil/water separators
19
-------
Equipped with explosion-proof enclosures
Built with pneumatic or electronic controls for automatic operation
Built using galvanized steel for internal and external vessels
Contains a sacrificial anode for treating corrosive wastewater
Contains galvanized, vertical-fin coalescing plates
Utilizes an innovative, oleophilic igranule filtration system.
]
2.5 Availability and Transportability of the Equipment
j
All SFC Systems can be transported by truck or rail. Smaller systems also can be shipped and
operated on towable trailers. The empty weight of the units ranges from 860 to 4,400 pounds. A crane
or forklift, therefore, will be necessary to place the unit onto a suitable pad. Normally, 8 to 10 weeks
t
should be allowed for order and delivery. i
j
I
2.6 Materials Handling Requirements i
The SFC System is an ex situ technology, which requires that the groundwater or surface water
be delivered to the SFC System. Filtering of solids may be necessary to extend run time between
backflushes. Since backflushing is triggered Jby reaching a specified pressure differential across the
oleophilic bed, high concentrations of solids wojuld be captured by the filter and contribute to the pressure
differential. The result would be decreased filtering time between backflushes. Backflush water effluent
must be collected in a sump or holding tank. The oil can be removed by a skimmer and collected while
the water is reprocessed through the SFC System. Alternately, both the oil and water can be reprocessed
through the SFC System. Concentrated oil from the SFC System is typically collected in a drum oir tank
and transported offsite. |
2.7 Site Support Requirements
Site requirements for the operation of the SFC System include a level area, electricity, water, and
compressed air. The SFC System must be operated on a level, non-shifting surface. A 9-square-yard
pad of 6-inch reinforced concrete will provide ample space for the largest units. Additional space for
storage of backflush influent and effluent water must be available. Electrical power consisting of 40-amp,
220-volt service must be available for most units. The largest unit (SFC 12) requires 4 kilovolt-amp
(kVA), 460/230-volt, 3-phase service. Alternately, electrical power could be supplied by an onsite
mobile generator. A water tank, with capacity in excess of the backflush volume (i.e., the maximum
i
! 20
-------
I
filtration flow rate for 20 minutes), must be provided. If potable water is used for backflushing, a service
for filling the water tank between backflushes m;ust be available.
i
i
Current designs of the SFC System use pneumatic controllers or programmable logic controllers,
with the former requiring a small (0.5 scfm) yejt constant supply of compressed air. Additionally,, the
backflush cycle requires compressed air to increase agitation of the granules. A source of compressed
air capable of producing a volumetric flow rate of 15 scfm and a minimum air pressure of 60 psi will
supply sufficient air for both purposes on any size SFC System.
I
I
I . - .
Depending on the viscosity of the hydrocarbons in the feed stream, hot water or even steam may
be required for effective backflushing. A portable hot water washer or steam generator may be required.
i
i
2.8 Limitations of the Technology j
2.5.7 Technology Limitations 1
The oleofiltration technology concentrates contaminants by separating free, emulsified, and a
portion of dissolved hydrocarbons from water. Although the toxicity of the water phase decreases, the
toxiclty and mobility of the concentrated oil effluent are unchanged. The concentrated oil must thera be
further treated or disposed of. Even under ideal conditions, the treated water effluent will still contain
between 4 and 15 mg/L of TRPH, which may require further treatment prior to release at some sites.
2.8.2 Granule Losses Due to Attrition j
i
Although the oleophilic granules are relatively durable, collision between granules during filtration
and backflushing results in breakage. Broken granules that are small enough to pass through the retention
screen are discharged from the system during backflushing. Assuming a backflush frequency of every
10 hours, InPlant states that approximately 8 percent of the granules must be replaced every year of
operation. More frequent backflushing shortens the time between addition of new granules.
2.8.3 Granule Degradation Due to Chemical Conditions
i
InPlant reports that the oleophilic granules are sensitive to two chemical conditions, both of which
shorten the operational life of the granules. Treatment of solutions having a pH greater than 10.5 for
extended periods of tune makes the granules more brittle. The increased breakage caused by this
condition is estimated to be an additional 4 percent every year of operation. Treatment of solutions with
i
! 21
-------
chlorinated solvents present in concentrations great
attrition rate (4 percent every year) is reportedly
2.8.4 Anionic Surfactants
:er than 100 mg/L weakens the amine bonds. The same
caused by prolonged treatment of these solutions.
The SFC System is reportedly less effective in treating chemical emulsions containing anionic
surfactants than other types. Anionic surfactants affect the ability of the granules' amine coating to attract
and retain hydrocarbons. InPlant states that! the SFC Systems that have been installed to remove
hydrocarbons from water emulsions created by anionic surfactants typically achieve effluent TRPH
concentrations of 50 to 80 mg/L. The granules reportedly are more effective in removing hydrocarbons
from chemical emulsions containing cationic or nonionic surfactants
!
|
2.5.5 Fouling of Granules \
InPlant claims that although the SFC System appears to effectively treat oils of varying viscosities
and densities, adjustments to the backflushing cycle must be made to ensure effective removal of captured
oil from the granules. The pressure at which! the backflushing cycle is initiated must be adjusted to
maximize filtration time while preventing breakthrough of the hydrocarbons prior to backflushing.
During the demonstration, the SFC System apparently exhibited breakthrough prior to backflushing when
a kerosene and oil mixture was used as the feed oil. InPlant indicated that breakthrough occurred because
the backpressure at which the system backflushed was not properly adjusted for this type of oil. The SFC
0.5 System demonstrated could not be adjusted while at the site. InPlant has subsequently designed a
modification to the system that will allow in-field adjustment of the pressure at which backflushing is
initiated. InPlant believes that this modification, combined with periodic monitoring of system
performance, should eliminate these difficulties'.
|
i
i .
i
Treatment of high viscosity oils may foul the granules, preventing effective backflushing. InPlant
claims that the use of hot water for backflushing or the addition of an optional steam coil attachment to
the system will reduce the viscosity of most retained oils and allow normal backflushing. During the
demonstration, all but one of the runs used a veiry viscous oil that had been thinned with motor oil (the
viscosity of the oft used during the demonstration ranged from 27 to 930 centipoise). The operation of
Runs 1,2, and 3 resulted hi fouling of the granules, which had to be removed, washed in mineral spirits,
and reinstalled. Subsequent use of hot water (approximately 90°Q increased the effectiveness of the
backHushing. InPlant claims that treatability studies encompassing the full range of oil properties at a
i 22
-------
site, along with provisions for hot water backflushing, if indicated, should resolve backflushing
difficulties. This claim was not evaluated during the demonstration.
I
2-8.6 Pre-sramde Water Concentration UmitaAnn
According to the developer, when the TRPH concentration in the water entering the granules (pre-
granule water) exceeds 500 mg/L, the TRPH concentration in the treated water effluent may exceed 15
mg/l,. Run 4 of the demonstration had an average TRPH concentration in the pre-granule water of 1,242
mg/L. The treated water effluent (prior to filter breakthrough) contained an average concentration of 39
mg/L. This reduction represents a 97 percent removal of TRPH. Pilot-scale treatability testing prior to
full-scale implementation should determine the ability of the unit to meet site-specific performance goals.
23
-------
SECTION 3
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
i
The primary purpose of this section is to estimate the costs (including profit) associated with the
use of an SFC System in the remediation of ja hypothetical Superfund site. The SFC 8 System was
chosen for the analysis because its treatment capacity (22 gpm) is within the range appropriate for small-
to-average-size soil flushing and groundwater treatment remediations. Economic information on the SFC
8 System (e.g., purchase price, electric consumption, and cost of additional granules) has been supplied
by InPlant. Additional information for this analysis was estimated based upon information obtained from
engineering textbooks. j
i -
i
j
3.1 Basis of Economic Analysis j
The cost analysis was prepared by breaking down the overall cost into 12 categories. The cost
categories, and the areas that generally comprise each of them, are listed below.
Site preparation
site design and layout
surveys and site logistics
legal searches
access rights and roads
land clearing
equipment pad construction
preparations for support and decontamination facilities
utility connections j
auxiliary buildings j
i
« Permitting and regulatory
i
1
actual permit costs }
system monitoring requirements and the development of monitoring and analytical
protocols I
i -
Equipment i
equipment used in the actual treatment process
freight i
sales tax |
ancillary equipment used hi materials/residuals handling
I 24
-------
Startup and fixed
transportation of personnel to the site
wages and living expenses (during assembly, startup, shakedown, testing, and training)
assembly of the, unit
shakedown, testing, and training
working capital
insurance
contingencies
property taxes
process monitoring equipment
engineering and supervision
Labor (during treatment operations)
wages and living expenses (in
Supplies
this case, operation and maintenance)
spare parts
chemicals (in this case, replacement oleophilic granules)
Consumables
electricity
water
compressed air
Effluent treatment and disposal
further treatment of effluent(s)
onsite storage of effluent(s)
disposal of effluent(s)
Residuals and waste shipping, handling, and transport
storage of residuals/wastes
transportation of residuals/wastes
treatment of residuals/wastes
disposal of residuals/wastes
Analytical services
sampling and analytical program
Facility modification, repair, and feplacement
wages and living expenses (in this case, already accounted for in labor during treatment
operations)
maintenance material costs
design adjustments
25
-------
facility modifications
equipment replacements
Site demobilization
disassembly costs
site cleanup and restoration
wages and living expenses
3.2 Issues and Assumptions
This section summarizes the primary economic analysis for this study, which is based on a 95
percent unit on-line time and a treatment volume of 50 million gallons. This volume is similar to the
average volume (43 million gallons) of contaminated groundwater reported hi Records of Decisions for
Superfund Sites from 1982 to 1990. The results of this analysis, along with other scenarios, are
summarized hi Section 3.3. The SFC 8 System was chosen for the economic analysis based upon the
assumption that the 22-gpm treatment rate represents an average-size soil flushing or small-to-average size
groundwater treatment rate. The SFC 8 System! reportedly is capable of operating continuously (24 hours
per day, 7 days per week) for extended periods |of time. During the demonstration, the SFC 0.5 System
experienced difficulties that significantly reduced on-line time. Correction of these difficulties would
increase on-line tune for long-term projects closer to claimed system capabilities. With a 95 percent unit
on-line tune, the SFC 8 System would require^ 4.55 years to treat 50 million gallons of contaminated
water. j
I
The following sections (Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.12) describe assumptions that were made hi
determining project costs for 8 of the 12 cost categories. This analysis does not include cost values for:
permitting and regulatory; effluent treatment and disposal; residuals and waste shipping, handling, and
transport; and analytical services. Costs for these four categories are highly dependent upon site-specific
factors; therefore, no estimates are presented hi this economic analysis. Consequently, the actual cleanup
costs incurred by the site owner or responsible jparty could be significantly higher than the costs shown
in this analysis. i
I
j
According to Peters and Timmerhaus, insurance, property taxes, spare parts, contingency costs,
and maintenance materials can be estimated as a percentage of the fixed capital investment required for
a project [4]. The components of the fixed capital investment that apply to this project are:
26
-------
total equipment cost applied to the project (including freight and sales tax)
spare parts for 1 year of operation (5% of fixed capital investment)
transportation (other than freight)!
yard improvements j
assembly j
shakedown, testing, and training !
contingencies (10% of fixed capital investment)
engineering and supervision for system installation
Since some of these components are estimated independently of the fixed capital investment (e.g.,
assembly), and others are percentages of the fixed capital investment applied to the project (e.g.,
contingencies); a formula for calculating the fixed capital investment can be developed.
I
The annualized cost (rather than depreciation) is used to calculate the annual equipment costs
incurred by a site. The annualized cost is calculated using the following formula:
A = P
(1 + 0" - 1
i
where: I
A = annualized cost, $ <
P = present value principal sum, $
i = interest rate, %
n = years
i
The value "n" is the useful life of the unit (10 years) for the equipment. It is assumed that a 10-year loan
at 8 percent interest has been obtained to cover the cost of the equipment. Working capital, while not
part of the fixed capital investment, was annuajized at 8 percent over the project duration. It is further
assumed that all other expenses will be paid at the time of incurrence (i.e., a loan will not be secured for
those expenses). I
' I
3.2.1 Site Preparation \ '
The amount of preliminary site preparation required is highly dependent on the site.
Consequently, most site preparation costs are nqt included in this cost estimate. One cost that is included
i
is the expense for constructing a concrete pad jto support the SFC 8 System. It is estimated that a 9-
square-yard pad of 6-inch reinforced concrete (would be suitable for the SFC 8 System and ancillary
equipment. This pad is estimated to cost $1,00)6. Additional site preparation measures will significantly
increase the costs associated with this category.1
27
-------
3.2.2 Permitting and Regulatory ]
I
Permitting and regulatory costs can vary greatly because they are site- and waste-specific.
Consequently, no permitting or regulatory cos^s are included in this analysis. This category may be a
significant factor hi determining project costs since permitting activities can be both expensive and tune
consuming. J
3.2.3 Equipment ;
The primary pieces of equipment of the SFC 8 System include:
Vertical fin coalescing unit 1
Oleophilic ceramic granules j
Pumps I
Pneumatic control system |
i -
The developer provided a list price of $31,540 for the 22-gpm SFC 8 System that includes a 5
horsepower air compressor and miscellaneous items such as valves and gauges. The purchase cost for
the ancillary equipment is estimated to be $3,700. The ancillary equipment includes a 2,000-gallon bulk
tank with fittings, a skimmer, level switches, ai foot valve, and miscellaneous piping and wiring. The
total equipment purchase cost is $35,240. |
j
j
Freight costs are assumed to be 7 percent of the total equipment purchase cost and are estimated
to be $2,467 for the project [5]. Sales taxes jare assumed to be 5.5 percent of the total equipment
purchase cost and are estimated to be $1,938 forlthe project. When these two costs are added to the total
equipment purchase cost, the overall equipment icost is $39,645.
I '
i
Assuming a 10-year loan at 8 percent interest, the annual equipment cost is approximately $5,908.
This cost is prorated to the actual time the unitjis at the remedial site (including assembly, shakedown
and testing, treatment, and disassembly), which is 4.58 years for this analysis. The total equipment costs
applied to the project are $27,070. The unit itself is assumed to have no salvage value, but the granules
can be resold at $10 per liter ($2,860 total). Tlje salvage value is subtracted from the equipment costs
applied to the project resulting hi an equipment cost of $24,210.
28
-------
1
3-2.4 Startup and Fixed Costs i
f ------ T T wrfr . | ^
Transportation activities include moving the SFC 8 System and the workers to and from the site.
Travel costs for equipment are covered.under the freight charge applied to the total equipment purchase
cost in Section 3.2.3. Transportation costs for a service technician are based on a $700 roundtrip airfare.
This nonlocal worker will assist during assembly and provide operator training.
i '
Assembly consists of unloading the system from the trailer and placing it on the concrete pad.
Since the empty weight of the SFC 8 System is|2,420 pounds, it is assumed that a boom truck would be
capable of moving and placing the unit. The crime company retained for the demonstration charged $70
per hour (including operator) from dispatch toj return for this type of equipment. Assuming a rental
period of 4 hours (including dispatch and return), the boom truck cost is estimated to be $280. Assembly
is assumed to require three local people (two construction workers and one supervisor) working 8 hours
per day, for 3 days. In addition, a service technician (employed by InPlant) will assist with assembly
for 1 day. . i
i
i
!
Table 4 lists fully-burdened costs (including wages, benefits, overhead, and profit) for all onsite
personnel involved with assembly, as well as other phases of the project (e.g., shakedown and testing,
training, treatment, and disassembly). Labor j charges during assembly consist of wages and living
expenses for nonlocal personnel including one rental car. The living expenses used for nonlocal
personnel are estimated to be $70 per day. Livjng expenses depend on several factors: the duration of
the project for nonlocal personnel, the number of local workers hired, and the geographical location of
the project. Rental car expense is estimated tojbe $30 per day. Total assembly costs are estimated at
$2,620. |
i " .
I
i .
It is assumed that 4 days of shakedown jand testing arid 1 day of training will be required after
assembly and prior to the commencement of treatment. During this tune, the system components are
tested individually. It is estimated that two local maintenance workers will be required for 8 hours per
day, every day during shakedown and testing. JDuring training, one operator will be instructed by the
service technician for 8 hours. Labor costs consist of wages (see Table 4) and living expenses for
nonlocal personnel including one rental car. Shakedown, testing, and training costs are estimated at
$4,260. |
29
-------
Table 4. Fully-Burdened Salaries foi- Onsite Personnel Using the SFC 8 System
Title . | Local Salary ($/hr)
Service Technician , | No 40
Shift Supervisor \ Yes 40
Operator Yes 30
Maintenance Worker j Yes 30
Construction Worker ! Yes 20
I
|
Working capital consists of the costs of borrowing capital for supplies, utilities, spare parts, and
labor necessary to keep the SFC 8 System operating without interruption due to financial constraints [4].
The working capital for this system is based on maintaining 2 months of payroll and 1 month of inventory
-^ |
of the other items. For the calculation of working capital, 1 month is defined as one-twelfth of 1 year,
or approximately 30.4 working days. The estinlated required working capital is $1,003. The worldng
capital cost at 8 percent interest for the time the (equipment is onsite is $1,237.
i
i
Insurance is assumed to be 2 percent of ihe fixed capital investment and estunated to be $1,276
per year and $5,846 for the project. Property takes are assumed to be 3 percent of the total fixed capital
investment [4] and are estunated to be $1,914 per year and $8,769 for the project. These costs are
annual and have been prorated to the actual time the SFC 8 System is onsite (including assembly,
shakedown and testing, treatment, and disassembly).
i
The cost for the initiation of process monitoring programs has not been included hi this estimate.
Depending on the site, local authorities may impose specific guidelines for monitoring programs. The
stringency and frequency of monitoring required may have a significant impact on the project costs.
Monitoring of wastewater is unlikely since the effluent will be treated by another technology. Air
monitoring could be required due to the potential release of air emissions during backflushing.
A contingency cost is included to cover additional costs caused by unforeseen or unpredictable
events, such as strikes, storms, floods, and price yariations [4]. The project contingency cost is estunated
as 10 percent of the fixed capital investment. Th:e contingency cost is $6,379 for the project.
i 30
-------
I
Engineering and supervision costs include the identification, design and location of support
systems (e.g., backflush water tanks, influent piping, concentrated oil storage facilities), and equipment
installation diagrams. An estimated $6,000 (100 hours at $60/hr) will be required for this task.
i
i
3.2.5 Labor (During Treatment) \
I
Labor costs consist of fully-burdened personnel costs and living expenses for nonlocal personnel.
Fully-burdened personnel costs are given in Table 4 in Section 3.2.4. Treatment operations for the SFC
8 System will be conducted 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and are assumed to be automated,
requiring minimal operator interface. Labor bjy one local operator for 1 hour each week to inspect the
unit and complete logs is assumed. Maintenance labor is assumed to consist of two local people working
an 8-hour shift during the scheduled downtime of 2 days per year. Living expenses are not applicable
during treatment since all workers are local. Labor requirements and costs for all work during assembly,
shakedown and testing, and disassembly, are discussed in the respective sections. Labor costs during
treatment are estimated at $11,490. j
j
i
3.2.6 Supplies ;
i .
For this project, supplies consist of spare parts and replacement oleophilic granules. Annual
spare parts costs are estimated to be 5 percent of the fixed capital investment ($3,190) or approximately
$13,792 for the entire project. !
Oleophilic granules are estimated to cost $20 per liter. According to the developer, 8 percent
of the granules (22.9 liters) are replaced every 12 months of operation (assuming a backflush cycle every
10 hours), and thus do not vary with different on-line times. Total granule costs for this project are
estimated at $1,979.
3.2.7 Consumables !
i .
Electrical power is required for the operation of the pumps and air compressor. During the
i '
demonstration, electricity was supplied by the I local electric utility company. Alternatively, electrical
power could be supplied from an onsite mobilej generator. It is assumed that the cost of connecting the
I
SFC 8 System to an electrical source, including transformers and transmission lines, is the responsibility
of the site owner and is not included in this analysis. The average electrical power consumption during
I ^ ' f
the demonstration was estimated to be approximately 1 kilowatt per hour (kWh). Based on estimates
i - -
I 31
-------
obtained from the manufacturer, the electricity requirement for the SFC 8 System is approximately 4 kWh
when operating. The cost estimate assumes that electricity can be obtained for a flat rate of $0.08 per
kWh with no monthly charge. The estimated tost of electricity is $222 per month and $12,121 for the
project.
I
To support the operation of the SFC 8 System, a site must have a supply of uncontaminated water
I
available. The water will be used to backflush the oleophilic granule bed. Backflush water can be
supplied from a well, municipal system, or alternatively recycled from the SFC 8 System effluent
discharge. For this report, it is assumed that a municipal water supply will be employed having an
estimated cost of $0.002 per gallon. The total amount of water used during the demonstration
(approximately 100 gallons per thousand gallons of groundwater treated) was not typical since multiple
backflushes were required due to the high viscosity of the oil used. The quantity of backflush water will
depend on the pump capacity and the required backflush frequency and duration. It is assumed that the
SFC 8 System (22 gpm) will backflush every 10 hours for a period of 20 minutes. Given this backflush
schedule, a total of approximately 1,724,138 gallons of backflush water will be used (34.5 gallons per
thousand gallons of groundwater treated). ]0ne month's supply of water (31,566 gallons) costs
approximately $63 and totals $3,448 for the project.
I
]
!
i
According to InPlant, the SFC 8 System requires 6.6 scfm of compressed air for backflushing
and 0.5 scfm for operating the pneumatic instrumentation. A total of 119 and 675 scf per day of
backflush and instrument air, respectively, is required. Backflush air is typically required for 8 minutes
during each 20-minute backflush cycle. Compressed air cost was approximately $0.24 per 1,000 scf in
1979 [4]. Using an annual rate of increase of;2.5 percent, the estimated 1995 compressed air cost is
$0.36 per 1,000 scf. The total compressed air cost is approximately $9 per month or $475 for the entire
project.
For these cost calculations, it is assumed that the site will support all of these requirements. The
cost of preparing a site to meet these requirements may be substantial and is not included in this analysis.
3.2.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal \
The effluent from the SFC System is the treated water. Since the SFC 8 System is not designed
to perform tertiary treatment, the treated water (effluent typically will have to be further treated prior to
discharge onsite. The effluent may also requite treatment prior to discharge to a POTW. Although
relatively expensive, the treated water effluent could also be sent for offsite treatment and disposal. Since
32
-------
I
treatment and disposal costs for the effluent vary considerably depending on the types and concentrations
of contaminants and the management scenario I chosen, costs for this category are not included La this
analysis. Actual costs for this category can significantly increase project costs.
i
3.2.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping. Handling, and Transport
Residuals produced by the SFC 8 System can include concentrated hydrocarbons and spent
adsorbent used in the collection of organic emissions during backflushing. Depending on the quality of
the concentrated hydrocarbons (i.e., if this strjeam meets the used oil specifications listed in 40 CFR
279.11), shipping and handling costs may b;e relatively small or very expensive (as when PCB
concentrations exceed 500 ppm). Depending on the composition of the feed stream to the system, spent
adsorbent may or may not be generated. Since; these considerations are site-specific, costs for residuals
and waste shipping, handling, and transportation are not included in this analysis.
3.2.10 Analytical Services
No analytical costs are included in this cost estimate. Typically, compliance with regulatory
requirements necessitates sampling and analytical activities to determine when breakthrough has occurred
in equipment similar to the SFC 8 System. The responsible party may elect or may be required by local
authorities to initiate a sampling and analytical program at its own expense. If specific sampling and
monitoring criteria are Imposed by local authorities, these analytical requirements could contribute
significantly to the cost of the project.
I
3.2.11 Facility Modification. Repair, and Replacement Costs
i
i
Maintenance costs vary with the nature; of the waste and tiae performance of the equipment and
include costs for design adjustments, facility modifications, and equipment replacements. For estimating
purposes, annualized maintenance costs (excluding labor) are assumed to be 4 percent of the fixed capital
investment, and are estimated to be $2,552 perjyear and $11,692 for the project [4].
!
i
3.2.12 Site Demobilization \
Demobilization costs are limited to disassembly costs; transportation costs are included under the
equipment category. Disassembly consists of de^ntaminating the equipment, disconnecting the ancillary
equipment, and loading the SFC 8 System onto a trailer for transportation. It requires the use of one
boom truck (including operator) available at |$70 per hour, for 4 hours. Decontamination of the
i
!
33
-------
equipment will be accomplished by manually initiating several backflushes once treatment has been
terminated. Labor requirements include a three-person local crew (two construction workers and one shift
supervisor) working 8 hours per day, for 3 days (see Table 4 for rates) and total $2,200 for the project.
!
Site cleanup and restoration are limited to the removal of all equipment from the site and are
incorporated in the disassembly costs. Requirements regarding the closure of groundwater wells and
removal of equipment pads will vary depending on the future use of the site and are not included in this
analysis. 1
i
3.3 Results of Economic Analysis j
I
This section summarizes the results of the primary economic analysis of the SFC 8 System (95
percent on-line tune and 50 million gallons treated) and compares it to the results of the economic
analysis for the following scenarios: !
90 percent on-line time 50 million gallons of contaminated groundwater
99 percent on-line tune 50 million gallons of contaminated groundwater
95 percent on-line time 100 million gallons of contaminated groundwater
95 percent on-line time 5 million gallons of contaminated groundwater
i
i
The SFC 8 System is designed for automatic, long-term operation. On-line factors of 99, 95,
and 90 percent therefore were used in the cost calculations in order to determine the impact of this
parameter. The on-line factor is used to adjusts the unit treatment cost to compensate for the fact that the
i
system is not on-line constantly because of maintenance requirements, breakdowns, and unforeseeable
delays, and considers costs incurred while the system is not operating.
i
Table 5 summarizes the estimated treatment costs per thousand gallons using the SFC 8 System
hi the treatment of 50 million gallons of groundwater with on-line percentages of 90, 95, and 99 percent.
For the assumed feed rate of 22 gpm, the results of the analysis show a unit cost ranging from $2.30 per
thousand gallons to $2.43 per thousand gallons for 99 and 90 percent on-line conditions, respectively.
These costs are considered order-of-magnitude bstimates as defined by the American Association of Cost
Engineers. The actual cost is expected to fall between 70 and 150 percent of the estimated cost. Table
j
6 summarizes the treatment costs of each of the! 12 cost categories as a percentage of the total costs based
upon the 50 million gallon volume and 90, 95,; and 99 percent on-line times.
34
-------
Table 5. Treatment Costs for the SFC 8 System Treating 50 Million Gallons
,
L
'
1 Item
Site preparation
Permitting and regulatory
Equipment*
Startup and fixed
Labor
Supplies
Consumables
! Effluent treatment
and disposal
Residuals and waste shipping, handling,
and transport
; Analytical
Facility modification, repair, and replacement
! Site demobilization
Total operating costs
.
Cost ft/1. OOP gap
9056 95%
on-line on-line
0.02 0.02
NE NE
0.51 0.48
0.73 0.72
0.24 0.23
0.32 0.32
0.32 0.32
NE NE
NE NE
NE NE
0.25 0.23
0.04 0.04
2.43 2.36
99%
on-line
0.02
NE
0.46
0.70
0.22
0.32
0.32
NE
NE
NE
0.22
0.04
2.30
; NE = Not estimated in the analysis. The cost for this item is highly dependent on site-specific factors.
" * Includes salvage value of granules.
Table 6. Treatment Costs as a % of Total Costs for the SFC 8 System
Treating 50 Million Gallons
,
!
Item
; Site preparation
Permitting and regulatory
; Equipment*
Startup and fixed
: Labor
Supplies
Consumables
Effluent treatment and disposal
1 Residuals and waste shipping, handling,
and transport
Analytical
Facility modification, repair, and replacement
Site demobilization
Total operating costs
'
Coat (as % of total cost)
90* 9556
on-line on-line
0.82 0.85
NE NE
21.11 20.48
30.05 30.29
9.96 9.72
12.95 13.34
13.18 13.57
NE NE
NE NE
NE NE
10.13 9.89
1.81 1.86
100 100
99%
on-line
0.86
NE
20.00
32.48
9.53
13.64
12.88
NE
NE
NE
9.71
1.90
100
NE = Not estimated in the analysis. The cost for mis item is highly dependent on she-specific factors.
* Includes salvage value of granules.
.
35
-------
Table 7 compares estimated unit treatment costs for sites containing 5 million, 50 million, and
100 million gallons of contaminated groundwater at an on-line factor of 95 percent. Table 8 illustrates
the percentage of the treatment costs contributed by each of the 12 cost categories.. All variables except
I
total amount of contaminated groundwater are'held constant.
|
1
3.4 Summary and Conclusions '
The SFC 8 System is most applicable to the remediation of organic contaminants emulsified in
i
groundwater and wastewater. The primary economic analysis for this project estimated unit treatment
costs for a site with 50 million gallons of contaminated groundwater (with a 95 percent on-line time) to
be $2.36 per thousand gallons of water treated. Treatment of this volume will take approximately 4.6
years. The remediation unit treatment costs ajre estimated to be $6.27 per thousand gallons of water
I
treated for a site containing 5 million gallons of contaminated groundwater and will take approximately
24 weeks to treat this volume. Projected unit treatment costs (95 percent on-line) for a larger site (100
million gallons of contaminated groundwater) are estimated at $2.15 per thousand gallons and will take
nearly 10 years to remediate. !
i . i (
Based upon examination of the results in Tables 7 and 8, if the SFC 8 System is used to
i
remediate a site containing less than 50 million;gallons of contaminated groundwater (all other variables
remaining constant), the startup and fixed costs will become more of a factor. Unit costs derived from
i
most components will be higher, but unit costs derived from labor supplies and consumables will remain
approximately the same. If the SFC 8 System jis used at a site containing more than 50 million gallons
of contaminated groundwater (all other variables remaining constant), unit costs derived from labor,
supplies, and consumables will remain approximately the same, while unit costs derived from most other
components will be lower. j
|
Further economic analyses were performed by varying the percent on-line time on a site of 50
million gallons of contaminated groundwater. The analyses indicated that treatment costs will increase
|
as the percent on-line factor decreases. The unit treatment costs for on-line percentage times of 90 and
99 percent were estimated to be $2.43 and $2.30 per thousand gallons of contaminated water and will
take approximately 4.8 and 4.4 years to remediate, respectively. Unit costs for supplies and consumables
will not vary as the on-line percentage changes. For all other costs components, an increase will be
observed as on-line percentage decreases. i
36
-------
Table 7. Treatment Costs for the SFC 8 System Operating with a 95% On-line Factor
1
1
Item 1
Site preparation 1
1
Permitting and regulatory i
Equipment*
Startup and fixed
i
Labor j
Supplies |
Consumables |
Effluent treatment and disposal i
Residuals and waste shipping, handling,
and transport , |
Analytical j
Facility modification, repair, and replacement '
Site demobilization |
Total operating costs j
5xlOs
gallons
0.20
NE
0.002
4.51
0.23
0.32
0.32
NE
NE
NE
0.25
0.44
6.27
Cost fl/1. OOP gaT>
50 x 10 <
gallons
0.02
NE
0.48
0.72
0.23
0.32
0.32
NE
NE
NE
0.23
0.04,
2.36
100 x 10s
gallons
0.01
NE
0.51
0.51
0.23
0.32
0.32
NE
NE
NE
0.23
0.02
2.15
NE Not Estimated in the analysis. The cost for this item is highly dependent on site-specific factors.
* Includes salvage value of granules. |
Table 8. Treatment Costs as a % of Total Costs for SFC 8 Operating with a 95% On-line Factor
Item
5 x 10 s
gallons
Site preparation j 3.19
Permitting and regulatory NE
Equipment* 0.02
Startup and fixed 72.00
Labor
Supplies
Consumables
3.67
5.03
5.12
Effluent treatment and disposal NE
Residuals and waste shipping, handling,
and transport
NE
Analytical costs i NE
Facility modification, repair, and replacement
3.95
Site demobilization ' 7.02
Total operating costs 100
Cost JasJLsf totaLcosf)
50 x 10 6
gallons
0.85
NE
20.48
30.29
9.72
13.34
13.57
NE
NE
NE
9.89
1.86
100
100 x 10 6
gallons
0.47
NE
23.79
25.53
10.70
14.69
14.94
NE
NE
NE
10.85
1.02
100
NE = Not estimated in the analysis. The cost for this item is highly dependent on site-specific factors.
* Includes salvage value of granules. i s
37
-------
SECTION 4
TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
I
I
This section presents the results of the SFC 0.5 System SITE demonstration. In addition to
presenting data, it also discusses process residuals.
j
4.1 Performance Data !
i
The SFC System was accepted into thej SITE Demonstration Program hi December 1992. The
i
Petroleum Products Corporation (PPC) Superfund site hi Pembroke Park, Florida was chosen by EPA
as the demonstration site. Groundwater underneath this former oil reprocessing facility is contaminated
with a variety of organic and inorganic constituents. Accidental releases during the operation of the
facility also resulted hi the deposition of approximately 29,000 gallons of free product (used oil) on the
groundwater surface. j
j
I
!
Prior to the demonstration, samples of oil from the site were sent to NATGI for treatability
studies. Aliquots of the oil were combined with different volumes of water, mixed with a blender, and
poured through separatory funnels containing oleophilic granules. Samples of the water exiting the
i
funnels were analyzed for oil and grease by NATGI using EPA Method 413.1 [6]. Results of the study,
presented hi Appendix A, show the granules to be effective hi removing oil and grease from the oil/water
emulsions. j
i
i
I
i
The SFC 0.5 System (2.2-gpm flow rate) was evaluated during the SITE demonstration hi June
1994 at the PPC site. Since the site did not have an oil/water emulsion available for the demonstration,
an artificial feed, consisting of oil emulsified in groundwater, was formulated to test the system. Due
to operating difficulties with the full-scale treatment system, oil could not be collected from the same
f-
location sampled during pre-demonstration activities. Consequently, oil was collected from an onsite
sump where it had risen to the surface. Although viscosity data were not obtained from either the oil hi
the sump or the oil collected for pre-demonstration activities, the oil from the sump was visually more
viscous. Data obtained during the remedial investigation phase of the PPC site cleanup showed that the
oil viscosities at the site varied widely (72 to 3,200 centipoise). Therefore, approximately 30 gallons of
38
-------
recovered oil were mixed with 15 gallons of 10W-30 motor oil to reduce the viscosity and allow the oil
to be pumped during the demonstration. Afteij mixing, aliquots were transferred to 5-gallon pails to be
used in the demonstration. A sample collected from the oil used during Run 1 indicated a viscosity of
930 centipoise. The viscosity of oil used during Runs 2 and 3 was not measured. The viscosity of the
oil used during Run 4 (which had been thinnedjwith kerosene) was 27 centipoise. During Run 5, the oil
!
used had a viscosity of 49 centipoise. j
j
!
A peristaltic pump was used to deliver the oil through a feed line to an air-powered inline
blender. The site's full-scale remedial system was used to recover contaminated groundwater from onsite
I
wells. The groundwater for the demonstration was withdrawn from the bottom of the full-scale oil/water
i
separator, passed through a flow meter, and piped to the inline blender. The inline blender then created
i.
an oil/water emulsion that was fed into the SFCj System. Air used to operate the blender and used during
the backflush cycle was supplied by an external compressor.
1
!
After passing through the SFC Systemi the treated water effluent was returned to the full-scale
oil/water separator. Although the SFC System is reportedly capable of reprocessing the oil/water mixture
resulting from backflushing, the water layer from backflushing was pumped from the bottom of the
i
backflush water drum and sent to the full-scale joil/water separator. The oil layer from backflushing and
| .
the concentrated oil effluent were stored in drums to be added to recovered oil shipments leaving the site.
I
Samples were collected from the groundwater feed (prior to passing through the flow meter), feed
I
oil (while still in the oil feed container), emulsified oil/water influent (prior to passing through Port A
in Figure 1), pre-granule water (prior to passing through the oleophilic granules), treated water effluent
(after passing through Port C), backflush water (effluent (after passing through Port D), and concentrated
oil effluent (after passing through Port B).
\
|
The demonstration consisted of five separate evaluation periods ("runs"). Run numbers 1, 2, 3,
and 5 used the mixed oil. Run number 4 used a 3-to-l mixture of the previously mixed oil to kerosene.
The feed oil for Run 4 was thinned in an attempt to resolve backflushing difficulties caused by the high
viscosity of the oil. Samples were collected for JTRPH analysis using EPA Method 418.1 [6]. Additional
samples were collected and analyzed for non-filterable residue (NFR), semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), and percent water using EPA Method 160.2 [6], EPA Method 8270 [7], and ASTM Method
D95-83 [8], respectively. The average TRPH concentrations for the oil/water influents ranged from 322
I
to 2,802 mg/L. j
i
i
39
-------
Due to operational difficulties associated with filter backflushing, only one complete run (Run
1) was accomplished. Runs 2 and 3 were shortened because the backflushing cycle preceding each run
did not clean the granules sufficiently to allow the pressure differential across the granule bed to reset
to InPlant's specification of zero in. Hg. Consequently, the backflush triggering pressure of 16 in. Hg
was reached more quickly. The operational difficulties were apparently caused by the high viscosity of
the feed oil, which was different from the oil provided to NATGI for the testability studies. Although
not evaluated during the demonstration, InPlant claims that additional adjustments prior to unit delivery
and the addition of an optional steam coil attachment would have resolved the difficulties. Run 4 was
terminated when visible oil appeared in the treated water effluent. Analytical results confirmed that filter
breakthrough had occurred. Run 5 was terminated when the level of pre-granule water in the unit had
risen to the height at which it was discharging; through the backflush water outlet.
Table 9 presents TRPH results for the oil/water influent, pre-granule water, and treated water
effluent for all five runs. Table 10 presents results for NFR, naphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene for
the oil/water influent and treated water effluent. Results from the first sample collected in each run have
not been presented since the collection time (t = 10 minutes) was less than the calculated residence tune
of the unit (i.e., water entering the unit at initiation of the run had not yet reached the treated water
sample port). Figures 3 through 7 graphically show the effluent TRPH and NFR results. Table 1 (in
the Executive Summary) presents a summary of project objectives, results, and conclusions for the
demonstration. j
1 .
Due to the previously identified operational differences among some of the runs, demonstration
i
data have been evaluated using several scenariojs. Since Runs 1, 2, 3, and 5 used the same feed oil, data
from these runs were pooled and evaluated together. Within this group, only Runs 1 and 5 were initiated
with the granules backflushed sufficiently for the initial pressure differential across the granule bed to
approach InPlant's specification of zero hi. Hg. Consequently, evaluation of demonstration objectives
state a result for the pooled data from Runs 1,J2, 3, and 5 (13 data points), and a result for the pooled
data from Runs 1 and 5 only (8 data points), j
j
Since Run 4 used a different type of feed oil and oil feed rate, data from this run were evaluated
separately. During this run, the concentration of TRPH present in the pre-granule water exceeded
InPlant's stated limitation of 500 mg/L. The demonstration objective of achieving 15 mg/L or less in the
treated water effluent, consequently was not evaluated for this run. Additionally, InPlant claims that the
i 40
-------
Table 9. Summary of TRPH Analyses
i
Run
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Elapsed Influent Pre-granule
Time Concentration Concentration
(min) (mg/L) (mg/L)
60 842
120 989
180 1240
240 1120
300 1170
30 366
60 322
90 484
20 988
40 981
45 1991
90 2680
135 2004
180 2802
240 1630
45 681
75 ND
105 565
135 2448
.ND - Not determined by laboratory
1
691
499
651
445
487
301
227
261
386
137
1260
997
1470
1302
955
456
351
191
189
'
41
Effluent
Concentration
(mg/L)
29.4
20.3
13.8
10.9
17.4
16.8
32.2
25.7
25.0
20.7
43.3
26.7
47.5
484
1470
17.2
14.7
7.4
10.1
i
-------
Table 10. Summary of NFR and Specific SVOC Analyses
i
Run
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
Influent
NFR
(mg/L)
19
11
18
24
20
30
23
26
31
37
32
19
40
34
24
29
22
23
20
Effluent Influent ! Effluent Influent
NFR Naphthalene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene
(mg/L) 0*g/L) Oig/L) Otg/L)
14 13
6 ***
7 12
6 ***
11 6j
14 12
14 ***
13 12
10 13
16 ***
17 210
29 ***
20 250
21 ***
12 100
9 39j
9 ***
9 20
6 ***
i
10 u 11
*** ***
10 u 10
*** ***
10 U 5j
10 U 7j
*** ***
10 U 7j
10 U 7j
*** ***
10 U 320
*** ***
25 410
*** ***
90 140
20 38j
*** ***
10 U 15
*** DC**
Effluent
2-Methylnaphthalene
(Mg/L)
10 u
***
10 U
***
10 U
10 U
***
10 U
10 u
***
10 U
***
21
***
130
14
***
10 U
***
u Below detection limit!
j Estimated value (below quanthation limit)
*°* No sample collected
42
-------
_Non-FTIterable Residue
-Total Recoverable petroleum Hydrocarbons
3OO
Figure 3. Run 1 TRPH and NFR effluent; results for SFC 0.5 System SITE demonstration.
35
30
O
} 25
»_/
I 20
o
-M
c
15
10
5
1O [30 BO
Run Time CmlnO
_Non-Ft Iterable Resf'due CNFRD
-Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
9O
Figure 4. Run 2 TRPH and NFR effluent results for SFC 0.5 System SITE demonstration.
! 43
-------
30
23
20
I 1*
o
10
10
20
Run Time
Non- Filterable Residue
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons CTRPI-Q
Figure 5. Run 3 TRPH and NFR effluent results for SFC 0.5 System SITE demonstration.
200O
1500
o
£ 100O
500
10
45 i
90 135
, Run Time CmlnO
. Non-Fi I tor able Residue C.NFRD
. TotaI RecovernbIe jPetroIeum Hydrocarbon*
180
240
Figure 6. Run 4 TRPH and NFR effluent results for SFC 0.5 System SITE demonstration.
44
-------
135
.Non-Filterable Residue
-Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons CTRPI-0
Figure 7. Run 5 TRPH and NFR effluent results for SFC 0.5 System SITE demonstration.
i
pressure differential across the granule bed at which backflushing was triggered (16 in. Hg) was set to
accommodate the 500 mg/L maximum TRPH concentration, and the higher concentrations (955 to 1,470
mg/L) were responsible for the apparent filter breakthrough. Accordingly, Run 4 was evaluated by using
both the data for the entire run (five data points) jand only the data prior to filter breakthrough (three data
points). j
i.
The first critical objective of the demonstration was to evaluate whether the SFC System could
remove at least 90 percent of the TRPH from thjj emulsified oil/water feed stream. The TRPH removal
was calculated by the formula: j
i
% TRPH Removal = ^£ = 1-* = (1-K) 100
! 7 Y
! .
where Y is the mean of all oil/water influent TRPJH concentrations considered for the evaluation scenario
and X is the mean of all treated water effluent TRPH concentrations considered for the evaluation
i
scenario. The term R is defined as the ratio of the mean effluent to the mean influent. The approximate
90 percent confidence level for the percent removal is then given by the formula:
45
-------
Conf. interval i= 100 (1-R ± 5, t^^J
I -. -
The estimate of the standard deviation of R, SR in this formula, is derived from the estimated
standard deviation of the effluent (Sy) and the standard deviation of the influent (SJ. The value of t is
obtained from a Student's one-tailed t-test with a = 0.10. For n number of samples SR is determined
according to the following approximation: !
s2
^r
nY2 nY4
Data indicate that the SFC System met the goal jof at least 90 percent removal for all evaluation scenarios
except for the entire Run 4. j
|
The second critical objective was to determine whether the SFC System could reduce TRPH
concentrations hi the treated water effluent to| 15 mg/L or less. The statistical approach used was to
determine whether the arithmetic mean for the pooled data from each evaluation scenario was greater than
15 mg/L at the 90 percent confidence level, ijhe formula used to evaluate this claim was:
where X is the mean of all treated water effluent TRPH concentrations considered for the evaluation
scenario and t is the value obtained from a one-tailed Students' t-test table with a - 0.10. Sx is the
standard deviation of the treated water effluent concentrations considered and n is the number of samples
considered. InPlant's claim was rejected for a scenario if the mean TRPH concentration for the
i
evaluation scenario exceeded the critical value jgiven by the right side of the inequality. The mean for
the evaluation scenario where the system began operation with the bed pressure near zero in, Hg (Runs
1 and 5) was not statistically greater than 15 mg/L, meeting InPlant's claim. For the other scenarios,
the mean was statistically greater than the 15 mg/L threshold.
I
The third critical objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the oleophilic granules by
comparing the TRPH concentration hi the water before and after passing through the granules. The
removal efficiency and 90 percent confidence level was calculated hi the same manner as for the overall
system efficiency above, except pre-granule water TRPH concentrations were substituted for oil/water
46
-------
influent concentrations. Combined data fromithe runs with similar feed streams (Runs 1, 2, 3, and 5)
show the granules achieved a 95 percent reduction in TRPH concentration. A 65 percent reduction in
TRPH was obtained for the entire Run 4; a 97 percent reduction was measured for Run 4 prior to filter
breakthrough. i
i
One of the noncritical objectives was evaluation of the relative effectiveness of the SFC System
I
oil-capturing components. Results indicate that the vertical-fin coalescing plates accounted for 45 to 62
percent of the total TRPH removed; the oleophilic granules removed the corresponding 55 to 38 percent.
i
Another noncritical objective was evaluation of the ability of the SFC System to remove
suspended solids (measured as NFR) from the oil/water influent. NFR removals ranged from 27 percent
to 58 percent; NFR values in the oil/water influent were generally below 50 mg/L.
Evaluation of the ability of the SFC System to remove selected SVOCs was another noncritical
objective. SVOC concentrations in the oil/water influent for Runs 1, 2, 3, and 5 were too low to support
any conclusions about removal effectiveness. JRun 4 had higher SVOC concentrations in the oil/water
influent. For the entire run, 75 percent removal of naphthalene and 81 percent removal of 2-
methylnaphthalene were achieved. j
i ' ' ' ' '
During the demonstration, the SFC System did not achieve steady-state operating conditions. The
lack of steady-state conditions apparently resulted from treating the unexpectedly high-viscosity oil during
a short-duration evaluation of the technology. This situation precluded the evaluation of two noncritical
objectives. A comparison of the effectiveness of the internal, vertical-fin coalescing separator at
separating oil from water, as determined by the percent water hi the concentrated oil effluent, could not
be made since the increased agitation that occurred during backflushing resulted hi overflowing of
backflushing water into the concentrated oil Affluent stream. An acceptable materials mass balance
i
closure could not be achieved since the amount of oil retained in the unit was not constant across the
runs. !
i '
i
4.2 Process Residuals I
I
The SFC System generates three process streams: treated water, concentrated hydrocarbons
(during the demonstration this waste stream wa& a concentrated used oil), and an oil/water mixture from
backflushing. Additionally, if .the feed stream! contains VOCs, air emissions will be generated during
i
I 47
-------
backflushing. Under optimum conditions, the treated water will still typically contain between 4 and 15
mg/L of TRPH. Therefore, the treated water prbcess stream may need to be further treated with a tertiary
treatment onsite or transported offsite for further treatment. The concentrated oil process stream can
either be transported and disposed of offsite, orj if the oil meets the used oil specification of 40 CFR 279,
the oil can be used as fuel. Two options exist 'for the oil/water mixture from backflushing. This water
can be fed back into the system where the Coalesced oil will be removed and the water filtered.
Alternately, the water from backflushing can b|e transported offsite for treatment and disposal.
!
I
I
During the 8-minute segment of the backflushing cycle when air is introduced into the system,
approximately 5 to 106 scf of air will be emitted. If the feed stream contains VOCs, a percentage of
them will become entrained in the backflushing air and exit through the top of the system. Depending
on the types and concentrations of organic compounds and applicable regulations, emissions controls such
as carbon filters may be required. [
48
-------
SECTION 5
OTHER TECHNOLOGY REQUmEMENTS
5.1 Environmental Regulation Requirements
The following regulations may apply to the use of the SFC technology at a Superfund site:
The substantive requirements of a RCRA treatment permit may be applicable if the
waste being treated is hazardous.
I
The substantive requirements of a CAA permit may be applicable if there is a
discharge of pollutants into the air during backflushing.
If the concentrated oil contains PCBs, it may be regulated under TSCA.
« The substantive requirements of a NPDES permit may be applicable to the treated
water effluent. |
I '
i
I
5.2 Personnel Issues j
j
Depending upon the actual site-specific factors, operation and maintenance personnel assigned
to the SFC System may be required to be trained in and to use the following:
i
« respiratory protection j
« personal protective equipment (PPE)
* safety and health procedures'
0 emergency response procedures
« quality assurance/quality control measures
i
I
i
Completion of hazardous materials training in laccordance with 29 CFR 1910 is required for certain
personnel at hazardous waste sites. Additional training addressing the site activities, procedures,
monitoring, and equipment associated with the technology is also recommended. Personnel should also
be briefed when new operations are planned, work practices change, or if the site or environmental
conditions change. j
i 49
-------
5.3 Community Acceptance !
The SFC System has few inherent problems that could negatively impact community acceptance.
The air compressor used for supplying control air and backflush air could result hi a noise problem if the
system is located near an adjacent property. The noise of the SFC System will probably be minimal
compared to that of other process equipment at a site with a full-scale treatment tram. Odors may be a
concern during backflushing since the ah- is usually exhausted to the atmosphere.
50
-------
SECTION 6
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
The developer has designed systems incorporating the amine-coated granule technology for several
applications including:
« Groundwater pump and treat for remediation of contaminated groundwater
* In-process oil and water separation
I
« Onsite oily waste reduction and oil recovery
» Treatment of bilge and ballast waters
'\ !
i
This technology has been primarily utilised for the treatment of industrial wastewater. The SFC
System performs primary and secondary treatment of aqueous waste streams and would rarely be used
as a stand-alone technology for cleanup of contaminated waste. Although this technology has not been
used at a Superfund site as of the printing date |of this ITER, it could be utilized as a pretreatment for
other technologies (e.g., air stripping or carbtra filtration) or as subsequent treatment for primary
technologies (e.g., soil flushing or steam injection-vapor extraction).
The SFC System is currently being utilized for the following:
« Treatment of process water at a laboratory in Oildale, California
* Treatment of wash water effluent at a car wash hi order to meet the pretreatment
water standards for Santa Clara, California
Treatment of wash rack wastewater in Ventura, California
Treatment of storm water runoff in order to meet NPDES regulations in Houston,
Texas j
|
Additional information on the application of SFC Systems for the treatment of contaminated water
was provided by InPlant. This information is presented in Appendix B.
51
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
i
1. Aprotek Product Literature. Aprotek, Inc., Sacramento, California, 1993.
-- 1
2. Subra Company Product Literature. Sutya Company, New Iberia, Louisiana, 1993.
3. Smith, J.A. and P.R. Jaffe". Comparison; of Tetrachloromethane Sorption to an Alkylammonium
Clay and an Alkyldiammonium Clay. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 25 DO 2054-
2058,1991. j 'VV'
\
4. Peters, M.S. and K.D. Timmerhaus. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, Third
Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, i!980.
i
5. Baasel, W.D. Preliminary Chemical Engineering Plant Design. Elsevier Science Publishing
Company, Inc., New York, 1980. i
i
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. {Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
EPA 600/4-79/020, 1983. i
, i
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. j Test Methods for Evaluation of Solid Waste Third
Edition. SW-846, December 1987.
I
8. American Society for Testing and Materials. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1992.
52
-------
APPENDIX A
Prior to the SITE demonstration, treatability study samples were collected from Well BBLTRW1A
at die PPC Superfund Site in Pembroke Park,; Florida. On September 23, 1993 the well was purged
using a Grundfos BTI/MPI pump until three tim'es the well volume was extracted from the well and stored
in 55-gallon drums. The sample bottles were then filled, preserved, and shipped overnight to NATGI.
i - , -
f .....
' I
The treatability study was performed atjthe NATGI laboratory in Houston, Texas. Six 1-liter
samples of groundwater were contaminated with 20, 100, 300, 500, 2,000, and 10,000 milligrams/liter
(mg/L) of oil respectively, mechanically emulsified with a high-speed mixer for 1 minute, and manually
poured into separatory funnels containing approximately 0.5 liter of amirie-coated ceramic granules. The
effluent (output) was analyzed for Oil and Grease using EPA Method 413.1. The results of the
treatability study are presented in Table A-l. i
Table A-l. NATGI Treatability Study, Oil and Grease Results
Output Percent Removal
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
20 |2.5 87.5
100 14.0 96.0
300 J5.0 98.3
500 J3.1 99.4
|
2,000 J3.6 99.8
i
10,000 |2.5 99.9
53
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
This appendix contains detailed information
situations: a bench-scale treatability study,
and a full-scale industrial application at a metals
on the performance of the SFC System in three
a pilot-scale field demonstration at two oil production facilities,
recycling facility.
54
-------
BENCH-SCALE HYDROCARBON REMOVAL FROM A DRAIN WATER STREAM
HEAD Consultancy
University of Twente, The Netherlands
A study was conducted by the HEAD Consultancy at the University of Twente, The Netherlands
between March and May 1993 for Oil Tanking! GmbH for their site in Amsterdam. The purpose of the
j
study was to determine the feasibility of removing hydrocarbons from a drain water stream emitted by
Oil Tanking GmbH. Specifically, the company jrequired the removal of benzene, toluene, xylene (BTX),
i
and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAfts). The study was conducted using test equipment
specifically constructed to simulate commercial1 operating conditions of oleofiltration units.
The filtration unit used hi this study, presented in Figure B-l, consisted of a glass tube with an
internal diameter of 5 centimeters (cm) filled with ceramic chips to a bed depth of 70 cm. The unit was
operated at a flow rate of 0.5 liter/minute (L/min). The unit was designed to be operational in two
modes: filtration cycle and backflush cycle. It jwas also equipped with two sample points (inlet, outlet).
I
The filtration cycle consisted of the pumping of contaminated water from a holding tank to the top
of the filtration unit. The contaminated water !flowed downward through the ceramic chips by gravity
flow and drained from the glass tube into a storage tank.
The backflush cycle consisted of filling avoiding tank with clean water, which was then pumped
through the filtration unit in the opposite direction of the filtration cycle. Concurrently, nitrogen (at 1
atmosphere) was added to provide the turbulence required for scrubbing the ceramic chips. The backflush
water was collected in a storage tank. i
|
The initial influent sample contained 33 parts per million (ppm) total hydrocarbons (including 3.0
ppm BTX) and 0.8 ppm PAHs (phenanthrene and pyrene). The filtration cycle was operated for a total
of 105 minutes, with influent and effluent samples obtained at 10 minutes and 105 minutes, respectively.
55
-------
Figure B-l. Configuration of oleofiltration bench-scale unit.
I 56
-------
I
The results, presented in Table B-l, indicate an 80 percent removal efficiency for total hydrocarbons
and a nearly 100 percent removal efficiency for PAHs. BTX concentrations increased from an initial
concentration of 3.9 ppm to a final concentration 4.4 ppm.
i
t
i
Table B-l. Experimental Data
Compound
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Other
Hydrocarbons
Total
Influent Sample
10 min.
(ppm)
3.05
0.84
0.04
0.05
0.75
28.42
33.15
Effluent Sample
10 min.
j(ppm)
j 3.59
1
! 1.28
I 0.01
ND
| ND
i 1.43
i
| 6.31
Effluent Sample
105 min.
(ppm)
3.31
1.06
-------
Stand-alone Oleofilter - $0.13/m3
Stand-alone ACA-$1.77/m3
ACA downstream of Oleofilter - $0.48/m3
Use of a stand-alone Oleofilter is the cheapest
removal. Use of stand-alone ACA results hi
loading exhausts the charcoal at a rate that i
technologies in a treatment train results in the
This preferred scenario provides treatment at
approach, but does not result in the required BTX
ihe required BTX removal, but the level of hydrocarbon
increases treatment costs by 1,360 percent. Use of both
required BTX removal with lower hydrocarbon loading.
27 percent of the cost of ACA alone.
In summation, the tests confirm that an o
present hi the dram water of Oil Tanking
and PAHs are completely removed. However,
desired removal of BTX. Presaturation of the
decane) seems to improve the removal of BTX
downstream of an Oleofilter-10 (OF-10) filter
achieved.
leofilter is capable of removing most of the hydrocarbons
GmbH. The average removal efficiency is about 80 percent,
under normal conditions it is not possible to achieve the
filter media with an appropriate hydrocarbon (for example
An interesting option might be to place an ACA unit
In this case total removal of all hydrocarbons can be
An economic evaluation shows that the treatment
filter and an ACA unit hi series are much less than those of a
costs of a combined unit consisting of an OF-10
stand alone ACA unit ($0.48 vs. $1.77/m3).
58
-------
Table B-2. Economic Evaluation of Oleofilter and Activated Charcoal
Absorber for Treatment of Drain Water
Wastewater Stream
Flow: 240 mVday (10 nrVhour)
Inlet concentration: 30 ppm (30 g/m3) TPH
Oleofilter OF-10
Capacity: 10 m3/hour
Investment: $60,000
Ceramic Chips (C.C.):
Volume: 0.48 m3
Loss: 10 percent loss per year
Costs: $25,000/m3
Activated Charcoal Absorber
Investment: $35,000
Activated Charcoal (A.C.):
Utilization: 60 mg/g
Density: 500 kg/m3
Costs: $l,700/m3
Equipment ($/year)
CC costs ($/year)
AC costs ($/year)
Total ($/year)
Costs ($/m3)
OF-10
9,000
1,200
i
10,200
10.13
ACA
5,250
136,000
141,250
1.77
OF-10 + ACA
14,250
1,200
22,700
38,150
0.48
59
-------
FIELD TRIALS WITH A SEPARATOR FILTER COALESCER IN
MINA AL FAHAL AND MARMUL
Petroleum Development, Oman
The InPlant SFC 0.5 System (operational capacity of 0.5 m3/hour) was tested by Petroleum
Development in Oman at two locations, Mina al Fahal and Marmul. The main objective of the field trials
I
was to establish the performance of the unit under different circumstances. At Mina al Fallal, the
disposal water (which was the feed stream of the unit) contained a relatively low oil concentration (10
to 100 ppm) of oil in water (OIW), but a large amount (10 to 150 g/m3) of total suspended solids (TSS).
The disposal water at Marmul contained a high oil concentration (1,000 to 5,000 ppm) but a low amount
of TSS (1 to 15 g/m*). The second objective of the field trials was to determine the smallest particle size
that could be removed by the system with 95 percent efficiency.
!
!
i
The system was monitored for the. following parameters at each site:
the residual oil content in the injfluent and effluent
the amount of TSS in the influent and effluent
the particle size distribution in the influent and effluent
the pressure drop across the filter as a function of time
Mina al Fahal
The SFC 0.5 System was connected directly into the Effluent Treatment Plant's treatment train
between the American Petroleum Institute (API) separators and the treatment plant's treated water holding
basins (see Figure B-2). The inlet to the unit vsfas connected to the plant's API separators (A-0104/A-
0105 In Figure B-2), while the treated water flowed directly into the plant's holding basins (T-0115 in
Figure B-2). The SFC 0.5 System's Port C (free oil), Port D (drain), and Port F (backflush water) were
also discharged into the holding basins. The backflush water was supplied from a storage tank, which
was placed on a steel stand and had a fill capacity of 1.5 to 2 m3.
60
-------
T-ons
T-ongyii- AT- OPj/03
p-om/04 ""p'-nti7A/a ... A-01Q2
, ^ vrum i i -t* P*.on i « *>^
"" "" SEPARATED OIL SUMP
P- OBBB
PUMPOUr SUM?
r-oiu
O*i I »*«* **««.
figure B-2. Configuration of Mina al Fahal Treatment Plant.
-------
The field trial was conducted between June 1 through 23, 1992. However, due to mechanical
problems, the unit was only operational 10 jdays during the test period. When the system was
operational, samples for OIW were taken every hour and TSS were taken every 2 hours during the
i
filtration cycle. |
The mechanical problems encountered are summarized as follows:
» Overload Relays OL-1 and OL-2 -i- The overload relays for the unit have settings between
1.2 and 1.6 amps. The actual current was between 1.8 and 1.9 amps, causing the system
to shut down. The relays were replaced allowing a setting between 1.8 and 2.4 amps.
i
9 Check Valve CV-1 Due to the rhalfunction of this valve, water entered the air flowmeter
during the backflush cycle, making proper adjustment of the backflush air impossible.
i
!
« Timer T-3 This tuner is part of !a set of timers that is responsible for the sequence of the
! ' ' " "
backflush cycle. This timer needed to be set manually to allow admittance of air during the
next backflush cycle. |
!
i
« Backflush Cycle The backflush!cycle for the SFC 0.5 System is automatically triggered
when a preset pressure drop is reached. However, during the field trials, the backflush cycle
did not function properly. Instead of initiating the backflush cycle, the unit shut down.
i
The results of the field trial were divided into three "situations" based on the type of backflush
water used. During Situation 1 (measurements ;1 to 30), seawater that contained a relatively high amount
of TSS (50 to 100 g/m3) was used as backflush water. Due to contamination of the backflush water
storage tank, the oil content was also relatively high (5 to 10 ppm). During Situation 2 (measurements
i
31 to 41), potable water was used as a backflush water. This water contained a small amount of TSS (2 -
3 g/m3). However, contamination of the backflush storage tank was again responsible for the elevated
I -
oil content (5 to 10 ppm). The backflush water used for Situation 3 (measurements 42 to 61) was a
potable water containing a small amount of both TSS (2 to 3 g/m3) and oil (less than 1 ppm). The storage
!
tank had been cleaned properly prior to this field trial.
62
-------
In general, the oil concentration in the
ppm and a standard deviation of 11 ppm over
fluctuated between 19 and 65 ppm (see Figure
Situation 1, achieving effluent oil concentrations
with an average influent oil concentration of
removal efficiency of 74 percent). Only 1 of 20
The average influent oil concentration
and the average effluent oil concentration was
percent. Only 2 of the 10 measurements were
62), the average influent oil concentration was
4 ppm, resulting in an overall oil removal efficiency
below 2 ppm, and 15 of 20 measurements were
in Table B-3 and the detailed synopsis of the
luring Situation 2 (measurements 31 to 41) was 41 ppm,
7 ppm. This results in an overall oil efficiency of 83
below 5 ppm. During Situation 3 (measurements 42 to
38 ppm, and the average effluent oil concentration was
of 89 percent. Three of 20 measurements were
below 5 ppm. The removal efficiencies are presented
field trial is presented in Table B-4.
Table B-3. Oil Removal Efficiencies for Mina Al Fahal Field Trials
discharge from the API separators had an average of 39
a range of 62 measurements. The oil concentration
B-3). The system performed well during the first day of
of 1.5 ppm. The performance dropped the second day
39 ppm and effluent oil concentration of 10 ppm (oil
measurements was below 5 ppm.
Average Influent (ppm)
Average Effluent (ppm) Removal Efficiency
Situation 1
Situation 2
Situation 3
39
41
38
10
7
4
74%
83%
89%
The report has stated that the concentration
removal efficiency. This is based on the assumption
better the filter hi the unit is cleaned. The study
greatly affects the efficiency of the backflush cycl
be used as a backflush water if lower oil concentrations
of TSS in the backflush water influenced the oil
that the lower the TSS hi the backflush water, the
\
also states that the amount of oil hi the backflush water
e and recommends mat processed treatment water not
(less than 5 ppm) hi the outlet water are required.
63
-------
70 -r
-I-H-H-H-H-H-H
co in t^ en r-
N M n CM n
Hun No
Figure B-3. Oil in water concentrations for Mina ai Fahal Held trials.
-------
Table B-4. InPlant Unit Field Trials in Mina al Fahal
a
Run
No.
1
2
3i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Date
l-Jun-92
l-Jun-92
l-Jun-92
l-Jun-92
2-Jun-92
2-Jun-92
2-Jun-92
2-Jun-92
2-Jun-92
2-Jun-92
7-Jun-92
7-Jun-92
7-Jun-92
7-Jun-92
7-Jun-92
7-Jun-92
8-Jun-92
8-Jun-92
8-Juu-92
S-Jun-92
8-Jun-92
8-Jun-92
8-Jun-92
8-Jun-92
9-Jun-92
9-Jun-92
9-Jun-92
9-Jun-92
9-iun-92
9-Jun-92
Time
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:30
8:00
9:00
9:45
10:00
ii:GO
12:00
Time
Elapsed
[hours]
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.7
1.7
2.7
4.7
5.7
6.7
0.8
1.8
2.8
3.8
4.8
5.8
0.7
1.7
2.7
3.7
4.7
5.7
6.7
8.2
0.5
1.5
2.3
2.5
3.5
4.5
Pressure
Drop
[in. HS]
0.8
1.2
3.0
5.5
1.8
3.0
4.0
5.5
7.0
8.0
0.5
1.5
2.0
3.5
5.0
6.5
1.3
2.3
3.5
5.0
6.3
7.8
8.5
10.8
1.2
2.5
3.0
3.8
4.2
6.8
(
Inlet
[ppmv]
54.1
47.8
23.0
31.3
24.6
46.9
41.1
45.2
47.0
43.5
39.3
32.9
31.1
30.2
35.7
49.5
42.0
31.6
26.9
39.4
23.3
30.1
45.8
51.8
52.3
39.0
49.0
41.1
43.2
45.1
DIW
Outlet
[ppmv]
3.2
1.9
1.7
1.5
2.0
4.4
6.7
8.1
5.3
8.2
9.9
11.9
8.1
8.1
6.1
13.6
10.6
17.1
7.5
15.0
10.2
10.0
10.2
12.3
3.3
8.3
14.4
6.3
8.0
9.1
Oil
Rent.
Eff.
1*1
94.1
96.0
92.6
95.2
91.9
90.6
83.7
82.1
88.7
81.1
74.8
63.8
74.0
73.2
82.9
72.5
74.8
45.9
72.1
61.9
56.2
66.8
77.7
76.3
93.7
78.7
70.6
84.7
8i.5
79.8
'
inlet
fe/m3]
20
42
43
IJ
7
21
56
20
47
73
rss
outlet
fe/mS
12
15
16
7
5
2
15
15
36
38
TSS
Rein
Eff.
[«/,]
41
64
63
45
29
90
74
25
23
48
GENERAL COMMENTS
Start-up: 11:00
BW-water: Fire-water (OIW:high & TSS:high)
Start-up: 7:20
BW-water: Fire-water (01W:high & TSS.high)
Overload-relays causing the system to shut down frequently
Unit is backwashed twice
Start-up: 9: li :_.........
BW-water: Fire-water (OIW:high & TSS:aigh)
Problems with Check- Valve: water is entering (be air-flowmeter
*
Start-up: 7:20
BW-water: Fire-water (OIW:high & TSS:high)
OIW of Run No. 18 is measured twice (2 samples)
Problems with timer T-3
Start-up: 7:30
BW-water: Fire-water (OIW:high & TSS:high)
Jnit is backwashed for 40 min (without air)
-------
Table B-4. InPlant Unit Field Trials in Mina al Fahal (Continued)
Run
No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Date
17-Jun-92
17-Jun-92
17-Jun-92
17-Jun-92
I7-Jun-92
!7-Jun-92
17-Jun-92
20-Jun-92
20-Jun-92
20-Jun-92
20-Jun-92
21-Jun-92
21-Jun-92
2l-Jun-92
21-Jun-92
21-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
22-Jun-92
Time
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:20
8:30
9:40
10:30
11:30
10:30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
Time
Elapsed
[hours]
0.8
1.8
2.8
3.8
4.8
5.8
-
0.8
1.9
2.8
3.8
0.8
2.8
3.8
4.8
5.8
0.8
1.8
2.8
3.8
4.8
5.8
6.8
7.8
Pressure
Drop
[in.Hg]
3.5
6.2
9.0
11.5
12.0
14.0
0.0
3.7
10.6
13.0
16.0
0.5
4.0
5.0
6.5
8.0
0.5
1.5
3.5
4.8
6.5
8.5
9.5
11.0
OIW
Inlet
fppmv]
48.8
46.7
56.5
53.9
50.2
46.0
59.1
28.9
18.8
21.4
19.4
25.9
33.4
30.5
33.0
52.1
44.0
44.9
51.4
50.1
48.7
65.1
34.2
44.4
Outlet
[ppmvj
1.9
6.6
4.1
13.8
10.8
13.5
10.0
0.5
1.5
6.1
6.9
1.3
2.6
4.6
2.3
5.3
1.2
13.7
4.9
5.7
2.9
8.0
3.8
4.9
Oil
Rein.
Eff.
[%]
96.1
85.9
92.7
74.4
78.5
70.7
83.1
98.3
92.0
71.5
64.4
95.0
92.2
84.9
93.0
89.8
97.3
69.5
90.5
88.6
94.0
87.7
88.9
89.0
TSS
inlet
(g/m3]
18
51
30
35
66
20
33
35
20
24
30
outlet
[g/m3J
12
8
6
21
26
13
25
20
13
10
10
TSS
Rem.
Eff.
[%]
33
84
80
40
61
3'5
24
43
35
58
67
GENERAL COMMENTS
Start-up: 7: 15
BW-water: Potable water (OIW:high & TSS:low)
Pressure Difference raising fast
BW-cycle didn't start automatically
BW-cycle after Run No. 36
Start-up: 7:45
BW-water: Potable water (OrW:high & TSS:low)
Pressure Difference raising very fast
BW-cycle didn't start automatically
Start-up: 9:45
BW-water: Potable water (OIW:low & TSS:low)
Start-up: 7:45
BW-water: Potable water (OIW:low & TSS:low)
OIW of Run No. 48 probably caused by polluted sample-bottle
-------
Table B-4. InPlant Unit Field Trials in Mina al Fahal (Continued)
Run
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Date
23-Jun-92
23-Jun-92
23-Jun-92
23-Jun-92
23-Jun-92
23-Jun-92
23-Jun-92
23-Jun-92
Time
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
Time
Elapsed
[hours]
0.8
1.8
2.8
3.8
4.8
5.8
6.8
7.8
Pressure
Drop
fin. Hg]
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.0
7.5
8.3
9.6
11.0
OIW
Inlet
[ppmvj
36.9
24.5
29.8
33.7
23.6
27.4
26.2
34.8
Outlet
(ppmvj
0.7
4.7
7.8
4.4
4.0
3.0
5.0
5.1
Oil
Rent.
Eff.
1*1
98.1
80.8
73.8
86.9
83.1
89.1
80.9
85.3
TSS
inlet
fp/m3)
33
35
40
27
outlet
[g/m3]
20
20
15
16
TSS
Rem.
Eff.
1*1
39
43
63
41
GENERAL COMMENTS
Start-up: 7:45
BW-water: Potable water (OIW:low & TSS:low)
-3-
-------
The results of the TSS analysis show that removal by the unit is variable and unpredictable (see
Figure B-4). The average content of TSS in the influent was 34 g/m3, and the average concentration in
the effluent was 16 g/m3. The average removal efficiency was calculated to be 53 percent. It was noted
that the TSS measurements were not very accurate.
j . -
The particle size distribution analysis was only performed with samples from Situation 3. The
results indicated that 60 percent of all detected particles was smaller than 5 microns. Particles larger than
20 microns were not detected and particles smaller than 2 microns could not be detected by the method
(see Table B-5). . i .
!
i
i
Table B-5 presents a comparison between the OIW, TSS and particle size distribution. The sum
of the amount of OIW and TSS is always higher! than the amount of particles detected. The stated reason
for this could be that the solids or oil droplets are present below the detection limit of 2 microns.
Table B-5. Particle Size Distribution Measurements (Particle Concentrations in PPM)
1 Particle
Size
(microns)
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
>20
Total
OIW (ppm)
TSS (g/m5)
Date: June 22, 1992
Sampling time: 13:30
Influent
Particles
(ppm)
37.4
13.6
6.6
4.1
3.0
U
-
66.0
65.1
24.0
Effluent
Particles
(ppm)
3.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.5
-
-
5.5
8.0
10.0
Date: June 23, 1992
Sampling time: 9:30
Influent
Particles
i(ppm)
! 22.6
8.9
3.7
! 1.2
2.0
-
i ~
38.4
J24.5
J33.0
Effluent
Particles
(ppm)
5.5
0.2
0.1
-
0.2
-
-
6.0
4.7
20.0
Sampling Date: June 23, 1992
Sampling time: 13:30
Influent
Particles
(ppm)
23.2
8.9
3.1
1.6
1.1
-
.
37.9
27.4
40.0
Effluent
Particles
(ppm)
6.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
_
_
7.3
3.0
15.0
; 68
-------
69
Efficiency (%)
ore
i
o.
g.
i
I
61
i £
jj en
£ 3
3
-------
Marmul
The Marmul production facilities consist of 12 gathering stations, remote manifolds, and a
production station. The gathering stations degas crude oil from six production fields (Qaharir, Rahab,
Birba, Dhiab, Thamoud, and Thuleilat) and transfer it to the Marmul Main Production Station (see
Figure B-5). The crude oil is dehydrated, and the separated water is disposed of into local disposal wells.
The dry crude fless than 0.5 percent bottom solids and water) is exported into the main oil line.
The SFC 0.5 System was placed in the "cold treatment" tram of the crude oil dehydration process
(see Figure B-6). Free water, removed hi the free water knockout tank during the "hot treatment" step
in the crude oil dehydration process, is routed directly into corrugated plate interceptors for cleanup prior
to disposal. Due to maintenance activities at th
-------
10 A-HOI
OAlHEftlHQ
LINES fROM~t
SUlioiiS
A 8.C.O.E.
I-2OI
P-Ji.il/2M
U . BIHUA, j
RAHAB. p |
OAHARIR. ' |
L
| 10 HAAl 1
1 ..-*--. !
L_r' ":"i
i ««»« -U__
: i
t-i i _(__i _
..I- --.
i_ _ - .L.,1""'^*"* i
>_ 10 ORAHS
VESSEL
|
£*
JO It* ORE
»r WAJEf) .
I-UOI
n
1
DRAIN
:
~~ f-) . DISPOSAL LINE
' P-H5US/4
1
fj
)
~"
1 r-no3 10 PUMP SIAIION
*" MARMUl
| IREAIEO SlUOOE
ORAIN 'ROM P.UOS/4
© ^
1 ^^j EMULSION ID P. 2(0 J
WAfER 10 I-1UO
PftOPOSfO HAflMUi PHOOUCIIOH SIAIION
EXIiHSION UHOCO B.MOSII
1-KII
KNOCK OU( IAIIK
CAP'. 2300 «)BLC
CPI
CAP: 6000
mil WAHA KIIOCKOUI Him
CAP: 10000 nil BIC
P.2A5I/2/3
P-2A54/5/6
WAIER OISPQSAI PUMPS
CAP. 12120 «>/d
WEI CRUDE
fBAHSfCR PUMPS
VARIABLE SPEED
CAP 3. I100I*»/<||HAX| .F-2tQI/2/3/t/5/6/
P 2C58/9
SKIMMED Oil PUMPS
7/8/9/10
1/llU IIEAIERS
CAP HJS hW EACH
T-UOI/02
WASH IAHKS
CAP: 1 100 n1 EACH
T-
SIORAOC IANKS
CAP' 3100 .3 EACH
CAP: 3000 KW
Figure B-5. Configuration of Marmul Production Station.
-------
N>
Figure B-6. Configuration of Marmul Water Treatment Plant.
-------
10000 T.I
£^4^...... ,.....u»f .......
:isQ^9';i:;!;"!:!"!i:i:^""i!i;i:"iiV:r:~r".":"i:"":'z;i!;'i:";"i"i!:::;:^i:;:::!.:::::'!;
__ I _ I _ J _ 1 _ I - 1 _ 1 __ I
I I I I I I I I
1 . __,_,_,_,_,_.,._,__,,_,_
(tun No.
figure K-J. Oil concentrations at Marmui.
-------
Table B-6. Details of Marmul Field Trials
vi
*
Run
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
II
12
13
14
11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32"
33
34
35
Date
IO-Jul-92
IO-Jul-92
IO-Jul-92
IO-Jul-92
IO-Jul-92
IO-Jul-92
IO-Jul-92
IO-Jul-92
-Jul-92
-Jul-92
-Jul-92
-Jul-92
-Jul-92
-Jul-92
_ rJul-92
2-Jul-92
!2-Jul-92
12- Jul-92
12- Jul-92
16- Jul-92
16- Jul-92
16- Jul-92
!6-Jul-92
!6-Jul-92
16- Jul-92
16- Jul-92
16- Jul-92
17- Jul-92
17-Jul-92
17- Jul-92
!7-Jul-92
T7-Jul-92
!7-Jui-92
17- Jul-92
!7-Jul-92
Time
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:30
14:30
15:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
13:30
.14:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
12:30
13:30
14:30
15:30
8:30
9:30
10:30
11:30
13*00
14:00
15:00
16:00
Time
Elapsec
[hours]
0.8
1.8
2.8
3.8
4.8
6.3
7.3
8.3
0.8
1.8
2.8
3.8
4.8
5.8
__6.8-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.7
1.7
2.7
3.7
4.7
5.7
6.7
7.7
0.9
1.9
2.9
3.9
""F.T
2.1
3.1
4.1
Pressure
Drop
[in. Hg]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
2,0
3.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.0
..__2.0-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
2.8
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
................
0.0
0.0
0.0
Inlet
[ppntv
300
256
281
269
250
288
350
388
313
363
350
363
388
400
400
288
250
250
250
ISO
312
312
356
325
5000
815
440
430
500
500
500
"569""
960
785
1100
OIW
Outle
[ppmv
90
42
32
18
13
17
103
113
75
90
78
65
68
68
.-HO
85
85
103
103
16
9
6
7
4
14
17
22
29
31
31
44
""78
85
70
73
Oil
Rem
Erf.
(%]
70.0
83.6
88.6
93.3
94.8
94.1
70.6
70.9
76.0
75.2
77.7
82.1
82.5
83.0
jl-1-
70.5
66.0
58.8
58.8
91.1
97.1
98.1
98.0
98.8
99.7
97.9
95.0
93.3
93.8
93.8
91.2
861"
91. 1
91.1
93.4
inlet
fp/m3
4.2
12.7
4.0
120
10.0
10.8
18.0
_ .. ..
5.9
_2.5
4.3
2.8
TSS
outle
[g/m3
3-4
5.3
2.6
64
9.6
8.0
9.6
.
2.5
1.8
2.0
1.8
TSS
Rem
Bff.
[«/sj
19.0
58.3
35.0
467
4.0
25.9
46.7
,
57.6
28.0
53.5
35.7
GENERAL COMMENTS
Start-up: 7: 15
Outlet samples of Run No. 7 and 8 showed free oil on lop
Untreated water is flowing out of Port,F
-
Start-up: 7:45
Outlet sample of Run No. 15 showed free oil on top
f
, . ,
Start-up: 7:30
Jnit is backwashed twice
Start-up: 7:50
Start-up: 7:35
Backwash: 11:30
fart-up: j i :55
tackwash: 16:00
pecial samples from water above filler: 475 & 425 ppm
-------
Eleven measurements for TSS were performed during this field trial (see Figure B-8). The
average TSS in the influent was approximately 8 g/m3, and the average value of the effluent was 5 g/m3.
i
The average solids removal efficiency was approximately 40 percent. The removal efficiencies for both
the oil and TSS are presented in Figure B-9. i
Insufficient measurements were performed to form conclusions on the effect of particle size
distribution on the performance of the unit, as shown on Table B-7.
|
After the field trials, the filter media was taken to the Production Chemistry Laboratory for
cleaning. A sample of the oil was extracted from 500 mL of filter media (using 500-mL chlorothene).
i
The purpose of this analysis was to determine the amount of oil remaining on the filter media after it had
been backflushed twice prior to shipment to th^ laboratory. The oil concentration hi the solvent was
i
27,500 ppm, which means 100 liters of filter media were still retaining 2.8 liters of hydrocarbons. The
retention capacity of the filter is 15 to 20 liters of hydrocarbons.
j
Overall, the results appeared promising, although insufficient measurements have been performed
to form any firm conclusions on the performance of the SFC unit. At Mina al Fahal, the average oil
concentration in the treated water effluent was less than 4 ppm, which is within the specification stated
by the developer. However, the discharge limits specified by the Omani legislation of an average of 2
i
ppm and a maximum of 5 ppm were not achieved. It was determined that the quality of the backflush
water greatly influences the quality of the treated effluent. The backflush water should be potable water
(free of oil and with only a small amount of suspended solids).
The field trials showed that the filter is riot capable of removing suspended solids only, and the
filter bed did not act as a proper sand filter for the suspended solids. The particle size distribution results
indicated that particles larger than 4 microns were removed with an efficiency of 95 percent.
I- 75
-------
IB -
16 -
12 -
£ 10 -
I
|3 8 -
3! 6 "
4 -
2 -
0 -
t
I f
[
,
1 I
j i
-
- inlet
D Outlet
ll
_L JLi '
Run No.
Klanrg R-8. Tots! susnsndsd sciids msiisiirsmsn
-------
LL
\ Efficiency (%)
S
en
ex
S.
I
3
£5.
I.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
ro
o
en
o
-4
O
CO
o
8 S
g.
? --
V)
CO
3)
a>
m
=5
-------
Table B-7. Particle Size Distribution Measurements (Particle Concentrations in PPM)
Particle
Size
(microns)
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
>20
Total
OIW (ppm)
TSS(g/m>)
Date: July 16, 1992
Sampling time: 8:30
Influent Particles
(ppm)
29.3
26.0
1.4
1.0
1.1
0.8
-
36.2
180
-
Effluent Particles
(ppm)
6.9
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.4
-
9.7
16.0
-
Date: July 16, 1992
Sampling time: 14:30
Influent Particles
(ppm)
53.3
22.8
13.8
9.4
12.7
4.9
-
116.9
815
-
Effluent Particles
(ppm)
5.5
0.2
0.1
.
0.2
_
.
6.0
5.0
-
78
-------
STORM WATER RUNOFF/NPDES ESTERMnTENT DISCHARGE
ROSE METAL RECYCLING
(Formerly Houston Junk Company, Inc.)
Houston, Texas
Rose Metal Recycling is a 2.89-acre metal reclaiming yard. The company reclaims metal from
junk cars, hot water heaters, vehicle transmissions, stoves, refrigerators, piping, wiring, and ckcuit
boards. The scrap is ground to pieces smaller than 6 to 8 inches in diameter, and the metals are
i .
separated into ferrous and non-ferrous using a ^continuous rotating magnetic-drum process. All ferrous
metal is transported to foundries for recycling and recovery by rail car. The non-ferrous metal is
collected and disposed of hi the local landfill. Precious metals, such as copper, aluminum, silver, gold,
and platinum are segregated and sold to other markets. Vehicle batteries are no longer reclaimed at the
facility. -
. I
The storm water at the site is discharged through a pipeline to the City of Houston storm sewer.
The discharge then flows through an unnamed 'gully to the Buffalo Bayou Tidal (Segment No. 1013) of
the San Jacinto River Basin (see Figure B-1JD). The receiving water use has been designated for
noncontact recreation. The discharge permit limitations are based on similar storm water discharges,
water quality data provided in the permit application, and water quality data provided by the Texas Water
Commission District from a field inspection plrior to issuance of the permit. An NPDES permit was
i
granted for the intermittent discharge of treated storm water runoff.
The storm water is collected in trenches mat surround the property (see Figure B-ll) and flows
to the InPlant System's wastewater treatment system consisting of an API Separator and Oleofilter. Flows
of 50 gallons per minute (gpm) or less are treated by the API Separator and then the Oleofilter, which
are set up hi series. Flows in excess of 50 gpm are treated by the API Separator only. The oil removed
from the storm water is transported offsite for reclamation or disposal.
!
The treated storm water is sampled on a monthly basis. Samples are analyzed for chemical
oxygen demand (COD), copper, hydrogen ions;(pH), lead, mercury (by cold vapor), oil and grease, total
PCBs, TSS, and zinc. Table B-8 presents the data for Oil and Grease analysis from January 1990
!
through August 1994. As stated on the table, 'oil and grease concentrations must be below 15 mg/L to
i
meet NPDES permit discharge requirements. ; These results indicate that the SFC System is effective
when it is applied hi this situation.
! 79
-------
39
Figure B-10. Storm water discharge map.
-------
Figure B-ll. Site storm water collection system.
-------
Table B-8. Oil and ' Grease Analytical Results
i
Depending on rainfall, sample tests identified are single
grab samples or averages of 'multiple grab samples. All
tests results for oil and grease by freon extraction must be
below 15 mg/1 to meet the NPDES discharge requirements.
.JLJLUUJL J
Month
Jan.
Feb
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct
JVJLrfOUJ^JL
1990
4.17 mg/1
6.57 "
8.73 "
9.8 "
8.73 "
9.53 "
11.3 "
7.0 "
6.17 "
3.0 "
Nov. 20.45 "
Dec. 5.3 "
January 1994
February 1994
March 1994
April 1994
g>
1991
6.15 mg
4.2 "
2.8 "
4.4 "
26.0 "
7.5 "
3.9 "'
6.7 "
9.8 "
7.8 "
2.7 "
5.0 M
9.8 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
3.0 mg/1
1992
fl 3.0 mg/1
7.0 "
1.1 "
14.0 "
12.0 "
14.0 "
3.75 "
7.8 "
3.7 "
2.3
2.15 "
May 1994
June 1994
July 1994
August 1994
82
1993
2.55 mg/1
6.0 "
8.5 "
4.8 "
4.8 "
7.6 "
4.4 -"
10.95 "
2.9 "
3.7 "
11.4 "
1.0 mg/1
6.0 mg/1
2.5 mg/1
11.0 mg/1
------- |