&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-96/504
August 1997
High Voltage Environmental
Applications, Inc.
Electron Beam Technology
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
EPA/540/R-96/504
August 1997
High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc.
Electron Beam Technology
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation program under Contract No. 68-CO-0047. This document was subjected to EPA's
peer and administrative reviews and was approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's land, air, and
water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and
technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and
prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of technological
and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment. The focus
of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land,
water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of
contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this
research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community
and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
111
-------
Abstract
This report evaluates a high-voltage electron beam (E-beam) technology's ability to destroy volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and other contaminants present in liquid wastes. Specifically, this report discusses
performance and economic data from a Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration of
the technology and one case study.
The E-beam technology was developed by High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc. (HVEA). The
technology irradiates water with a beam of high-energy electrons, causing the formation of three primary
transient reactive species: aqueous electrons, hydroxyl radicals, and hydrogen radicals. These reactive species
undergo complex sequences of reactions with target organic compounds, which are either mineralized or
broken down into low molecular weight compounds.
The E-beam technology was demonstrated under the SITE program at the U.S. Department of Energy's
Savannah River Site in Aiken, SC, during three weeks in September and November 1994. A trailer-mounted E-
beam system was used for the SITE demonstration. This system is housed in an 8- by 48-foot trailer and is rated
for minimum and maximum flow rates of 15 and 50 gallons per minute, respectively. During the demonstration,
the E-beam system treated about 70,000 gallons of groundwater contaminated with VOCs. The principal
groundwater contaminants were trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE), which were present at
concentrations of about 27,000 and 11,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L), respectively. The groundwater also
contained low levels (40 ug/L) of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE). During a portion of the demonstration, the
influent was spiked with VOCs not present in the groundwater. The resultant influent concentrations were
about 100 to 500 jig/L for the following compounds: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA); 1,2-dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA); chloroform; carbon tetrachloride (CC14); and aromatic VOCs, including benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX).
Thirteen test runs were performed to evaluate the E-beam system under different operating conditions. Four
runs used unspiked groundwater, and nine runs used spiked groundwater. For the run with the best overall
performance, the removal efficiencies (RE) observed for TCE and PCE were 98% and 99%, respectively. The
REs for other chlorinated compounds ranged from 68% to >97%, and the REs for BTEX ranged from >96% to
>98%. The HVEA system achieved the effluent target levels for 1,2-DCE, CC14, and BTEX. However, effluent
target levels were not achieved for TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, and chloroform. Influent and effluent
samples were also collected for bioassay tests. The results from these tests indicate that treatment by the E-
beam technology increased groundwater toxicity to fathead minnows but not to water fleas. Treatment system
performance in terms of RE was found to be reproducible within 3% to 5%.
Potential sites for applying this technology include Superfund and other hazardous waste sites where
groundwater or other liquid wastes are contaminated with organic compounds. Economic data indicate that
groundwater remediation costs for the HVEA system used for the SITE demonstration could range from $5 to
$8 per 1,000 gallons treated, depending on groundwater characteristics and operating conditions. Of these
costs, HVEA system direct treatment costs could range from $4 to $6 per 1,000 gallons treated.
IV
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols x
Conversion Factors xii
Acknowledgments .'. xiii
Executive Summary i
Technology Description 1
Overview of the E-Beam Technology SITE Demonstration 1
SITE Demonstration Results 2
Economics 3
Superfund Feasibility Evaluation Criteria for the E-Beam Technology 3
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Brief Description of SITE Program and Reports 6
1.1.1 Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program 6
1.1.2 Documentation of SITE Demonstration Results 6
1.2 Purpose of the ITER 7
1.3 Background of E-Beam Technology in the SITE Program 7
1.4 Technology Description 7
1.4.1 Process Chemistry 7
1.4.2 HVEA Treatment System 8
1.4.3 Innovative Features of the Technology 9
1.5 Applicable Wastes 10
1.6 Key Contacts , 10
2. Technology Effectiveness and Applications Analysis 11
2.1 Overview of E-Beam Technology SITE Demonstration 11
2.1.1 Project Objectives 11
2.1.2 Demonstration Approach 12
2.1.3 Sampling and Analytical Procedures 13
2.2 SITE Demonstration Results 14
2.2.1 VOC REs at Different Doses 14
2.2.2 Compliance with Applicable Effluent Target Levels 15
2.2.3 Effect of Treatment on Groundwater Toxicity 16
2.2.4 Reproducibility of Treatment System Performance 17
2.2.5 Treatment Byproducts and Additional Parameters 17
2.2.6 VOC Volatilization and Air Phase Byproduct Formation 19
2.2.7 Flow Rate Test it 22
2.2.8 Alkalinity-Adjusted Spiked Groundwater Test 22
2.2.9 Operating Problems 24
-------
Contents (continued)
2.3 Additional Performance Data 26
2.4 Factors Affecting Performance 27
2.4.1 Feed Waste Characteristics 27
2.4.2 Operating Parameters 29
2.4.3 Maintenance Requirements 29
2.5 Site Characteristics and Support Requirements 30
2.5.1 Site Access, Area, and Preparation Requirements 30
2.5.2 Climate 30
2.5.3 Utility and Supply Requirements 30
2.5.4 Required Support Systems 30
2.5.5 Personnel Requirements 31
2.6 Material Handling Requirements 31
2.7 Technology Limitations 31
2.8 Potential Regulatory Requirements 31
2.8.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act 31
2.8.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 33
2.8.3 Clean Water Act 34
2.8.4 Safe Drinking Water Act 34
2.8.5 Clean Air Act 34
2.8.6 Toxic Substances Control Act 35
2.8.7 Mixed Waste Regulations 35
2.8.8 Occupational Safety and Health Act 35
2.8.9 Additional Considerations 35
2.9 State and Community Acceptance 35
3. Economic Analysis 36
3.1 Introduction 36
3.2 Issues and Assumptions 36
3.2.1 Site-Specific Factors 36
3.2.2 Equipment and Operating Parameters 38
3.2.3 Financial Calculations 39
3.2.4 Base-Case Scenario 39
3.3 Cost Categories 39
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs 40
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 40
3.3.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs 40
3.3.4 Equipment Costs 40
3.3.5 Labor Costs 41
3.3.6 Supply Costs 41
3.3.7 Utility Costs 41
3.3.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 41
3.3.9 Residual Waste Shipping and Handling Costs 41
3.3.10 Analytical Services Costs 42
3.3.11 Equipment Maintenance Costs 42
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs 42
3.4 Conclusions of Economic Analysis 42
4. Technology Status 45
5. References 46
VI
-------
Contents (continued)
Appendix A Vendor's Claims for the Technology 47
A.1 Introduction 47
A.2 Technology Description 47
A.3 Advantages of the E-Beam Process 47
A.4 HVEA Treatment Systems 48
A.5 System Applications 48
A.6 Cost Considerations 48
A.7 Summary 48
A.8 Bibliography 50
Appendix B Case Study 51
B.I Site Conditions 51
B.2 System Performance 51
B.3 Estimated Costs 51
vu
-------
Figures
1-1 HVEA E-Beam treatment system schematic 9
2-1 VOC REs in reproducibility runs 17
2-2 Average influent and effluent levels for TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE
during the reproducibility runs 18
2-3 Average influent and effluent levels for 1,1,1 -TCA, 1,2-DCA, chloroform,
and CC14 during the reproducibility runs 19
2-4 Average influent and effluent levels for BTEX
during the reproducibility runs 20
2-5 TCE levels before and after the carbon adsorber 23
2-6 PCE levels before and after the carbon adsorber. 23
2-7 1,2-DCA levels before and after the carbon adsorber 24
2-8 Toluene levels before and after the carbon adsorber 25
2-9 CO and phosgene levels before and after the carbon adsorber 26
2-10 O3 levels before and after the carbon adsorber. 27
2-11 Flow rate test tesults for VOC REs 28
2-12 Effect of alkalinity on VOC REs 28
3-1 Distribution of fixed and annual variable costs for groundwater
remediation project 43
3-2 Distribution of HVEA system treatment costs 44
vni
-------
Tables
ES-1 Superfund Feasibility Evaluation Criteria for the HVEA E-Beam Technology 4
1 -1 Correlation Between Superfund Feasibility Evaluation Criteria and ITER Sections 7
1-2 Comparison of Technologies for Treating VOCs in Water 10
2-1 System Effluent Target Levels 11
2-2 Demonstration Approach for the HVEA E-Beam Technology 13
2-3 VOC Concentrations in Unspiked and Spiked Groundwater Influent .„ 14
2-4 VOCREs 15
2-5 Compliance with Applicable Effluent Target Levels 16
2-6 Acute Toxicity Data 16
2-7 E-Beam Treatment Byproduct Data 20
2-8 Effluent H2O2 Concentrations 21
2-9 Carbon, TOX, and Chloride Concentrations 21
2-10 VOC REs Under Zero Dose Conditions 21
2-11 Cooling Air Characteristics 22
2-12 Summary of Regulations 32
3-1 Costs Associated with the E-Beam Technology—Case 1 37
3-2 Costs Associated with the E-Beam Technology—Case 2 38
3-3 E-Beam Treatment System Direct Costs 43
A-l Capabilities of HVEA's E-Beam Treatment Systems 49
A-2 Contaminants and Pollutants Treatable by HVEA's E-Beam Treatment Systems
and Other General Uses of the Systems 49
B-l Case Study Results for HVEA's Trailer-Mounted E-Beam Treatment System 52
IX
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
1,1,1-TCA
1,2-DCE
1,2-DCA
ACL
AEA
APHA
ARAR
BTEX
CAA
CaCOj
CC14
CDEP
CERCLA
CFR
ci-
CO
C02
CWA
DOE
e~
E-beam
EPA
FTCR
gpm
H-
HA
HC1
HVEA
ICT
ITER
krad
kV
kW
kWh
LC50
LDR
Less than
Greater than
Micrograms per liter
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Alternate concentration limit
Atomic Energy Act
American Public Health Association
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
Clean Air Act
Calcium carbonate
Carbon tetrachloride
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Chloride ions
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Clean Water Act
U.S. Department of Energy
Aqueous electrons
Electron beam
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fourier transform infrared
Gallons per minute
Hydrogen radicals
Hydrogen
Water
Hydrogen peroxide
Hydronium ions
Hydrogen chloride
High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc.
Insulated core transformer
Innovative technology evaluation report
Kilorad
Kilovolts
Kilowatts
Kilowatt hours
Concentration at which 50% of the organisms died
Land Disposal Restriction
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (continued)
mA
MCL
MCLG
mg/L
mRem
M-'S-'
N20
NA
NAAQS
NESHAP
NOEL
NPDES
NRC
NSPS
O&M
03
OH-
OH-
ORD
OSHA
OSWER
PAH
PCB
PCE
POC
POTW
PPE
ppmv
PRC
QA/QC
QAPP
RCRA
RE
RTD
SARA
SCDHEC
SDWA
SITE
SRS
SVOC
TCE
TIC
TOC
TOX
TSCA
UCL
VOC
WQS
Milliamperes
Maximum contaminant level
Maximum contaminant level goal
Milligrams per liter
MilliRems
(Molar)'1 (second)'1
Nitrous oxide
Not applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
No observable effect level
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
New Source Performance Standards
Operating and maintenance
Ozone
Hydroxide ions
Hydroxyl radicals
Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Tetrachloroethene
Purgeable organic carbon
Publicly owned treatment works
Personal protective equipment
Parts per million by volume
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Quality assurance and quality control
Quality assurance project plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Removal efficiency
Resistance temperature device
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Safe Drinking Water Act
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Savannah River Site
Semivolatile organic compound
Trichloroethene
Technology evaluation report
Total inorganic carbon
Total organic carbon
Total organic halides
Toxic Substances Control Act
Upper confidence limit
Volatile organic compound
Water quality standards
XI
-------
Conversion Factors
To Convert From
To
Multiply By
Length
foot
mile
Area
acre
Volume
cubic foot
Mass
Energy
Power
Temperature
inch
meter
kilometer
square foot
square meter
gallon
cubic meter
pound
kilowatt-hour
kilowatt
(Fahrenheit - 32)
centimeter
0.305
1.61
square meter
4,047
liter
0.0283
kilogram
megajoule
horsepower
Celsius
2.54
0.0929
3.78
0.454
3.60
1.34
0.556
Xll
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Mr. Franklin Alvarez, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program project manager in
the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Cincinnati, OH. Contributors and reviewers
for this report were Mr. Gordon Evans, Dr. John Ireland, and Ms. Norma Lewis of EPA NRMRL,
Cincinnati, OH; Dr. William Cooper of High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc., Miami, FL; Mr.
Gene Turner of the Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC; Mr. Jeff Crane of EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA; Mr.
Keith Collingsworth of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia,
SC; and Mr. Ahmet Suer of Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC.
This report was prepared for EPA's SITE program by Dr. Kirankumar Topudurti, Mr. Michael Keefe,
Dr. Chriso Petropoulou, Mr. Timothy Schlichting, Mr. Jeffrey Swano, and Ms. Carla Buriks of PRC
Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC). Mr. Tom Dziubla, Mr. Morgan Jencius, and Mr. Drew Walley of
PRC developed and managed analytical data spreadsheets. Special acknowledgment is given to Mr. Stanley
Labunski, Mr. Jon Mann, Ms. Carol Adams, and Ms. Jeanne Kowalski of PRC for their quality control,
editorial, graphic, and production assistance during the preparation of this report.
Xlll
-------
Executive Summary
The high-voltage electron beam (E-beara) technology devel-
oped by High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc.
(HVEA), to destroy organic compounds in liquid wastes was
demonstrated under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program. The E-beam technology demonstration was conducted
in September and November 1994 at the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, SC.
The purpose of this innovative technology evaluation report is
to present information that will assist Superfund decision-
makers in evaluating the E-beam technology for application to
a particular hazardous waste site cleanup. The report provides
an introduction to the SITE program and HVEA's E-beam
technology (Section 1), evaluates the technology's effective-
ness and applications (Section 2), analyzes the economics of
using the E-beam system to treat groundwater contaminated
with volatile organic compounds (VOC) (Section 3), summa-
rizes the technology's status (Section 4), and presents a list of
references (Section 5). Vendor's claims for the technology and
a case study of an E-beam technology application performed in
Germany are included in Appendices A and B of the report,
respectively.
This executive summary briefly describes the E-beam technol-
ogy, provides an overview of the SITE demonstration of the
technology, summarizes the SITE demonstration results, dis-
cusses the economics of using the E-beam system to treat
groundwater contaminated with VOCs, and discusses the Su-
perfund feasibility evaluation criteria for the E-beam technol-
ogy.
Technology Description
The E-beam technology was developed by HVEA to destroy
organic compounds in liquid wastes. This technology irradiates
water with a beam of high-energy electrons, causing the forma-
tion of three primary transient reactive species: aqueous elec-
trons, hydroxyl radicals, and hydrogen radicals. Target organic
compounds are either mineralized or broken down into low
molecular weight compounds, primarily by these species.
The HVEA E-beam system (model M25W-48S) used for the
SITE demonstration is housed in an 8- by 48-foot trailer and is
rated for a minimum and maximum flow rate of 15 and 50
gallons per minute (gpm), respectively. The E-beam system
includes the following components: a strainer basket, an influ-
ent pump, the E-beam unit, a cooling air processor, a blower,
and a control console.
After particulates are removed from the influent by the strainer
basket, the influent pump transfers contaminated water to the
E-beam unit. This unit is made up of the following components:
an electron accelerator, a scanner, a contact chamber, and lead
shielding. The electron accelerator is capable of generating an
accelerating voltage of 500 kilovolts and a maximum beam
current of about 42 milliamps, which results in a maximum
power rating of 21 kilowatts (kW). The scanner deflects the
E-beam, causing the beam to scan the surface of the water as it
flows through the contact chamber located beneath the scanner.
Lead shielding surrounds the E-beam unit to prevent emission
of x-rays. Also, a titanium window separates the scanner from
the contact chamber to allow a vacuum to be maintained in the
scanner. The E-beam significantly heats the titanium window,
which is cooled by air recirculated through the contact cham-
ber. The air is conditioned by a cooling air processor.
The E-beam technology is applicable for treatment of VOCs
and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC) in liquid wastes,
including groundwater, wastewater, and landfill leachate.
Overview of the E-Beam Technology SITE
Demonstration
The E-beam technology was demonstrated at the SRS in Aiken,
SC, during two different periods totaling 3 weeks in September
and November 1994. During the demonstration, the E-beam
system treated about 70,000 gallons of M-area groundwater
contaminated with VOCs. The principal groundwater contami-
nants were trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE),
which were present at concentrations of about 27,000 and
11,000 micrograms per liter (p.g/L), respectively. The ground-
water also contained low levels (40 u.g/L) of cis-l,2-dichloro-
ethene (1,2-DCE).
During a portion of the E-beam technology demonstration, the
groundwater was spiked with 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA);
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA); chloroform; carbon tetra-
chloride (CC14); and aromatic VOCs, including benzene, tolu-
ene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX). These compounds were
chosen either because they are relatively difficult to remove
using technologies such as the E-beam that employ free radical
chemistry (1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA, chloroform, and CC14) or
because they are common groundwater contaminants (BTEX).
The influent concentrations of these spiking compounds ranged
from 100 to 500 |ig/L. For the SITE demonstration, TCE, PCE,
1,2-DCE, and the VOCs used for spiking the groundwater were
considered to be critical VOCs for evaluating the technology.
-------
The primary objectives of the technology demonstration were
as follows:
• Determine the removal efficiencies (RE) for critical
VOCs in groundwater achieved by the HVEA treat-
ment system at different doses
• Determine whether the treated water meets applicable
target levels at a significance level of 0.05 (The efflu-
ent target levels were the most stringent limits of the
Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant lev-
els [MCL], F039 multisource leachate guidelines, and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System per-
mit limits)
• Evaluate the change in groundwater acute toxicity
after treatment at a significance level of 0.05
• Evaluate the reproducibility of treatment system per-
formance in terms of RE and ability to meet applicable
target effluent levels
• Estimate capital and operation and maintenance costs
for treating groundwater contaminated with VOCs
The secondary objectives of the technology demonstration were
as follows:
• Document the concentrations of potential E-beam treat-
ment byproducts in groundwater
* Document the concentrations of VOCs, ozone (O3),
and hydrogen chloride (HC1) in cooling air before and
after the carbon adsorber in the cooling air processor
• Determine the REs for critical VOCs in groundwater
and whether the effluent meets applicable target levels
(at a significance level of 0.05) for the HVEA treat-
ment system operated at the maximum or minimum
limiting flow rate (50 or 15 gpm, respectively)
• Determine the REs for critical VOCs in groundwater
and whether the effluent meets applicable target levels
(at a significance level of 0.05) for the HVEA treat-
ment system during treatment of groundwater with
moderately high alkalinity (500 milligrams per liter
[mg/L] as calcium carbonate [CaCO3])
* Document observed operating problems and their reso-
lutions
Thirteen test runs were performed during the demonstration to
evaluate the HVEA treatment system according to the project
objectives. Of these, four runs used unspiked groundwater, and
nine runs used spiked groundwater. Toward the end of the
demonstration, HVEA adjusted the influent delivery system to
enhance treatment system performance. One of the four unspiked
groundwater runs and two of the nine spiked groundwater runs
were performed using the improved delivery system.
During the demonstration, groundwater samples were collected
at the E-beam system influent and effluent sampling locations,
and cooling air was sampled as it entered and left the cooling air
processor. Groundwater samples collected during all runs were
analyzed for VOCs and pH, and groundwater samples collected
during selected runs were analyzed for SVOCs, haloacetic
acids, aldehydes, hydrogen peroxide (effluent only), total inor-
ganic carbon, total organic carbon, purgeable organic carbon
(POC), total organic halides (TOX), chloride, alkalinity, and
acute toxicity. Cooling air samples collected during nearly all
runs were analyzed for VOCs, O3, and HC1.
SITE Demonstration Results
During the SITE demonstration of the E-beam technology, the
following key findings were made:
• In general, the highest VOC REs were observed in
improved delivery system runs. The highest REs ob-
served for TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE were greater than
(>) 99%, 99%, and >91%, respectively. The highest
REs for chlorinated spiking compounds ranged from
68% to >97%, and those for BTEX ranged from >96%
to >98%.
• The effluent met the target levels for 1,2-DCE, CC14,
and BTEX at a significance level of 0.05. However,
the effluent did not meet the target levels for TCE,
PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, and chloroform at a sig-
nificance level of 0.05.
* In tests performed to evaluate the effluent's acute
toxicity to water fleas and fathead minnows, more
than 50% of the organisms died. The effluent LC50
values (the percentage effluent in the test water at
which more than 50% of the organisms died) ranged
from less than (<) 6.2% to 18% for the water fleas and
from 8.6% to 54% for the fathead minnows. Treatment
by the E-beam technology increased groundwater tox-
icity for the fathead minnows but not for the water
fleas at a significance level of 0.05.
In general, the VOC REs and effluent VOC concentra-
tions were reproducible when the E-beam system was
operated under identical conditions.
• POC, TOX, and chloride results showed significant
mineralization of VOCs. However, formation of alde-
hydes (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, glyoxal, and m-
glyoxal) and haloacetic acids (mono, di, and trichloro-
acetic acid) indicated that not all VOCs were com-
pletely mineralized. The highest REs observed for
POC and TOX were >91% and 93%, respectively. E-
beam treatment increased chloride levels tenfold. The
effluent contained dichloroacetic acid at levels > 1,000
Hg/L and contained mono and trichloroacetic acids
and formaldehyde at levels >100 ng/L. The effluent
also contained hydrogen peroxide at levels up to 9.5
mg/L.
• VOCs, O3, and HC1 were detected in the air entering
the cooling air processor and returning to the E-beam
unit. For example, VOCs, O3, and HC1 were present in
-------
the air entering the cooling air processor at levels up
to 5.7, 22.8, and 0.3 parts per million by volume
(ppmv), respectively. Although initially unexpected,
phosgene and carbon monoxide were formed in the
cooling air at levels up to 4.9 and 37.6 ppmv, respec-
tively. Minimal reduction of contaminants (<30%)
was achieved by the cooling air processor.
• Decreasing the flow rate from 20 to 15 gpm (the
minimum flow rate at which the trailer-mounted dem-
onstration unit can be operated) and keeping the
beam current the same increased the REs for 1,1,1-
TCA, 1,2-DCA, and chloroform 8% to 10% but did
not change the REs for other VOCs. During the
minimum flow rate run, effluent target levels were
met for 1,2-DCE, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes,
but were not met for other VOCs.
• Increasing influent alkalinity from 5 to 500 mg/L as
CaCO3 had different effects on VOC REs. The REs
for 1,1,1-TCA and chloroform increased 8% and 12%,
respectively; the RE for 1,2-DCA decreased 13%; and
the REs for other VOCs remained practically the
same. During the alkalinity-adjusted run, effluent tar-
get levels were met for 1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, CC14,
and BTEX but were not met for other VOCs.
• Several problems were experienced during the SITE
demonstration. These problems involved the presence
of bubbles in the influent as a result of dissolved gases
in the groundwater, malfunctioning of temperature
measurement devices in the E-beam system, elevated
radiation levels outside the E-beam trailer, leaks in the
cooling air processor lines, and loss of vacuum in the
E-beam system. Although these problems resulted in
significant downtime, they were resolved and the
SITE demonstration was completed.
Economics
Using information obtained from the SITE demonstration,
HVEA, and other sources, an economic analysis was per-
formed to examine 12 separate cost categories for two cases in
which HVEA E-beam systems were assumed to treat about 315
million gallons of contaminated groundwater at a Superfund
site. The two cases were based on groundwater characteristics.
In Case 1, the groundwater was assumed to contain unsaturated
VOCs, primarily TCE and PCE. In Case 2, the groundwater
was assumed to contain saturated VOCs (1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA,
chloroform, and CC14) and aromatic VOCs (BTEX). For each
case, the costs of using three different E-beam systems (21-kW,
45-kW, and 75-kW) were estimated. The estimated costs for the
base-case scenarios (Case 1: 21-kW system operating at 40-
gpm flow rate; Case 2:21-kW system operating at 20-gpm flow
rate) are summarized below.
For Case 1, the total costs directly related to the HVEA system
are estimated to be $4.07 per 1,000 gallons treated. Of these, the
three largest cost categories are one-time, equipment mainte-
nance, and utility costs, which represent 85.5% of the total.
Specifically, one-time, equipment maintenance, and utility costs
represent 39.3%, 22.9%, and 23.3% of the total direct costs,
respectively.
For Case 2, the total costs directly related to the HVEA system
are estimated to be $5.99 per 1,000 gallons treated. Of these, the
three largest cost categories are one-time, equipment mainte-
nance, and utility costs, which represent 80.8% of the total.
Specifically, one-time, equipment maintenance, and utility costs
represent 19.3%, 30.5%, and 31.0% of the total direct costs,
respectively.
In the case study provided in Appendix B, HVEA estimated the
total direct costs for treating petroleum refinery wastewater to
be $4.77 per 1,000 gallons treated. HVEA's cost estimate is
comparable to the cost estimates presented above.
Superfund Feasibility Evaluation Criteria
for the E-Beam Technology
Table ES-1 briefly discusses the Superfund feasibility evalua-
tion criteria for HVEA's E-beam technology to assist Super-
fund decision-makers considering the technology for remedia-
tion of contaminated groundwater at hazardous waste sites.
-------
Table ES-1. Superfund Feasibility Evaluation Criteria for the HVEA E-Beam Technology
Criterion
Discussion
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The E-beam technology is expected to protect human health by
providing treated water that has significantly lower concentrations of
organic contaminants.
Overall reduction of human health risk should be evaluated on a
site-specific basis because of the potential for formation of harmful
treatment byproducts (for example, aldehydes, haloacetic acids,
and hydrogen peroxide).
The technology protects the environment by curtailing migration of
contaminated groundwater.
Protection of the environment at and beyond the point of treated
water discharge should be evaluated based on uses of the receiving
water body, concentrations of residual contaminants and treatment
byproducts, and the dilution factor.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARAR)
The technology's ability to comply with existing federal,
state, or local ARARs (for example, MCLs and F039 multisource
leachate guidelines) should be determined on a site-specific basis.
The technology's ability to meet any future chemical-specific ARARs
for byproducts should be considered because of the potential for
formation of aldehydes and haloacetic acids during treatment.
The technology's ability to meet any state or local requirement such
as passing bioassay tests should be considered because of the
potential for treatment byproduct formation.
Status may require notification and registration for system operation,
depending on the radiation level at the equipment surface.
Design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the system
must comply with general radiation exposure regulations; as this
and similar technologies become more common, additional and
more specific regulations may be enacted.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Human health risk can be reduced to acceptable levels by treating
groundwater to 1O"8 cancer risk level; the time needed to achieve
cleanup goals depends primarily on contaminated aquifer
characteristics.
The technology can effectively control groundwater contaminant
migration because it is operated in pump-and-treat mode.
The treatment achieved is permanent because the E-beam is a
destruction technology.
Periodic review of treatment system performance is needed because
application of the technology to, contaminated groundwater at
hazardous waste sites is fairly new.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Although contaminants are destroyed by the technology, the reduction
in overall toxicity should be determined on a site-specific basis
because of the potential for formation of byproducts (for example,
aldehydes, haloacetic acids, and hydrogen peroxide).
The technology reduces the volume and mobility of contaminated
groundwater because it is operated in pump-and-treat mode.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Worker monitoring is required because of the potential for radiation
and fugitive emissions exposure; however, no impact on nearby
communities is anticipated.
During the pump-and-treat operation, aquifer drawdown may impact
vegetation in the treatment zone.
(Continued)
-------
Table ES-1. (Continued)
Criterion Discussion
Implementability • The technology can be implemented using a mobile, transportable,
or permanent E-beam system.
• State and local permits must be obtained to operate radiation-
generating equipment; a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit is routinely needed to implement the technology.
Cost • Treatment costs vary significantly depending on contaminant
characteristics and levels, cleanup goals, the volume of contaminated
water to be treated, and the length of treatment; for a typical
groundwater cleanup operation, the treatment cost is expected to be
$4 to $6 per 1,000 gallons of contaminated water treated.
State Acceptance • This criterion is generally addressed in the record of decision; state
acceptance of the technology will likely depend on (1) the
concentrations of residual organic contaminants and treatment
byproducts in treated water and the toxicity of treated water and (2)
permitting requirements for operating radiation-generating equipment.
Community Acceptance • This criterion is generally addressed in the record of decision after
community responses are received during the public comment
period; because communities are not expected to be exposed to
harmful levels of radiation, noise, or fugitive emissions, the level of
community acceptance of the technology Is expected to be high.
-------
Section 1
Introduction
This section briefly describes the Superfund Innovative Tech-
nology Evaluation (SITE) program and SITE reports; states the
purpose of the innovative technology evaluation report (ITER);
provides background information on the development of the
High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc. (HVEA), elec-
tron beam (E-beam) technology under the SITE program; de-
scribes the E-beam technology; identifies wastes to which this
technology may be applied; and provides a list of key contacts.
1.1 Brief Description of SITE Program
and Reports
This section provides information about the purpose, history,
and goals of the SITE program and about the reports used to
document SITE demonstration results.
1.1.1 Purpose, History, and Goals of the
SITE Program
The primary purpose of the SITE program is to advance the
development and demonstration, and thereby establish the com-
mercial availability, of innovative treatment technologies appli-
cable to Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. The SITE
program was established by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) in
response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), which recognized the need for an alterna-
tive or innovative treatment technology research and demon-
stration program. The SITE program is administered by ORD's
National Risk Management Research Laboratory. The overall
goal of the SITE program is to carry out a program of research,
evaluation, testing, development, and demonstration of alterna-
tive or innovative treatment technologies that may be used in
response actions to achieve more permanent protection of hu-
man health and welfare and the environment.
The SITE program consists of four component programs: (1) the
Demonstration program, (2) the Emerging Technology pro-
gram, (3) the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies pro-
gram, and (4) the Technology Transfer program. This ITER
was prepared under the SITE Demonstration program. The
objective of the demonstration program is to provide reliable
performance and cost data on innovative technologies so that
potential users can assess a given technology's suitability for
specific site cleanups. To produce useful and reliable data,
demonstrations are conducted at hazardous waste sites or under
conditions that closely simulate actual waste site conditions.
Data collected during a demonstration are used to assess the
performance of the technology, the potential need for pretreat-
ment and post-treatment processing of the waste, the types of
wastes and media that may be treated by the technology,
potential operating problems, and approximate capital and op-
erating costs. Demonstration data can also provide insight into
a technology's long-term operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs and long-term application risks.
Each SITE demonstration evaluates a technology's perfor-
mance in treating an individual waste at a particular site.
Successful demonstration of a technology at one site does not
ensure its success at other sites. Data obtained from the demon-
stration may require extrapolation to estimate a range of operat-
ing conditions over which the technology performs satisfacto-
rily. Also, any extrapolation of demonstration data should be
based on other information about the technology, such as
information available from case studies.
Implementation of the SITE program is a significant, ongoing
effort involving ORD, OSWER, various EPA regions, and
private business concerns, including technology developers and
parties responsible for site remediation. The technology selec-
tion process and the demonstration program together provide
objective and carefully controlled testing of field-ready tech-
nologies. Innovative technologies chosen for a SITE demon-
stration must be pilot- or full-scale applications and must offer
some advantage over existing technologies; mobile technolo-
gies are of particular interest. Each year the SITE program
sponsors demonstrations of about 10 technologies.
1.1.2 Documentation of SITE
Demonstration Results
The results of each SITE demonstration are reported in four
documents: the demonstration bulletin, technology capsule,
technology evaluation report (TER), and ITER.
The demonstration bulletin provides a two-page description of
the technology and project history, notification that the demon-
stration was completed, and highlights of demonstration re-
sults. The technology capsule provides a brief description of the
project and an overview of the demonstration results and con-
-------
elusions. The purpose of the TER is to consolidate all informa-
tion and records acquired during the demonstration. It contains
both a narrative portion and tables and graphs summarizing
data. The narrative portion includes discussions of
predemonstration, demonstration, and postdemonstration ac-
tivities as well as any deviations from the demonstration quality
assurance project plan (QAPP) during these activities and their
impact. The data tables and graphs summarize test results in
terms of whether project objectives and applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARAR) were met. The tables
also summarize quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
data and data quality objectives. The TER is not formally
published by EPA. Instead, a copy is retained as a reference by
the EPA project manager for responding to public inquiries and
for recordkeeping purposes. The purpose of the ITER is dis-
cussed in Section 1.2.
In addition to the four documents, a videotape is also prepared
that displays and discusses the technology, demonstration site,
equipment used, tests conducted, results obtained, and key
contacts. The videotape is typically about 15 minutes long.
1.2 Purpose of the ITER
Information presented in the ITER is intended to assist Super-
fund decision makers evaluating specific technologies for a
particular cleanup situation. Such evaluations typically involve
the nine remedial technology feasibility evaluation criteria,
which are listed in Table 1-1 along with the sections of the
ITER where information related to each criterion is discussed.
The ITER represents a critical step in the development and
commercialization of a treatment technology. The report dis-
cusses the effectiveness and applicability of the technology and
analyzes costs associated with its application. The technology's
effectiveness is evaluated based on data collected during the
SITE demonstration and from other case studies. The applica-
bility of the technology is discussed in terms of waste and site
characteristics that could affect technology performance, mate-
Table 1-1. Correlation Between Superfund Feasibility Evaluation Criteria
and ITER Sections
Evaluation Criterion"
ITER Section
Overall protection of human health
and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility,
or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
2.2.1 through 2.2.8 ,
2.2.2 through 2.2.4, 2.2.7,
and 2.2.8
1.4 and 2.2.5 through 2.2.8
2.2.1 and 2.2.3 through 2.2.5
2.2.1 through 2.2.4,2.2.7,
and 2.2.8
1.4,2.2.9, and 2.4
3.0
1.4,2.2.2 through 2.2.6,
and 2.9
22.1 through 22.6 and 2.9
•Source: EPA 1988b
rial handling requirements, technology limitations, and other
factors.
1.3 Background of E-Beam Technology
In the SITE Program
The HVEA E-beam technology was accepted into the SITE
Emerging Technology program in 1990. The Emerging Tech-
nology program promotes technology development by provid-
ing funds to developers with bench- or pilot-scale systems in
order to support continuing research. In March 1993, the HVEA
E-beam system was accepted into the SITE Demonstration
program. The system was demonstrated at the Department of
Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, SC. The
demonstration took place during two different periods totaling
three weeks in September and November 1994.
1.4 Technology Description
This section includes descriptions of the E-beam technology
process chemistry, the HVEA treatment system, and innovative
features of the technology.
1.4.1 Process Chemistry
HVEA developed the E-beam technology to destroy organic
compounds in liquid wastes. This technology irradiates water
(H2O) with a beam of high-energy electrons, causing the forma-
tion of three primary transient reactive species: aqueous elec-
trons (e" ), hydrogen radicals (H-), and hydroxyl radicals (OH-).
Becauseboth strong reducing species (e-aq and H-) and strong
oxidizing species (OH-) are formed in approximately equal
concentrations, multiple mechanisms or chemical pathways for
organic compound destruction are provided by the technology.
As high-energy electrons impact flowing water, the electrons
slow down, lose energy, and react with the water to produce the
three reactive species responsible for organic compound de-
struction as well as hydrogen (H2), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2),
and hydronium ions (H3O+). This reaction is described by
Equation 1-1 (Cooper and others 1993a, 1993b):
H2O + E-beam Et e-aq(2.6) + H-(0.55) + OH-(2.7) +
H2(0.45) + H202(0.71) + H30+ (2.7) (1-1)
Equation 1-1 indicates the estimated relative concentrations of
the reaction products 10'7 seconds after the E-beam impacts the
water. The actual concentrations of reactive species produced
depend on the E-beam dose. Dose is the amount of energy from
the E-beam that is absorbed by the irradiated water per unit
mass. Dose is expressed in kilorads (krad); a krad is defined as
10s ergs of absorbed energy per gram of material.
Equation 1-1 indicates that OH- and e" account for about 90%
of the three primary reactive species formed by the E-beam;
therefore, the chemistry of these two species is of primary
interest for the E-beam technology. According to published
experimental results and computer models that simulate radia-
tion chemistry in water, some compounds are preferentially
destroyed by either OH- or e~ . For example, chlorinated hydro-
carbons such as chloroform are dechlorinated by a reaction with
e"a, which initiates a series of subsequent reduction and oxida-
-------
tion reactions that lead to hydrocarbon mineralization (Cooper
and others 1993a, 19935). Other organic compounds undergo a
variety of reactions with OH-, including addition, hydrogen
abstraction, electron transfer, and radical-radical combination.
In most cases, OH- and e- are initiators of complex reaction
sequences that ultimately result in the destruction of organic
contaminants. However, in some cases OH- and e'm can com-
bine to form the hydroxide ion (OH-).
aq
HVEA has studied byproduct formation during E-beam treat-
ment of water containing trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloro-
cthene (PCE), toluene, and benzene. One investigation showed
that TCE and PCE treatment byproducts include formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, glyoxal, and formic acid. Aldehydes were formed
at concentrations that accounted for less than 1% of the total
organic carbon (TOC). At low E-beam doses (50 krads), formic
acid accounted for up to 10% of the TOC; however, this
percentage decreased at higher doses (greater than 200 krads).
Chloride ion (Ct) mass balances indicated that complete con-
version of organic chlorine to Cr occurred during treatment
(Cooper and others 1993b). Other research indicates that
haloacctic acids, such as chloroacetic acids, may be formed
(Gchringer and others 1988).
In another study, HVEA investigated benzene and toluene
treatment byproducts. Byproducts identified for
benzene include phenol; 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dihydroxy-
benzene; formaldehyde; acetaldehyde; and glyoxal.
Byproducts identified for toluene include o-cresol, formal-
dehyde, acetaldehyde, glyoxal, and methylglyoxal. These
treatment byproducts accounted for less than 9% of the
TOC for benzene and less than 2% of the TOC for toluene at
a dose of 200 krads (EPA 1993; Nickelsen and others 1992).
Some compounds commonly present in water may interact with
the reactive species formed by the E-beam, thereby exerting an
additional demand for reactive species on the system. These
compounds are called scavengers, and they can potentially
impact system performance. A scavenger is defined as any
compound in the water other than the target contaminants that
consumes reactive species (OH-, e~a, and H-). Carbonate and
bicarbonate ions are examples of OH- scavengers found in most
natural waters and wastewaters. Therefore, alkalinity is an
important operating parameter. If the alkalinity is high, influent
alkalinity adjustment may be required to shift the carbonate-
bicarbonate equilibrium from carbonate (a scavenger) to car-
bonic acid (not a scavenger). Other scavengers (and the reactive
species they consume) include oxygen (e- and H-), nitrate ions
(e1^), and methanol (OH-) (Nickelsen and others 1992).
1.4.2 HVEA Treatment System
Figure 1-1 shows a schematic of the HVEA E-beam treatment
system (model M25W-48S). The E-beam system is housed in
an 8- by 48-foot trailer and is rated for a maximum flow rate of
50 gallons per minute (gpm). The E-beam system includes the
following components: a strainer basket, an influent pump, the
E-beam unit, a cooling air processor, a blower, and a control
console (not shown in Figure 1-1). These components are situ-
ated in three separate rooms: the pump room, process room,
and control room. The pump room contains all ancillary equip-
ment for the E-beam unit for both water and air handling; the
process room contains the radiation-shielded E-beam unit it-
self; and the control room contains the control console where
system operating conditions are monitored and adjusted.
During the SITE demonstration, the influent pump transferred
contaminated groundwater from an equalization tank to the
E-beam unit. A strainer basket located upstream of the influent
pump removed particulates larger than 0.045 inch from the
influent to prevent them from interfering with operation of the
influent pump and other components of the treatment system.
The E-beam unit is made up of the following components: an
electron accelerator, a scanner, a contact chamber, and lead
shielding. The electron accelerator produces the E-beam. Within
the electron accelerator, a stream of electrons is emitted when
an electric current (beam current) is passed through a tungsten
wire filament. The number of electrons emitted per unit time is
proportional to the beam current. The electron stream is accel-
erated by applying an electric field at a specified voltage and is
focused into a beam by collimating devices. The electron
accelerator used for the demonstration is capable of generating
an accelerating voltage of 500 kilovolts (kV) and a beam
current of between 0 and 42 milliamperes (mA). The accelerat-
ing voltage determines the energy (speed) of the accelerated
electrons, which affects the depth to which the E-beam pen-
etrates the water being treated.
A pyramid-shaped scanner located beneath the electron accel-
erator deflects the E-beam, causing it to scan the flowing water
(the E-beam scanner operation is similar to the scanner opera-
tion in a television set). Contaminated groundwater is pumped
through the contact chamber, which is located beneath the
scanner.
The extent to which VOCs are destroyed depends primarily on
the E-beam dose. E-beam dose is a function of several param-
eters including the density and thickness of the water stream;
E-beam power, which is a function of beam current and acceler-
ating voltage; and the time the water is exposed to the E-beam,
which depends on the flow rate. Of these parameters, HVEA
typically adjusts beam current and flow rate to change the dose.
In some cases, the thickness of the water stream may also be
modified in order to achieve site-specific performance require-
ments.
A titanium window separates the scanner from the contact
chamber. This window is necessary to maintain a vacuum in the
scanner; the vacuum is required to minimize E-beam energy
losses. As the E-beam passes through the titanium window,
some of the E-beam's energy is absorbed by the window. This
energy absorption is manifested in the form of heat. The tita-
nium window is cooled by chilled air. Cooling air exiting the
contact chamber flows through a cooling air processor and is
returned to the contact chamber by a blower.
During the SITE demonstration, the cooling air processor in-
cluded an air filter, a carbon adsorber, and an air chiller. The air
filter is normally used to remove particulates from the cooling
air. However, during the demonstration the air filter was not
operated because, according to HVEA, no particulates were
-------
E-bear unit
Electron
accelerator
Lead shield
Scanner
Contact change
Treated
jS water
Influent
sampling Effluent
port sampling ,--
port .•''
Influent pump
Strainer basket
Water line
Cooling air
Contaminated
groundwater
Cooling air processor
Figure 1-1. HVEA E-Beam treatment system schematic.
expected to be present in the cooling air. The carbon adsorber
was used to destroy the ozone (O3) that is formed in the cooling
air when it is exposed to the E-beam in the contact chamber. O3
must be removed from the cooling air to prevent corrosion in
the air lines and the blower. According to HVEA, any volatile
organic compounds (VOC) present in the cooling air as a result
of incidental VOC volatilization in the contact chamber are
destroyed by the E-beam. Vapor phase VOCs that are not
destroyed by the E-beam may be removed by the carbon
adsorber. Since the completion of the demonstration, HVEA
has replaced the carbon adsorber with an O3 destruction unit.
The air chiller was used to cool the air. According to HVEA,
under normal operating conditions, cooling air is recirculated in
a closed loop through the contact chamber and cooling air
processor. When the E-beam system is operated, both the
influent pump and the blower run continuously. If either water
or cooling air flow stops, the system automatically shuts down.
Lead shielding surrounds the E-beam unit to prevent x-ray
emissions. X-rays are formed when the E-beam contacts vari-
ous internal stainless steel surfaces. As an added safety mea-
sure, the process room is inaccessible during system operation.
Resistance temperature devices (RTD) are used to measure the
temperature of groundwater before and after treatment. HVEA
uses the change in water temperature to estimate the E-beam
dose according to established equations defining the relation-
ship between dose and temperature change (Nickelsen and
others 1992). The HVEA E-beam system is configured with
two RTDs immediately upstream and two RTDs immediately
downstream from the contact chamber. Output from the RTDs
is fed into a computer in the control room for processing and
recordkeeping.
Contaminated water flow rate is monitored at a point upstream
from the contact chamber. Flow rate is manually adjusted in the
pump room and is measured by a flow meter.
1.4.3 Innovative Features of the
Technology
Common methods for treating groundwater contaminated with
solvents and other organic compounds include air stripping,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption, biological treatment, and
chemical oxidation. As regulatory requirements for secondary
wastes and treatment byproducts become more stringent and
more expensive to comply with, technologies involving free
radical chemistry offer a major advantage over other treatment
techniques: these technologies destroy contaminants rather
than transfer them to another medium, such as activated carbon
-------
or the ambient air. Also, technologies involving free radical
chemistry offer faster reaction rates than other technologies,
such as some biological treatment processes. According to
HVEA, in its system the entire sequence of reactions between
organic compounds and reactive species occurs in the area
where the E-beam impacts the water and is completed in
milliseconds.
The E-beam technology generates strong reducing species (e"
and H-) and strong oxidizing species (OH-) simultaneously and
in approximately equal concentrations. Because three reactive
species are formed, multiple mechanisms or chemical pathways
for organic compound destruction are provided. In this way, the
E-beam technology differs from other technologies that involve
free radical chemistry. Such technologies typically rely on a
single organic compound destruction mechanism, usually one
involving OH.
The E-beam system does not generate residue, sludge, or spent
media that require further processing, handling, or disposal.
Target organic compounds are either mineralized or broken
down into low molecular weight compounds. When complete
destruction occurs at high E-beam doses, reactive species react
with contaminants to produce intermediate species that are
ultimately oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2), water, and salts.
However, at low to intermediate doses, incomplete oxidation
results in formation of low molecular weight aldehydes, or-
ganic acids, and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC).
Table 1-2 compares several treatment options for water con-
taminated with VOCs.
1.5 Applicable Wastes
Based on SITE demonstration results and results from other
case studies, the E-beam technology may be used to treat VOCs
and SVOCs in liquids, including groundwater, wastewater,
drinking water, and landfill leachate.
1.6 Key Contacts
Additional information on the HVEA E-beam system, the SITE
program, and the SRS can be obtained from the following
sources:
1. The HVEA E-Beam System
William Cooper
High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc.
9562 Doral Boulevard
Miami, FL 33178
(305) 593-5330
2. The SITE Program
Franklin Alvarez
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7631
3. The SRS
Gene Turner
U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River Field Office
Aiken, SC 29802
(803) 725-3648
Table 1-2 Comparison of Technologies for Treating VOCs in Water
Technology Advantages
Disadvantages
Air stripping
Steam stripping
Air stripping with carbon adsorption of vapors
Air stripping with carbon adsorption of vapors
and spent carbon regeneration
Carbon adsorption
Biological treatment
Chemical oxidation
E-beam system
Effective for high concentrations;
mechanically simple; relatively
inexpensive
Effective for all concentrations
consumption
Effective for high concentrations
Effective for high concentration;
no carbon disposal costs; product
can be reclaimed
Low air emissions; effective
for high concentrations
Low air emissions; relatively
inexpensive
disposal required
No air emissions; no secondary
waste; VOCs destroyed
such as O3 and H2O2
No secondary waste; multiple
mechanisms for VOC destruction;
no chemicals (such as O3 or H2O2)
required
Inefficient for low concentrations;
VOCs discharged to air
VOCs discharged to air; high energy
Inefficient for low concentrations; requires
disposal or regeneration of spent carbon;
relatively expensive
Inefficient for low concentrations;
high energy consumption
Inefficient for low concentrations; requires
disposal or regeneration of spent carbon;
relatively expensive
Inefficient for high concentrations; slow
rates of removal; sludge treatment and
Not cost-effective for high contaminant
concentrations; may require chemicals
High electrical energy consumption; not
cost-effective for high contaminant
concentrations; relatively expensive
10
-------
Section 2
Technology Effectiveness and Applications Analysis
This section addresses the effectiveness and applicability of the
E-beam technology for treating water contaminated with or-
ganic compounds. Vendor claims regarding the effectiveness
and applicability of the E-beam technology are included in
Appendix A. Because the SITE demonstration provided exten-
sive data on the HVEA E-beam system, this evaluation of the
technology's effectiveness and potential applicability to con-
taminated sites is based mainly on the demonstration results,
which are presented in this section. However, the demonstra-
tion results are supplemented by data from other applications of
the E-beam technology, including a study conducted in Ger-
many with the HVEA system used for the SITE demonstration
and other studies conducted by HVEA under the SITE Emerg-
ing Technology program using synthetic wastes. This section
summarizes the additional performance data. More details on
the German study are presented in Appendix B.
This section also provides an overview of the SITE demonstra-
tion and discusses the following topics regarding the applicabil-
ity of the E-beam technology: factors affecting technology
performance, site characteristics and support requirements, ma-
terial handling requirements, technology limitations, potential
regulatory requirements, and state and community acceptance.
2.1 Overview of E-Beam Technology
SITE Demonstration
The E-beam technology demonstration was conducted at the
DOE SRS in Aiken, SC, during two different periods totaling
three weeks in September and November 1994. During the
demonstration, about 70,000 gallons of M-area groundwater
contaminated with VOCs was treated. The principal groundwa-
ter contaminants were TCE and PCE, which were present at
concentrations of about 27,000 and 11,000 micrograms per liter
(Hg/L), respectively. The groundwater also contained low lev-
els (40 ug/L) of cis-l,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE). Before treat-
ment, groundwater was pumped from a recovery well into a
7,500-gallon equalization tank to minimize any variability in
influent characteristics. Treated groundwater was stored in a
10,000-gallon tank before being pumped to an on-site air
stripper, which was treating contaminated groundwater from
the demonstration area.
During a portion of the E-beam technology demonstration, the
groundwater was spiked with VOCs not present in the M-area
groundwater. The resultant influent concentrations ranged from
about 100 to 500 |Jg/L for the following spiking compounds:
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA); 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA); chloroform; carbon tetrachloride (CC14); and benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and p-xylene (BTEX). Saturated VOCs
(1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, chloroform, and CC14) were chosen as
spiking compounds because they are relatively difficult to
destroy using technologies such as the E-beam technology that
involve free radical chemistry. BTEX were chosen because
they are common groundwater contaminants at Superfund and
other contaminated sites.
For the SITE technology demonstration, TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE,
and the spiking compounds were considered to be critical
VOCs.
The following sections describe the project objectives for the
E-beam technology demonstration, the demonstration approach
that was followed to meet the project objectives, and the
sampling and analytical procedures that were used.
2.1.1 Project Objectives
Project objectives were developed based on EPA's understand-
ing of the E-beam technology and the HVEA system, SITE
Demonstration program goals, and input from the technology
developer. The E-beam technology demonstration had both
primary and secondary objectives. Primary objectives were
considered to be critical for the technology evaluation. Second-
ary objectives involved collection of additional data that were
useful, but not critical, to the technology evaluation. The tech-
nology demonstration objectives listed below are numbered
and are designated by the letters "P" for primary and "S" for
secondary.
The primary objectives of the technology demonstration were
as follows:
PI Determine the removal efficiencies (RE) for critical
VOCs in groundwater achieved by the HVEA treat-
ment system at different doses
P2 Determine whether the treated water meets the appli-
cable target levels listed in Table 2-1 at a significance
level of 0.05
P3 Evaluate the change in groundwater acute toxicity
after treatment at a significance level of 0.05
P4 Evaluate flie reproducibility of treatment system per-
formance in terms of RE and ability to meet applicable
target effluent levels
11
-------
Table 2-1. System Effluent Target Levels"
voc
TCE
PCE
1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
1,2-DCA
Chloroform
CCI4
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes1
SDWA Levels"
(ug/U
[5]
[5]
70
200
[51
100
[5]
[5]
1,000
700
10,000
F039 Levels0
(W3/L)
54
56
[54]
[54]
59
[46]
57
140
[80]
[57]
[320]
NPDES Discharge Limits'1
Qig/L)
5
5
NAe
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•The most stringent level for each VOC was considered to be the target level for the SITE
technology demonstration. The most stringent levels are identified in brackets.
"Concentration levels established by the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
'Concentration levels established by guidelines for multisource leachate (liquids that have
percolated through land-disposed wastes: hazardous waste code F039) (Code of Federal
Regulations Title 40 [40 CFR] Part 268 1992)
d National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted daily average concentra-
tions in discharges from the SRS M-area
«NA » Not available; no discharge limits for these VOCs are included in the M-area NPDES
permit
' Although p-xylene was used to spike the groundwater during the technology demonstration,
the effluent target level is for total xylenes (o, m, and p isomers). Therefore, total xylene results
are presented in this report.
P5 Estimate capital and O&M costs for treating ground-
water contaminated with VOCs
The secondary objectives of the technology demonstration were
as follows:
S1 Document the concentrations of potential E-beam treat-
ment byproducts in groundwater
S2 Document the concentrations of VOCs, O3, and hydro-
gen chloride (HC1) in cooling air before and after the
carbon adsorber
S3 Determine the REs for critical VOCs in groundwater
and whether the effluent meets applicable target levels
(at a significance level of 0.05) for the HVEA treat-
ment system operated at the maximum or minimum
limiting flow rate (50 or 15 gpm, respectively)
S4 Determine the REs for critical VOCs in groundwater
and whether the effluent meets applicable target levels
(at a significance level of 0.05) for the HVEA treat-
ment system during treatment of groundwater with
moderately high alkalinity (500 milligrams per liter
[mg/L] as calcium carbonate [CaCO3])
S5 Document observed operating problems and their reso-
lutions
2.1.2 Demonstration Approach
The technology demonstration was conducted in five phases.
Thirteen test runs were performed during these five phases to
evaluate the performance of the HVEA treatment system. Dur-
ing each run, influent characteristics or operating parameters
were changed to collect information to meet project objectives.
The demonstration approach is summarized in Table 2-2 and
described below.
During Phase 1, beam current, one of the principal operating
parameters, was varied to observe how E-beam dose affects
treatment system performance at a constant flow rate of 40
gpm. Three runs were conducted during Phase 1 using unspiked
groundwater.
During Phase 2, spiked groundwater was used to collect infor-
mation on treatment system performance in destroying VOCs
other than those present in the M-area groundwater. Two runs
were performed using different beam currents and a constant
flow rate of 40 gpm. Phase 2 also included a zero dose run to
identify reductions in VOC concentrations resulting from mecha-
12
-------
Table 2-2. Demonstration Approach for the HVEA E-Beam Technology
Run No.
Groundwater
Beam Current
(mA)
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Project Objectives
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Unspiked
Unspiked
Unspiked
Spiked
Spiked
Spiked
Spiked
Spiked
Spiked
Spiked
Unspiked
Spiked
Spiked
Phase 1: Unspiked Groundwater Tests
7 Ua
14 U
42 U
Phase 2: Spiked Groundwater Tests
17 U
21 U
0.5 U
Phase 3: Reproducibility Tests
U
U
U
Phase 4: Flow Rate Test
U
42
42
42
40
40
40
40
40
40
20
20
20
42
15
Phase 5: Improved Delivery System Tests
42
42
42
U
U
500 mg/L
20
20
20
P1, P2, S2, and S5
P1.P2.S2, and S5
P1.P2, P5.S2, andSS
P1.P2.P3.S2, and S5
P1.P2.P3.S2, and S5
P1.P2.S2, and S5
P1.P2, P3, P4, S2,andS5
P1, P2, P3, P4, S4, S2, and S5
P1.P2, P3, P4, S1,S2,andS5
P1.P2.S2, S3, and S5
P1.P2, P3, S1,andS5
P1.P2, P3,S1,andS5
P1.P2, P3, P5, S4,andS5
aU = unadjusted (about 5 mg/L)
nisms other than VOC destruction by the E-beam (for example,
volatilization).
Phase 3 tested the reproducibility of HVEA system perfor-
mance for treating spiked groundwater. Three runs were per-
formed under identical operating conditions, which were deter-
mined based on preliminary treatment results from Phases 1
and 2.
Phase 4 consisted of one run whose purpose was to evaluate
HVEA system performance at the minimum limiting flow rate
(15 gpm) of the system used for the demonstration. The mini-
mum flow rate was chosen because preliminary results from
Phases 1,2, and 3 indicated that the HVEA system did not meet
effluent target levels at higher flow rates and using maximum
beam current.
Phase 5 began four weeks after Phase 4 was completed. The
interval between Phases 4 and 5 gave HVEA time to evaluate
preliminary results from Phases 1 through 4 and conduct addi-
tional studies on spiked and unspiked groundwater from M-
area recovery well RWM-1 to determine Phase 5 operating
conditions. Based on information from the test runs and addi-
tional studies, HVEA adjusted the influent delivery system to
improve overall treatment system performance. This was ac-
complished by increasing the dose without increasing the beam
current or lowering the flow rate.
To evaluate the effect of the improved delivery system in Phase
5, HVEA selected the same flow rate (20 gpm) and beam
current (42 mA) as were used in the reproducibility runs. Of the
three Phase 5 runs, one used unspiked groundwater; one used
spiked groundwater; and one used alkalinity-adjusted, spiked
groundwater. Alkalinity was adjusted in one run because car-
bonate and bicarbonate ions scavenge OH-, potentially affect-
ing VOC RE. During this run, a sodium bicarbonate solution
was added to the influent to adjust alkalinity from less than (<)
5 mg/L to about 500 mg/L as CaCO3, which is within the
typical range of groundwater alkalinity levels in the U.S.
2.1.3 Sampling and Analytical Procedures
During the demonstration, groundwater samples were collected
at E-beam influent and effluent sampling locations, and cooling
air samples were collected before and after the carbon adsorber.
Each test run lasted about three hours, and four groundwater
sampling events were conducted at 45-minute intervals during
each test run. Groundwater samples for VOC analysis were
collected during each sampling event so that average influent
and effluent concentrations could be calculated based on four
replicate data points. Groundwater samples for other analyses
were typically collected during two of the sampling events.
Groundwater samples were collected during all runs for VOC
and pH analyses. Groundwater samples were collected during
selected runs for analysis for SVOCs, haloacetic acids, alde-
hydes, H2O2 (effluent only), TOC, purgeable organic carbon
(POC), total inorganic carbon (TIC), total organic halides (TOX),
chloride, alkalinity, and acute toxicity. Influent and effluent
samples were analyzed using EPA-approved methods such as
those found in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste and
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA
13
-------
1990 and EPA 1983, respectively) or other standard or pub-
lished methods (APHA 1992; Boltz and Howell 1979).
During Runs 1 through 10, cooling air samples were collected
and analyzed for VOCs, O3, and HC1 using an on-site Fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) interferometer. Cooling air samples
were not collected during Runs 11, 12, and 13 (Phase 5)
because of high costs associated with maintaining the FTIR
interferometer in the field during the 4-week interval between
Phases 4 and 5. This approach did not affect project objectives
because cooling air was analyzed only for noncritical param-
eters to meet a secondary objective. On-site measurements of
flow rate, beam current, and power consumption were recorded
during all runs.
In all cases, EPA-approved sampling, analytical, and QA/QC
procedures were followed to obtain reliable data. These proce-
dures are described in the QAPP written specifically for the
E-beam technology demonstration (PRC1994) and are summa-
rized in the TER, which is available from the EPA project
manager (see Section 1.6).
2.2 SITE Demonstration Results
This section summarizes the results from the E-beam technol-
ogy SITE demonstration for both critical and noncritical pa-
rameters and discusses the effectiveness of the E-beam technol-
ogy in treating groundwater contaminated with VOCs. Table 2-
3 presents the range of critical VOC concentrations in the
influent to the E-beam unit for unspiked and spiked test runs.
Performance data collected during the demonstration are pre-
sented in this section in tabular and graphic form. In most cases,
the reported data are based on average values from replicate
sampling events. In some cases, samples were analyzed at two
dilutions; when this occurred, the results for the lower dilution
were used to calculate the average value. For influent samples
with analyte concentrations at nondetectable levels, the detec-
tion limit was used as the estimated concentration when the
average value was calculated. For effluent samples with analyte
Table 2-3. VOC Concentrations in Unspiked and Spiked
Qroundwater Influent
VOC
TCE
PCE
1 ,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
1,2-DCA
Chloroform
CCI4
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Unspiked Groundwater
(H9/L)
25,000 to 30,000
9,200 to 12,250
40 to 43
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Spiked Groundwater
(H9/L)
25,000 to 37,000
9,2001014,000
<40 to 45
200 to 500
210 to 840
240 to 650
150 to 400
220 to 550
170 to 360
95 to 250
85 to 200
•ND- Not detected
concentrations at nondetectable levels, one-half the detection
limit was used as the estimated concentration when the average
value was calculated. If all replicate effluent samples had
nondetectable concentrations of any analyte, the detection limit
was used as the average value, the RE was reported as a greater-
than (>) value, and the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) was
not calculated.
After the demonstration data were reviewed, it was determined
that more than one approach should be used to handle
nondetectable influent and effluent values to calculate aver-
ages. For influent nondetectable values, the detection limit was
used in place of the nondetectable value. Although this ap-
proach deviates from typical environmental engineering prac-
tice, which is to use one-half the detection limit for nondetectable
values, using the full detection limit is more appropriate in this
case because (1) there is less variability in influent concentra-
tions than in effluent concentrations and (2) 50% or more of the
influent samples had VOC concentrations above the detection
limit. For example, in about 50% of the influent samples (28 out
of 52 samples collected in 13 runs), the concentration of 1,2-
DCE was reported as nondetectable (the detection limit is 40
u.g/L); in the remaining samples, this compound was present at
concentrations of up to 50 u.g/L. For effluent nondetectable
values, however, using the typical practice for handling
nondetectable values is more appropriate. This is the case
because the effluent data have greater variability as a result of
E-beam treatment and because the data are more limited (the
effluent data from all the runs cannot be pooled together
because the operating conditions generally varied from run to
run).
Analytical results presented for cooling air samples are average
concentrations measured before the carbon adsorber and after
the carbon adsorber. The average values were calculated based
on two sampling events about 45 minutes apart. Each sampling
event included two scans, and each scan consisted of about 200
signals representative of analyte concentrations.
The remainder of this section is organized according to the
project objectives stated in Section 2.1.1. Specifically, Sections
2.2.1 through 2.2.4 address the primary objectives except for
objective P5 (estimation of costs), which is discussed in Section
3. Sections 2.2.5 through 2.2.9 address secondary objectives.
2.2.1 VOC REs at Different Doses
Table 2-4 summarizes the VOC REs for unspiked and spiked
groundwater runs conducted at different E-beam doses. As
discussed in Section 2.4.2, HVEA controls dose by adjusting
the beam current, the flow rate, and the thickness of the water
stream impacted by the E-beam. In HVEA's system, the beam
current is controlled directly from the control panel, the flow
rate is controlled by manually adjusting the influent pump, and
the thickness of the water stream is controlled by the influent
delivery system.
During Phase 1, unspiked groundwater was treated at three
different doses. For these runs, the dose was varied by changing
the beam current, while the flow rate remained constant. As
shown in Table 2-4, REs for TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE increased
14
-------
Table 2-4. VOCREs
VOC RE (%}*
voc
TCE
PCE
1,2-DCE
1,1,1-TCA
1 ,2-DCA
Chloroform
CCI4
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Phase 1
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
80" = 7 BC = 14 BC = 42
FR° = 40 FR = 40 FR = 40
73 92 97
50 83 96
>53 >83 >90
Phase 2
Run 4
BC=17
FR = 40
91
76
NAd
17
25
24
46
96
>97
>93
>91
Run 5
BC = 21
FR = 40
93
87
>85
33
30
28
73
98
>96
>94
>93
Phase 3
Runs 7, 8, and 9
BC = 42
FR=20
94 to 96
95
85 to >91
61 to 62
60 to 65
56 to 57
89 to 91
93 to 97
95 to 96
95 to 97
>93to95
Phase 5
Run 11 Run 12
BC = 42 BC = 42
FR = 20 FR = 20
>99 98
99 99
>91 >88
73
70
68
>97
>98
>98
>97
>96
1 REs for the zero dose run (Run 6), the flow rate run (Run 10) and alkalinity-adjusted run (Run 13) are discussed in Sections 2.2.6,2.2.7, and
2.2.8, respectively.
b BC = beam current (mA)
c FR = flow rate (gpm)
d NA = not applicable (because 1,2-DCE was not detected in any sample collected during Run 4)
when the beam current was increased. A similar effect was
observed during Phase 2, which involved spiked groundwater.
The dose was increased further during Phase 3 by lowering the
flow rate from 40 to 20 gpm and increasing the beam current to
the maximum level (42 mA); corresponding increases in REs
were observed, particularly for spiked compounds. Finally, for
Phase 5, HVEA adjusted the delivery system, and these adjust-
ments increased the dose although the beam current and flow
rate were set at the same levels as were used for Phase 3. HVEA
considers information regarding the delivery system to be pro-
prietary. Phase 5 results indicate that the delivery system ad-
justments increased REs for most VOCs. In fact, the operating
conditions during Phase 5 generally yielded the highest REs
observed during the demonstration.
Table 2-4 also shows that in all spiked groundwater runs, REs
for TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE, and BTEX were much higher than
REs for 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, chloroform, and CC14. The dif-
ference in system performance for these two groups of VOCs is
due to the presence of double bonds between carbon atoms in
TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE and aromatic bonds between carbon
atoms in BTEX, which makes these compounds more amenable
to oxidation by free radicals generated by the E-beam. Further-
more, regarding the saturated chlorinated compounds, REs for
CC14 were consistently higher than REs for 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-
DCA, and chloroform. This effect may be a consequence of the
relatively large number of chlorine atoms in CC14. The four
chlorine atoms facilitate CC14 destabilization and are good
"leaving groups" in the presence of free radicals; therefore,
CC14 may be easier to oxidize than similar compounds with
fewer chlorine atoms.
2.2.2 Compliance with Applicable Effluent
Target Levels
Applicable effluent target levels are summarized in Table 2-1.
Compliance with these target levels was evaluated by compar-
ing the 95% UCL of the effluent VOC concentrations during
Runs 11 and 12 with the most stringent effluent target levels
(see Table 2-5). A 95% UCL could not be calculated for some
VOCs because the effluent concentration was below the detec-
tion limit. However, in all such cases, the detection limit was
below the effluent target level.
Table 2-5 shows that the HVEA treatment system achieved the
effluent target levels for 1,2-DCE, CC14, and BTEX. Effluent
target levels were not achieved for 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, and
chloroform when these compounds were present at spiked
levels (230, 440, and 316 u.g/L for 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, and
chloroform, respectively). Effluent target levels were also not
achieved for TCE and PCE when they were present at existing
levels in M-area groundwater (27,000 and 11,000 jjg/L for TCE
and PCE, respectively).
Only effluent concentrations for Runs 11 and 12 are shown in
Table 2-5 because the HVEA treatment system displayed the
best overall performance in terms of REs during these
runs. However, effluent target levels were met for toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes during the reproducibility runs (see
Figure 2-4 in Section 2.2.4).
15
-------
Table 2-5, Compliance with Applicable Effluent Target Levels
95%UCLfor
Effluent Concentration
Effluent Target Level (ng/L)
Table 2-6. Acute Toxicity Data
LC50(%)
voc
TCE
PCE
1,2-DCE«
1,1,1-TCA
1,2-DCA
Chloroform
CCI4
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes*
(U9/L)
5
5
54
54
5
46
5
5
80
57
320
Run 1 1 •
190
100
4U»
NA°
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Run 12
1,100
250
4U
83
180
130
4U
4U
4U
4U
4U
* Influent concentrations for 1,2-DCE and xylenes were below the
effluent target levels (see Table 2-3)
h U » analyte not detected in the treatment system effluent at or above
(he value shown
« NA « not applicable (because the analyte was not detected in the
treatment system Influent)
2.2.3 Effect of Treatment on Groundwater
Toxicity
During Phases 2, 3, and 5, bioassay tests were performed to
evaluate the change in acute toxicity of the groundwater after
treatment by the HVEA system. Two common freshwater test
organisms, a water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and a fathead
minnow (Pimephales promelas), were used in the bioassay
tests. Toxicity was measured as the concentration at which 50%
of the organisms died (LC50) and was expressed as the percent-
age of influent or effluent in the test water. One influent sample
and one effluent sample from each run were tested.
Table 2-6 presents the bioassay test results for influent and
effluent samples from Runs 4 and 5; the reproducibility runs;
and Runs 11, 12, and 13 (Phase 5). These results show that
some influent samples and all effluent samples were acutely
toxic to both test organisms. The change in groundwater toxic-
ily resulting from treatment by the HVEA system was evalu-
ated statistically using data from the reproducibility runs. Spe-
cifically, the mean difference between the influent and effluent
LC50 values was compared to zero using a two-tailed paired
Student's t-test. The null hypothesis was that the mean differ-
ence between influent and effluent LC50 values equaled zero at
a 0.05 significance level. The critical t value at this significance
level with two degrees of freedom is 4.303. The calculated t
values for the water flea and fathead minnow were 1.47 and
31.6, respectively. These results indicate that treatment by the
E-beam technology statistically increased groundwater toxicity
for the fathead minnow but not for the water flea.
As noted above, influent and effluent samples for bioassay
testing were collected during Runs 11,12, and 13, which were
conducted after HVEA adjusted the influent delivery system to
increase the dose. Although toxicity data for these runs cannot
be statistically evaluated because the influent characteristics
Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas
Run" Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
4
5
7"
8"
9b
11
12
13
35
68
>100
17
16
37
37
>100
8.8
18
17
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
<6.2
12
72
100
>100
>100
>100
89
83
>100
8.6
15
8.8
16
18
8.8
9.8
54
a Runs 7,8, and 9 were the reproducibility runs (Phase 3). Runs 11,
12, and 13 were conducted after HVEA adjusted the influent delivery
system (Phase 5). Run 11 was conducted with unspiked
groundwater, Run 12 was conducted with spiked groundwater, and
Run 13 was conducted with alkalinity-adjusted, spiked groundwater.
b Using data from the three reproducibility runs, a two-tailed paired
Student's t-test with a 0.05 significance level was performed for each
organism. The null hypothesis was that the mean difference between
the influent and effluent LC50 values equaled zero. For LC50 values
shown as >100 and <6.2,100 and 6.2 were used to calculate the
mean difference. The calculated t values were 1.47 and 31.6 for
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas, respectively.
were different, the data suggest that the difference between the
influent and effluent LC50 values decreased for fathead min-
nows. For fathead minnows, the increase in toxicity resulting
from E-beam treatment (the difference between influent and
effluent LC50 values) in Run 12 was less than the average
increase in toxicity in Runs 8 and 9. This fact may be related to
the higher VOC REs and reduced byproduct formation achieved
when the dose was increased by adjusting the influent delivery
system for Run 12. However, for water fleas, the LC50 data
could not be compared because the increases in LC50 values
resulting from E-beam treatment were not observed to be
absolute values (that is, all observations were > values).
Published reports indicate that H2O2 generated by technologies
involving free radicals may contribute to effluent toxicity (EPA
1993). The average effluent H2O2 concentration was 8.0 mg/L
during the reproducibility runs and 8.9 mg/L during Phase 5
runs (see Section 2.2.5 for detailed H2O2 data). Literature data
indicate that the LC50 for H2O2 for the water flea is about 2 mg/
L. Because no statistically significant increase in acute toxicity
for the water flea was observed during E-beam treatment de-
spite high levels of H2O2 in the effluent, it is likely that any
increase in toxicity associated with H202 was counteracted by a
decrease in toxicity resulting from VOC removal. The fathead
minnow is less sensitive to H2O2 than the water flea. The
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP)
reported an LC50 value of 18.2 mg/L of H2O2 with 95%
confidence limits of 10 and 25 mg/L for the fathead minnow
(CDEP 1993). Therefore, the statistically significant increase in
acute toxicity for the fathead minnow during E-beam treatment
is more likely to have been caused by residual VOCs or
treatment byproducts than by H2O2
16
-------
2.2.4 Reproduclbility of Treatment System
Performance
VOC REs in the Phase 3 reproducibility runs (Runs 7,8, and 9)
are shown in Figure 2-1. This figure shows that the REs for all
VOCs were reproducible. The maximum difference among REs
for the three runs occurred for 1,2-DCA, for which REs ranged
from 60% to 65%, and 1,2-DCE, for which REs ranged from
85% to >91%. However, for other VOCs, the REs differed by
only 2% to 3% for the three runs. The ranges of VOC REs
during the Phase 3 reproducibility runs are shown in Table 2-4.
Figures 2-2,2-3, and 2-4 show the average Phase 3 influent and
effluent concentrations for unsaturated VOCs (TCE, PCE, and
1,2-DCE), saturated VOCs (1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, chloroform,
and CC14), and BTEX, respectively. During the reproducibility
runs, target effluent levels were met for toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes at a 0.05 significance level; target effluent levels
for other critical VOCs were not met.
2.2.5 Treatment Byproducts and Additional
Parameters
During Runs 8, 9, 11, and 12, samples were collected for
analysis for VOCs and several additional parameters selected to
evaluate formation of treatment byproducts. These additional
parameters included SVOCs, haloacetic acids, aldehydes, TOC,
POC, TIC, TOX, and chloride. The analytical results for the
additional parameters are presented and discussed below.
Samples collected during Runs 8 and 9 were analyzed for
SVOCs. Except for butyl benzyl phthalate, no SVOCs were
detected in the influent or effluent samples. The average butyl
benzyl phthalate concentrations in the influent and effluent
were 21 and 5 u,g/L, respectively. These results showed that no
SVOCs were created during treatment; therefore, samples col-
lected during subsequent runs, which were conducted at equal
or greater doses, were not analyzed for SVOCs.
Several research studies have indicated that haloacetic acids
and aldehydes may be formed during E-beam treatment of
water containing chlorinated and aromatic VOCs (see Section
1.4.1). The sample analytical results for haloacetic acids and
aldehydes are provided in Table 2-7. Three chloroacetic acids
(mono- , di- , and tri-chloroacetic acids) and four aldehydes
(acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, glyoxal, and m-glyoxal) were
formed during treatment. Of these compounds, the mono- and
tri-chloroacetic acids and formaldehyde were detected in the
effluent at levels between 80 and 400 ng/L, and dichloroacetic
acid was present at concentrations between 1,250 and 2,000 ug/
L.
The effluent concentrations of all chloroacetic acids and alde-
hydes were lower during Runs 11 and 12 than during Runs 8
and 9. Research evidence indicates that byproducts such as
chloroacetic acids and aldehydes are results of incomplete VOC
oxidation; therefore, these compounds are more likely to be
present at low to intermediate doses. Thus, the lower byproduct
concentrations measured during Runs 11 and 12 can be attrib-
uted to the greater dose delivered during these runs as a result of
the improved delivery system.
100
80
60
LU
DC
40
20
959595
9591,95 95^96 9595
>93
TCE PCE 1,2-DCE 1,1,1-TCA 1,2-DCA Chloroform CCL Benzene Toluene Ethyl- Xylenes
* benzene
•• Run 7
Note: NAa 1 ,2-DCE was nor detected in Run 7
Run 8 1=1 Run 9
Figure 2-1. VOC REs in reproducibility runs.
17
-------
10 100 1,000
VOC Concentration (ug/L)
^| Influent j | Effluent
Note: NAa 1,2-DCE was not detected in Run 7
Figure 2-2. Average influent and effluent levels for TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE during the reproducibility runs.
10,000
100,000
The other byproduct formed during treatment was H£)r Efflu-
ent samples collected during Runs 4,5,7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13
were analyzed for H2O2. The results from these analyses are
summarized in Table 2-8. The formation of H2O2 was consis-
tent with Equation 1-1, which shows that H2O2 is formed when
the E-beam reacts with water. As with the reactive species, the
concentration of H2O2 formed depends on the dose. The direct
relationship between dose and H2O2 formation can be seen in
Table 2-8. During the technology demonstration, the dose was
gradually increased during each successive phase by changing
various operating parameters. The effluent H2O2 concentrations
generally paralleled the increasing dose, rising from 2.3 mg/L
during Run 5 to 9.5 mg/L during Runs 11 and 12. Although the
operating conditions during Runs 11,12, and 13 were identical,
the effluent H2O2 concentration during Run 13 (the alkalinity-
adjusted run) was lower because of OH- scavenging by bicar-
bonate ions, which may have resulted in decreased formation of
HaOj from OH- combination. Another possibility is that en-
hanced decomposition of H202 occurred at the higher pH asso-
ciated with high alkalinity.
The TOC, POC, and TIC concentrations in influent and effluent
samples collected during Runs 8 and 9 are presented in Table 2-
9. The TOC concentration decreased about 68% during treat-
ment; that is, about 68% of the organic carbon was completely
oxidized to CO,. However, the TOC data do not indicate
whether the organic carbon originated from the VOCs or some
other compounds present in the groundwater.
As shown in Table 2-9, more than 91% of the POC was
removed during treatment. Assuming that most of the organic
carbon associated with VOCs could be measured as POC, the
data show that more than 91% of the volatile organic carbon
was converted to either nonpurgeable organic carbon or CO2.
TIC increased 140 a% nd 65% during Runs 8 and 9, respec-
tively. The increase in TIC does not correspond to the decrease
in TOC because some inorganic carbon was lost during treat-
ment in the form of CO2. The formation of CO2 during treat-
ment was indicated by an increase in TIC (which is equivalent
to CO2at low pH). CO2 formation was enhanced by reductions
in pH during treatment. During Runs 8 and 9, the average
influent pH values were 4.8 and 4.4, respectively, and the
average effluent pH values were 3.0 and 2.8, respectively.
Table 2-9 also shows data for TOX and chloride. The HVEA
system achieved TOX reductions of 76%, 92%, and 93% for
Runs 8, 9, and 12, respectively. The TOX reductions were
generally accompanied by corresponding increases in chloride
concentrations. However, the magnitudes of the TOX and
chloride changes were not equal during all runs, which cannot
be explained at this time.
18
-------
1
<
o
Q
c\t
E
,0
2
o
O
•^-
8
Run?
Run8
Run 9
Run?
Run8
Run 9
Run?
Run8
Run 9
Run?
Run8
Run 9
I7Q
177
183
1120
nan
1160
I19fl
n?n
1140
MR
16
20
1 1 1
1 10 100 1,000
VOC Concentration (yg/L)
I Influent
Effluent
Figure 2-3. Average influent and effluent levels for 111-TCA, 1,2-DCA, chloroform, and CCI4 during the reproducibility runs.
2.2.6 VOC Volatilization and Air Phase
Byproduct formation
VOC volatilization and air phase byproduct formation during
treatment were investigated by measuring the influent and
effluent VOC concentrations under zero dose conditions and
measuring the concentrations of VOCs, O3, and HC1 in cooling
air before and after the carbon adsorber. The results of these
investigations are discussed below.
VOC Volatilization Under Zero Dose Conditions
During Run 6, spiked groundwater was pumped at 40 gpm
through the E-beam unit when the beam current was off; the
resting beam current is about 0.5 mA, which produces a negli-
gible dose. Table 2-10 shows the REs for critical VOCs during
Run 6. The REs for TCE, PCE, and ethylbenzene were about
50%; the REs for other critical VOCs, except 1,2-DCA and
chloroform, ranged between 4% and 25%. These data indicate
that some VOCs were volatilized as contaminated groundwater
flowed through the E-beam unit.
The effluent concentrations of 1,2-DCA and chloroform were
14% and 8% higher, respectively, than the influent concentra-
tions, suggesting that these compounds were formed during the
run. The apparent increase in concentrations is probably associ-
ated with sampling and analytical precision for these VOCs.
Air Phase Byproduct Formation
Table 2-11 summarizes the average concentrations of VOCs
and several inorganic compounds in cooling air before and after
the carbon adsorber during Runs 1 through 10. The VOCs
include all critical VOCs and phosgene; the inorganic com-
pounds include O3, HC1, carbon monoxide (CO), CO2, nitrous
oxide (N2O), and H2O. The analytical data for these compounds
are discussed below.
VOCs in Cooling Air Before and After the Carbon
Adsorber
Table 2-11 shows that all critical VOCs except xylene were
detected in the cooling air both before and after the carbon
adsorber. In general, during Run 6 the critical VOC concentra-
tions in the cooling air were much higher than during other
runs. Because Run 6 was performed at negligible beam current
(0.5 mA) and at the highest flow rate (40 gpm), water phase
VOC concentrations in the E-beam unit were much higher than
those in any other run and therefore provided a greater driving
force for volatilization. The VOC concentration data for other
runs show that 1,2-DCA was present at the highest level in Run
10 before the carbon adsorber (5.72 parts per million by volume
[ppmv]) and that TCE was present at the highest level in Run 7
after the carbon adsorber (4.27 ppmv).
19
-------
Xytenes Ethylbenzene Toluene Benzene
Run?
Run8
Run 9
Run?
Run8
Run 9
Run?
RunS
Run 9
Run?
RunS
Run 9
1 11
I 8
MR
i K*
1 7
1 Q
16
- 1 5
\Q
,1 6
. 1 6
1 R
10 100
VOC Concentration (ug/L)
Influent I I Effluent
1,000
Figure 2-4. Average influent and effluent levels for BTEX during the reproducibility runs.
Table 2-7. E-Beam Treatment Byproduct Data
Influent
Concentration'
Parameter
Monocntoroacetic acid
Dichloroacetic acid
Trfehloroacetic acid
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Qlyoxal
m-Glyoxal
(ug/L)
2
1.2
1
1.7
5
1
1
RunS
360
1,800
340
5.0
100
19
4.0
Effluent Concentration (ug/L)
Run 9
380
2,000
390
6.5
100
23
4.5
Run 11
290
1,300
295
1.0
82.5
8.5
1.0
Run 12
325
1,250
265
4.5
81
10
5.5
• Influent concentrations were measured only during Runs 8 and 9, and the average values
are reported in this table.
The concentrations of critical VOCs that were present in the
cooling air at levels greater than 2 ppmv during at least one run
are plotted in Figures 2-5 through 2-8. The concentration
profiles for TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCA, and toluene are dissimilar. In
addition, in several cases the VOC concentrations after the
carbon adsorber were higher than those before the carbon
adsorber. For example, the 95% confidence intervals for TCE
shown in Figure 2-5 indicate that in 7 out of 10 runs, TCE
concentrations after the carbon adsorber were significantly
higher than those before the carbon adsorber. A similar obser-
vation was made, though less frequently, for PCE. However,
the concentrations of 1,2-DCA and toluene were not signifi-
cantly different before and after the carbon adsorber.
Table 2-11 shows that phosgene was also consistently detected
during all runs except Run 6. The highest concentrations of
phosgene detected were 4.93 and 3.86 ppmv in the cooling air
before and after the carbon adsorber, respectively. Figure 2-9
shows that phosgene was present whenever CO was present in
the cooling air, although the correlation is not proportional in
20
-------
Table 2-8. Effluent H2O2 Concentrations
Operating Parameters
Run No.
4
5
7
8
9
11*
12"
13a
Flow Rate
(gpm)
40
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
Beam Current
(mA)
17
21
42
42
42
42
42
42
Effluent H2O2
(mg/L)
2.3
3.8
8.2
7.9
7.9
9.5
9.5
7.8
a Runs 11,12, and 13 were conducted after HVEA adjusted the influent
delivery system to increase the dose from that used during the
reproducibility runs (Runs 7,8, and 9).
Table 2-9. Carbon, TOX, and Chloride Concentrations
all cases. In industrial practice, phosgene is typically formed by
passing a mixture of CO and chlorine over activated carbon.
During the demonstration, CO was present in the cooling air
during all runs at concentrations up to 37.6 ppmv. The lowest
concentration of CO was 0.22 ppmv during Run 6, when no
phosgene was detected. Because the concentrations of chlorine
in the cooling air were not measured, the data are not adequate
to verify how the phosgene was formed. However, Holden and
others (1993) report chlorine, CO, and phosgene as some of the
byproducts of TCE oxidation in the vapor phase. This indicates
that during the demonstration, phosgene could have formed as a
result of E-beam air phase reactions in the cooling air or as a
result of a reaction between CO and chlorine on the activated
carbon surface in the cooling air processor.
The lack of consistent trends in VOC data could be the result of
a combination of several factors, including the following:
(1) cooling air is recirculated, possibly resulting in a buildup of
compounds during a run and over several runs; (2) several
chemical reactions could have occurred in the air phase within
the E-beam unit and on the activated carbon surface; and (3) the
cooling air processor and lines were not airtight, as was evi-
denced by a smell of O3 in the pump room throughout the
demonstration (see Section 2.2.9).
Carbon. TOX. and Chloride Concentrations fmq/D
Parameter
TOG
POC
TIC
TOX
Chloride
Influent
12
11
2.0
8.0
4.0
Run 8
Effluent
3.8
<1.0
4.8
1.9
44
Influent
14
12
3.5
28
3.0
Run 9
Effluent
4.5
<1.0
5.8
2.1
41
Run 12
Influent Effluent
Not measured during Run 12
Not measured during Run 12
Not measured during Run 12
33 2.4
Not measured during Run 12
Table 2-10. VOC REs Under Zero
Dose Conditions
VOC"
RE (%)
TCE
PCE
1,1,1-TCA
1,2-DCA
Chloroform
CCI4
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
46
61
3.7
(14)b
(8.3)
9.1
11
25
50
5.6
81,2-DCE was not detected in the
influent during the zero-dose run.
"Values in parentheses represent
negative REs.
O3 in Cooling Air Before and After the Carbon Adsorber
O3 was consistently detected in the cooling air during all runs.
Figure 2-10 shows the O3 concentrations before and after the
carbon adsorber. The concentrations of O3 before the carbon
adsorber were relatively high compared to the concentrations
after the carbon adsorber, however, the carbon adsorber did not
eliminate O3 in the cooling air stream. The concentrations of O3
were observed to be highest during Run 10 (22.81 ppmv before
the carbon adsorber and 16.21 ppmv after the carbon adsorber).
During Run 6, when the E-beam dose was negligible, the O3
concentrations were lowest (less than 0.02 ppmv both before
and after the carbon adsorber).
HCI in Cooling Air Before and After the Carbon
Adsorber
HCI was detected in relatively small concentrations before and
after the carbon adsorber. The HCI probably resulted from
mineralization of chlorinated organics in the vapor phase dur-
ing treatment by the E-beam system.
21
-------
Table 2-11. Cooling Air Characteristics
Before the Carbon Adsorber (ppmv)'
VOCs
Inorganics
Run
No. TCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.86"
1.40
3.60
1.22
1.06
84.4
1.75
1.08
1.26
0.96
PCE
4.16"
2.28
1.75
1.65
1.03
32.3
0.73
0.60
0.76
0.55
1,1,1-
TCA
<0.05*
0.11
0.10
0.52
0.36
1.05
<0.04
<0.05
<0.14
<0.15
1,2-
DCA
<0.23b
<0.08
<0.08
0.35
0.26
0.20
0.13
<0.21
3.69
5.72
Chloro-
form
0.46"
0.68
0.25
1.17
0.85
1.21
0.32
0.21
0.17
0.26
CCI4
0.22
0.50
0.80
0.45
0.49
1.05
0.80
0.83
0.87
0.91
Benzene
<0.35b
<0.11
<0.16
<0.07
<0.04
1.09
<0.03
0.12
<0.10
<0.10
Ethyl- p-
Toluene benzene Xylene
0.46
0.5 ppmv.
•"The result may be biased high or low because it was measured without the scrubber operating. (The data quality impact cannot be quantified.)
Other Compounds in Cooling Air Before and After the
Carbon Adsorber
The cooling air also contained CO, CO2, H2O, and N2O (see
Table 2-11 and Figure 2-9). The concentrations of CO re-
mained at similar levels during all runs except Run 6. The
concentrations of CO2 and H2O did not vary significantly
between runs. The concentrations of N2O generally increased as
dose increased during Runs 1 through 5 and 7 through 10; the
lowest N2O concentrations were observed during Run 6 (the
zero dose run).
2.2.7 Flow Rate Test
During Run 10, the flow rate was reduced from 20 to 15 gpm,
which is the minimum limiting flow rate for the HVEA system
used in the SITE demonstration. As discussed in Section 1.4.2,
flow rate and E-beam dose are inversely related; that is, the
dose increases when the flow rate is reduced. Therefore, any
change in system performance that occurred when the flow rate
was reduced cannot be attributed to hydraulic effects only.
Except for flow rate, the influent characteristics and operating
conditions for Run 10 and for the reproducibiliry runs were the
same. Therefore, the effect of operating the system at the lowest
possible flow rate can be evaluated by comparing the VOC RE
results from Run 10 to the average VOC REs during the
reproducibility runs (see Figure 2-11). Lowering the flow rate
by 5 gpm increased the REs for 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, and
chloroform 8% to 10%. The impact on the REs for other critical
VOCs was not significant (less than 2%). Consequently, HVEA
returned the flow rate to 20 gpm for Phase 5 so that the results
for Runs 11, 12, and 13 could be compared to those for the
reproducibility runs.
2.2.8 Alkalinity-Adjusted Spiked
Groundwater Test
The effect of alkalinity on VOC REs was tested during Run 13,
which was identical to Run 12 except that the alkalinity was
increased from 5 to 500 mg/L as CaCO3 by adding sodium
bicarbonate to the influent. The runs were conducted under
identical operating conditions using spiked groundwater, al-
though the concentrations of some spiked VOCs were about
80% higher during Run 13 than during Run 12. The VOC REs
for Runs 12 and 13 are shown in Figure 2-12. REs changed less
than 2% for TCE, PCE, CC14, and BTEX after alkalinity
22
-------
i
I
'
••
§ 2
§
O
4.27
3.86
3.22
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6-
7
8
9
10
95% Confidence
Before
3.59-4.12
1.38-1.41
3.59-3.62
1.22-1.23
1.05-1.06
83.77-85.01
1.73-1.77
1.07-1.10
1.21-1.32
0.87-1.05
Interval (ppmv)
After
3.19-3.59
1.62-1.65
1.99-2.02
1.63-1.64
1.43-1.44
68.38-68.91
4.24-4.29
2.45-2.48
3.17-3.28
1.80-1.85
5 7
Run number
Before B| After I 1
Note: a Run 6 data are not plotted on the graph
Figure 2-5. TCE levels before and after the carbon adsorber.
10
5r
Q.
O
1
0
4.16
1
5 7
Run number
Before H After | |
Note: a Run 6 data are not plotted on the graph
Figure 2-6. PCE levels before and after the carbon adsorber.
0.83
8
95% Confidence
Run No. Before
1 4.13-4.18
2 2.27-2.30
3 1.74-1.76
4 1.64-1.66
5 1.02-1.03
6» 32.09-32.54
7 0.72-0.74
8 0.59-0.61
9 0.74-0.78
10 0.54-0.57
1.16
0.76J 0.73
H 0.55 p-
• i M '
Interval (ppmv)
After
3.24-3.28
1.82-1.85
0.82-0.84
1.51-1.52
0.87-0.88
26.11-26.37
1.13-1.15
0.82-0.84
1.14-1.18
0.71-0.74
10
23
-------
10
0.1
0.01
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
95% Confidence
Before
0.00-0.46
0.00-0.16
0.00-0.15
0.30-0.41
0.23-0.29
0.14-0.26
0.00-0.26
0.00-0.42
3.07-4.32
4.32-7.12
Interval (ppmv)
After
0.00-0.45
0.00-0.11
0.00-0.18
0.29-0.38
0.18-0.23
0.11-0.20
0.00-0.27
0.00-0.45
3.10-4.32
0.00-0.46
<0.23 <0.23
5.72
3.69 37
Note:
10
Run number
Before m After | |
a For values preceded by a "<", a nondetect was recorded and the graph shows the dectction limit.
Run 6 data are not plotted on the graph.
Figure 2*7. 1,2-DCA levels before and after the carbon adsorber.
adjustment. However, REs for other critical VOCs appear to
have been impacted by the higher alkalinity. Specifically, REs
for 1,1,1-TCA and chloroform increased 8% and 12%, respec-
tively, while the RE for 1,2-DCA decreased 13%.
The changes in RE for different VOCs may be attributed to
different destruction mechanisms. If the alkalinity is high,
carbonate and bicarbonate ions scavenge OH-. During Run 13,
the influent and effluent pH was 7.6 and 7.1, respectively. At
this pH, bicarbonate is the predominant form of inorganic
carbon. The loss of OH- to scavengers effectively results in
higher REs for VOCs destroyed by chemical pathways involv-
ing H- or e" as opposed to VOCs destroyed by chemical
pathways involving OH-. The rate constant for the reaction
between a VOC and a reactive species can be used as a relative
indicator of the preferred destruction pathway. During Run 13,
the REs for three VOCs were significantly affected by the
increased alkalinity: 1,1,1-TCA, chloroform, and 1,2-DCA. Of
these three VOCs, rate constants for reactions with OH-, H-, and
e- are known only for chloroform (5.0 x 10&, 1.1 x 107,and3.0
x 10'° M-'s1', respectively) (Buxton and others 1988). The
relative orders of magnitude between these rate constants indi-
cate that chloroform is primarily destroyed by e~ as opposed to
OH-. This explains why the RE for chloroform increased when
the alkalinity (in other words, the bicarbonate concentration)
was increased.
2.2.9 Operating Problems
HVEA system's operation was observed throughout the tech-
nology demonstration to record problems and their resolutions.
Some of the problems were directly related to the system's
operation, while others were specific to the demonstration
activities. The problems and their resolutions are described
below.
Run 1 was preceded by a startup run that was performed under
conditions identical to those for Run 1, including the use of
unspiked groundwater. During the startup run, a significant
number of bubbles were observed in the influent to the HVEA
system. These bubbles were caused by evolution of dissolved
gases in the groundwater as it was pumped to the surface. At the
request of HVEA, the bubbles were dissipated upstream of the
E-beam unit by pumping the groundwater through a 500-gal-
lon, covered tank with a 3-foot freeboard. According to HVEA,
the E-beam system has not been tested using water containing
bubbles; therefore, the effect of bubbles on system performance
is unknown. This approach did not significantly affect influent
VOC concentrations, and all influent VOC samples were col-
lected beyond the covered tank.
24
-------
10
>
1
c
O
O
0.1
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6»
7
8
9
10
95% Confidence
Before
0.26-0.66
0.00-0.51
0.00-1 .09
0.36-0.91
0.00-0.76
0.69-1.20
0.97-1.57
0.00-1.00
3.38-4.97
2.93-3.74
Interval (ppmv)
After
0.23-0.62
0.23-0.66
0.00-0.74
0.29-0.76
0.40-0.76
0.51-0.95
0.63-1.13
0.00-0.76
2.65-4.13
2.27-2.98
4.17
3.33
0.46
10
Run number
Before |^| After | |
Note: a For each value preceded by a "
-------
Run number
26,7
25.7L
37.611
33.6L
26.5 •
23.5T
29.91
28.41
26.5 •
23.4L
14.3!
12.9L
23.7 •
21.6L
24.8 •
23.3L
19.7L
100
1 r-
10 1
CO concentration (ppmv)
Before jjf^ After | |
0.1 0.1
Phosgene concentration (ppmv)
Before H After | |
Note: a Run 6 data are not plotted on the graph.
CO
95% Confidence Interval {ppmv)
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6*
7
8
9
10
Before
26.66-30.73
33.80-41.37
25.63-27.27
28.35-31.40
24.17-28.81
0.17-0.27
13.12-15.51
22.96-24.49
24.04-25.56
20.12-22.62
After
23.84-27.59
30.24-37.01
22.76-24.15
27.07-29.78
21.33-25.44
0.21-0.33
11.83-13.93
20.91-22.23
22.59-23.96
18.52-20.87
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6*
7
8
9
10
Phosgene
95% Confidence
Before
4.85-5:02
3.47-3.60
0.73-0.76
2.32-2.40
1.06-1.11
0.00-0.57
0.48-0.51
0.42-0.44
0.49-0.52
0.18-0.23
Interval (ppmv)
After
3.80-3.93
2.21-2.29
0.50-0.52
1.55-1.61
0.72-0.75
0.00-0.22
0.30-0.33
0.33-0.34
0.36-0.40
0.20-0.23
Figure 2-9. CO and phosgene levels before and after the carbon adsorber.
E-beam unit contracted during the cold night. As the ambient
air temperature rose on the following day, the gaskets ex-
panded and the vacuum was restored.
2.3 Additional Performance Data
This section summarizes performance data for the E-beam
technology in addition to the data collected during the SITE
demonstration. Provided below are the significant results from
one study conducted in Germany using the HVEA trailer-
mounted system and from two other studies conducted using
an E-beam system permanently installed at the Virginia Key
(Central District) Wastewater Treatment Plant in Miami, FL.
Additional details on the study performed in Germany using the
HVEA system are presented in Appendix B.
In December 1994, several treatability studies were conducted
in Halle-Dieskau, Germany, using the HVEA trailer-mounted
E-beam treatment system. In one of the studies, 270 gallons of
petroleum refinery process wastewater containing phenol, BTEX,
and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) was treated to
evaluate the effectiveness of the E-beam system. The wastewa-
ter was treated in recirculation mode at a flow rate of 25 gpm
and a beam current of 40 mA for about 45 minutes. The highest
REs for phenol, total BTEX, and total PAHs were observed to
be 99.1%, >99.2%, and >99.5%, respectively. The treated
26
-------
95% Confidence Interval (ppmv)
100r
I
to
c
10
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6"
7
8
9
10
Before
4.02-4.07
15.48-15.82
13.25-13.55
12.20-12.37
19.08-19.61
0.00-0.04
13.03-13.37
16.79-17.16
11.51-12.12
22.38-23.24
After
1.88-1.92
10.09-10.32
7.63-7.79
8.39-8.50
11.69-11.84
0.00-0.03
7.03-7.28
12.20-12.44
5.85-6.47
15.91-16.50
19.3
22.8
15.7
4.1
5 7
Run number
Before
Note: a Run 6 data are not plotted on the graph.
Figure 2-10. O3 levels before and after the carbon adsorber.
10
After [_'" |
wastewater met German wastewater regulatory limits for phe-
nol, BTEX, and PAHs.
Under the SITE Emerging Technology program, HVEA per-
formed several experiments at the Virginia Key Plant using an
electron accelerator operated at 1.5 million volts and a maxi-
mum beam current of 50 mA. The experiments were conducted
using potable water and wastewater spiked with TCE and PCE.
The objectives of these experiments were to test the effects of
water quality, solute concentration, and E-beam dose on REs
for TCE and PCE and on formation of reaction byproducts. The
results showed that the E-.beam dose required to remove 99% of
the TCE and PCE was less for potable water than for wastewa-
ter. PCE removal required a higher dose than TCE removal
under equivalent conditions. The results also showed that the
presence of up to 3% suspended solids in the form of clay had
no significant effect on the removal of TCE or PCE compared
to solutions that had no clay. Aldehydes and formic acid were
identified as reaction byproducts (EPA 1992).
In another study conducted under the Emerging Technology
program, HVEA performed several experiments to evaluate the
removal of benzene and toluene from aqueous solutions as a
function of solute concentration, E-beam dose, pH, total solids
content, and byproduct formation. These experiments were also
conducted at the Virginia Key Plant. The results showed that
the REs for benzene and toluene were not affected by solution
pH. Also, the presence of 3% kaolin clay did not appear to
significantly affect the RE for either benzene or toluene. The
reaction byproducts identified for benzene removal included
phenol; 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dihydroxybenzene; formaldehyde;
acetaldehyde; and glyoxal. The reaction byproducts identified
for toluene removal included o-cresol, formaldehyde, acetalde-
hyde, glyoxal, and methylglyoxal (EPA 1993).
2.4 Factors Affecting Performance
Several factors influence the effectiveness of the E-beam tech-
nology. These factors can be grouped into three categories:
(l)feed waste characteristics, (2) operating parameters, and
(3) maintenance requirements. These categories are discussed
in the following sections.
2.4.1 Feed Waste Characteristics
The E-beam technology is applicable for treatment of VOCs
and SVOCs in groundwater, wastewater, drinking water, and
27
-------
100
80
60
in
oc
40
20
96 96^96 n, 96
TCE PCE 1.2-DCE 1;1,1-TCA 1,2-DCA Chlorofofm CCL Benzene Toluene Ethyl- Xylenes
* benzene
•• Average RE at 20-gpm flow rate (during reproducibility runs)
i—i RE at 15-gpm flow rate (Run 10)
Figure 2-11. Flow rate test results for VOC REs.
100
80
60
p 98gj 9999
w
oc
>98
40
20
TCE PCE 1,2-DCE 1,1,1-TCA 1,2-DCA Chloroform CCL Benzene Toluene Etri^ Xylenes
benzene
m Alkalinity unadjusted (<5 mg/L as CaCO3)
i i Alkalinity adjusted (500 mg/L as CaCOs)
Figure 2-12. Effect of alkalinity on VOC REs.
28
-------
landfill leachate. Under a given set of operating conditions,
contaminant REs depend on the chemical structure of the .
contaminants. REs are high for organic contaminants with
double bonds (such as TCE, PCE, and 1,2-DCE) and aromatic
compounds (such as BTEX), because these compounds are
easy to oxidize. Organic contaminants without double bonds
(such as 1,1,1-TCA, chloroform, and 1,2-DCA) are not easily
oxidized and are thus more difficult to remove.
If the feed waste cannot be treated to meet treatment goals in
one pass and if the waste is provided by a source that allows for
controlled, intermittent feeding to the E-beam system, the sys-
tem can operate in a batch recycle mode. Operation in mis
mode allows multiple exposures of highly contaminated wastes
to the E-beam, thereby improving overall system performance.
However, if the feed waste is provided by a continuous source,
such as a groundwater extraction system, operating in the batch
recycle mode may not be feasible at high influent flow rates.
Some compounds commonly present in water may interact with
the reactive species formed by the E-beam, thereby exerting an
additional demand for reactive species on the system. These
compounds are called scavengers, and they may impact system
performance. A scavenger is defined as any compound in the
water other than the target contaminants that consumes reactive
species (OH-, e" , and H-)- Carbonate and bicarbonate ions are
examples of OH- scavengers found in most natural waters.
Therefore, alkalinity is an important operating parameter. If the
alkalinity is high, influent alkalinity adjustment may be re-
quired to shift the carbonate-bicarbonate equilibrium from car-
bonate (a scavenger) to carbonic acid (not a scavenger). Other
scavengers (and the reactive species they consume) include
oxygen (e'a and H-), nitrate ions (e- ), and methanol (OH-)
(Nickelsen'and others 1992).
Other influent characteristics of concern include the presence of
suspended solids and air bubbles. Fine suspended solids not
captured by the strainer basket may clog the influent delivery
system for the E-beam unit. According to HVEA, the E-beam
system has not been tested using water containing bubbles and
the effect of bubbles on system performance is unknown.
However, during the technology demonstration HVEA requested
that the bubbles be removed from the influent.
2.4.2 Operating Parameters
Operating parameters are those parameters that can be varied
during the treatment process to achieve desired REs and treat-
ment goals. The principal factor affecting E-beam system per-
formance is the E-beam dose. Although dose cannot be directly
varied or measured, it is a function of several other parameters
that can be directly adjusted and measured. Dose depends on
E-beam power, which is a function of beam current and acceler-
ating voltage; how long the water is exposed to the E-beam,
which depends on the flow rate; and the thickness of the water
stream exposed to the E-beam. Of these parameters, HVEA
typically adjusts beam current and flow rate to change the dose.
In some cases, the thickness of the water stream may also be
adjusted to achieve site-specific performance requirements.
As the beam current passes through a tungsten wire filament
within the electron accelerator, a stream of electrons is emitted
that comprises the E-beam. The number of electrons emitted
per unit time is proportional to the beam current. Therefore, for
a given flow rate, dose is increased by increasing the beam
current, which increases the number of electrons impacting the
liquid and, consequently, the number of reactive species formed.
The electron accelerator in the HVEA system used for the SITE
demonstration is capable of generating a maximum beam cur-
rent of about 42 mA. The beam current is adjusted and moni-
tored at the control panel in the E-beam trailer control room.
Flow rate through the treatment system determines how long
the water is exposed to the E-beam. In general, increasing the
exposure time (decreasing the flow rate) improves treatment
efficiency by increasing the number of reactive species formed
as more high-speed electrons impact a discrete volume of
water. According to HVEA, the E-beam system used during the
demonstration cannot be operated below a minimum flow rate
of 15 gpm. If treatment goals are not met at this flow rate,
treatment efficiency can be improved by increasing the beam
current or adjusting the influent delivery system. The flow rate
provided by the influent pump is monitored and adjusted in the
E-beam trailer pump room.
The voltage applied to the E-beam affects the depth to which
the E-beam penetrates the water being treated. At a given
E-beam penetration depth, the portion of flowing water directly
irradiated by the beam depends on the thickness of the flowing
water. The thickness of the flowing water can be controlled by
adjusting the influent delivery system for the E-beam unit. The
internal components of the delivery system and its dimensions
are proprietary information;
2.4.3 Maintenance Requirements
The maintenance requirements for the E-beam system summa-
rized in this section are based on direct observations and
discussions with HVEA during and after the SITE demonstra-
tion. This section addresses only maintenance requirements for
components specific to the E-beam technology and not general
maintenance requirements for support components. Regular
maintenance by trained personnel is essential for successful
operation of the E-beam system. A summary of the mainte-
nance requirements for the titanium window gasket, electro-
static filter, air chiller, and influent delivery system is provided
below.
The gasket that seals the titanium window may need to be
replaced periodically, particularly if the E-beam system is not
operated continuously during cold weather. The gasket is nec-
essary to maintain the vacuum in the scanner. The gasket is
heated considerably by the E-beam during operation of the
system and then cools when the system is shut down. As the
gasket expands and contracts with these temperature changes,
the airtight seal can be broken and the vacuum lost. When this
occurs, the gasket and titanium window may need to be re-
placed.
The electrostatic filter in the cooling air processor was not
operated during the demonstration. However, when it is oper-
ated, the filter requires periodic maintenance to remove and
dispose of the particulates removed from the cooling air and
collected on the filter. Similarly, the air chiller in the cooling air
29
-------
processor collects condensate from the cooling air that requires
periodic removal. Although not observed during the demonstra-
tion, the condensate may be treated by the E-beam unit.
The influent delivery system may require periodic maintenance
if suspended solids in the influent are small enough to pass
through the strainer basket. If these solids are deposited in the
delivery system, the system becomes clogged and requires
cleaning to remove the solids.
2.5 Site Characteristics and Support
Requirements
In addition to feed waste characteristics and effluent discharge
requirements, site characteristics and support requirements are
important when considering the E-beam technology. Site-specific
factors can impact the application of the E-beam technology,
and these factors should be considered before selecting the
technology for remediation of a specific site. Site-specific
factors addressed in this section include site access, area, and
preparation requirements; climate; utility and supply require-
ments; required support systems; and personnel requirements.
According to HVEA, both transportable and permanently in-
stalled E-beam systems are available (see Section 4, Technol-
ogy Status, and Appendix A, Vendor's Claims for the Technol-
ogy). The support requirements for these systems are likely to
vary. This section presents support requirements based on the
information collected for the trailer-mounted system used dur-
ing the SITE demonstration.
2.5.1 Site Access, Area, and Preparation
Requirements
The site must be accessible for a tractor-trailer truck with an 8-
by 48-foot trailer weighing about 35 tons. An area of 8 by 48
feel must be available for the trailer that houses the E-beam
system, and additional space must be available to allow person-
nel to move freely around the outside of the trailer. The area
containing the E-beam trailer should be paved or covered with
compacted soil or gravel to prevent the trailer from sinking into
soft ground. The trailer is equipped with a 500-gallon influent
holding tank and three effluent holding tanks with a total
capacity of 200 gallons, but space outside the trailer may be
required for additional influent and effluent holding tanks if
more holding capacity is needed. Also, an additional area may
be required for an office or laboratory building or trailer.
During the demonstration, an area of about 100 by 70 feet was
used for the E-beam trailer, a 7,500-gallon equalization tank, a
mobile laboratory trailer, an office trailer, an outdoor staging
area, and miscellaneous equipment
The E-beam trailer is equipped with influent and effluent ports
on the exterior trailer wall. The influent port is plumbed to an
influent pump in the pump room that is rated for a maximum
flow rate of 50 gpm, and die effluent port is plumbed from the
effluent holding tanks. Plumbing must be provided to the
influent port from the groundwater well or other feed waste
source and from the effluent port to the discharge point.
2.5.2 Climate
All components of the E-beam system used for the demonstra-
tion are housed inside the trailer, which provides protection
from rain and snow. The trailer is equipped with air condition-
ing and heating to protect personnel and equipment from ex-
treme temperatures. If the E-beam system is operated intermit-
tently during cold weather, heating is necessary to prevent
interior pipes from freezing and to prevent components of the
system from contracting and causing air leaks, which can result
in loss of the vacuum in the E-beam unit. If below-freezing
temperatures are expected for a long period, influent storage
tanks and associated plumbing outside the trailer should be
insulated or kept in a heated shelter. The E-beam system
components should also be protected from heavy precipitation.
2.5.3 Utility and Supply Requirements
The E-beam system may be operated using 480-volt, 3-phase
electrical service. The E-beam trailer is also equipped with a
diesel-powered generator that allows the system to be operated
without an external electrical source. Additional electrical ser-
vice may be needed to operate groundwater extraction well
pumps, light office and laboratory buildings, and on-site office
and laboratory equipment, as applicable.
HVEA maintains and services its E-beam systems; therefore,
no inventory of spare parts is required.
Complex laboratory services, such as VOC and SVOC analy-
ses, that cannot usually be performed in an on-site field labora-
tory require use of an off-site analytical laboratory for an
ongoing monitoring program.
2.5.4 Required Support Systems
In general, pretreatment requirements for contaminated water
entering the E-beam system are minimal. Depending on influ-
ent characteristics, pretreatment processing may involve one or
more of the following: suspended solids removal, pH adjust-
ment to reduce carbonate and bicarbonate levels, and removal
of air bubbles. These pretreatment requirements are discussed
below.
To prevent problems with solids accumulation, particularly in
the influent delivery system of the E-beam unit, particulates
should be removed from the influent. Depending on paniculate
size and concentration, cartridge filters, sand filters, or settling
tanks may be used to remove suspended solids. Solids removed
from the influent should be dewatered, containerized, and ana-
lyzed to determine whether they should be disposed of as
hazardous or nonhazardous waste.
If the contaminated water contains carbonate and bicarbonate
ions at high levels, pH adjustments may be required. Carbonate
and bicarbonate ions act as oxidant scavengers and present an
additional load to the treatment system. The only material
handling associated with pH adjustment involves handling
chemicals such as acids (for pretreatment) and bases (for post-
treatment, if required for meeting discharge limits). Adjustment
of pH should not create any additional waste streams requiring
disposal.
30
-------
Influent groundwater may contain CO2 or other gases that are
released from solution as bubbles when the groundwater is
depressurized as it is brought to the ground surface. A
nonpressurized influent holding tank must be provided to allow
the bubbles to escape before the influent is pumped under
pressure into the E-beam unit.
Treated water can be disposed of either on or off site. Examples
of on-site disposal options for treated water include groundwa-
ter recharge or temporary on-site storage for sanitary use.
Examples of off-site disposal options include discharge into
surface water bodies, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers. Bioas-
say tests may be required in addition to routine chemical and
physical analyses before treated water is disposed of.
2.5.5 Personnel Requirements
Personnel requirements for the E-beam system are minimal.
Generally, one trained operator is required to conduct a daily
system check. The operator should be capable of performing
the following: (1) starting-up the system, including beam con-
ditioning (a process involving slowly increasing the accelerat-
ing voltage); (2) operating the controls in the control room and
the influent pump in the pump room; (3) operating the
diesel-powered generator if no external electrical source is
available; (4) taking measurements of operational parameters,
including flow rate and parameters displayed on the control
panel; and (5) collecting samples for off-site analyses.
Before operating the E-beam system at a hazardous waste site,
the operator should have completed the training requirements
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) out-
lined in 29 CFR §1910.20, which covers hazardous waste
operations and emergency response. The operator should also
have completed radiation worker training in accordance with 10
CFR Part 20, which covers standards for protection against
radiation. Finally, the operator should participate in a medical
monitoring program as specified under OSHA and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC).
2.6 Material Handling Requirements
Other than the air chiller condensate mentioned in Section
2.4.3, the E-beam system does not generate treatment residuals,
such as sludge or spent filter media, that require further pro-
cessing, handling, or disposal. The E-beam unit and the other
components of the system produce no air emissions that require
special controls. Pretreatment requirements for contaminated
water and post-treatment considerations for treated water are
discussed in Section 2.5.4.
2.7 Technology Limitations
Three limiting factors were identified based on the operation of
the HVEA demonstration unit (Model M25W-48S): limited
operation flow rates, byproduct formation, and operational
problems associated with suspended solids in the influent.
System operation is limited by the minimum and maximum
flow rates at which a single unit can be operated. For example,
during the SITE demonstration, system hydraulics required that
a minimum flow rate of 15 gpm be maintained for the demon-
stration unit. If treatment goals are not met while the system
operates at the minimum flow rate and at maximum beam
current, the dose cannot be further increased to improve system
performance. Such a case would require operating additional E-
beam units in series, obtaining a larger E-beam unit, or adding
pretreatment or post-treatment, any of which would increase
space requirements and costs. According to HVEA, the demon-
stration unit was configured for a maximum flow rate of 50
gpm. Treatment at a higher flow rate would require modifying
the influent delivery system for the unit, operating additional
units in parallel, or obtaining a larger unit rated for a greater
maximum flow rate; the latter two options would increase space
requirements and costs.
Based on research studies performed by HVEA and SITE
demonstration results, toxic byproducts are formed when water
containing chlorinated and aromatic VOCs is treated by the E-
beam system. If byproducts are a concern at a particular site, the
E-beam system would need to be operated in such a way that
byproduct formation would be reduced to acceptable levels.
A third limiting factor involves the presence of suspended
solids in the influent. Fine suspended solids not captured by the
strainer basket might clog the influent delivery system for the
E-beam unit.
2.8 Potential Regulatory Requirements
This section discusses regulatory requirements pertinent to use
of the HVEA technology at Superfund and Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites. The
regulations applicable to implementation of this technology
depend on site-specific remediation logistics and the type of
contaminated liquid being treated; therefore, this section pre-
sents a general overview of the types of federal regulations that
may apply under various conditions. State requirements should
also be considered; because these requirements vary from state
to state, they are not presented in detail in this section. Table 2-
12 summarizes the environmental laws discussed below.
Depending on the characteristics of the liquid to be treated,
pretreatment or post-treatment may be required for successful
operation of the HVEA system. For example, solids may need
to be filtered before treatment; a strainer basket was used to
remove particulates larger than 0.045 inch during the SITE
demonstration. As another example, if the contaminated liquid
exhibits high alkalinity, alkalinity adjustment may be required
so that the VOC RE is not impaired (see Section 1.4). Each
pretreatment or post-treatment process might involve additional
regulatory requirements that would need to be determined in
advance. This section focuses on regulations applicable to the
HVEA system only.
2.8.1 Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by SARA, autho-
rizes the federal government to respond to releases of hazard-
ous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that may present an
imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare.
Remedial alternatives that significantly reduce the volume,
31
-------
Table 2-12. Summary of Regulations
Act/Authority Applicability
Application to HVEA Treatment System
Citation
CERGLA
Superfund sites
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
Superfund and RCRA sites
Discharges to surface
water bodies
Water discharges, water
reinjection, and sole-
source aquifer and wellhead
protection
CAA
TSCA
Air emissions from
stationary and mobile
sources
PCS contamination
This program authorizes and regulates the
cleanup of environmental contamination.
It applies to all CERCLA site cleanups and
requires that other environmental laws be
considered as appropriate to protect human
health and the environment
RCRA defines and regulates the treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
RCRA also regulates corrective action at
generator, treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
NPDES requirements of CWA apply to both
Superfund and RCRA sites where treated
water is discharged to surface water bodies.
Pretreatment standards apply to discharges
to POTWs.
Maximum contaminant levels and contaminant
level goals should be considered when setting
water cleanup levels at RCRA corrective
action and Superfund sites. (Water cleanup
levels are also discussed under RCRA and
CERCLA.) Reinjection of treated water would
be subject to underground injection control
program requirements, and sole sources and
protected wellhead water sources would be
subject to their respective control programs.
If O3 emissions occur or hazardous air
pollutants are of concern, these standards may
be applicable to ensure that air pollution is not
associated with use of this technology. State
air program requirements will be important to
consider.
If PCB-contaminated wastes are treated,
TSCA requirements should be considered
when determining cleanup standards and
disposal requirements. RCRA also regulates
solid waste containing PCBs.
40 CFR Part 300
40 CFR Parts 260 to 270
40 CFR Parts 122 to 125,
Part 403
40 CFR Parts 141 to 149
40 CFR Parts 50, 60,61,
and 70
40 CFR Part 761
AEA and RCRA Mixed wastes
AEA and RCRA requirements apply to the
treatment, storage, and disposal of mixed
waste containing both hazardous and
radioactive components. OSWER and DOE
directives provide guidance for addressing
mixed waste.
AEA (10 CFR) and RCRA
(see above)
OSHA
NRC
All remedial actions
All remedial actions
OSHA regulates on-site construction activities
and the health and safety of workers at
hazardous waste sites. Installation and
operation of the system at Superfund or RCRA
sites must meet OSHA requirements.
These regulations include radiation protection
standards for NRC-licensed activities.
29 CFR Parts 1900 to 1926
10 CFR Part 20
Acronyms used in this table are defined in text.
32
-------
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous materials and provide long-
term protection are preferred. Selected remedies must also be
cost-effective and protective of human health and the environ-
ment. Therefore, Superfund site remediation activities must
comply with environmental regulations to protect human health
and the environment during and after remediation.
Treatment of contaminated liquid using the HVEA system will
generally take place on site, while effluent discharge may take
place either on or off site. CERCLA requires that on-site
actions meet all substantive state and federal ARARs. Substan-
tive requirements (for example, effluent standards) pertain di-
rectly to actions or conditions in the environment. Off-site
actions must comply with both substantive and administrative
ARARs. Administrative requirements (such as permitting) fa-
cilitate implementation of substantive requirements. Subject to
specific conditions, EPA allows ARARs to be waived for on-
site actions. Six ARAR waivers are provided for by CERCLA:
(1) interim measures waiver, (2) equivalent standard of perfor-
mance waiver, (3) greater risk to health and the environment
waiver, (4) technical impracticability waiver, (5) inconsistent
application of state standard waiver, and (6) fund-balancing
waiver. The justification for a waiver must be clearly demon-
strated (EPA 1988a). Off-site remediations are not eligible for
ARAR waivers, and all applicable substantive and administra-
tive requirements must be met.
CERCLA requires identification and consideration of environ-
mental laws mat are ARARs for site remediation before imple-
mentation of a remedial technology at a Superfund site. Addi-
tional regulations pertinent to use of the HVEA system are
discussed in the following sections. No direct air emissions or
residuals (such as sludge) are generated by the HVEA treatment
process. Condensate is generated from the cooling air when it
enters the air chiller, but HVEA states that this liquid can be
recirculated through the system. Therefore, only regulations
addressing contaminated liquid storage, treatment, and dis-
charge; potential fugitive air emissions; and additional consid-
erations are discussed below.
2.8.2 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments of 1984, regulates management and disposal of munici-
pal and industrial solid wastes. EPA and RCRA-authorized
states (listed in 40 CFR Part 272) implement and enforce
RCRA and state regulations. Some of the RCRA requirements
under 40 CFR Part 264 generally apply at CERCLA sites that
contain RCRA hazardous waste because remedial actions gen-
erally involve treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous
waste.
According to HVEA, the E-beam system can treat liquid con-
taminated with most organic compounds, including solvents,
pesticides, PAHs, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Contaminated
liquid treated by the system may be classified as a RCRA
hazardous waste or may be sufficiently similar to a RCRA
hazardous waste that RCRA regulations will be applicable
requirements. For example, HVEA claims that its technology
can treat landfill leachate that meets the hazardous waste char-
acteristics for EPA hazardous waste number F039 (multisource
leachate). The F039 number applies to liquid that has perco-
lated through one or more land-disposed RCRA hazardous
wastes (40 CFR Parts 260 to 299). Criteria for identifying
hazardous wastes are provided in 40 CFR Part 261. Pertinent
RCRA requirements are discussed below.
If the contaminated liquid to be treated is determined to be a
hazardous waste or is sufficiently similar to a hazardous waste.
RCRA requirements for hazardous waste storage and treatment
must be met. The HVEA system may require tank storage of
hazardous waste liquid before treatment. Tank storage of haz-
ardous waste liquid must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part
264 or 265, Subpart J.
RCRA Parts 264 and 265, Subparts AA, BB, and CC, address
air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. Subpart AA regulations apply to process
vents associated with specific treatment operations for wastes
contaminated with organic constituents. Because the HVEA
system has no process vents, these regulations would not be
ARARs. Subpart BB regulations apply to fugitive emissions
(equipment leaks) from hazardous waste treatment, storage.
and disposal facilities that treat waste containing organic con-
centrations of at least 10% by weight. These regulations ad-
dress pumps, compressors, open-ended valves or lines, and
flanges. Subpart BB regulations could be ARARs if fugitive
emissions were found to be associated with the HVEA system.
Although no direct air emissions are associated with the HVEA
treatment process, any organic air emissions from storage tanks
would be subject to the RCRA organic air emission regulations
in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart CC. These regulations
address air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage.
and disposal facility tanks, surface impoundments, and contain-
ers. The Subpart CC regulations were issued in December 1994
and became effective in July 1995 for facilities regulated under
RCRA. Presently, EPA is deferring application of the Subpart CC
standards to waste management units used solely to treat or
store hazardous waste generated on site from remedial activities
required under RCRA corrective action or CERCLA response
authorities (or similar state remediation authorities). Therefore.
Subpart CC regulations would not immediately impact imple-
mentation of the HVEA system. The most important air re-
quirements are probably associated with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and state air toxics programs (see Section 2.8.5).
Use of the HVEA system would constitute treatment as defined
by RCRA (40 CFR §260.10). Therefore, treatment require-
ments may apply if the HVEA system is found to belong to a
treatment category classification regulated under RCRA and if
it is used to treat a RCRA listed or characteristic waste. Treat-
ment requirements under in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart X, which
regulate hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal in
miscellaneous units, may be relevant to the HVEA system.
Subpart X requires that treatment in miscellaneous units be
protective of human health and the environment. Treatment
requirements in 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart Q (Chemical, Physi-
cal, and Biological Treatment), could also apply. Subpart Q
includes requirements for automatic influent shutoff, waste
analysis, and trial tests. RCRA also contains special standards
33
-------
for ignltable or reactive wastes, incompatible wastes, and spe-
cial categories of waste (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart B).
These standards may apply to the HVEA system, depending on
the waste material to be treated.
The HVEA system may also be used to treat contaminated
liquids at RCRA-regulated facilities as part of RCRA correc-
tive actions. Requirements for corrective actions at RCRA-
regulated facilities are included in the regulations of 40 CFR
Part 264, Subparts F and S; these subparts generally apply to
remediation at Superfund sites. The regulations include require-
ments for initiating and conducting RCRA corrective actions,
remediating groundwater, and operating temporary units asso-
ciated with remediation operations (40 CFR Parts 260 to 299).
In states authorized to implement RCRA, any more stringent
state RCRA standards must also be addressed.
2.8.3 Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is designed to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical, and biological quality of navigable
surface waters by establishing federal, state, and local discharge
standards. If treated liquid is discharged to surface water bodies
or publicly owned treatment works (POTW), CWA regulations
apply. On-site discharges to surface water bodies must meet
substantive NPDES requirements but do not require an NPDES
permit. A direct discharge of CERCLA wastewater would
qualify as "on-site" if the receiving water body is in the area of
contamination or in very close proximity to the site and if the
discharge is necessary to implement the response action. Off-
site discharges to a surface water body require an NPDES
permit and must meet NPDES permit discharge limits. Dis-
charge to a POTW is considered to be an off-site activity, even
if an on-site sewer is used. Therefore, compliance with substan-
tive and administrative requirements of the National Pretreat-
ment Program is required in such a case. General pretreatment
regulations are included in 40 CFR Part 403.
Any applicable local or state requirements, such as local or state
pretreatment requirements or water quality standards (WQS),
must also be identified and satisfied. State WQSs are designed
to protect existing and attainable surface water uses (for ex-
ample, recreation and public water supply). WQSs include
surface water use classifications and numerical or narrative
standards (including effluent toxicity standards, chemical-spe-
cific requirements, and bioassay requirements to demonstrate
no observable effect level [NOEL] from a discharge) (EPA
1988a). These standards should be reviewed on a state- and
location-specific basis before discharges are made to surface
water bodies. During the Silt- demonstration, bioassay tests
were conducted to determine whether the treated liquid was
toxic to particular aquatic species. Similar bioassay tests might
be required if the HVEA system is implemented in particular
states and if it discharges treated liquids to surface water
bodies.
2.8.4 Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA, as amended in 1986, required EPA to establish
regulations to protect human health from contaminants in drink-
ing water. EPA has developed the following programs to achieve
this objective: (1) a drinking water standards program, (2) an
underground injection control program, and (3) sole-source
aquifer and wellhead protection programs.
SDWA primary (or health-based) and secondary (or aesthetic)
maximum contaminant levels (MCL) generally apply as cleanup
standards for water that is, or may be, used as drinking water. In
some cases, such as when multiple contaminants are present,
more stringent maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG)
may be appropriate. In other cases, alternate concentration
limits (ACL) based on site-specific conditions may be applied.
CERCLA and RCRA standards and guidance should be used in
establishing ACLs (EPA 1987a). During the SITE demonstra-
tion, HVEA treatment system performance was tested for com-
pliance with SDWA MCLs for several critical VOCs.
Water discharge through injection wells is regulated by the
underground injection control program. Injection wells are
categorized as Classes I through V, depending on their con-
struction and use. Reinjection of treated water involves Class
IV (reinjection) or Class V (recharge) wells and should meet
SDWA requirements for well construction, operation, and clo-
sure. If the groundwater treated is a RCRA hazardous waste,
the treated groundwater must meet RCRA Land Disposal Re-
striction (LDR) treatment standards (40 CFR Part 268) before
reinjection.
The sole-source aquifer and wellhead protection programs are
designed to protect specific drinking water supply sources. If
such a source is to be remediated using the HVEA system,
appropriate program officials should be notified, and any po-
tential regulatory requirements should be identified. State
groundwater antidegradation requirements and WQSs may also
apply.
2.8.5 Clean Air Act
The CAA, as amended in 1990, regulates stationary and mobile
sources of air emissions. CAA regulations are generally imple-
mented through combined federal, state, and local programs.
The CAA includes chemical-specific standards for major sta-
tionary sources that would not be applicable but could be
relevant and appropriate for HVEA system use. For example,
the HVEA system would usually not be a major source as
defined by the CAA, but it could emit O3, which is a criteria
pollutant under the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS). Therefore, the HVEA system may need to be
controlled to ensure that air quality is not impacted. This would
be particularly pertinent in localities that are "non-attainment"
areas for Oy The National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) could also be relevant and appropri-
ate if regulated hazardous air pollutants are emitted and if the
treatment process is considered sufficiently similar to one regu-
lated under these standards. In addition, New Source Perfor-
mance Standards (NSPS) could be relevant and appropriate if
the pollutant emitted and the HVEA system are sufficiently
similar to a pollutant and source category regulated by an
NSPS. Finally, state and local air programs have been delegated
significant air quality regulatory responsibilities, and some
have developed programs to regulate toxic air pollutants (EPA
1989). Therefore, state air programs should be consulted re-
garding HVEA treatment technology installation and use.
34
-------
2.8.6 Toxic Substances Control Act
Testing, premanufacture notification, and record-keeping re-
quirements for toxic substances are regulated under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA also includes storage
requirements for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (see 40
CFR §761.65). The HVEA system may be used to treat liquid
contaminated with PCBs, and TSCA requirements would ap-
ply to pretreatment storage of PCB-contaminated liquid. The
SDWA MCL for PCBs is 0.05 ng/L; this MCL is generally the
treatment standard for groundwater remediation at Super-fund
and RCRA corrective action sites. RCRA LDRs for PCBs may
also apply, depending on PCB concentrations (see 40 CFR Part
268). For example, treatment of liquid hazardous waste con-
taining PCB concentrations equal to or greater than 50 ppm
must meet the treatment requirements of 40 CFR §761.70.
2.8.7 Mixed Waste Regulations
As defined by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and RCRA,
mixed waste contains both radioactive and hazardous compo-
nents. Such waste is subject to the requirements of both acts.
However, when application of both AEA and RCRA regula-
tions results in a situation that is inconsistent with the AEA (for
example, an increased likelihood of radioactive exposure),
AEA requirements supersede RCRA requirements (EPA 1988a).
Use of the HVEA system at sites with radioactive contamina-
tion might involve treatment or generation of mixed waste.
OSWER, in conjunction with the NRC, has issued several
directives to assist in identification, treatment, and disposal of
low-level radioactive, mixed waste. Various OSWER direc-
tives include guidance on defining, identifying, and disposing
of commercial, mixed, low-level radioactive and hazardous
waste (EPA 1987b). If the HVEA system is used to treat low-
level mixed waste, these directives should be considered. If
high-level mixed waste or transuranic mixed waste is treated,
internal DOE orders should be considered when developing a
protective remedy (DOE 1988). The SDWA and CWA also
contain standards for maximum allowable radioactivity levels
in water supplies.
2.8.8 Occupational Safety and Health Act
OSHA regulations in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926 are
designed to protect worker health and safety. Both Superfund
and RCRA corrective actions must meet OSHA requirements,
particularly § 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emer-
gency Response. Part 1926, Safety and Health Regulations for
Construction, applies to any on-site construction activities. For
example, electric utility hookups for the HVEA system must
comply with Part 1926, Subpart K, Electrical. Product chemi-
cals such as H2O2, sulfuric acid, and sodium hydroxide, if used
with the HVEA system, must be managed in accordance with
OSHA requirements (for example, Part 1926, Subpart D, Oc-
cupational Health and Environmental Controls, and Subpart H,
Materials Handling, Storage, and Disposal). Any more strin-
gent state or local requirements must also be met. In addition,
health and safety plans for site remediations should address
chemicals of concern and include monitoring practices to
ensure that worker health and safety are maintained.
2.8.9 Additional Considerations
The HVEA system generates a high-energy stream of electrons
(ionizing radiation). These electrons are primarily directed to a
contaminated liquid stream. However, some other radiation (x-
ray) is generated when stray electrons hit metal components of
the system. Therefore, regulations covering radiation-generat-
ing equipment could be considered ARARs. At the SRS, DOE
regulations for radiation-generating equipment were applied.
However, the HVEA system is totally enclosed, and with
adequate lead shielding of the E-beam trailer, radiation moni-
toring did not reveal any OSHA compliance problems. Most
equipment of this nature is regulated at a state level (for
example, x-ray and other medical and laboratory equipment).
Relevant standards for protection against radiation are included
in the NRC regulations of 10 CFR Part 20. These standards are
designed to limit radiation hazards caused by NRC-licensed
activities. The regulations apply to all NRC licensees regardless
of the type or quantity of radioactive material possessed or the
type of operations conducted. These regulations require that
(1) levels of radiation and dose be "as low as is reasonably
achievable" and (2) radiation exposure limits for worker and
public protection in 10 CFR Part 20 be met. The HVEA system
had a health and rehabilitative services (HRS) license issued by
the State of Florida at the time of the SITE demonstration.
Additional state-specific requirements should also be consid-
ered.
2.9 State and Community Acceptance
Because few applications of the E-beam technology have been
attempted beyond the bench or pilot scale, limited information
is available to assess state and community acceptance of the
technology. Therefore, this section discusses state and commu-
nity acceptance of the E-beam technology with regard to the
SITE demonstration.
Before the demonstration, the primary concerns of the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) involved the ability of the E-beam system to meet
effluent target levels and the formation of treatment byproducts.
These concerns were addressed by performing calculations to
show that no environmental impact was anticipated because
any treatment residuals in the E-beam system effluent would be
removed by a permitted air stripper. At other sites, state accep-
tance of the technology may involve consideration of perfor-
mance data from applications such as the SITE demonstration
and results from on-site, pilot-scale studies using the actual
waste to be treated during later, full-scale remediation.
During the SITE demonstration, about 100 people from
SCDHEC, EPA Region 4, nearby universities, and the local
community attended Visitors' Day to observe demonstration
activities and ask questions pertaining to the technology. The
visitors expressed no concerns regarding operation of the E-beam
system.
35
-------
Section 3
Economic Analysis
This economic analysis presents cost estimates for using the
H VEA E-beam technology to treat groundwater contaminated
with VOCs. Cost data were compiled during the SITE demon-
stration at the SRS and from information obtained from inde-
pendent vendors and HVEA. Costs have been placed in 12
categories applicable to typical cleanup activities at Superfund
and RCRA sites (Evans 1990). Costs are presented in February
1995 dollars and are considered to be order-of-magnitude
estimates with an expected accuracy within 50% above and
30% below the actual costs.
This section describes two cases selected for economic analy-
sis (Section 3.1), summarizes the major issues involved and
assumptions made in performing the analysis (Section 3.2),
discusses costs associated with using the HVEA E-beam tech-
nology to treat groundwater contaminated with VOCs (Sec-
tion 3.3), and presents conclusions of the economic analysis
(Section 3.4).
3.1 Introduction
The economic analysis presents and compares the two cases
based on groundwater characteristics. In Case 1, the ground-
water has an insignificant level of alkalinity (<5 mg/L as
CaCOj) and contains VOCs that are easy to destroy using free
radical chemistry. In Case 2, the groundwater has moderate to
high alkalinity (500 mg/L as CaCO3) and contains additional
VOCs, a few of which are more difficult to destroy. In Case 1,
a 21-kilowatt (kW) system is used to treat groundwater at 40
gpm; in Case 2, the same system is used to treat the groundwa-
ter at 20 gpm.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present the costs evaluated in this analysis
for Case 1 and Case 2, respectively. Additional analysis is
provided in these tables that compares the costs of addressing
both cases with a 45-kW system and a 75-kW system. In Case
1, the 45-kW system treats groundwater at 80 gpm, and the 75-
kW unit treats it at 130 gpm. In Case 2, the 45-kW system
treats groundwater at 40 gpm, and the 75-kW unit treats it at 65
gpm.
3.2 issues and Assumptions
This section summarizes major issues and assumptions regard-
ing site-specific factors, equipment and operating parameters,
and financial calculations used in this economic analysis of the
E-beam technology. Issues and assumptions are presented in
Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3. Assumptions are summarized in
bullets following each section. Certain assumptions were made
to account for variable site and waste parameters. Other as-
sumptions were made to simplify cost estimating for situations
that actually would require complex engineering or financial
functions. Section 3.2.4 provides a hypothetical base-case sce-
nario developed from the assumptions.
In general, E-beam system operating issues and assumptions
are based on information provided by HVEA and observations
made during the SITE demonstration. Other issues and assump-
tions are based primarily on the operating parameters and
results observed during Runs 3 and 13 of the demonstration.
3.2.1 Site-Specific Factors
Site-specific factors can affect the costs of using the E-beam
treatment system. These factors can be divided into the follow-
ing two categories: waste-related factors and site features.
Waste-related factors affecting costs include waste volume,
contaminant types and levels, treatment goals, and regulatory
requirements. Waste volume affects total project costs because
a larger volume takes longer to remediate. However, economies
of scale are realized with a larger-volume project when the
fixed costs, such as equipment costs, are distributed over the
larger volume. The contaminant types and levels in the ground-
water and the treatment goals for the site determine (1) the
appropriate E-beam treatment system size, which affects capital
equipment costs; (2) the flow rate at which treatment goals can
be met; and (3) periodic sampling requirements, which affect
analytical costs. Regulatory requirements affect permitting costs
and effluent monitoring costs.
Site features affecting costs include groundwater recharge rates,
groundwater chemistry, site accessibility, availability of utili-
ties, and geographic location. Groundwater recharge rates af-
fect the time required for cleanup. Groundwater alkalinity may
increase or decrease E-beam technology REs depending on the
contaminant involved (see Section 2.2.8 for a discussion of
alkalinity). Site accessibility, availability of utilities, and site
location and size all affect site preparation costs.
Site-specific assumptions include the following:
• For Case 1, the contaminants and their average con-
centrations are TCE at 28,000 ug/L and PCE at 11,000
36
-------
Table 3-1. Costs Associated with the E-Beam Technology—Case 1a
Treatment System Configurations In Kilowatts (KW)
Cost Categories
Site Preparation"
Administrative
Treatment area preparation
Treatability study and system design
21-kW(40gpm)
Itemized Total
$175,600
$35,000
117,600
23,000
45-kW (80 gpm)
Itemized Total
$219,600
$35,000
161,600
23,000
75-KW(130gpm)
Itemized Total
$241,600
$35,000
183,600
23,000
Permitting and Regulatory"
Mobilization and Startup"
Transportation
Assembly and shakedown
Equipment"
Labor3
Supplies0
Disposable personal protective equipment
Fiber drums
Sampling supplies
Utilities'
Effluent Treatment and Disposal"
Residual Waste Shipping and Handling0
Analytical Services0
Equipment Maintenance0
Site Demobilization"
Total One-Time Costs"
Total Annual O&M Costs0
Groundwater Remediation:
Total costs "*•'
Net present value^
Costs per 1,000 Gallons'1
10,000
10,000
600
100
1,000
5,000
20,000
842,000
10,000
1,700
25,700
0
6,000
24,000
25,300
15,000
$1,057,600
92,700
$2,764,000
1,626,600
$5.16
10,000
15,000
600
100
1,000
5,000
25,000
1,208,000
10,000
1,700
52,600
0
6,000
24,000
36,200
15,000
$1,472,600
130,500
$2,514,400
1,963,700
$6.23
10,000
15,000
600
100
1,000
5,000
25,000
1,432,000
10,000
1,700
87,500
0
6,000
24,000
43,000
15,000
$1,718,600
172,200
$2,527,900
2,223,400
$7.06
a Costs are in February 1995 dollars.
" Fixed costs.
0 Annual variable costs.
d Fixed and variable costs combined.
• Future value using annual inflation rate of 5%.
' To complete groundwater remediation, it is assumed that the 21-kW unit will take 15 years, the 45-kW unit will take 7.5 years, and the 75-kW unit
will take 4.6 years to treat 315 million gallons of water.
9 Annual discount rate of 7.5%.
h Net present value.
For Case 1, the groundwater has an insignificant alka-
linity of <5 mg/L as CaCO3.
For Case 2, some of the additional contaminants are
saturated VOCs that are relatively difficult to treat.
These VOCs are 1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCA, chloroform,
and CC14; their concentrations range from 370 to
840 p.g/L. The other additional contaminants are BTEX
compounds present at concentrations ranging from
200 to 550 ug/L.
For Case 2, the groundwater has a moderate alkalinity
of 500 mg/L as CaCOr
The site is a Superfund site located near an urban area.
As a result, utilities and other infrastructure features
(for example, access roads to the site) are readily
available.
The site is located in the southeastern United States.
This region has relatively mild temperatures during
the winter months.
Contaminated water is located in an aquifer no more
than 100 feet below ground surface.
The groundwater remediation project involves a total
of 315 million gallons of water that needs to be
37
-------
Table 3-2 Costs Associated with the E-Beam Technology—Case 2°
Cos! Categories
Treatment System Configurations in Kilowatts (kW)
21-kW (20 gpm)
Itemized Total
45-kW (40 gpm)
Itemized
TotaT
75-kW (65 gpm)
Itemized
Total
Site Preparation"
Administrative
Treatment area preparation
Treatability study and system design
Permitting and Regulatory1'
Mobilization and Startup1'
Transportation
Assembly and shakedown
Equipment11
Labor4
Supplies'
Disposable personal protective equipment
Fiber drums
Sampling supplies
Utilities'
Effluent Treatment and Disposal0
Residua! Waste Shipping and Handling0
Analytical Services'
Equipment Maintenance0
Site Demobilization"
Total One-Time Costs"
Total Annual O&M Costs'
Groundwater Remediation:
Total costs *••'
Net present value'
Costs per 1,000 Gallons11
$35,000
117,600
23,000
10,000
10,000
600
100
1,000
$175,600
5,000
20,000
842,000
10,000
1,700
25,700
0
6,000
24,000
25,300
15,000
$1,057,600
92,700
$6,281,600
2,472,900
$7.85
$35,000
161,600
23,000
10,000
15,000
600
100
1,000
$219,600
5,000
25,000
1,208,000
10,000
1,700
52,600
0
6,000
24,000
36,200
15,000
$1,472,600
130,500
$3,994,600
2,350,700.
$7.46
$35,000
183,600
23,000
10,000
15,000
600
100
1,000
$241,600
5,000
25,000
1,432,000
10,000
1,700
87,500
0
6,000
24,000
43,000
15,000
$1,718,600
172,200
$3,547,200
2,618,100
$8.31
" Costs are in February 1995 dollars.
" Fixed costs.
* Annual variable costs.
4 Fixed and variable costs combined.
* Future value using annual inflation rate of 5%.
' To complete groundwater remediation, it is assumed that the 21-kW unit will take 30 years, the 45-kW unit will take 15 years, and the 75-kW unit
will take 9.3 years to treat 315 million gallons of water.
9 Annual discount rate of 7.5%.
" Net present value.
treated. This groundwater volume corresponds to the
volume treated by a 21-kW unit operating continu-
ously for 15 years at a flow rate of 40 gpm.
3.2.2 Equipment and Operating
Parameters
The E-beam treatment system can be used to treat aqueous
waste streams such as groundwater and wastewater contami-
nated with VOCs and SVOCs. This analysis provides costs for
treating groundwater contaminated with VOCs only.
HVEA will provide the appropriate E-beam system configura-
tion based on site-specific conditions, of which groundwater
recharge rates and contaminant types are the primary consider-
ations. The E-beam system can be configured to meet certain
power requirements by varying the accelerating voltage and
beam current, which are also derived from site conditions. The
E-beam system is modular in design, which allows for setting
up modules either in series or in parallel to treat groundwater.
This analysis focuses on the costs associated with the 21-kW
unit demonstrated at SRS. This E-beam system can treat con-
taminated groundwater at a rate of 40 gpm in Case 1 and 20
gpm in Case 2. The system can operate on a continuous flow
cycle, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Based on these
assumptions, the system can treat nearly 21 million gallons per
year in Case 1, and the system can treat about 10.5 million
gallons per year in Case 2. Because most groundwater remedia-
38
-------
tion projects are long-term projects, this analysis assumes that
about 315 million gallons of water needs to be treated in both
cases to complete the groundwater remediation project. Based
on this assumption, Case 1 remediation will take about 15 years
to complete, and Case 2 remediation will take about 30 years to
complete. It is difficult in practice to determine both the volume
of groundwater to treat and the actual duration of a project, but
these figures have been assumed to perform this economic
analysis.
Neither depreciation nor salvage value is applied to the costs
presented in this analysis because the equipment is not pur-
chased by a customer. All depreciation and salvage value is
assumed to be incurred by HVEA and is reflected in the
ultimate cost of leasing the E-beam treatment equipment.
Equipment and operating parameter assumptions are listed
below.
• A 21-kW system is used as the basis of the economic
analysis discussion, and costs for 45-kW and 75-kW
systems are presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for com-
parison.
• The treatment system is operated 24 hours per day, 7
days per week, 52 weeks per year.
• The treatment system operating at full power has a
maximum voltage of 500 kV and a maximum beam
current of 42 mA.
• The treatment system operates automatically without
the constant attention of an operator and will shut
down in the event of system malfunction.
• Modular components consisting of the equipment
needed to meet treatment goals are mobilized to the
site and assembled by HVEA.
• Air emissions monitoring is not necessary.
• E-beam equipment will be maintained by HVEA and
will last for the duration of the groundwater remedia-
tion project with proper maintenance.
3.2.3 Financial Calculations
Most groundwater remediation projects are long-term in nature.
For this reason, the total costs for completing the groundwater
remediation projects presented in this analysis are calculated
using the time periods stated for each case. In the tables
included in this section, total costs for each case are presented
in future values, and the costs per 1,000 gallons treated are
presented as net present values. This analysis assumes a 5%
annual inflation rate to estimate the future values. The future
values are then presented as net present values using a discount
rate of 7.5%, which is the current yield on a 30-year Treasury
bond. Using a higher discount rate makes the initial costs weigh
more heavily in the calculation, while using a lower discount
rate makes the future operating costs weigh more heavily.
Because the costs of demobilization will occur at the end of the
project, the appropriate future values of these costs were used to
calculate the totals presented at the bottom of Tables 3-1 and
3-2.
3.2,4 Base-Case Scenario
A hypothetical base-case scenario has been developed using the
issues and assumptions described above for the purposes of
formulating this economic analysis. The costs presented in the
text are for the 21 -kW system. As stated earlier, Case 1 involves
treatment of contaminated groundwater by the 21 -kW system at
a flow rate of 40gpm, and Case 2 involves treatment of
contaminated groundwater by the 21-kW system at a flow rate
of 20 gpm. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide the costs for the 21-kW
system as well as for a 45-kW system and a 75-kW system.
Certain costs are higher for these scenarios; where this is the
case, an explanation is provided in the text.
Additional premises used for this base-case scenario are listed
below.
• Costs are rounded to the nearest $100.
• Contaminated groundwater is treated to achieve the
REs observed in SITE demonstration Runs 3 and 13
for Cases 1 and 2, respectively. During the demonstra-
tion, the effluent did not meet all MCLs or other
applicable target cleanup levels that are usually re-
quired to be met at Superfund sites. For this reason,
the costs presented in this analysis may need to be
adjusted based on site-specific goals.
• The E-beam system is mobilized to the remediation
site from within 500 miles of the site.
• Operating and sampling labor costs are incurred by the
client. HVEA performs maintenance and modification
activities that are paid for by the client.
• Initial operator training is provided by HVEA.
• Four groundwater extraction wells already exist on
site. They are assumed to be capable of providing the
flow rates discussed in this economic analysis.
3.3 Cost Categories
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present cost breakdowns addressing the 12
cost categories applied to Cases 1 and 2, respectively. The
tables present cost breakdowns for the base-case scenario using
the 21-kW treatment system; costs for the 45-kW and 75-kW
treatment systems are also provided for comparison.
Cost data associated with the E-beam technology have been
presented for the following categories: (1) site preparation,
(2) permitting and regulatory, (3) mobilization and startup,
(4) equipment, (5) labor, (6) supplies, (7) utilities, (8) effluent
treatment and disposal, (9) residual waste shipping and han-
dling, (10) analytical services, (11) equipment maintenance,
and (12) site demobilization. Each of these cost categories is
discussed below.
39
-------
3.3.1 Site Preparation Costs
Site preparation costs include administrative, treatment area
preparation, treatability study, and system design costs. For this
analysis, site preparation administrative costs, such as costs for
legal searches, access rights, and site planning activities, are
estimated to be $35,000.
Treatment area preparation includes constructing a shelter build-
ing and installing pumps, valves, and piping from the extraction
wells to the shelter building. The shelter building needs to be
constructed before mobilization of the E-beam system. A 400-
squarc-foot building is required for the 21-kW system. The 45-
kW system requires 800 square feet of building space, and the
75-kW system requires 1,000 square feet of building space.
HVEA will provide the shelter building design specifications.
Construction costs are estimated to be about $110 per square
foot, which covers installation of radiation shielding materials.
A natural gas heating and cooling unit and ductwork cost about
$20,000 installed. The total shelter building construction costs
for the 21-kW system are estimated to be $64,000.
This analysis assumes that four extraction wells exist on site
and that they are located 200 feet from the shelter building.
Four 35-gpm, 1.5-horsepower, variable-speed Teflon® pumps
are required to maintain the flow rates necessary for each case.
The total pump costs, including all electrical equipment and
installation, are $5,600. Piping and valve connection costs are
about $60 per foot, which covers underground installation.
Therefore, the total piping costs are $48,000. The total treat-
ment area preparation costs are estimated to be $117,600.
A treatability study and system design will be conducted by
HVEA before it determines the appropriate E-beam treatment
system. HVEA will transport its mobile system to the site to test
the equipment under site conditions. Six to eight samples will
be collected from the influent and effluent and will be analyzed
off site for VOCs. HVEA estimates the treatability study cost to
be $18,000, including labor and equipment costs. System de-
sign includes determining which E-beam system will achieve
treatment goals and designing the configuration. The system
design is estimated to cost $5,000.
Total site preparation costs for each case are estimated to be
$175,600.
3.3.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs depend on whether treatment is
performed at a Superfund or a RCRA corrective action site and
on how treated effluent and any solid wastes generated are
disposed of. Superfund site remedial actions must be consistent
with ARARs of environmental laws; ordinances; regulations;
and statutes, including federal, state, and local standards and
criteria. Remediation at RCRA corrective action sites requires
additional monitoring and recordkeeping, which can increase
the base regulatory costs. In general, ARARs must be deter-
mined on a site-specific basis.
Permitting and regulatory costs in this analysis include permit
fees for discharging treated water to a surface water body. The
cost of this permit would be based on regulatory agency re-
quirements and treatment goals for a particular site. In general,
for this analysis, discharge levels must remain within SDWA
limits. The discharge permit for each case is estimated to cost
$5,000. Costs of highway permits for overweight vehicles are
included in the costs of mobilization because HVEA retains the
services of a cartage company to mobilize the E-beam equip-
ment (see Section 3.3.3).
3.3.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs
Mobilization and startup costs include the costs of transporting
the E-beam system to the site, assembling the E-beam system,
and performing the initial shakedown of the treatment system.
HVEA provides trained personnel to assemble and conduct
preliminary tests on the E-beam system. HVEA personnel are
assumed to be trained in hazardous waste site health and safety
procedures, so health and safety training costs are not included
as a direct startup cost. Initial operator training is needed to
ensure safe, economical, and efficient operation of the system.
HVEA provides initial operator training to its clients as part of
providing the E-beam equipment.
Transportation costs are site-specific and vary depending on the
location of the site in relation to the equipment. For this
analysis, the E-beam equipment is assumed to be transported
1,000 miles. HVEA retains the services of a cartage company to
transport all E-beam treatment system equipment. Mobilization
costs are about $10 per mile, for a total cost of $10,000. The
costs of highway permits for overweight vehicles are included
in this total cost.
Assembly costs include the costs of unloading equipment from
the trailers, assembling the E-beam system, hooking up extrac-
tion well piping, and hooking up electrical lines. A two-person
crew will work three 8-hour days to unload and assemble the
system and perform the initial shakedown. The total startup
costs are about $10,000, including labor and hookup costs.
For the 45-kW and 75-kW scenarios, completion of initial
assembly and shakedown activities is expected to require the
two-person crew to work about five 8-hour days. More time is
needed because the E-beam systems are larger in these sce-
narios. As a result, the startup costs for these scenarios are
about $15,000, including labor and electrical hookup costs.
Total mobilization and startup costs for each case are estimated
to be $20,000.
3.3.4 Equipment Costs
Equipment costs include the costs of leasing the E-beam treat-
ment system. HVEA provides the complete E-beam treatment
system configured for site-specific conditions. All E-beam
treatment equipment is leased to the client. As a result, all
depreciation and salvage value is incurred by HVEA, which is
reflected in the price for leasing the equipment. At the end of a
treatment project, HVEA decontaminates and demobilizes its
treatment equipment (see Section 3.3.12, Site Demobilization
Costs). HVEA assumes that this equipment will operate for the
duration of the groundwater remediation project and will still
function after the remediation is complete as a result of routine
maintenance and modifications.
40
-------
Equipment costs are determined by the size of the E-beam
system needed to complete the remediation project and are
incurred as a lump sum; as a result, even though the equipment
is leased to the client, it is not priced out at a monthly rate. For
this analysis, HVEA estimates that the capital equipment for
both cases costs $842,000 for a 21-kW system; $1,208,000 for
a 45-kW system; and $1,432,000 for a 75-kW system.
3.3.5 Labor Costs
Once the system is functioning, it is assumed to operate con-
tinuously at the designed flow rate except during routine main-
tenance, which HVEA conducts (see Section 3.3.11, Equip-
ment Maintenance Costs). One operator trained by HVEA
performs routine equipment monitoring and sampling activi-
ties. Under normal operating conditions, an operator is required
to monitor the system about once each week.
This analysis assumes that the work is conducted by a full-time
employee of the site owner and is assigned to be the primary
operator to perform system monitoring and sampling duties.
Further, it is assumed that a second person, also employed by
the site owner, will be trained to act as a backup to the primary
operator. Based on observations made at the SITE demonstra-
tion, it is estimated that operation of the system requires about
one-quarter of the primary operator's time. Assuming that the
primary operator earns $40,000 per year, the total direct annual
labor costs for each case are estimated to be $10,000.
3.3.6 Supply Costs
No chemicals or treatment additives are expected to be needed
to treat the groundwater using the E-beam technology. There-
fore, no direct supply costs are expected to be incurred. Sup-
plies that will be needed as part of the overall groundwater
remediation project include Level D, disposable personal pro-
tective equipment (PPE), PPE disposal drums, and sampling
and field analytical supplies.
Disposable PPE typically consists of latex inner gloves, nitrile
outer gloves, radiation badges, and safety glasses. This PPE is
needed during periodic sampling activities. Disposable PPE for
each case is assumed to cost about $600 per year for the
primary operator. Used PPE is assumed to be hazardous and
needs to be disposed of in 24-gallon, fiber drums. One drum is
assumed to be filled every two months, and each drum costs
about $12. For each case, the total annual drum costs are about
$100.
Sampling supplies consist of sample bottles and containers, ice,
labels, shipping containers, and laboratory forms for off-site
analyses. For routine monitoring, laboratory glassware is also
needed. The numbers and types of sampling supplies needed
are based on the analyses to be performed. Costs for laboratory
analyses are presented in Section 3.3.10. For each case, sam-
pling supply costs are assumed to be $1,000 per year.
During the demonstration at SRS, the average pH level of the
influent was about 4.7; the average pH level of the effluent
ranged between 3.0 and 3.5. Depending on discharge permit
levels and influent and effluent pH levels, the pH may require
adjustment. In this event, additional supplies will be necessary.
The quantity of supplies needed is highly site-specific and
difficult to determine; therefore, this analysis does not present
post-treatment pH adjustment costs.
Total annual supply costs for each case are estimated to be
$1,700.
3.3.7 Utility Costs
Electricity is the only utility used by the E-beam system.
Electricity is used to run the E-beam treatment system, pumps,
blower, and air chiller. This analysis assumes that electrical
power lines are available at the site. Electricity costs can vary
considerably depending on the geographical location of the site
and local utility rates. Also, the consumption of electricity
varies depending on the E-beam system used, the total number
of pumps and other electrical equipment operating, and the use
of the air chiller.
This analysis assumes a constant rate of electricity consump-
tion based on the electrical requirements of the E-beam treat-
ment system (21-kW). The pumps, blower, and air chiller are
assumed to draw an additional 20 kW, which is based on
observations made during the SITE demonstration at SRS.
Therefore, the 21-kW unit operating for one hour draws about
42 kW hours (kWh) of electricity. The total annual electrical
energy consumption is estimated to be about 366,9 lOkWh.
Electricity is assumed to cost $0.07 per kWh, including demand
and usage charges. The total annual electricity costs for each
case are estimated to be about $25,700. The total annual elec-
tricity costs are estimated to be $52,600 for the 45-kW system
and $87,500 for the 75-kW system.
Water and natural gas usage are highly site specific but as-
sumed to be minimal for each case in this analysis. As a result,
no costs for these utilities are presented.
3.3.3 Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Costs
At the SRS demonstration, the E-beam system did not meet
target treatment levels for about half of the VOCs. Depending
on the treatment goals for a site, additional effluent treatment
may be required, and thus additional treatment or disposal costs
may be incurred. Because of the uncertainty associated with
additional treatment or disposal costs, this analysis does not
include effluent treatment or disposal costs.
The E-beam system does not produce air emissions because the
water delivery and cooling air systems are enclosed. As a result,
no cost for air emissions treatment is incurred.
Effluent monitoring is routinely conducted by the primary
operator (see Section 3.3.5). The effluent can be discharged
directly to a nearby surface water body, provided that appropri-
ate permits have been obtained (see Section 3.3.2).
3.3.9 Residual Waste Shipping and
Handling Costs
The only residuals produced during E-beam system operation
are fiber drums containing used PPE and waste sampling and
41
-------
field analytical supplies, all of which are typically associated
with a groundwater remediation project. This waste is consid-
ered hazardous and requires disposal at a permitted facility. For
each case, this analysis assumes that about six drums of waste
are disposed of annually. The cost of handling and transporting
the drums and disposing of them at a hazardous waste disposal
facility is about $1,000 per drum. The total drum disposal costs
for each case are about $6,000 per year.
Condcnsate is generated from the air chiller. This condensate
can be treated by the E-beam system, but such treatment may
require additional permits from regulatory authorities. Because
of the uncertainty associated with the need for additional per-
mits, the costs for such additional permits were not included in
this analysis.
3.3.10 Analytical Services Costs
Required sampling frequencies and number of samples are
highly site specific and are based on treatment goals and
contaminant concentrations. Analytical costs associated with a
groundwater remediation project include the costs of laboratory
analyses, data reduction, and QA/QC. This analysis assumes
that one sample of untreated water, one sample of treated water,
and associated QC samples (trip blanks, field duplicates, and
matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates) will be analyzed for VOCs
every month. Therefore, monthly analytical costs are about
$2,000.
The total annual analytical costs for each case are estimated to
be $24,000,
3.3.11 Equipment Maintenance Costs
HVEA estimates that annual equipment maintenance costs are
about 3% of the capital equipment costs. Therefore, the total
annual equipment maintenance costs for each case are about
$25,300 for the 21 -kW system, $36,200 for the 45-kW system,
and $43,000 for the 75-kW system.
3.3.12 Site Demobilization Costs
Sile demobilization includes treatment system shutdown, disas-
sembly, and decontamination; site cleanup and restoration;
utility disconnection; and transportation of the E-beam equip-
ment off site. A two-person crew will work about five 8-hour
days to disassemble and load the system. This analysis assumes
that the equipment will be transported 1,000 miles either for
storage or to the next job site. HVEA estimates that the total
cost of demobilization is about $15,000 for each case. This total
includes all labor, material, and transportation costs.
3.4 Conclusions of Economic Analysis
This analysis presents cost estimates for treating contaminated
groundwater with the E-beam treatment system. Two cases
based on groundwater characteristics are presented and com-
pared. In Case 1, the groundwater contains contaminants that
are easy to destroy using free radical chemistry. In Case 2; the
groundwater contains additional contaminants, some of which
are more difficult to destroy. In both cases, a 21-kW treatment
system is used; however, in Case 1 groundwater is treated at a
rate of 40 gpm, while in Case 2 it is treated at a rate of 20 gpm.
Additional analyses are provided in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 that
compare the costs of treatment using a 45-kW system and a
75-kW system for both cases.
Figure 3-1 shows the fixed and annual variable costs for both
cases. Total costs and percentages of the totals are presented.
Permitting and regulatory costs are not included in Figure 3-1
because they represent less than 0.5% of the total fixed costs.
Total estimated fixed costs are about $1,057,600 for each case.
Of this total, $842,000 or about 80% is for E-beam equipment
costs. Over 16% of the total fixed cost is for site preparation;
this cost is not entirely attributable to operating the treatment
system but rather is necessary for setting up the system. Total
estimated annual variable costs are about $92,700 for each case.
Of the total annual variable costs, analytical service costs make
up about 26%, equipment maintenance costs make up about
27%, and utility costs make up nearly 28%.
This analysis of a base-case scenario involving the E-beam
technology shows that operating costs are strongly affected by
the E-beam system and flow rate used. The larger systems take
less time to complete a groundwater remediation project, but
the higher equipment and utility costs result in a higher cost per
1,000 gallons of groundwater treated. The base-case scenario
assumes that the total amount of groundwater to be treated is
315 million gallons. In Case 1, 15 years would be needed to
complete the remediation project; in Case 2,30 years would be
needed. The total estimated cost of the project is $2,764,000 for
Case 1 and $6,281,000 for Case 2. The estimated cost per 1,000
gallons of groundwater treated in net present value is $5.16 for
Case 1 and $7.85 for Case 2.
Table 3-3 presents only the direct costs associated with the E-
beam treatment system. This analysis is provided to segregate
the direct costs of procuring and operating the E-beam system
from the total costs of a groundwater remediation project. The
direct costs are the same for both cases. Total fixed costs are
estimated to be $900,000, and total annual variable costs are
estimated to be $67,000. The analytical supplies cost has been
excluded because at $1,000 per year, it represents about 1% of
the total annual variable costs. The direct cost per 1,000 gallons
of groundwater treated is estimated to be $4.07 for Case 1 and
$5.99 for Case 2.
Figure 3-2 shows the distribution of direct treatment costs for
the duration of the groundwater remediation project. This fig-
ure shows that one-time costs, which consist of site preparation,
mobilization and startup, equipment, and site demobilization
costs, constitute a major cost variance between the cases.
Although the direct costs are the same for both cases, this
variance occurs because the one-time costs are distributed over
a longer period in Case 2. While the same HVEA system is
used to treat the same volume of groundwater in both cases,
Case 2 involves treatment of contaminants that are more diffi-
cult to destroy. Figure 3-2 also shows that utility and equipment
maintenance costs are the major cost contributors in Case 2.
The combined utility and equipment maintenance costs make
up 46% of the total direct treatment costs for Case 1 and 61 % of
the total direct treatment costs for Case 2.
42
-------
Mobilization and startup
"10,000
'- ";" 1R 7% i- Site preparation
v? " ;• $175,600
, 27.7%
j Utilities
Site demobilization
$15,000
Residual waste
shipping
$6,000
Fixed Costs
Total fixed costs are estimated to be $1,057,600.
Analytical services
$24,000
10.8% Labor
w,; $10,000
Supplies - $1,700
27 3% Equipment maintenance
$25,300
Annual Variable Costs
Total annual variable costs are estimated to be $92,700.
Figure 3-1. Distribution of fixed and annual variable costs for groundwater remediation project.
Table 3-3. E-Beam Treatment System Direct Costs3 .
Treatment System Configurations in Kilowatts (kW)
Cost Categories
Site Preparation'
Treatability study and system design
Mobilization and Startup11
Transportation
Assemble and shakedown
Equipment1"
Labor0
Utilities0
Residual Waste Shipping and Handling0
Equipment Maintenance0
Site Demobilization6
Total One-Time Costs"
Total Annual O&M Costs0
Costs per 1 ,000 gallons treated — Case 1d
Costs per 1,000 gallons treated — Case 2"
21 -kW
Itemized Total
$23,000
$23,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
842,000
10,000
25,700
6,000
25,300
15,000
$900,000
67,000
$4.07
$5.99
45-kW
Itemized Total
$23,000
$23,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
1 ,208,000
10,000
52,600 •
6,000
36,200
15,000
$1,271,000
104,800
$5.17
$6.05
75-kW
Itemized Total
$23,000
$23,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
1,432,000
10,000
87,500
6,000
43,000
15,000
$1,495,000
146,500
$6.07
$7.10
aThis table presents direct costs associated with the E-beam treatment system segregated from the costs incurred as a result of conducting a
groundwater remediation project. All assumptions used in this analysis apply.
D Fixed costs.
0 Variable costs.
" Net present value using the same assumptions used in Table 3-1.
e Net present value using the same assumptions used in Table 3-2.
43
-------
1% Labor-$0.37
,Vj ^ N ^
22.9%
biiBi
Equipment maintenance -S0.93
23.3% Utilities-$0.95
Hi Residual
_J waste
shipping -
S0.22
Case 1—Direct Costs
Total direct costs per 1,000 gallons treated are $4.07.
The Case 1 project lasts 15 years.
Equipment maintenance - $1.82 i"?' "'
7.2.% Waste residual shipping - $0.43
19.3% One-time-$1.16
12.0% Labor-$0.72
Figure 3-2. Distribution of HVEA System treatment costs.
Case 2—Direct Costs
Total direct costs per 1,000 gallons treated are $5.99.
The Case 2 project lasts 30 years.
44
-------
Section 4
Technology Status
According to HVEA, E-beam treatment systems are available
as trailer-mounted systems, transportable systems, and perma-
nent facilities. Trailer-mounted systems are finished semi-trail-
ers with permanently mounted treatment system components.
These systems are 48 feet long and 8 feet wide and include
E-beam units with a power rating (accelerating voltage multi-
plied by beam current) up to 25 kW. Trailer-mounted systems
are best suited for small-scale site cleanups and can be used for
performing pilot-scale treatability studies.
Skid-mounted, transportable systems are transported to sites on
flatbed trucks and off-loaded on temporary facilities. These
systems can be mobilized and demobilized within a few days.
The power rating of the transportable systems ranges from 50 to
75 kW. These systems are best suited for medium-scale site
cleanups that may last for a few years. Once remediation of a
particular site is completed, the transportable system can be
moved to another site requiring remediation.
Permanent facilities generally involve high-powered E-beam
systems requiring heavy radiation shielding. These systems are
best suited for large-scale remediation projects that require
many years of cleanup. They are also applicable for treatment
of industrial or municipal waste streams produced on a continu-
ous basis.
All HVEA E-beam treatment systems are modular in design.
Each system includes an electron source, a reaction chamber,
water handling equipment, and control components. If a par-
ticular waste stream does not meet treatment objectives after
being treated once in the E-beam system, the waste stream can
be recycled as many times as required until the treatment
objectives are met. HVEA can also provide treatment trains
with multiple modules for treatment of highly contaminated
waste streams or large volumes of wastewater.
HVEA E-beam treatment systems can be fully automated. This
allows remote operation of a system via a computer and tele-
phone line. All parameters can be continuously monitored by
the control console computer to ensure that all system compo-
nents are operating within acceptable limits.
HVEA employs the following three-phase approach in imple-
menting its E-beam technology for a particular treatment appli-
cation. During Phase 1, a bench-scale treatability study is per-
formed using a small quantity (two gallons) of wastewater.
During bench-scale testing, a*°cobalt source is used to generate
an E-beam. The purpose of this phase is to determine the
effectiveness of the E-beam process in removing the contami-
nants of interest and to develop a preliminary cost estimate for
full-scale application of the HVEA system. During Phase 2, a
pilot-scale treatability study is conducted on site using HVEA's
trailer-mounted system. The results of this study will be used to
(1) size a full-scale system that can meet treatment goals and
(2) estimate the capital and O&M costs for full-scale system
operation. During Phase 3, HVEA designs and configures the
full-scale system.
45
-------
Section 5
References
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1992. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Washington, DC. 18th Edition.
Boltz, David R, and James A. Howell. 1979. Colorimetric
Determination ofNonmetals. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
Buxton.G., and others. 1988. "Critical Review of Rate Constants
for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and
Hydroxyl Radicals (-OH/-O') in Aqueous Solution." Journal
of Physical and Chemical Reference Data. Volume 17.
Pages 513 to 886.
Cooper, WJ., and others. 1993a. "RemovingTHMs from Drinking
Water Using High-Energy Electron-Beam Irradiation."
Journal of the American Waterworks Association. September.
Pages 106 to 112.
Cooper, W.J., and others. 1993b. "The Removal of Tri-(TCE)
and Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from Aqueous Solution Using
High-Energy Electrons." Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association. Volume 43. Pages 1358 to 1366.
Evans, G. 1990. "Estimating Innovative Treatment Technology
Costs for the SITE Program." Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association. Volume 40, No. 7. July.
Gehringer, P., and others. 1988. "Decomposition of
TrichloroethyleneandTetrachloroethyleneinDrinking Water
by a Combined Radiation/Ozone Treatment." Water Research.
Volume 22. Page 645.
Holden, W., and others. 1993. "Titanium Dioxide Mediated
Photochemical Destruction of Trichloroethylene Vapors in
Air." Photocatalytic Purification and Treatment of Water
and Air. Edited by D.F. Ollis and H. Al-Ekabi. Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V.
Nickelsen, M.G., and others. 1992. "Removal of Benzene and
Selected Alkyl-Substituted Benzenes from Aqueous Solution
Utilizing Continuous High-Energy Electron Irradiation."
Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 26. Pages
144 to 152.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC). 1994. "HVEA
Electron Beam Technology Demonstration Final Quality
AssuranceProjectPlan." Submitted to EPA Office of Research
and Development (ORD), Cincinnati, Ohio. September.
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(CDEP). 1993. Personal Communication Regarding the Acute
Toxicity of Hydrogen Peroxide to Freshwater Organisms.
From A. lacobucci. To EPA.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988. Radioactive Waste
Management Order. DOE Order 5820.2A. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1983. Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/
600/4-79/020. March.
EPA. 1987a. Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) Guidance.
Part 1: ACL Policy and Information Requirements. EPA/
530/SW-87/017.
EPA. 1987b. Joint EPA-Nuclear Regulatory Agency Guidance
on Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Directives 9480.00-14 (June 29), 9432.00-2 (January 8), and
9487.00-8. August.
EPA. 1988a. Protocol for a Chemical Treatment Demonstration
Plan. Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory.
Cincinnati, Ohio. April.
EPA. 1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental
Laws: Interim Final. OSWER. EPA/540/G-89/006. August.
EPA. 1989. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual:
Part II. Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes and
State Requirements. OSWER. EPA/540/G-89/006. August.
EPA. 1990. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
Volumes 1 A-1C. S W 846. Third Edition. Update I. OSWER.
Washington, DC. November.
EPA. 1992. Electron Beam Treatment for Removal of
Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene from Streams
and Sludge. Emerging Technology Bulletin. EPA/540/F-92/
009. October.
EPA. 1993. ElectronBeam Treatmentfor the Removal of Benzene
and Toluene from Aqueous Streams and Sludge. Emerging
Technology Bulletin. EPA/540/F-93/502. April.
46
-------
Appendix A
Vendor's Claims for the Technology
Hazardous waste treatment and disposal options have tradition-
ally been influenced by regulatory, economic, technical, and
public opinion factors. Regulatory mandates and public "out-
cry" have resulted in EPA's establishing an 18-month (from
May 1994) capacity freeze on hazardous waste incineration
while it reviews and improves federal rules governing hazard-
ous waste incineration. This decision will make it more difficult
for new and expanded incineration facilities to obtain permits,
which could increase incineration costs and divert wastes to
other treatment alternatives. Thus, innovative technologies for
remediation of contaminated sites are continually being consid-
ered as treatment options. Additionally, from an economic
standpoint, the treatment costs of conventional technologies
continue to increase, and from an environmental impact stand-
point, treatment technologies are being sought that destroy
contaminants without creating additional disposal problems.
A.1 Introduction
HVEA's E-beam technology has the capability of treating
complex mixtures of hazardous waste. The technology draws
on the expertise developed from seven years and over $3
million worth of research. The result has been the development
of a line of hazardous waste treatment systems based on the
innovative E-beam technology, which can treat any water,
wastewater, or sediment matrix containing toxic organic chemi-
cals.
A.2 Technology Description
HVEA's E-beam treatment systems use insulated core trans-
former (ICT) electron accelerators developed by High Voltage
Engineering, Inc. In this type of accelerator, the high voltage is
produced by a three-phase transformer with multiple secondary
windings that are energized by insulated core segments in an
iron core. The resulting voltage and current are transferred to an
accelerator tube and tungsten wire filament, respectively. The
electrons emitted by the tungsten filament are then accelerated
by means of voltage differential. Once the accelerated electrons
pass through the accelerator tube, they are deflected magneti-
cally (scanned) so as to sweep a larger irradiation field. The
scanned E-beam then impacts a flowing stream or slurry,
producing highly reactive species capable of destroying all
toxic organic compounds in aqueous solution. The reactive
species formed are OH-, e~ , and H-. The reactions occur at
diffusion-limited rates, and the treatment is complete in less
than one second. When the organic compounds are completely
destroyed, CO2, H2O, and salt are formed as a result.
A.3 Advantages of the E-Beam Process
The HVEA E-beam process has a number of advantages that
make it uniquely suitable for use as a treatment process for
hazardous organic chemicals. These advantages are described
below.
• The process is broadly applicable for the destruction
of organic chemicals because strongly reducing reac-
tive species (e~a and H-) and strongly oxidizing reac-
tive species (OH-) are formed at the same time and in
approximately the same concentrations in solution.
Furthermore, the E-beam system is the only treatment
technology in which H- is produced.
* Reactions of organics with the E-beam-induced reac-
tive species are very rapid, occurring in less than
one second. This has allowed HVEA to design a flow-
through system with good process flexibility at full
scale; this system can accommodate flow rates that
vary over time. The full-scale system is modular in
design, thereby allowing for decreased operational
cost if the quality of the waste improves over time
(that is, if the concentrations of organic compounds
decrease).
• The process can completely mineralize organic con-
taminants.
• Formation of the reactive species is pH-independent in
the range 3 to 11. Therefore, any differences in pH that
exist over time do not adversely affect treatment effi-
ciency.
• The process can effectively treat aqueous streams and
slurried soils, sediments, and sludges.
• The process is temperature-independent within nor-
mal water temperature ranges. The E-beam system is
usually housed in a building, and except for the control
room, no temperature conditioning is required. Also,
variations in water temperature have no practical ef-
fect on the treatment efficiency of the process.
• The process produces no organic sludge. The target
organic chemicals are either mineralized or broken
down into low molecular weight organic compounds.
The process has not been thought to result in removal
47
-------
of heavy metals, but in recent studies involving E-beam
treatment of hazardous waste leachate containing met-
als, an inorganic precipitate was formed in the treated
samples.
• The process produces no air emissions. Because this is
a water-based technology, no oxides of nitrogen or
sulfur are produced. The influent delivery system is
closed, and therefore there is no external release of
toxic organic compounds.
* For all these reasons, the E-beam process can be used
efficiently and effectively as a pretreatment process
for biological remediation. The E-beam process can
"break apart" complex organic compounds, making
them amenable for microbiological degradation.
A.4 HVEA Treatment Systems
HVEA E-beam treatment systems are modular in design. Each
system includes an electron source, a reaction chamber, water
handling equipment, and control components. This allows for
great flexibility in handling contaminated waste streams of
differing composition. For example, if a particular waste stream
will not meet waste treatment objectives in a single pass using
one module, a system can be built to recycle the waste stream as
many times as required for complete remediation. Also, single-
pass treatment trains with multiple modules can be built to
remediate highly contaminated waste streams (ppm to 1%
solutions) and to accommodate high flow rates (over 250 gpm).
Table A-l summarizes some of the capabilities of HVEA's
treatment systems.
A.5 System Applications
HVEA's E-faeam systems are ideally suited for treatment of
complex mixtures of industrial and hazardous wastes dissolved
or suspended in aqueous media. A partial list of contaminants
and pollutants that can be treated using HVEA systems is
presented in Table A-2. The general ranges of contaminants in
aqueous matrices that can be successfully treated by HVEA's
systems are presented below.
* Volatile organics at part per billion levels to 1%
NAPLs
• Semivolatile organics at part per billion to
1,000-ppm levels
• Total solids at up to 5% by weight
Waste streams that can be treated by HVEA's E-beam technol-
ogy include the following:
• Landfill leachates
• Contaminated groundwater
• Contaminated soil
Industrial wastewaters from chemical, petrochemical,
agricultural, metal finishing, automobile, wood finish-
ing, paint, and pulp and paper plants
• Drinking water sources
A.6 Cost Considerations
The cost of treatment using an HVEA E-beam system depends
on many factors such as the initial concentrations of organic
contaminants, treatment objectives, the dose required to obtain
the desired destruction, the volume of waste to be treated, the
size of the treatment facility, the length of treatment, and the
manner in which capital recovery is handled. The cost of
treatment using HVEA systems in various industrial waste and
groundwater applications has ranged from $2.00 per 1,000
gallons to $0.50 per gallon. Because of this wide range of
possible costs, the three-phase approach described in Section 4
should be used to estimate treatment costs for a specific appli-
cation. These costs may decrease as a result of economies of
scale when more treatment systems are produced in the future.
To reduce the required capital investment, HVEA offers turn-
key lease options that, for a monthly fee, include equipment,
maintenance, and technical services. The minimum lease pe-
riod is usually 5 years renewable annually, but purchase options
are also available. HVEA's leasing arrangements allow for
flexibility in responding to changing regulations and changing
water quality over the life of a remediation project.
A.7 Summary
HVEA's E-beam system offers an innovative, cost-effective,
and flexible technology for treatment of industrial and hazard-
ous wastewaters. The technology can treat waters with varying
contaminant and feed compositions. The HVEA E-beam treat-
ment system produces a high-quality effluent, destroys com-
plex mixtures of organic pollutants, and can handle waste
streams containing solids. This technology has been well dem-
onstrated and is now commercially available for the treatment
of a variety of hazardous wastewaters.
48
-------
Table A-1. Capabilities of HVEA's E-Beam Treatment Systems
Specific Capabilities
Demonstrated Results
Comparison to
Conventional Technology
High RE for complex mixtures of
organic pollutants
Process can accommodate suspended
materials present at concentrations up
to 5%
Significant flexibility to handle changes
in feed flow rate and composition
Minimal post-treatment needed
Routinely reduces organic pollutant
concentrations by 99%; higher
removals achieved for specific pollutants
Presence of suspended Kaolin clay has
no effect on removal efficiency
Process is not sensitive to changes in
feed pH, temperature, and solids content
(up to 5%)
E-beam process results in destruction
of organic contaminants, which are
usually mineralized to CO2, H2O, and
inorganic salts
Biological treatment has high REs for
biodegradable compounds only;
pollutants such as PCBs are not
removed
Ultraviolet treatment is limited to
solutions that are transparent to the
ultraviolet source
Most treatment systems cannot handle
changes in feed composition and still
produce a high-quality effluent
Activated carbon and air stripping
transfer the contaminants to other
media, usually carbon, which have to
undergo secondary treatment as
hazardous waste
Table A-2. Contaminants and Pollutants Treatable by HVEA's E-Beam Treatment Systems and Other General Uses of the Systems
Treatable Organics
General Uses of the Systems
Aroclors
BTEX
Chemical warfare agents
Explosives and energetics
Halogenated semivolatiles
Nonhalogenated volatiles
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
Nonvolatile organics
Organic cyanides
Organic pesticides and herbicides
Phenol and phenolics
PAH
Solvents
Color removal
Odor control
Bacterial disinfection
Halogenated volatiles
Disinfection byproduct removal
TOG reduction
Chemical oxygen demand and biochemical oxygen demand reduction
49
-------
A.8 Bibliography
Cooper, WJ., D.E. Meacham, M.G. Nickelsen, K.-Lin, D.B.
Ford, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D. Waite. 1993. "The Removal
of Tri-(TCE) and Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from
Aqueous Solution Using High Energy Electrons." Journal
of the Air Waste Management Association. Volume 43.
Pages 1358-1366.
Cooper, WJ., E. Cadavid, M.G. Nickelsen, K. Lin, C.N.
Kurucz, and T.D. Waite. 1993. "Removing THMs From
Drinking Water Using High-Energy Electron-Beam
Irradiation." Journal of the American Water Works
Association. Volume 85 (September). Pages 106-112.
Cooper, W.J., K.L. Sawal, R.A. Slifker, M.G. Nickelsen, C.N.
Kurucz, and T.D. Waite. 1995 (in press). "Precursor
Removal from Natural Waters Using an Innovative
Treatment Process." Disinfection By-Products in Water
Treatment: The Chemistry of Their Formation and
Control. R.A. Minear and G.L. Amy, Editors.
Cooper, W.J., M.G. Nickelsen, D.E. Meacham, T.D. Waite,
and C.N. Kurucz. 1992. "High Energy Electron Beam
Irradiation: An Advanced Oxidation Process for the
Treatment of Aqueous Based Organic Hazardous Wastes."
Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada. Volume 27.
Pages 69-95.
Cooper, W.J., M.G. Nickelsen, D.E. Meacham, T.D. Waite,
and C.N. Kurucz. 1992. "High Energy Electron Beam
Irradiation: An Innovative Process for the Treatment of
Aqueous-Based Organic Hazardous Wastes." Journal of
Environmental Science and Health. Volume A27(l).
Pages 219-244.
Farooq, S., C.N. Kurucz, T.D. Waite, and WJ. Cooper. 1993.
"Disinfection of Wastewaters: High Energy Electron vs
Gamma Irradiation." Water Research. Volume 27. Pages
1177-1184.
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, and WJ. Cooper. 1995. "The
Miami Electron Beam Research Facility: A Large Scale
Wastewater Treatment Application." Radiation Physics
and Chemistry. Volume 45. Pages 299-308.
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, WJ. Cooper, and M.G. Nickelsen.
1991. "Full-Scale Electron Beam Treatment of Hazardous
Wastes—Effectiveness and Costs." Proceedings of the
45th Annual Purdue University Industrial Waste
Conference. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Pages 539-545.
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, W J. Cooper, and M.G. Nickelsen.
1991. "High-Energy Electron Beam Irradiation of Water,
Wastewater and Sludge." Advances in Nuclear Science and
Technology. J. Lewins and M. Becker, Editors. Plenum
Press. New York. Volume 22. Pages 1-43.
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, WJ. Cooper, and M.G. Nickelsen.
1995. "Empirical Models for Estimating the Destruction of
Toxic Organic Compounds Utilizing Electron Beam
Irradiation at Full Scale." Radiation Physics and Chemis-
try. Volume 45. Pages 805-816.
Lin, K., WJ. Cooper, M.G. Nickelsen, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D.
Waite. 1995 (in press). "The Removal of Aqueous Solu-
tions of Phenol at Full Scale Using High Energy Electron
Beam Irradiation." Applied Radiation and Isotopes.
Mak, F.T., WJ. Cooper, C.N. Kurucz, M.G- Nickelsen, and
T.D. Waite. 1995 (in press). "Removal of Chloroform from
Drinking Water Using High Energy Electron Beam
Irradiation." Disinfection By-Products in Water Treatment:
The Chemistry of Their Formation and Control. R.A.
Minear and G.L. Amy, Editors.
Nickelsen, M.G., W J. Cooper, K. Lin, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D.
Waite. 1994. "High Energy Electron Beam Generation of
Oxidants for the Treatment of Benzene and Toluene in the
Presence of Radical Scavengers." Water Research. Volume
28. Pages 1227-1237.
Nickelsen, M.G., WJ. Cooper, T.D. Waite, and C.N. Kurucz.
1992. "Removal of Benzene and Selected Alkyl Substi-
tuted Benzenes from Aqueous Solution Utilizing Continu-
ous High-Energy Electron Irradiation." Environmental
Science and Technology. Volume 26. Pages 144-152.
Waite, T.D., WJ. Cooper, C.N. Kurucz, R. Narbaitz, and J.H.
Greenfield. 1992. "Full Scale Treatments of Wastewater
Effluent with High Energy Electrons." Chemistry for
Protection of the Environment 1989. Elsevier, New York.
Pages 563-571.
Wang, T., T.D. Waite, C.N. Kurucz, and WJ. Cooper. 1994.
Oxidant Reduction and Biodegradability Improvement of
Paper Mill Effluent by Irradiation." Water Research.
Volume 28. Pages 237-241.
50
-------
Appendix B
Case Study
In December 1994, HVEA's trailer-mounted E-beam treatment
system was transported to a technology demonstration site in
Halle-Dieskau, Germany. At this site, HVEA performed sev-
eral treatability studies on waters contaminated with various
hazardous waste constituents. This case study summarizes one
of the treatability studies performed using process wastewater
from a petroleum refinery. The wastewater contained phenol,
BTEX, and PAH. Site conditions, HVEA system performance,
and estimated treatment costs are summarized below.
B.1 Site Conditions
HVEA was informed that process wastewater from a petroleum
refinery routinely exceeded German wastewater regulatory lim-
its for phenol, BTEX, and PAH (see Table B-l) and that the
German government was actively seeking innovative technolo-
gies with the capability of destroying such complex contami-
nant mixtures to meet German regulatory limits.
To determine the effectiveness of HVEA's E-beam technology,
about 270 gallons of the process wastewater was shipped to the
demonstration site. The trailer-mounted E-beam treatment sys-
tem was used to treat the wastewater in recirculation mode at a
flow rate of 25 gpm and a beam current of 40 mA for about
45 minutes. Samples were collected at regular intervals to
evaluate the HVEA system's performance as a function of time.
B.2 System Performance
Table B-l summarizes the highest REs and corresponding
effluent concentrations achieved by HVEA's E-beam system.
The E-beam system achieved REs of 99.10%, >99.92%, and
>99.51% for phenol, total BTEX, and total PAH, respectively,
and met the German regulatory limits for all the compounds
involved.
B.3 Estimated Costs
To meet German regulatory limits, HVEA recommended a 75-
kW unit (HVEA-T75W-48S) to treat the wastewater at 35 gpm
in a continuous flow mode. The O&M costs for the system
recommended included electricity and general maintenance
costs. The cost of electricity per 1,000 gallons treated is esti-
mated to be $3.75, based on a rate of $0.07 per kWh. The cost
of required maintenance and treatment services is estimated to
be $1.02 per 1,000 gallons treated. The total estimated treat-
ment cost is $4.77 per 1,000 gallons treated.
51
-------
Table B-1. Case Study Results for HVEA's Trailer-Mounted E-Beam Treatment System
Compound
Initial Concentration
Effluent Concentration
RE German Regulatory Limit
(%) (MS/L)
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Ethy benzene
m/p/o-xylene
Total BTEX
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Ruoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo-(a)-anthracene
Total PAH
2,230
6,200
498
118
201
7,017
15.207
0.728
0.048
0.138
0.086
0.056
0.012
16.275
20
3.5
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<5.5
<0.020
<0.020
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.080
99.10
99.94
>99.80
>99.58
>99.75
>99.92
>99.87
>97.25
>79.17
>92.75
>88.37
>91.07
>58.33
>99.51
20.0
5.0
20.0
a
20.0
20.0
—
—
— !•
—
—
—
—
0.200
«— m Not available
52
------- |