xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-96/507
January 1998
Rochem Separation
Systems, Inc. Disc Tube™
Module Technology
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
EPA/540/R-96/507
January 1998
Rochem Separation Systems, Inc
Disc Tube™ Module Technology
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program under Contract No. 68-CO-0048. This document has been subjected to
the EPA's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names of commercial products does not
constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program was authorized
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The
Program is administered by the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The purpose of the SITE Program is to accelerate the development and use of
innovative cleanup technologies applicable to Superfund and other hazardous
waste sites. This purpose is accomplished through technology demonstrations
designed to provide performance and cost data on selected technologies.
This project consisted of a demonstration conducted under the SITE Program to
evaluate the Disc Tube™ Module technology developed by Rochem Separation
Systems, Inc. The technology is an innovative membrane separation process
which utilizes commercially available membrane materials to treat difficult fluids
ranging from seawaterto organic solvents. This Demonstration was conducted on
hazardous landfill leachate at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. This
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report presents an interpretation of the perfor-
mance and cost data gathered during the Demonstration and discusses the
potential applicability of the technology.
A limited number of copies of this report will be available at no charge from the
EPA's Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI), 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268. Requests should include the EPA
document number found on the report's cover. When the limited supply is
exhausted, additional copies can be purchased from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), Ravensworth Building, Springfield, Virginia, 22161,
(703) 487-4600. Reference copies will be available at EPA libraries in the
Hazardous Waste Collection. The SITE Clearinghouse Hotline at (800) 424-9346
or (202) 382-3000 in Washington, D.C. also handles inquiries about the availability
of other reports.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations x
Conversions xiii
Acknowledgments xv
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Background 6
1.2 Brief Description of Program and Reports 6
1.3 The SITE Demonstration Program 7
1.4 Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 7
1.5 Brief Technology Description 7
1.6 Key Contacts 8
2 Technology Applications Analysis 9
2.1 Key Features of the Technology 9
2.2 Operability of the Technology 9
2.3 Applicable Wastes 10
2.4 Availability and Transportability of Equipment 10
2.5 Materials Handling Requirements 11
2.6 Site Support Requirements 11
2.7 Range of Suitable Site Characteristics 12
2.8 Limitations of the Technology 12
2.9 Technology Performance Versus ARARs 12
2.9.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) 12
2.9.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 15
2.9.3 Clean Air Act (CAA) 15
2.9.4 Clean Water Act (CWA) 16
2.9.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 16
2.9.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Requirements 16
2.9.7 Radioactive Waste Regulations 16
2.9.8 Mixed Waste Regulations 17
2.9.9 State and Local Requirements 17
-------
Contents (continued)
Section Page
3 Economic Analysis 18
3.1 Introduction 18
3.2 Conclusions 18
3.3 Issues and Assumptions 19
3.4 Basis of Economic Analysis 20
3.4.1 Site and Facility Preparation Costs 20
3.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 22
3.4.3 Equipment Costs 25
3.4.4 Startup and Fixed Costs 25
3.4.5 Labor Costs 26
3.4.6 Supplies Costs 26
3.4.7 Consumables Costs 26
3.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 26
3.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping, Handling, and Transportation Costs .... 26
3.4.10 Analytical Costs 27
3.4.11 Facilities Modification, Repair, and Replacement Costs 27
3.4.12 Site Restoration Costs 27
4 Treatment Effectiveness 28
4.1 Background 28
4.1.1 Site History and Contamination 28
4.1.2 Treatment Objections 28
4.1.3 Treatment Approach 29
4.2 Testing Methodology 30
4.3 Detailed Process Description 31
4.4 Performance Data 33
4.4.1 General Chemistry 33
4.4.2 Contaminant Removals 34
4.4.3 Water Recovery Rate 36
4.4.4 Membrane Performance 36
4.4.5 System Mass Balance 41
4.4.6 Permeate Disposal 44
4.4.7 Maintenance, Cleaning, and Reliability 45
4.5 Process Residuals 45
5 Other Technology Requirements 47
5.1 Personnel Requirements 47
5.2 Community Acceptance 47
6 Technology Status 49
6.1 Previous/Other Experience 49
6.2 Scale-Up Capabilities 49
VI
-------
Contents (continued)
Section Page
References 51
Appendix A Vendor's Claims
Appendix B Summary of Procedures and Results for Rochem Separation Systems'
Disc Tube™ Module Treatability Tests
Appendix C Treatability Test Plan
VII
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
ES-1 Evaluation Criteria for the Rochem DIM Technology 4
2-1 Federal and State ARARs forthe Rochem DTM Technology 13
3-1 Estimated Costs for Treatment Using Rochem DTM Technology 19
3-2 Detailed Costs for Treatment Using the Rochem DTM Technology 21
4-1 Central Landfill Leachate Waste Stream Pre-Demonstration Characterization
Results 29
4-2 Average Concentrations forthe System Feed, Permeate, and Concentrate Streams....34
4-3 Target Contaminants Average Percent Rejections 35
4-4 VOC Gas Loss on a Mass Basis Compared to System Percent VOC Rejection 35
4-5 Rochem DTM Technology Baseline Test Results 37
4-6 Rochem System Critical Contaminant Mass Balance Summary 44
4-7 Permeate Discharge Comparison to Permit Limits 45
VIM
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
3-1 Estimated Costs for the 9122 DIM System Operating at a Fixed Facility 23
3-2 Estimated Costs for the 9142 DIM System Operating at a Fixed Facility 24
4-1 Cutaway Diagram of the Rochem Disc Tube™ Module 32
4-2 Schematic of the Rochem DIM Process Used During SITE Demonstration 33
4-3 Rochem DIM System Daily Percent Water Recovery 36
4-4 Pressure and Flow Rates vs. Time for the First-Stage Unit 38
4-5 Pressure and Flow Rates vs. Time for the High-Pressure Unit 38
4-6 Measured pH of the System Input and Output Streams 39
4-7 Measured Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) of the System Input and Output Streams 39
4-8 Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and Total Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) vs. Time for the Final Permeate Stream 40
4-9 Pressure and Flow Rate vs. Time for the Second-Stage Unit 41
4-10 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Input and Output Streams vs. Time 42
4-11 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Input and Output Streams vs. Time 42
4-12 Chlorobenzene Input and Output Streams vs. Time 43
4-13 Toluene Input and Output Streams vs. Time 43
IX
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEA
AQCR
ARAR
ASTM
ATTIC
BOD
CAA
CaC03
CaSO4
CERCLA
CERI
CFR
CLU-IN
C02
COD
CWA
DOE
DTM
EPA
GC/MS
gpd
gpm
HCI
hpd
HPU
hr
HSWA
ITER
kW
L
LCS
Atomic Energy Act
Air Quality Control Regions
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
American Society for Testing and Materials
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
biochemical oxygen demand
Clean Air Act
calcium carbonate
calcium sulfate
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability
Act of 1980
Center for Environmental Research Information
Code of Federal Regulations
Cleanup Information
carbon dioxide
chemical oxygen demand
Clean Water Act
Department of Energy
Disc Tube™ Module
Environmental Protection Agency
gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer
gallons per day
gallons per minute
hydrochloric acid
hours per day
high-pressure unit
hour
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
kilowatt
liter
laboratory control sample
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
Ipd
Ipm
MB AS
MCL
MF
mg
ml
NAAQS
NCR
NRC
NPDES
NRMRL
NTIS
ORD
OSHA
OSWER
PH
POTW
PPE
psig
PVC
Q
Q
standard
QA
QAPP
RCRA
RISWMC
RO
Rochem
SAIC
SARA
SDI
SDWA
SITE
SWDA
IDS
TER
TFC
TOC
liters per day
liters per minute
methylene blue active substances
maximum contaminant levels
micro-filtration
milligram
milliliter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Technical Information Services
Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
parts Hydrogen
publicly-owned treatment works
personal protective equipment
pounds per square inch gauge
polyvinyl chloride
flow rate
standardized flow rate
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation
reverse osmosis
Rochem Separation Systems, Inc.
Science Applications International Corporation
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
silt density index
Safe Drinking Water Act
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Solid Waste Disposal Act
total dissolved solids
Technology Evaluation Report
thin film composite
total organic carbon
XI
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
TS total solids
TSD treatment, storage, and disposal
TTO total toxic organics
UF ultrafiltration
U.S. United States
VISIT! Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
VOC volatile organic compound
XII
-------
Conversions
Mass
1 pound (Ib) = 0.4536 kg
1 ton = 2,000 lb = 907.18 kg
1 kilogram (kg) = 2.20 Ib
Volume
1 cubic inch (in3) = 5.78E-04 ft3 = 2.14E-05 yd3 = 0.0164 L = 1.64E-05 m3 = 4.33E-03 gal
1 cubic foot (ft3) = 1,728 in3 = 0.0370 yd3 = 28.32 L = 0.0283 m3 = 7.48 gal
1 cubic yard (yd3) = 46,656 in3 = 27 ft3 = 764.55 L = 0.7646 m3 = 201.97 gal
1 cubic meter (m3) = 61,023 in3 = 35.31 ft3 = 1.31 yd3 = 1,000 L = 264.17 gal
1 liter (L) = 61.02 in3 = 0.0353 ft3 = 1.30E-03 yd3 = 1 .OOE-03 m3 = 0.2642 gal
1 gallon (gal) = 231 in3 = 0.1337 ft3 = 4.95E-03 yd3 = 3.7854 L = 3.79E-03 m3
Length
1 inch (in) = 0.0833 ft = 0.0278 yd = 0.0254 m
1 foot (ft) = 12 in = 0.3333 yd = 0.3048 m
1 yard (yd) = 36 in = 3 ft = 0.9144 m
1 meter (m) = 39.37 in = 3.28 ft = 1.09 yd
Temperature
1 degree Fahrenheit (°F) = 0.5556°C [x°C=0.5556*(y°F-32)]
1 degree Celsius (°C) = 1.8°F [x_F=1.8*(y°C)+32]
Pressure
1 pound per square inch (psi) = 27.71 in H2O = 6894.76 Pa
1 inch of water (in H2O) = 0.0361 psi = 248.80 Pa
1 Pascal (Pa) = 1.45E-04 psi = 4.02E-03 in H2O
Viscosity
1 poise = 0.1 kg/m-sec = 2.09E-03 Ib/ft-sec
1 kg/m-sec = 10.00 poise = 2.09E-03 Ib/ft-sec
1 Ib/ft-sec = 478.70 kg/m-sec
XIII
-------
Conversions (continued)
Rate
1 Ib/hr = 2.20 kg/hr
1 kg/hr =0.4536 Ib/hr
1 gallon per minute (gpm) = 3.784 Lpm
1 liter per minute (Ipm) = 0.264 gpm
1 gallon per day (gpd) = 3.784 Lpd
1 liter per day (Ipd) = 0.264 gpd
XIV
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Douglas Grosse, the EPA
Technical Project Manager for this SITE Demonstration at the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was prepared
by the Process Technology Division of Science Applications International Corpora-
tion (SAIC) under the direction of Mr. Kyle R. Cook, the SAIC Work Assignment
Manager.
Contributors to the report were: Ms. Dora A. Anson, engineering, data evaluation,
and technical writing; Mr. Robert Dvorin, technical consulting; Mr. Scott C. James,
data evaluation and technical writing; Ms. Linda L. Hunter, economics evaluation;
Mr. Raymond J. Martrano, Quality Assurance evaluation and technical writing; Mr.
Brandon J. Phillips, engineering and technical writing; and Ms. Jamie Sue
Winkelman, engineering and technical writing. Reviewers for this report were Dr.
Victor S. Engleman and Mr. Joseph D. Evans.
The cooperation and participation of Rochem Separation Systems, Inc. throughout
the course of this project and in review of this report are appreciated. Special
thanks is also due to Mr. Dennis Russo at the Central Landfill for his support of the
technology Demonstration.
xv
-------
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of
the Rochem Separation Systems, Inc. (Rochem) Disc
Tube™ Module (DTM) technology. This technology is a
membrane separation process for treatment of landfill
leachate and other liquid wastes. The evaluation of this
technology was conducted under the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative Tech-
nology Evaluation (SITE) Program.
The Rochem DTM technology was demonstrated at the
Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island during August
and September 1994. Approximately 33,000 gallons
(125,000 liters) of landfill leachate were treated by a
Rochem Model 9122 system operating at a feed flow
rate of about four gallons per minute (gpm) [15 liters per
minute (Ipm)]. The 9122 system consisted of three stages:
a leachate unit, a permeate unit, and a high-pressure
unit (HPU). The first stage leachate unit received raw
feed before sending the effluent onto a second stage
permeate unit. The HPU was used to further reduce the
liquid waste volume and increase the treated water
recovery rate. Based on measurements made during
the Demonstration, the landfill leachate was contami-
nated with chlorobenzene and 1,2-dichlorobenzene at
average concentrations of 21 and 16 milligrams per liter
(mg/L), respectively, and lower levels of 1,4-dichloroben-
zene at 0.7 mg/L; ethylbenzene at 0.79 mg/L; toluene at
1.8 mg/L; and xylenes at 1.3 mg/L. Total organic carbon
(TOC) was present in the leachate at an average con-
centration of 460 mg/L, and total dissolved solids (TDS)
were present at an average concentration of 4,900 mg/
L. Metals were also present at average concentrations
such as 1.4 mg/L for barium, 130 mg/L for calcium, 48
mg/L for iron, and 21 mg/L for manganese.
The purpose of the Demonstration was to assess the
DTM technology's effectiveness in removing organic
and inorganic contaminants from the landfill leachate
and in resisting fouling and scaling of the membranes.
The technology developer, Rochem, claims that the
innovative DTM design reduces the potential for mem-
brane fouling and scaling, thereby allowing it to treat
liquid waste that is higher in TDS, turbidity, and contami-
nant levels than liquid waste treated by conventional
membrane separation processes.
To evaluate these performance features, the following
critical objectives were developed for the SITE Demon-
stration:
• determine if the technology could meet the
developer's claims for contaminant rejection of
greater than 90% for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), greater than 92% for TOC, and greater
than 99% for TDS and metals;
• determine if the technology could achieve and main-
tain a system treated water recovery rate of 75% or
greater; and
• evaluate the DTM technology's resistance to mem-
brane fouling and scaling by determining the change
in flux as a result of liquid waste (leachate) treat-
ment over the course of the Demonstration.
Measurements directly related to the critical objectives
noted above undergo strict adherence to EPA quality
assurance protocol including review and auditing prior
to, during, and following the Demonstration. Sampling,
analysis, and monitoring of the input and output streams
were conducted during treatment to evaluate contami-
nant rejection and system water recovery rate. Baseline
testing was performed before and after leachate treat-
ment to compare the system's pre- and post-demonstra-
tion flux (flow rate per unit membrane area) and thereby
evaluate resistance to scaling and fouling of membranes.
The critical (target) analytes for the Demonstration in-
cluded TDS; TOC; VOCs (chlorobenzene; 1,2- and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene; ethylbenzene; toluene; and xylenes);
and metals (barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manga-
nese, potassium, sodium, and strontium). These target
analytes were selected based on the developer's claims
and based on their concentrations as determined from
pre-demonstration leachate characterization data. Criti-
cal process measurements included DTM pressure, flow
rate, and totalized flow. These measurements were
necessary for the baseline testing and to determine the
water recovery rate.
Based on this SITE Demonstration, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn regarding the DTM technology's
performance with respect to critical objectives:
• Overall, the DTM technology was very effective in
removing contaminants from the landfill leachate.
Mean contaminant rejections were greater than
-------
96.7% forTOC and 99.4% for IDS, both exceeding
the developer's claim. The overall mean rejection for
total metals was at least 99.2%, exceeding the
developer's claim of 99%. The calculated mean
rejections of 1,2-dichlorobenzene; ethylbenzene; tolu-
ene; and xylenes were greater than the developer's
claim of 90% for VOCs. The overall mean rejection
for total VOCs was greater than 92.3%. However,
the calculated mean rejection for chlorobenzene
was 86.8% with a 95% confidence interval of 83.1 to
90.5%; the calculated mean rejection for 1,4-dichlo-
robenzene was 87.6% with a 95% confidence inter-
val of 83.5 to 91.7%. These rejections were less
than the specified criteria of 90%, but the 90%
rejection criteria fell within the 95% confidence inter-
vals for both compounds.
• Treated water recovery is defined as the volume of
final permeate divided by the volume of feed, times
100%. The average system treated water recovery
rate for the Demonstration was 73.3% with a 95%
confidence interval of 70.7 to 75.9%. The developer's
claim of 75% water recovery falls within this confi-
dence interval. The treated water recovery rate was
reduced by the use of first-stage and final permeate
for rinsing of the second-stage unit modules and the
HPU modules between batch treatment cycles each
day to displace residual leachate from membrane
surfaces. For other DTM system designs that are
better integrated and typically require less module
rinsing than the system demonstrated at the Central
Landfill, achievable recovery rates may be higher
(75 to 80%) when treating a similar liquid waste.
• The DTM technology's performance in resisting mem-
brane fouling and scaling and maintaining system
flux was evaluated before and after leachate treat-
ment by measuring flux for the leachate (first-stage)
unit and the HPU while treating a standard salt
solution. These units received the bulk of waste
loading during treatment. Baseline testing results
show that the flux decreased in the first-stage unit
during the Demonstration by approximately
30_12.6% at 95% confidence. However, because
pH control and system operation varied during the
Demonstration, it is difficult to determine the precise
decrease in flux and its cause. The HPU had a flux
decrease of approximately 83_2.2% at 95% confi-
dence based on baseline testing results. The devel-
oper maintains, and performance data indicate, that
the HPU membranes were probably damaged by an
acid excursion during acid addition performed to
remove sealants or during acid dosing for pH con-
trol. Membrane fouling and scaling may have also
contributed to the decrease in flux for both units.
System operating data during leachate treatment were
also evaluated to determine the performance of mem-
branes during the Demonstration. These data indicate a
decrease in flux for the first-stage unit and the HPU
similar to the baseline testing results. However, these
data also indicate that the lack of feed pH adjustment at
the beginning of raw leachate treatment coupled with
the increased treated water recovery during the HPU
cycle contributed to membrane fouling and scaling, with
the resultant decrease in flux measured by the baseline
testing. The developer felt that better performance may
have been achieved if a more thorough process shake-
down had been performed and more sophisticated pre-
treatment for pH control had been used.
Secondary (non-critical) objectives that are of interest to
future applications of the DTM technology but not di-
rectly related to developer's claims were also evaluated
during this Demonstration. These included process reli-
ability, maintenance, potential emissions, and operating
costs. Secondary objectives are supported by non-criti-
cal data that may be less definitive than critical data and
are not subject to the same quality assurance require-
ments as primary (critical) objectives.
With respect to secondary objectives, the following con-
clusions can be drawn:
• Membrane cleaning was easily implemented for each
process unit on an as-needed basis. Cleaning was
helpful in removing accumulated deposits from the
membranes and restoring performance. More fre-
quent membrane cleaning may be required for liquid
waste with high scaling or fouling potential.
• The DTM technology has intermediate holding tanks
for process streams. Measurements of vent emis-
sions from the concentrate feed tank indicate that
VOC losses occurred from this tank when the HPU
was between treatment cycles and the first-stage
unit was filling the tank with concentrate. These
losses did not significantly affect the calculated re-
movals (percent rejections) of VOC contaminants.
However, depending on local air quality require-
ments, engineering controls may be necessary to
reduce emissions from this process tank vent.
• The DTM technology was effective in removing a
variety of contaminants from the landfill leachate.
The final permeate from the Demonstration com-
plied with permit limits for discharge to the local
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) with re-
spect to metals. However, the total toxic organics
(TTO) average daily concentration of the final per-
meate was 3.4 mg/L, which was greater than the
TTO discharge permit limit of 2.13 mg/L. Discharge
limits for TTO, cyanide, and oil and grease were met
after activated carbon polishing. Limits for biological
oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand
(COD), and total suspended solids (TSS) were not
applicable to the Central Landfill's Industrial Waste
Discharge Permit. The TDS and low turbidity of the
permeate lend it to treatment with many suitable
polishing technologies. Based on the technology
performance during this Demonstration, only mini-
mal polishing treatment was required to meet dis-
charge limits. If acid is used during treatment to
lower the system feed pH (like during the Demon-
-------
stration), permeate pH adjustment may be required
to meet discharge limitations. This could be accom-
plished using aeration to remove CO2 and thereby
increase pH. In some applications, the final perme-
ate may meet the discharge limitations without the
need for further treatment.
Costs estimates were prepared for leachate treat-
ment using a 9122 system slightly smaller than the
system used during the Demonstration [three gpm
(11 Ipm) rather than four gpm (15 Ipm)] and a 9142
system sized for a larger design flow rate; both at a
fixed facility. The estimated costs for treating leachate
similar to the Demonstration leachate (hazardous
landfill leachate), with an on-line efficiency factor of
90% and a treated water recovery rate of 75%, are
$0.16/permeate-gallon ($0.04/permeate-liter) for the
Rochem 9122 system [operating at three gpm (15
Ipm)] and $0.06/permeate-gallon ($0.01/permeate-
liter) for the 9142 system [operating at 21 gpm (79
Ipm)]. These costs include all factors except for
permitting and waste disposal costs for the concen-
trate stream. The waste disposal cost is leachate-
and concentrate-specific. If only the annualized
equipment costs and consumables costs are con-
sidered and other costs are assumed to be the
responsibility of the fixed facility, then the cost would
decrease to $0.07/permeate-gallon and $0.03/per-
meate-gallon for the 9122 and the 9142 systems,
respectively. Labor costs per permeate-gallon de-
crease with system scale-up. Based on information
from Rochem, systems larger than the 9122 and
9142 would have a lower cost per permeate-gallon.
• The DTM technology can effectively treat landfill
leachate to significantly reduce the volume of
leachate requiring further treatment and disposal.
The treated water recovery rate achievable with the
DTM technology is a function of the scaling potential
of the liquid waste. The HPU can be used to in-
crease treated water recovery but may be limited by
scaling constituents in the liquid waste.
• On-site pilot-scale treatability testing of the liquid
waste stream is necessary to evaluate technology
performance and determine operational procedures
and settings prior to full-scale application. For com-
plex liquid waste streams, bench-scale treatability
testing is also recommended. After process installa-
tion, a shakedown period is necessary to check
technology performance and to optimize liquid waste
pre-treatment and operational procedures. Rochem
did not perform treatability testing with the Central
Landfill leachate prior to the Demonstration, and
process shakedown was very abbreviated.
The Rochem DTM technology was evaluated based on
the nine criteria used for decision-making in the Superfund
Feasibility Study (FS) process. Table ES-1 presents the
results of this evaluation.
The following sections of this report contain the detailed
information that supports the items summarized in this
Executive Summary. Appendix A, "Vendor's Claims,"
presents information and data from the technology ven-
dor concerning other applications of the DTM technol-
ogy.
-------
.. D)
> =!
£ O
£.c
£11
ofE
§>s
!s°1-
3 >-
•D =
ajS
a: o
D)
^
O
C
.C
O
£
2
Q
E
3^
§^
(0
"o.
o
O
§ |
J 2
o •>
c c
O LLJ
_ ra
ra £
(D
O X
0)
fli
CD
(DC
i*
ip|
ra c
<" 01 ra
.<» ?2
> •=;
a)Q.o>-!=^=) ^S^E
illflsl PI
-
llfl |t|S
a 8 « 1 £S"i§-
°
-°
"W D)
. o.-g
g-S "
^ -
1 I &
.
oSra-Q —
lts |l
^"0 • E o
2 £
Q. ro
JJ-
J5 aj
o ^
«) _
c ra
0) - O
pi" o
ra c
&°
T3
5 ^0>
(D (D ~
t3 ° ra^CL s=.g
E ra E
0) ^ (D
tl«
s-^-°
Ec »•
w ra >- w
2 o.-S^
•p c c <
g oS<£
O O (/) <
x £ o
W ra "a
O
-------
00 .
CC oo
•E < o
oi a: .fc
S
Q- I
, J5
ra ^ D)
c a) c
5 £'1
£2^
~ (D p
<^^ ^
<" -0 'S
o aj aj
i- -Q ±
0 >-S-
*; ra cr
E E £
S.S g
c c o
.2 8 <=
00 U O
•S« o>
>
00
T3
a. Q.
Q. OJ
E-S
(0
'S.
Commu
111
S-i!
t-2 «
? §5
3 o ra
E^= 3
E .y o
811
(D (D Q.
£ to O
^§1
jj ^ ra
o ^ .o)
ft
<" E §, oo r "S = >,2 S
g-^«l°S.§ ^«£
aj aj>(/)xo ^ *- ,-
o«£-"i-
-------
Section 1
Introduction
This section provides background information about the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Pro-
gram, discusses the purpose of this Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation Report (ITER), and describes the Rochem
Separation Systems, Inc. Disc Tube™ Module (DTM)
technology. For additional information about the SITE
Program, this technology, and the Demonstration site,
key contacts are listed at the end of this section.
1.1 Background
Rochem Separation Systems, Inc. (Rochem) in Tor-
ranee, California is the United States (U.S.) subsidiary of
the Rochem Group based in Geneva, Switzerland.
Rochem is licensed to supply the DTM technology in the
U.S. The DTM technology was developed based on
experience gained in desalinating sea water and brack-
ish water using reverse osmosis technology. Rochem
has been building reverse osmosis units since 1981 and
DTM units since 1988. The Rochem DTM units and
systems are currently designed and fabricated in Ger-
many. The technology has been used to treat leachate
at over 50 landfills in Europe, according to Rochem. The
DTM technology is a membrane separation process
designed to treat difficult fluids ranging from seawaterto
organic solvents. It is a hybrid between spiral-wound
and plate-and-frame membrane separation systems (1).
A one-stage system consisting of a leachate unit and a
permeate unit is a common application of the DTM
technology. Recently, however, Rochem has made avail-
able a high-pressure DTM unit that can be combined
with the leachate and permeate units to make a two-
stage system that provides additional waste concentra-
tion and volume reduction.
The goal of the SITE Program Demonstration of the
Rochem technology was to evaluate its ability to treat
landfill leachate contaminated with measurable levels of
hazardous constituents. A Demonstration was originally
planned at a hazardous waste landfill in the western
U.S. Bench-scale treatability testing was conducted on
leachate from this landfill using the DTM technology to
prepare fora pilot-scale field Demonstration. The results
of this test are presented in Appendix B of this report.
Due to ongoing site litigation, the Demonstration was not
conducted at the hazardous waste landfill in the western
U.S. Subsequently, other sites and their characteristics
were reviewed for their potential as Demonstration sites
for the DTM technology. Finally, the Central Landfill in
Johnston, Rhode Island was identified as a probable
Demonstration site. Based on liquid waste characteriza-
tion data collected by the EPA evaluation contractor,
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC),
the levels of constituents in the leachate were high
enough to evaluate the technology and also within an
acceptable range for treatment. Therefore, the leachate
was determined to be suitable by EPA and Rochem for a
Demonstration of the DTM technology. A Demonstration
was conducted at the Central Landfill during the summer
of 1994. However, no treatability testing was done at this
site.
1.2 Brief Description of Program and
Reports
The SITE Program is a formal program established by
the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse (OSWER) and Office of Research and Develop-
ment (ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The SITE
Program's primary purpose is to maximize the use of
alternatives in cleaning hazardous waste sites by en-
couraging the development and demonstration of new,
innovative treatment and monitoring technologies. It con-
sists of four major elements:
• the Emerging Technology Program,
• the Demonstration Program,
• the Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Pro-
gram, and
• the Technology Transfer Program.
The Emerging Technology Program focuses on concep-
tually proven bench-scale technologies that are in an
early stage of development involving pilot or laboratory
testing. Successful technologies are encouraged to ad-
vance to the Demonstration Program.
The Demonstration Program develops reliable perfor-
mance and cost data on innovative technologies so that
potential users may assess the technology's site-spe-
-------
cific applicability. Technologies evaluated are either cur-
rently available or close to being available for remediation
of Superfund sites. SITE Demonstrations are conducted
on hazardous waste sites under full-scale remediation
conditions or under conditions that closely simulate full-
scale remediation conditions, thus assuring the useful-
ness and reliability of information collected. Data col-
lected are used to assess: (1) the performance of the
technology, (2) the potential need for pre- and post-
treatment processing of wastes, (3) potential operating
problems, and (4) the approximate costs. The Demon-
strations also allow for evaluation of long-term risks and
operating and maintenance costs.
Existing technologies that improve field monitoring and
site characterizations are identified in the Monitoring
and Measurement Technologies Program. New tech-
nologies that provide faster, more cost-effective con-
tamination and site assessment data are supported by
this program. The Monitoring and Measurement Tech-
nologies Program also formulates the protocols and
standard operating procedures for demonstration meth-
ods and equipment.
The Technology Transfer Program disseminates techni-
cal information on innovative technologies in the Emerg-
ing Technology Program, the Demonstration Program,
and the Monitoring and Measurements Technologies
Program through various activities. These activities in-
crease public awareness and promote the use of inno-
vative technologies for assessment and remediation at
Superfund sites. The goal of technology transfer activi-
ties is to develop interactive communication among
individuals requiring up-to-date technical information.
1.3 The SITE Demonstration Program
Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration
Program through annual requests for proposals. ORD
staff reviews the proposals to determine which technolo-
gies show the most promise for use at Superfund sites.
Technologies chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale
stage, must be innovative, and must have some advan-
tage over existing technologies. Mobile and in situ tech-
nologies are of particular interest.
Once the EPA has accepted a proposal, cooperative
agreements between the EPA and the developer estab-
lish responsibilities for conducting the Demonstration
and evaluating the technology. The developer is respon-
sible for demonstrating the technology at the selected
site and is responsible for any costs for transport, opera-
tions, and removal of the equipment. The EPA is re-
sponsible for project planning, sampling and analysis,
quality assurance and quality control, preparing reports,
disseminating information, and transporting and dispos-
ing of treated waste materials.
The results of this evaluation of the Rochem DTM
technology are published in two basic documents: the
SITE Technology Capsule and this Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation Report. The SITE Technology Capsule
provides relevant information on the technology, em-
phasizing key features of the results of the SITE field
Demonstration, while the ITER provides an in-depth
evaluation of the overall performance and applicability of
the technology.
1.4 Purpose of the Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report
This ITER provides information on the Rochem DTM
technology for treatment of contaminated liquids and
includes a comprehensive description of this Demon-
stration and its results. The ITER is intended for use by
EPA remedial project managers, EPA on-scene coordi-
nators, contractors, and other decision-makers carrying
out specific remedial actions. The ITER is designed to
aid decision-makers in further evaluating specific tech-
nologies for further consideration as applicable options
in a particular cleanup operation. This report represents
a critical step in the development and commercialization
of a treatment technology.
To encourage the general use of demonstrated tech-
nologies, the EPA provides information regarding the
applicability of each technology to specific sites and
wastes. The ITER includes information on cost and
performance, particularly as evaluated during the Dem-
onstration. It also discusses advantages, disadvantages,
and limitations of the technology. All data and support-
ing documentation for the Demonstration are contained
in a companion Technology Evaluation Report (TER).
This report is not published with the ITER but is avail-
able from EPA upon request.
Each SITE Demonstration evaluates the performance of
a technology in treating a specific waste. The waste
characteristics of other sites may differ from the charac-
teristics of the treated waste. Therefore, a successful
field demonstration of a technology at one site does not
necessarily ensure that it will be applicable at other
sites. Data from the field demonstration may require
extrapolation for estimating the operating ranges in which
the technology will perform satisfactorily. Only limited
conclusions can be drawn from a single field demonstra-
tion.
1.5 Brief Technology Description
The Rochem DTM technology is an innovative mem-
brane separation process which utilizes commercially
available membrane materials. The patented membrane
module is designed with larger feed flow channels and a
higher feed flow velocity than conventional membrane
separation systems. According to the developer, these
features reduce the potential for membrane fouling and
scaling and allow the DTM technology to be the primary
treatment step for liquid wastes with high fouling poten-
tial such as landfill leachate.
The DTM system can utilize reverse osmosis (RO),
ultrafiltration (UF), or microfiltration (MF) membranes,
depending on the application. It is a pressure-driven
-------
process that selectively rejects and concentrates impuri-
ties present in a liquid matrix. Reverse osmosis mem-
branes were utilized during the Rochem SITE Demon-
stration at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Is-
land. Membrane material for the DIM is ultrasonically
welded into a cushion around a porus spacer material.
Octagonal membrane cushions with a center hole are
stacked alternately with plastic hydraulic discs on a
tension rod. The hydraulic discs support the membranes
and form the feed flow channels. O-rings are located in
the center hole of each hydraulic disk. These O-rings
separate the feed channels from the inside of each
membrane cushion and, when stacked, form a perme-
ate (product water) collection channel by establishing a
barrier between the feed water and the product water.
Feed liquid passes over the membrane through the flow
channels provided by the hydraulic discs, and clean
product water exits the membrane through the center
hole into the permeate collection channel. A stack of
membrane cushions and hydraulic discs housed in a
pressure vessel constitutes a membrane module. Flanges
are used to seal the ends of each module and provide
the feed water input, as well as the product and reject
output, piping connections. The number of discs per
module, number of modules, and the membrane materi-
als can be custom-designed to suit the application. A
detailed process description of the DTM process utilized
during the Rochem SITE Demonstration is given in
Section 4.3 of this report.
1.6 Key Contacts
Additional information on the Rochem DTM technology
and the SITE Program can be obtained from the follow-
ing sources:
The Rochem Separation Systems DTM Technology
Mr. David LaMonica, President
Rochem Separation Systems, Inc.
3904 Del Amo Boulevard, Suite 801
Torrance, CA 90503
Phone: 310/370-3160
Fax: 310/370-4988
The SITE Program
Mr. Robert A. Olexsey, Director
Land Remediation & PollutionControl Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513/569-7861
Fax: 513/569-7620
Mr. Douglas Grosse
EPA SITE Project Manager
Technology Transfer & Support Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Phone: 513/569-7844
Fax: 513/569-7676
Technical reports may be obtained by contacting the
Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI),
26 Martin Luther King Drive in Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268 at
513/569-7562. Additional information on the SITE Pro-
gram is available through the following information clear-
inghouses.
• The Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC) System (operator: 703/908-2137) is
a comprehensive, automated information retrieval
system that integrates data on hazardous waste
treatment technologies into a centralized, search-
able source. This database provides summarized
information on innovative treatment technologies.
• The Vendor Information system for Innovative Treat-
ment Technologies (VISITT) (hotline: 800/245-4505)
database currently contains information on approxi-
mately 231 technologies offered by 141 developers.
• The OSWER CLU-IN electronic bulletin board con-
tains information on the status of SITE technology
demonstrations. The system operator can be reached
at 301/589-8368.
-------
Section 2
Technology Application Analysis
2.1 Key Features of the Technology
The Rochem DIM technology is designed to treat liquid
waste that is higher in dissolved solids content and
contaminant levels than liquid waste treated by conven-
tional membrane separation processes. Traditionally,
membrane separation processes have been used as
secondary or polishing steps in liquid waste treatment
schemes. According to the developer, the DTM's inno-
vative design allows it to be the primary treatment step
for liquid waste streams such as landfill leachate.
The DTM features larger feed flow channels and a
higher feed flow velocity than typical membrane separa-
tion systems. The developer states that these character-
istics allow the DTM greater tolerance for dissolved
solids and turbidity and a greater resistance to mem-
brane scaling and fouling. Permanent scaling or fouling
of the membranes by liquid waste constituents impacts
treatment effectiveness and can reduce the membrane
life. Pretreatment, such as chemical addition for pH
adjustment to control scaling, is relatively standard in
most membrane separation treatment schemes. Ac-
cording to the developer, the DTM system can effec-
tively treat liquid wastes with minimal pretreatment in
many cases. However, pH control is also a standard part
of the Rochem system. Acid addition for pH control was
used during the Rochem DTM technology Demonstra-
tion.
The DTM system is easily cleaned and maintained. The
open channel design facilitates rinsing and cleansing of
particulate matter from the membranes. Chemical clean-
ing of the membranes can be accomplished without
removing the membranes by using a built-in cleaning
system, however, individual or all membranes can be
easily removed as needed for replacement.
Rochem has a number of DTM systems that can accom-
modate feed flow rates from 3,000 to 130,000 gallons
per day (gpd) [11,000 to 490,000 liters per day (Ipd)]. In
addition, system capacity can be increased by combin-
ing treatment units in parallel. Approximately the same
amount of labor is required when operating a large DTM
system as when operating a small DTM system; there-
fore, larger-scale treatment is more economical. The
system utilized for the SITE Demonstration, a 9122
system rated for a feed capacity of 3,000 to 9,000 gpd
(11,000 to 34,000 Ipd), was used to treat leachate at a
feed rate of approximately four gallons per minute (gpm)
[15 liters per minute (Ipm)] or approximately 5,800 gpd
(22,000 Ipd).
The DTM system is mobile. DTM units are built into
containers that are readily transported on a flatbed
truck. The containerized design allows the DTM units to
be set in place at a site, installed, and on-line within
three to five days. In addition, the modular design and
construction of the equipment helps minimize and con-
tain liquid leaks from the system during operation.
The DTM system is designed for semi-automatic opera-
tion. The units are equipped with memory-program-
mable microprocessor-controlled monitoring equipment
and automatic shut-down logic. These features mini-
mize the labor required to operate the DTM system.
Operator attention is required to monitor and adjust the
system, to initiate membrane cleaning cycles, and to
perform other routine maintenance such as cartridge
filter replacement.
2.2 Operability of the Technology
Membrane cleaning is required to maintain technology
performance. If a liquid waste has a high scaling or
fouling potential (like the Demonstration leachate did),
more frequent membrane cleaning may be required to
maintain technology performance. After cleaning, mem-
brane performance levels should return to levels close
to the original. Typically, membrane performance, in
terms of flux, drops off gradually over time to the point
where the membranes need to be replaced. If the mem-
branes become permanently scaled or fouled, perfor-
mance will be impaired. Improper membrane cleaning or
chemical dosing can damage the membranes. Mem-
branes may demonstrate an initial decrease in flux due
to break-in or conditioning by the liquid waste. To ac-
count for this break-in period, Rochem designs systems
for post break-in membrane conditions (2).
Treatability testing is recommended before implement-
ing the DTM process. Bench-scale testing can deter-
mine the suitability of the technology for the test waste.
Pilot-scale field testing is necessary to determine opera-
-------
tional and maintenance procedures such as chemical
addition and membrane cleaning requirements before
commencing full-scale treatment. Treatability testing on
the liquid waste under consideration also helps to deter-
mine the number of DIM units, the type of membranes,
and system configuration required for treatment of the
liquid waste. It is very important to formalize these
factors, especially pretreatment requirements, prior to
the application of the technology. Before commencing
full-scale treatment, an equipment shakedown period of
two to five days is necessary in order to refine system
operating parameters.
Temperature affects the DIM technology performance;
colder temperatures reduce system flux and may reduce
the solubility of scaling ions. As temperature increases,
flux will increase, but membranes are more susceptible
to chemical degradation and compaction at tempera-
tures above about 100_F (3). The temperature of the
liquid waste (leachate) during the Demonstration was
well below this level.
In order to minimize system down-time, a back-up in-
ventory of critical system components should be avail-
able on-site. These components include, but are not
limited to, pumps, valves, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
piping. An adequate supply of consumable materials
such as filters, pH adjustment chemicals, and mem-
brane cleaning chemicals should also be maintained on-
site.
2.3 Applicable Wastes
Like all membrane separation processes, the DTM tech-
nology reduces the volume of the liquid waste. Treat-
ment produces permeate, which is relatively clean wa-
ter, and concentrate, which is more contaminated but
smaller in volume than the original liquid waste. The
degree of volume reduction is dependent on the liquid
waste characteristics and the DTM system design.
Rochem claims that the DTM technology can treat liquid
waste streams containing volatile and semivolatile or-
ganics, metals and other inorganic ions or compounds,
and radioactive wastes. The DTM technology has been
used to treat landfill leachate, water soluble oil-based
coolants, oil/water mixtures, and solvent/water mixtures
(1).
The DTM technology is capable of treating liquid waste
with wider ranges and higher levels of contaminants
than conventional membrane separation technologies
using RO membranes. During the Demonstration at the
Central Landfill, the DTM technology treated leachate
contaminated with chlorobenzene and 1,2-dichloroben-
zene at average concentrations of 21 and 16 milligrams
per liter (mg/L), respectively, and lower levels of 1,4-
dichlorobenzene at 0.7 mg/L; ethylbenzene at 0.79 mg/
L; toluene at 1.8 mg/L; and xylenes at 1.3 mg/L. Total
organic carbon (TOC) was present in the leachate at an
average concentration of 460 mg/L, and total dissolved
solids (TDS) were present at an average concentration
of 4,900 mg/L. Metals were also present at average
concentrations of 1.4 mg/L for barium, 130 mg/L for
calcium, 48 mg/L for iron, and 21 mg/L for manganese.
Results from the Demonstration show that the DTM
technology achieved excellent removals of TOC, TDS,
and metals. Volatile organic compound (VOC) removals
were also very good (approximately 90% or greater).
The VOC removals are noteworthy because membrane
separation technologies typically do not effectively sepa-
rate lower molecular weight organic compounds, par-
ticularly VOCs; these compounds tend to pass through
the membranes (4). A high-pressure unit (HPU) can be
used to increase the treated water recovery rate for
liquid wastes that have a higher level of TDS or scaling
ions.
The suitability of the DTM process is dependent on the
characteristics of the feed liquid. Rochem claims that for
many liquid wastes, the DTM system's hydraulic design
allows it to operate with minimal or no pretreatment.
However, chemical or physical pretreatment may be
needed to reduce the potential for membrane scaling or
fouling for liquid wastes such as the Demonstration
leachate. This may add to the cost of using the technol-
ogy. Pretreatment may include equalization, aeration to
remove carbon dioxide generated from acid addition (for
pH adjustment), and other processes (2). Forthe Rochem
Demonstration, the pH of the feed liquid was adjusted
from about 6.8 to an average value of 6.1 to help control
membrane scaling; pH control is a standard part of the
Rochem system. Final permeate pH adjustment may be
needed to comply with discharge requirements. The
user of the technology will be responsible for treatment
and disposal of the final concentrate and disposal of the
final permeate.
The DTM technology has also been used at an industrial
site in the U.S. to treat lagoon water contaminated by
petrochemical wastes (volatile organics, phenols, heavy
metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls). This wastewater
had TOC levels of 1,700 to 1,800 mg/L (5). In addition,
the technology is currently treating municipal landfill
leachate in the U.S. and hazardous and municipal
leachate in Europe. Information regarding the DTM
technology's performance while treating municipal land-
fill leachate and other liquid wastes is available in Sec-
tion 6, "Technology Status," and Appendix A, "Vendor's
Claims."
2.4 Availability and Transportability of
Equipment
The Rochem DTM technology was first developed in
Germany where the system components are still manu-
factured. Several DTM units exist in the U.S. at this time.
DTM units and associated components requested by
Rochem in the U.S. are built in Germany, placed in
overseas carrier crates or built into cargo containers,
and shipped as commercial freight to a U.S. port. From
the port, the DTM units and components can be loaded
into a trailer or flatbed truck and easily transported by
truck to sites throughout the country. It currently takes
10
-------
two to four months, once an order is placed, for produc-
tion and delivery of the process.
Rochem has four systems available for liquid waste
treatment: Model 9122, Model 9142, Model 9152, and
Model 9532. The Demonstration utilized a three-stage
9122 system, the smallest of the four models, in which
the first-stage and second-stage units were connected
in series to produce the final permeate. The third stage
was the HPU, which treated the system concentrate to
increase the system water recovery rate. Section 6,
"Technology Status," provides additional information
about the scale-up capabilities of the process.
Once the Rochem equipment is delivered to a site, the
units can be configured as needed and can be opera-
tional within three to five days if all necessary facilities,
utilities, and supplies are available. Each DTM unit is
composed of a control unit and membrane modules.
The control unit consists of electronic controls, pumps,
filters, pressure gauges, and valves. During the Demon-
stration, the control units and corresponding membrane
modules were separate and mounted on skids with a
maximum weight of one ton each. The skid-mounted
units were transported by tractor trailer and could be
moved with a heavy-duty forklift. In most cases, the units
are built into cargo containers for easier transportation
and installation and to contain leaks and spills during
operation. For loading and unloading, containerized units
require a crane capable of lifting 15,000 pounds. The
containerized units may be placed on wheels for indoor
mobility. Additional materials necessary for system op-
eration include auxiliary tanks for process stream stor-
age and interconnecting piping.
After decontaminating on-site equipment (as necessary),
the technology can be demobilized by disconnecting
utilities, disassembling the hose connections, and load-
ing the equipment onto a tractor trailer for transport off-
site. Demobilization requires approximately two to three
days for the Rochem DTM technology.
2.5 Materials Handling Requirements
A variety of equipment may be required to implement
the Rochem DTM technology. This includes equipment
to construct a secondary containment area, convey
system liquids (via a piping system), handle water condi-
tioning chemicals, handle process wastes, and maintain
the site.
An equalization or storage tank is required to store the
feed liquid prior to pumping it directly to the process. A
pump is needed to convey the collected liquid waste to
the first-stage treatment unit. A storage tank is also
required to hold the concentrated wastewater generated
from the treatment process prior to disposal. Addition-
ally, if the treated permeate is temporarily stored prior to
disposal (e.g., for testing), suitably sized storage tanks
are needed. All pumps used to transport liquids from the
wells and throughout the treatment system must be able
to perform under harsh conditions—high solids content
(both total and dissolved), corrosive pH, and variable
chemical composition and concentrations. These fac-
tors should be taken into account during the selection of
pumps and ancillary equipment such as hoses and
fittings.
A secondary containment system for storage tanks and
any auxiliary equipment, such as equipment utilized for
pretreatment, may be required. Secondary containment
systems can be purchased, constructed from a variety
of impermeable materials, or specially designed to suit
the project. Earthmoving, excavating, and specialty equip-
ment may also be necessary for the placement and
sealing of geotextile liners.
The amount of supplies and equipment needed to sup-
port the Rochem DTM treatment system depends on the
magnitude of the operation. For a large operation, a
forklift may be required to move the supplies delivered to
the site on pallets. Tanker trucks may be used to store
and transport treated liquid wastes for small projects.
Other materials handling equipment may be required,
depending on site conditions and the type of operation
being conducted.
2.6 Site Support Requirements
Support equipment required for the DTM technology
includes a heavy-duty forklift or a crane for loading/
unloading and arranging the units, and tanks for process
stream storage. In most cases, the DTM units are built
into cargo containers and must be moved by a crane as
mentioned in Section 2.4, "Availability and Transport-
ability of Equipment."
Storage of raw feed and final concentrate is required,
and storage of final permeate also may be necessary.
Storage tank sizing and design are dependent on site-
specific applications. The user of the technology may be
responsible for providing storage tanks.
Additional support facilities include shelter to protect
equipment and personnel from weather extremes. At
locations with colder climates, an indoor installation with
heating is preferred. During the Demonstration, the treat-
ment units were arranged outdoors under a tent. A more
permanent shelter is desirable for long-term treatment.
Utility requirements are limited to electricity and water.
The DTM system used for the Demonstration (Model
9122) required a three-phase, 440/480-volt, 60-hertz
electrical circuit to power the pumps and control equip-
ment. The 9122 DTM system requires a maximum power
supply of 21 kilowatts (kW). A direct on-site electric
hook-up is preferred, but if this is not available, a gen-
erator may be used (4). The use of a generator is not
cost effective for long-term applications. DTM systems
larger than the one utilized for the Demonstration have
higher power requirements than Model 9122. For ex-
ample, Model 9142 requires a maximum power supply
of 50 kW. Additional power is needed for on-site office
trailers (if present), any ancillary pumps, and outdoor
11
-------
lighting. Water is required to perform system leak-test-
ing and to shake down and calibrate the equipment.
Water is also needed for cleanup and decontamination.
The site must be accessible by roads suitable for occa-
sional travel by heavy equipment and for daily travel by
personnel operating and maintaining the technology. In
addition, site security measures should be implemented
to protect the public from potential exposures and to
prevent accidental or intentional damage to the equip-
ment.
2.7 Range of Suitable Site
Characteristics
The DTM system requires level staging areas in order to
control liquid levels and provide optimum operation. A
500-square-foot equipment staging area with additional
storage space for auxiliary system tanks is adequate for
a three-stage system. For treatment systems consisting
of several treatment units for increased system capacity,
a larger equipment staging area may be required. In
addition, an area constructed to contain potential spills
may be necessary to hold tanks for process stream
storage, treatment chemicals, and process wastes.
Adverse weather including extreme temperatures and
rainy conditions affect the performance and operation of
the DTM system. The control panels are not water-tight,
and gauges and electronic components can be dam-
aged by rain. If a site is located in an area with extreme
seasonal weather conditions, the DTM system should
be staged indoors or the available containerized version
of the system should be used.
2.8 Limitations of the Technology
The composition of the liquid waste may limit the appli-
cability of the DTM technology. In RO, inorganic salt
rejections are usually high (ninety to ninety-nine per-
cent). Some constituents (barium, calcium, fluoride, iron,
silica, strontium, sulfate, etc.) may cause scaling on
membranes, depending on the water recovery rate.
Higher water recovery rates increase the potential for
scaling and fouling because of the potential for precipita-
tion of sparingly soluble salts such as calcium carbonate
(CaCO3) and calcium sulfate (CaSO4). Deposits of metal
oxides (formed from metals such as iron or manga-
nese), colloids, organic compounds, or oil and grease
can contribute to scaling and fouling, as will biological
activity. This, in turn, may limit membrane life and treat-
ment effectiveness (6). Although typical reverse osmo-
sis rejections of low molecular weight organic com-
pounds may vary, the rejections of VOCs during the
DTM technology Demonstration at the Central Landfill
were approximately 90% or greater.
The maximum water recovery is dependent on the TDS
concentration and ion balance in the liquid waste. For
treatment of landfill leachate with high scaling potential,
the use of acid dosing for pH control is necessary to
achieve a high water recovery rate. A water recovery
rate of 75 to 80% is achievable for leachate similar in
composition to the Central Landfill leachate while still
maintaining acceptable membrane life and permeate
water quality. Higher recovery rates may be possible but
may require the use of additional equipment and sup-
plies. Any increased operating costs may be off-set by
cost savings for treatment and disposal of a smaller
volume of concentrate.
2.9 Technology Performance Versus
ARARs
This subsection discusses specific federal and state
environmental regulations pertinent to the operation of
the Rochem DTM technology including the transport,
treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes and treat-
ment residuals. These regulations are reviewed with
respect to the Demonstration results. State and local
regulatory requirements, which may be more stringent
than federal standards, must also be addressed by
remedial managers. Applicable or relevant and appro-
priate requirements (ARARs) include the following: (1)
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act; (2) the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act; (3) the Clean Air Act; (4) the Clean
Water Act; (5) the Safe Drinking Water Act; (6) the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regula-
tions; (7) radioactive waste regulations; and (8) mixed
waste regulations. These eight general ARARs are dis-
cussed below and outlined in conjunction with process
activities in Table 2-1.
2.9.1 Comprehensive En vironmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)
The CERCLA of 1980, as amended by SARA in 1986,
provides for federal funding to respond to releases or
potential releases of any hazardous substance into the
environment. It also provides funding to respond to
releases of pollutants or contaminants that may present
an imminent or significant danger to public health and
welfare or to the environment.
As part of the requirements of CERCLA, the EPA has
prepared the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous sub-
stance response. The NCP is codified in Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300 and delineates the
methods and criteria used to determine the appropriate
extent of removal and cleanup for hazardous waste
contamination.
SARA states a strong statutory preference for remedies
that are highly reliable and provide long-term protection
and directs the EPA to do the following:
• use remedial alternatives that permanently and sig-
nificantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants;
• select remedial actions that protect human health
and the environment, are cost-effective, and involve
12
-------
D)
O
O
C
.c
o
_^
±±
£3
<
in
in
G)
O
O
CL
to
Chemical and physical analyses mu
be performed.
Requirement of RCRA prior to
managing and handling the
c
O 0)
So
Is
Si
O «•-
-i—1 o
^:-°
ro ro
^ N
"is
"*^ o
-S 2
T3 •§ (D
ra-o ra
S C (D
W ra i:
o
to
OM
•c
ra
n H —
El
0 g
0 '=!
^r cr
< <"
cc QJ
O to
o: to
(D
O "jg
Integrity of treatment unit and
influent and effluent storage tanks, il
used, must be monitored and main-
tained to prevent leakage or failure.
~£ i
=! CD '5
E E o-
Treatment of hazardous waste i
be conducted in a manner that
the operating and monitoring re
ments
tl T3
(D C
E ra
CL -5
(V- 0-
LT <"
o s>
SS
II
a: CM
D)
c
'(/)
(/)
!
Process residuals must be stored in
appropriate containers in good cond
tion. Containers should be stored in
C li_
_ ~ Kl
Process residuals (including coi
(rate, contaminated materials ai
adsorbents) may be deemed h£
'o
<»
1 °
ro ~o
13 !=
c ro
m N
•2 ro
T3
c
ro
S
CM (D
•c to
ra to
ce o
LL —
0 "S-1-
ill
<: 3 ra
!«•!
o
o
in
•c
ro ^
££
o-|
t — i O"
•^- CD
< SI
to tn ^ ^
Chemical and physical analyses mu
be performed on process residual
wastes prior to disposal.
Treated process residuals defined a
hazardous must be disposed of at a
permitted hazardous waste facility, c
approval must be obtained from the
lead regulatory agency to dispose ol
the liquid wastes on site.
i < (D -2;
E, hj-orto i^
m fV 5 O
Requirements of RCRA prior to
aging and handling the liquid w;
determine if treated material is 1
hazardous waste and/or mixed
Nature of the liquid waste may 1
ject to disposal restrictions
JU a_
2 ro
ro tn
Z 8,
to ~°
ro a
o *o
-t-J -t-J
-Q. "a.
.,_, .»_, to
Is Is °
ro ro -^
c o c M
W .tn co j=
o
T- 00
to to
CM CM
•C t +7
ro ro •£
CL +7 0-
0 > ° D-
< ® < |
0 ro 0 "^
CC to CC o
f — s (/)
c 'ra g
O -?r QJ O
ro f w ^~
N - c w
> -^ o /-* —
^ O -t^ \-J "O
Waste must be disposed of at a
RCRA-permitted hazardous waste
facility.
ro -
cr co
OJ C
+X "CD t
w o o
•^ — (/)
ro c m
2 ro S
-S
ro
to
!-
CN
(D
•c
CL +j
•^- (D
< g
ct: -^
o §•
ce S
£ _
c ro
= p,
It
8.^
c 'w
2 8=
H o
A transporter licensed by EPA must
be used to transport the hazardous
waste according to EPA regulations.
T3
(D
-£;
o
Treated wastes and/or oversize
material may need to be transpi
as hazardous waste
tn
•g
ro
T3
c
ro
to
c
o
to
•c
o
Q.
tn
c
ro
h=
8
OM
t 4—
ro ti
CL oi
rv ro
LL .>
°f
1
o: o
0)
o
^
13
-------
•O
,
>
"o
<
,
ro
E &
8
H.S
*O
OJ OJ
ffra
ro.2
o g
(/) ;_
T3 0
-2 §
>•* P^
Q.O
Q.CL
™ 0
ro "E:
£
lio jjj
•5 to
ro 3
T3 (D
c -jx
J2 ro
55 3
rv h*~r
2io
0 «
o to"
^r o
t3"
^s
0) CO
J? T-"
S o
> CO
C «
ro -ffi
/i) i—
-Si ro
O CL
^_
1 «
3 S>
oj ro
to -§
^ «)
> T3
surface water body. If not, the waste-
water may need to be further treated
in
0)
^
5
ro
3
CO
o
~^-
T3
c
ro
CN"
§
§~
CO
by conventional processes to meet
discharge requirements. An NPDES
permit may be required for discharge
to surface waters.
If underground injection is selected
ro
CO
o
Q.
CO
T3
0)
•—
cr
0)
>^
ro
E
ju
to
I
to
>
ro
w
o
Q.
w
^
GJ
^
-2
>,
Q_
Q.
ro
to
^
i
ro
T3
c
s
55
•5
<
0)
1
D)
_C
^
Q
^
ro
CO
^_
^
g
3
to
5
as a disposal means for contami-
nated wastewater, permission must
be obtained from EPA to use existing
in
"oi
3
c
o
t3
'•o
ro
o
T3
2
o
D)
C
'o.
Q.
'r-
CO
T3
C
ro
ro
Ji
u-i ro
O (D
< i;
-i—
14
-------
permanent solutions and alternative treatment or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent possible; and
• avoid off-site transport and disposal of untreated
hazardous substances or contaminated materials
when practicable treatment technologies exist [Sec-
tion 121(b)].
In general, two types of responses are possible under
CERCLA: removal and remedial action. The Rochem
DIM technology is likely to be part of a CERCLA reme-
dial action.
Remedial actions are governed by the SARA amend-
ments to CERCLA. As stated above, these amendments
promote remedies that permanently reduce the volume,
toxicity, and mobility of hazardous substances, pollut-
ants, or contaminants. The Rochem DIM Technology
reduces the volume of contamination that would require
conventional treatment. It also reduces the toxicity of the
treated water (permeate). The permeate can be used to
clean and rinse the DTMs and can be discharged to a
publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) or into surface
waters if the proper permits are obtained. In addition,
pumping of leachate or groundwater and treating it with
the DTM system reduces the mobility of contamination
in situ and helps prevent its migration to public water
supplies.
On-site remedial actions must comply with federal and
more stringent state ARARs. ARARs are determined on
a site-by-site basis and may be waived under six condi-
tions: (1) the action is an interim measure, and the
ARAR will be met at completion; (2) compliance with the
ARAR would pose a greater risk to health and the
environment than noncompliance; (3) it is technically
impracticable to meet the ARAR; (4) the standard of
performance of an ARAR can be met by an equivalent
method; (5) a state ARAR has not been consistently
applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR compliance would not
provide a balance between the protection achieved at a
particular site and Superfund demands for other sites.
These waiver options apply only to Superfund actions
taken on-site, and justification for the waiver must be
clearly demonstrated.
2.9.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA)
RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA), is the primary federal legislation governing
hazardous waste activities and was passed in 1976 to
address the problem of how to safely dispose of the
enormous volume of municipal and industrial solid waste
generated annually. Subtitle C of RCRA contains re-
quirements for generation, transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste, most of which are also
applicable to CERCLA activities. The Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 greatly ex-
panded the scope and requirements of RCRA.
RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regu-
late their transport, treatment, storage, and disposal.
These regulations are only applicable to the Rochem
DTM technology if RCRA-defined hazardous wastes are
present. Potential hazardous wastes include the liquid
waste to be treated, the concentrate stream, used tub-
ing, used cleaning solutions, and other contaminated
materials. If these wastes are determined to be hazard-
ous according to RCRA (based on characteristics or
listings), all RCRA requirements regarding the manage-
ment and disposal of this hazardous waste must be
addressed by the remedial managers. Criteria for identi-
fying characteristic hazardous wastes are included in 40
CFR Part 261 Subpart C. Listed wastes from specific
and nonspecific industrial sources, off-specification prod-
ucts, spill cleanups, and other industrial sources are
itemized in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D. Hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D remain
listed wastes regardless of the treatment they may
undergo and regardless of the final contamination levels
in the resulting effluent streams and residues. This
implies that even after remediation, "clean" wastes are
still classified as hazardous because the pretreatment
parent material was a listed waste. For this Demonstra-
tion, the liquid waste (leachate), although not a listed
hazardous waste, did contain chlorobenzene, dichlo-
robenzene, and other hazardous constituents. The tech-
nology concentrated these contaminants in the concen-
trate liquid waste stream. The concentrate was not
classified as a RCRA characteristic waste and was
handled as a state hazardous waste. In other applica-
tions, the concentrate liquid waste stream could be
classified as a RCRA listed or characteristic waste.
For the generation of any hazardous waste, the site
responsible party must obtain an EPA identification num-
ber. Other applicable RCRA requirements may include a
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (if the waste is
transported), restrictions on placing the waste in land
disposal units, time limits on accumulating waste, and
permits for storing the waste.
Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated
facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F
(promulgated) and Subpart S (partially promulgated).
These subparts also generally apply to remediation at
Superfund sites. Subparts F and S include requirements
for initiating and conducting RCRA corrective action,
remediating groundwater, and ensuring that corrective
actions comply with other environmental regulations.
Subpart S also details conditions under which particular
RCRA requirements may be waived for temporary treat-
ment units operating at corrective action sites and pro-
vides information regarding requirements for modifying
permits to adequately describe the subject treatment
unit.
2.9.3 Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA establishes national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides, particu-
15
-------
late matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and lead. It also limits the emission of 189 listed hazard-
ous pollutants such as arsenic, asbestos, benzene, and
vinyl chloride. States are responsible for enforcing the
CAA through State Implementation Plans. To assist in
this, Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) were estab-
lished. Allowable emission limits are determined based
on whether or not the region is currently within attain-
ment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
The CAA requires that treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities comply with primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards. Fugitive emissions from the Rochem
technology may come from intermediate process tank
vents during treatment, depending on the nature of the
waste being treated and how the system is operated.
During this Demonstration, minor volatile gas emissions
were detected from the intermediate concentrate tank
when the HPU was between treatment cycles and the
first-stage unit was filling the tank with concentrate.
State air quality standards may require additional mea-
sures to control fugitive emissions. The handling and
storage of the liquid waste to be treated and the han-
dling and storage of the concentrated liquid waste gen-
erated in tanks outside of the Rochem process may also
need emission controls to meet standards.
2.9.4 Clean Water Act (CWA)
The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters by establishing federal, state, and local dis-
charge standards. If treated water is discharged to sur-
face water bodies or POTW, CWA regulations will apply.
A facility desiring to discharge water to a navigable
waterway must apply for a permit under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). When
a NPDES permit is issued, it includes waste discharge
requirements. Discharges to a POTW must comply with
general pretreatment regulations outlined in 40 CFR
Part 403, as well as other applicable state and local
administrative and substantive requirements.
During the SITE Demonstration, final permeate was
discharged to the sanitary sewer under a modification to
the Central Landfill's Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Permit. Polishing treatment with activated carbon was
utilized to ensure compliance with the discharge limita-
tions. Polishing treatment may be necessary for dis-
charge of permeate to a surface water body. Depending
on the types of contaminants present in the liquid waste
treated and the discharge permit limits, additional pol-
ishing treatment could include activated carbon treat-
ment, pH adjustment, and/or air stripping of lightweight
volatile organic compounds. In some applications, the
DTM process may meet discharge requirements without
polishing treatment.
2.9.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The SDWA of 1974, as most recently amended by the
Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, requires the
EPA to establish regulations to protect human health
from contaminants in drinking water. The legislation
authorized national drinking water standards and a joint
federal-state system for ensuring compliance with these
standards.
The National Primary Drinking Water Standards are
found in 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. Parts 144 and
145 discuss requirements associated with the under-
ground injection of contaminated water. If underground
injection of liquid waste is selected as a disposal means,
approval from EPA for constructing and operating a new
underground injection well is required.
2.9.6 Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) Requirements
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be performed in accordance with the OSHA re-
quirements detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through
1926, especially Part 1910.120 which provides for the
health and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites.
On-site construction activities at Superfund or RCRA
corrective action sites must be performed in accordance
with Part 1926 of OSHA, which describes safety and
health regulations for construction sites. State OSHA
requirements, which may be significantly stricter than
federal standards, must also be met.
All technicians operating the Rochem DTM technology
and all workers performing on-site construction are re-
quired to have completed an OSHA training course and
must be familiar with all OSHA requirements relevant to
hazardous waste sites. For most sites, minimum per-
sonal protective equipment (PPE) for workers will in-
clude gloves, eyewear, steel-toe boots, and Tyvek®
coveralls. Depending on contaminant types and concen-
trations, additional PPE may be required. Noise levels
are not expected to be high, however noise from the
pumps driving the system will be constant, so noise
levels should be monitored to ensure that workers are
not exposed to noise levels above a time-weighted
average of 85 decibels over an eight-hour day. If noise
levels increase above this limit, then workers will be
required to wear hearing protection. The levels of noise
anticipated are not expected to adversely affect the
community.
2.9.7 Radioactive Waste Regulations
According to the developer, the Rochem DTM technol-
ogy has the ability to treat water contaminated with
radioactive materials. The primary agencies that regu-
late the cleanup of radioactively contaminated sites are
the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
the Department of Energy (DOE), and the states. In
addition, non-governmental agencies may issue adviso-
ries or guidance, which should also be considered in
developing protective remedies.
The SDWA has established maximum contaminant lev-
els (MCLs) for alpha- and beta-emitting radionuclides
that would be appropriate in setting cleanup standards
16
-------
for radioactively contaminated water. Discharge of treated
effluent from the Rochem DIM technology could be
subject to radionuclide concentration limits established
in 40 CFR Part 440 (Effluent Guidelines for Ore Mining
and Dressing). These regulations include effluent limits
for facilities that extract and process uranium, radium,
and vanadium ores.
NRC regulations coverthe possession and use of source,
by-product, and special nuclear materials by NRC li-
censes. These regulations apply to sites where radioac-
tive contamination exists, and cover protection of work-
ers and public from radiation, discharges of radionu-
clides in air and water, and waste treatment and dis-
posal requirements for radioactive waste. In evaluating
requirements for treating radiologically contaminated
waters, consideration must not only be given to the
quality of the raw water and final effluent, but also any
process residuals, specifically spent filters and mem-
branes. If the technology is effective for radionuclides,
these radioactive contaminants will be concentrated on
the membrane surface. This could have an impact on
disposal requirements, as well as health and safety
considerations.
DOE requirements are included in a series of inter-
nal DOE orders that have the same force as regula-
tions at DOE facilities. DOE orders address exposure
limits forthe public, concentration or residual radioactiv-
ity in soil and water, and management of radioactive
wastes.
2.9.8 Mixed Waste Regulations
Use of the Rochem DTM technology at sites with radio-
active contamination may involve the treatment or gen-
eration of mixed waste. As defined by Atomic Energy
Act (AEA) and RCRA, mixed waste contains both radio-
active and hazardous components and is subject to both
acts. When the application of both regulations results in
a situation inconsistent with the AEA (for example, an
increased likelihood of radioactive exposure), AEA re-
quirements supersede RCRA requirements.
The EPA's OSWER, in conjunction with the NRC, is-
sued several directives to assist in the identification,
treatment, and disposal of low-level radioactive mixed
waste. If high-level mixed waste or transuranic mixed
waste is treated, DOE internal orders should be consid-
ered when developing a protective remedy.
2.9.9 State and Local Requirements
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies may re-
quire permits prior to operation of the DTM technology.
Most federal permits will be issued by the authorized
state agency. If, for example, the concentrate is consid-
ered a RCRA waste, a permit issued by the state may be
required to operate the system as a treatment, storage,
and disposal (TSD) facility. The state may also require a
TSD permit for on-site storage greater than 90 days of
hazardous waste (i.e., concentrated liquid waste, spent
membranes, and filters). Permits from the local planning
board may be required if a permanent structure for
housing the equipment will be constructed. A CAA per-
mit issued by a state air quality control board may be
required if air emissions in excess of regulatory criteria
are anticipated. During treatment, appropriate waste
water discharge permits will be needed to discharge the
permeate to POTW, into surface waters, or through
underground injection wells. If off-site disposal of con-
taminated waste is required, the waste must be taken to
the disposal facility by a licensed transporter.
17
-------
Section 3
Economic Analysis
3.1 Introduction
The primary purpose of this economic analysis is to
provide a cost estimate for treating landfill leachate
utilizing the Rochem DIM technology. The DIM system
used during the SITE Demonstration was a 9122-type
system composed of three separate units: leachate (first
stage); permeate (second stage); and concentrate (high-
pressure stage). This system was designed to treat the
SITE Demonstration leachate at a feed rate of four gpm
(15 Ipm) and a permeate recovery of 75%.
This economic analysis estimates costs for a 9122 and a
9142 DTM system, each operating at a fixed facility.
These are the two systems that Rochem uses most
frequently. Rochem has four systems available for waste-
water treatment: Model 9122 rated for 3,000 to 9,000
gpd (11,000 to 34,000 Ipd); Model 9142 rated for 10,000
to 32,000 gpd (38,000 to 120,000 Ipd); Model 9152 rated
for 33,000 to 79,000 gpd (125,000 to 300,000 Ipd); and
Model 9532 rated for 9,000 to 133,000 gpd (34,000 to
500,000 Ipd). The 9122 system costed is slightly smaller
than the SITE Demonstration system. It is designed to
treat the SITE Demonstration leachate at a feed rate of
three gpm (11 Ipm), rather than four gpm (15 Ipm), with
a permeate recovery of 75%. The 9142 system costed is
designed to treat the SITE Demonstration leachate at a
feed rate of 21 gpm (79 Ipm) with a permeate recovery
of 75%. Both the 9122 and 9142 systems costed have
two stages: a combined leachate and permeate unit
(first stage) and a concentrate unit (high-pressure stage).
3.2 Conclusions
Costs listed in this economic analysis are presented as
dollars per permeate-gallon produced. All costs pre-
sented assume a 75% permeate recovery. To calculate
the cost per gallon of leachate treated, multiply the cost
per permeate-gallon by 0.75.
Estimated costs for treating leachate similar to the Dem-
onstration leachate (hazardous landfill leachate), with
an on-line efficiency factor of 90%, are $0.16/permeate-
gallon ($0.04/permeate-liter) for the 9122 system and
$0.06/permeate-gallon ($0.01/permeate-liter) forthe 9142
system. Table 3-1 breaks down these costs into catego-
ries and lists each category's cost as a percent of the
total cost. Based on information from Rochem it appears
that the larger 9152 and 9532 systems would have a
lower cost per permeate-gallon than the 9122 and the
9142 systems.
The total costs do not include waste disposal costs for
the concentrate stream. This waste disposal cost is
leachate- and concentrate-specific and thus is not in-
cluded in this cost estimate. Depending on concentrate-
specific characteristics and geographical location, op-
tions for treating the concentrate include: solidification/
stabilization, thermal evaporation, incineration, and re-
circulation back to the landfill (for municipal landfills).
Section 3.4.8 discusses the concentrate liquid waste
disposal costs forthe Demonstration.
The annualized equipment cost is based on the follow-
ing life-times from Rochem: a ten-year equipment life for
the units, a five-year permeate-membrane life, a three-
year leachate-membrane life, and a two-year concen-
trate-membrane life. For comparative purposes, if the
membrane life-time is actually lower, then the overall
treatment costs will be higher. Treatment costs will
increase to $0.17/permeate-gallon and $0.08/permeate-
gallon forthe 9122 and the 9142 systems, respectively,
for the following membrane life-times: a one-year
leachate-membrane life, a one-year permeate-membrane
life, and a six-month concentrate-membrane life.
Operating labor requirements are assumed to be four
hours per day (hpd) for a 24-hpd operation of either the
9122 or the 9142 DTM system. For different leachates,
fewer operator-hours may be required. This would lower
the overall treatment costs. If labor requirements were
reduced to one hpd, then the overall treatment costs
would decrease to $0.13/permeate-gallon and $0.05/
permeate-gallon for the 9122 and the 9142 systems,
respectively.
The on-line efficiency factor is assumed to be 90% for
these cost estimates. If this were increased to 95%, then
the overall treatment cost would decrease to $0.14/
permeate-gallon and $0.05/permeate-gallon forthe 9122
and the 9142 systems, respectively.
If only the annualized equipment costs and consumables
costs were considered, then the cost would decrease to
18
-------
Table 3-1. Estimated Costs for Treatment Using Rpchem DTM Technology
DTM System Model Number
Permeate Recovery Percentage
On-Line Efficiency Percentage
Gallons of Leachate Treated per Minute
Gallons of Permeate Produced per Minute
9122
75%
90%
3
2.25
9142
75%
90%
21
15.75
$/Permeate
-Gal
%of
Total
Cost
$/Permeate
-Gal
%of
Total
Cost
Site Facility Preparation Costs
Permitting & Regulatory Costs
Annualizeed Equipment Costs
Startup & Fixed Costs
Labor Costs
Supplies Costs
Consumables Costs
Effluent Treatment & Disposal Costs
Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs
Analytical Costs
Facility Modifications, Repair, & Replacement Costs
Site Restoration Costs
Total Costs ($/Permeate-Gallon)
($/Permeate-Liter)
0.001
0.041
0.030
0.034
0.006
0.032
0.006
0.005
0
0.16
0.04
0.6%
26.5%
19.4%
21.9%
3.9%
20.6%
3.9%
3.2%
0
0.000*
0.019
0.012
0.005
0.002
0.014
0.002
0.001
0
0.06
0.01
0.2%*
34.4%
21.8%
9.1%
3.6%
25.5%
3.6%
1.8%
0
*Site facility preparation costs for the 9142 system are $0.0001/permeate-gallon.
$0.07/permeate-gallon and $0.03/permeate-gallon for
the 9122 and the 9142 systems, respectively. This con-
tributes approximately 50% to the overall treatment cost
presented in this report for both the 9122 and 9142
systems. The remaining 50% of treatment costs include:
(1) site facility preparation costs; (2) startup and fixed
costs; (3) labor costs; (4) supplies costs; (5) residuals
and waste shipping, handling, and transport costs; and
(6) facility modifications, repair, and replacement costs.
Costs presented in this report are order-of-magnitude
estimates as defined by the American Association of
Cost Engineers, with an expected accuracy within +50
and -30%; however, because this is a new application of
this technology, the range may actually be wider.
3.3 Issues and Assumptions
The cost for treatment using the Rochem DTM system is
based on, but not limited to, the following information:
• The estimated costs presented in this analysis are
representative of charges typically assessed to the
client by the vendor. Costs such as preliminary site
preparation, permits and regulatory requirements,
initiation of monitoring and sampling programs,
concentrate disposal costs, and site cleanup and
restoration are considered to be the responsible
party's (or site owner's) obligation and are not in-
cluded in the estimate presented. These costs tend
to be site-specific, and calculations are left to the
reader so that relevant information may be obtained
for specific cases. Whenever possible, applicable
information is provided on these topics so that the
reader may independently perform the calculations
to acquire relevant economic data.
Leachate treated is similar to the Demonstration
leachate. Leachate characteristics directly influence
the treatment cost. Different leachates may require
a different cleaning frequency, on-line efficiency fac-
tor, pH adjustment requirement, membrane life, and/
or cartridge filter life.
The 9122 system costed can treat three gallons of
leachate per minute (11 Ipm). The 9142 system
costed can treat 21 gallons of leachate per minute
(79 Ipm).
An on-line efficiency factor of 90% is achieved. This
factor accounts for down-time due to scheduled and
unscheduled cleanings and maintenance. It is based
19
-------
on observations recorded during the SITE Demon-
stration and other data from Rochem. The approxi-
mate on-line efficiency factor during the SITE Dem-
onstration was 84%.
• A permeate recovery factor of 75% is achieved. This
is based on data collected during the SITE Demon-
stration.
• Cleaning frequency and cleaning solution require-
ments are based on observations made during the
SITE Demonstration and other data from Rochem.
During the SITE Demonstration, the DTM system
was off-line approximately 16% of the time. This
broke down to 9.6% for cleaning and 6.4% for
maintenance. Based on information from Rochem
from other applications, off-line time for cleaning
decreases by 50% or more from the original clean-
ing off-line time after the system has been on-line for
several months. Based on this information and the
Demonstration data, off-line time for cleaning is
estimated as four percent. The cleaning solution
requirement for the 9122 system is based on the
volume of cleaning solution utilized per hour of
cleaning during the SITE Demonstration [one-and-
one-half gallons (5.7 liters) of cleaner per hour of
cleaning]. This volume was scaled-up for the larger
9142 system to three gallons (11 liters) of cleaner
per hour of cleaning. This corresponds to informa-
tion from Rochem.
• The pH adjustment requirements are the same as
those observed during the SITE Demonstration. This
is approximately 6.25 gallons (23.65 liters) of hydro-
chloric acid for every 1,000 permeate-gallons (3,800
permeate-liters).
• The following membrane life-times are assumed:
five years for the permeate-membrane, three years
for the leachate-membrane, and two years for the
concentrate-membrane. These life-times are based
on information from other Rochem applications.
• Cartridge filters are replaced after each cleaning
cycle. This is based on information from Rochem.
• System operating times are 24 hpd, seven days per
week, and 50 weeks per year.
• Labor requirements are limited to one operator on-
site for four hpd for both the 9122 and 9142 DTM
systems.
3.4 Basis of Economic Analysis
The costs associated with treatment by the Rochem
DTM technology presented in this economic analysis
are defined by 12 cost categories, listed below:
• Site and facility preparation costs;
• Permitting and regulatory costs;
• Equipment costs;
• Startup and fixed costs;
• Labor costs;
• Supplies costs;
• Consumables costs;
• Effluent treatment and disposal costs;
• Residuals and waste shipping, handling, and trans-
port costs;
• Analytical costs;
• Facility modification, repair, and replacement costs;
and
• Site restoration costs.
These categories reflect typical cleanup activities en-
countered on Superfund sites (7). Each of these cleanup
activities is defined and discussed, forming the basis for
the detailed estimated cost analysis presented in Table
3-2. The estimated costs are shown graphically in Fig-
ures 3-1 and 3-2 for the 9122 and 9142 DTM systems,
respectively.
Many actual or potential costs that exist were not in-
cluded as part of this estimate. They were omitted
because they would require site-specific engineering
designs that are beyond the scope of this SITE project.
Costs that are assumed to be the obligation of the
responsible party or site owner have been omitted from
this cost estimate and are indicated by a line (—) in
Table 3-2. Categories with no costs associated with this
technology are indicated by a zero (0) in Table 3-2.
The 12 cost factors examined and assumptions made
are described in detail below. Except where specified,
the same assumptions were made for the 9122 and the
9142 DTM systems.
3.4.1 Site and Facility Preparation Costs
For the purposes of these cost calculations, "site" refers
to the location of the contaminated waste. Forthese cost
estimates, it is assumed that sufficient space is available
at the site to allow the DTM system to be located near
the contaminated waste. Thus, costs for transportation
of the contaminated waste from the site to a separate
location where the DTM system is operated are not
required for this cost estimate.
It is assumed that preliminary site preparation will be
performed by the responsible party (or site owner). The
amount of preliminary site preparation required will de-
pend on the site. Site preparation responsibilities in-
clude site design and layout, surveys and site logistics,
legal searches, access rights and roads, preparations
20
-------
Table 3-2. Detailed Costs for Treatment Using the Rochem DTM Technology
DTM System Model Number
Permeate Recovery Percentage
On-Line Efficiency Percentage
Gallons of Leachate Treated per Minute
Gallons of Permeate Produced per Minute
Gallons of Leachate Treated per Year
Gallons of Permeate Produced per Year
9122
75%
90%
3
2.25
1,360,800
1,020,600
9142
75%
90%
21
15.75
9,525,600
7,144,200
$/Permeate-Gallon
Siteand Facility Preparation Costs
Site design and layout
Survey and site investigations
Legal searches
Access rights and roads
Preparations for support facilities
Auxiliary buildings
Installation of major equipment & shakedown testing
Technology-specific reqiurements
Transportation of waste feed
Total Site and Facility Preparation Costs
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permits —
System monitoring requiremetns
Development of monitoring and protocols
Total Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Equipment Costs
Annualized equipment cost
Leachate and Permeate Unit (Ten-Year Life)
Concentrate Unit (Ten-Year Life)
Leachate-Membranes (Three-Year Life)
Permeate-Membranes (Five-Year Life)
Concentrate-Membranes (Two-Year Life)
Support equipment costs
Equipment rental
Total Equipment Costs
Startup and Fixed Costs
Working capital
Insurance and taxes
Initiation of monitoring programs
Contingency
Total Startup and Fixed Costs
Labor Costst
Technicians
Rental Car
Travel
Total Labor Costs
Supplies Costs
Personal protective equipment
Spare parts
Total Supplies Costs
Consumables Costs
Cartridge filters
Membrane cleaner
pH adjustment chemicals
Electricity
Total Consumables Costs
Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
On-site facility costs
Off-site facility costs
-concentrate disposal
-monitoring activities
Total Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
0.001
0.001
0.024
0.010
0.005
0.001
0.001
0
0
0.041
0.000*
0.015
0.015
0.030
0.034
0
0
0.034
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.011
0.006
0.011
0.032
0.000*
0.000*
0.010
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0
0.019
0.000*
0.006
0.006
0.012
0.005
0
0
0.005
0.000*
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.014
(continued)
21
-------
Table 3-2.
Continued
DIM System Model Number
Permeate Recovery Percentage
On-Line Efficiency Percentage
Gallons of Leachate Treated per Minute
Gallons of Permeate Produced per Minute
Gallons of Leachate Treated per Year
Gallons of Permeate Produced per Year
9122
75%
90%
3
2.25
1,360,800
1,020,600
9142
75%
90%
21
15.75
9,525,600
7,144,200
$/Permeate-Gallon
Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling & Transport Costs
Preparation
Waste disposal
Total Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling & Transport Costs
Analytical Costs
Operations
Environmental monitoring
Total Analytical Costs
Facility Modification, Repair, & Replacement Costs
Design adjustments
Facility modifications
Repairs maintenance
Equipment replacement
Total Facility Modification, Repair, & Replacement costs
Site Restoration Costs
Site cleanup and restoration
Permanent storage
Total Site Restoration Costs
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.002
0
0
0.005
0
0.005
0
0
0.001
0
0.001
Total Operating Costs
($/Permeate-Gallon)
($/Permeate-Liter)
0.16
0.04
0.06
0.01
The labor costs listed are for operating labor. Additional labor, travel, and rental car costs associated with the installation of major equip-
ment & shakedown testing are included under "Site and Facility Preparation Costs."
The installation of major equipment & shakedown testing costs for the 9142 system are $0.0001/permeate-gallon.
The working capital costs are $0.0003/permeate-gallon and $0.0001/permeate-gallon for the 9122 and the 9142 systems, respectively.
' The pesonal protective equipment costs for the 9142 system are $0.0002/permeate-gallon.
for support and decontamination facilities, utility connec-
tions, and fixed auxiliary buildings. Since these costs are
site-specific, they are not included as part of the site
preparation costs in this cost estimate.
Installation of major equipment and shakedown testing
for the DIM system consist of treatability testing, ship-
ping the DIM system to the site, installing the equip-
ment, and shakedown testing of the installed equipment.
These costs are included under "Installation of major
equipment & shakedown testing" in Table 3-2 and are
described in detail below.
Rochem estimates treatability testing costs at $15,000
to $25,000. This cost is included in the purchased
equipment cost, thus it is not listed in Table 3-2 under
technology-specific site preparation costs. Treatability
testing is a two- to six-week pilot test to determine
equipment specifications (e.g., flux rate, number of mod-
ules, system size, and operation). Treatability costs
include equipment rental, Rochem personnel, shipping,
and travel costs.
Shipping costs for the DTM system are estimated at
$6,000. This is based on shipping costs incurred during
the SITE Demonstration. Rochem normally can ship
either the 9122 or the 9142 system in two 20-foot
shipping containers.
Installation costs are limited to labor costs. Labor costs
consist of wages, per diem, and transportation. See
"Labor Costs" for an explanation of these costs. It is
estimated that one technician and one supervisor can
install either the 9122 or the 9142 system in four days
working 12 hpd. For this cost estimate, it is assumed
that the site owner will provide a heavy-duty forklift or
small crane to move the DTM units into place.
Shakedown testing costs are limited to labor costs.
Labor costs consist of wages, per diem, and transporta-
tion. See "Labor Costs" for an explanation of these
costs. It is estimated that shakedown testing will require
one technician and one supervisor for 12 hpd for three
days.
3.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs are generally the obliga-
tion of the responsible party (or site owner), not that of
the vendor. These costs may include actual permit
22
-------
(A) $0.041 /permeate-gal
(B) $0.034/permeate-gal
$0.001/permeate-gal (H)
$0.005/permeate-gal (G)
$0.006/permeate-gal (F)
^-$0.006/permeate-gal (E)
$0.030/permeate-gal (D)
(C) $0.032/permeate-gal
(A) Q Annualized Equipment Costs ($0.041/permeate-gal) (G)
(B) Q Labor Costs ($0.034/permeate-gallon) (H)
(C) Q Consumables Costs ($0.032/permeate-gallon)
(D) Q Startup and Fixed Costs ($0.030/permeate-gallon)
(E) Q Supplies Costs ($0.006/permeate-gallon)
(F) O Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs ($0.006/permeate-gallon)
Facility Modifications, Repair, & Replacement Costs ($0.005/permeate-gal)
Site Facility Preparation Costs ($0.001/permeate-gallon)
Note: Analytical site restoration as permitting/regularoy costs are assumed to be zero for this economic analysis.
Figure 3-1. Estimated Costs for the 9122 DIM System Operating at a Fixed Facility.
23
-------
$0.001/permeate-gal (G)
(A) $0.019/permeate-gal ,-
(B) $0.005/permeate-gal
(C) $0.014/permeate-gal
$0.002/permeate-gal (F)
\ $0.002/permeate-gal (E)
$0.012/permeate-gal (D)
Facility Modifications, Repair, & Replacement Costs ($0.001/permeate-gal)
(A) n Annualized Equipment Costs ($0.019/permeate-gallon) (
(B) Q Labor Costs ($0.005/permeate-gallon)
(C) Q Consumables Costs ($0.01 4/permeate-gallon)
(D) Q Startup and Fixed Costs ($0.012/permeate-gallon)
(E) Q Supplies Costs ($0.002/permeate-gallon)
(F) r~] Residuals & Waste Shipping, Handling, & Transport Costs ($0.002/permeate-gallon)
Note: 1 - Site facility preparation costs are $0.0001/permeate-gallon for the 9142 system.
2 - Analytical, site restoration and permitting/regulatory costs are assumed to be zero for this economic analysis.
Figure 3-2. Estimated Costs for the 9142 DIM System Operating at a Fixed Facility.
24
-------
costs, system monitoring requirements, and the devel-
opment of monitoring and analytical protocols. Permit-
ting and regulatory costs can vary greatly because they
are site- and leachate-specific. No permitting costs are
included in this analysis; however depending on the
treatment site, this may be a significant factor since
permitting activities can be expensive and time-consum-
ing.
3.4.3 Equipment Costs
The purchased equipment costs are presented as annu-
alized equipment costs in Table 3-2. The annualized
equipment cost is calculated using a six-percent annual
interest rate, a ten-year equipment life for the units, a
three-year leachate-membrane life, a five-year perme-
ate-membrane life, and a two-year concentrate-mem-
brane life. The annualized equipment cost is based
upon the writeoff of the total initial capital equipment
cost, scrap value (assumed to be ten percent of the
original equipment cost), and the membrane cost using
the following equations (8,9):
Annualized Equipment Cost
for the Units ~ (V« ~ YS)"
where
Vu is the cost of the units (either the leachate and
permeate unit or the concentrate unit),
Vs is the salvage value of the unit (approximated at ten
percent of the original equipment cost for either the
leachate and permeate unit or the concentrate unit),
i is the annual interest rate (six percent), and
nu is the system unit life (ten years for either the
leachate and permeate unit or the concentrate unit).
Annualized Equipment Cost _ i(l + i)"m
for the Membranes (l + i)"m -1
where
Vm is the membrane cost (either for the leachate-, per-
meate-, or the concentrate-membranes),
i is the annual interest rate (six percent), and
nm is the membrane life (three years for the leachate-
m membranes, five years for the permeate- mem-
branes, and two years for the concentrate-mem-
branes).
The 9122 system purchased equipment includes:
• a leachate and permeate (first stage) unit ($202,044)
with five leachate-membrane modules ($12,675 for
leachate-membranes) and two permeate-membrane
modules ($5,070 for permeate-membranes); and
• one concentrate (high-pressure stage) unit ($80,300)
with one membrane module ($2,535 for concen-
trate-membranes).
The total cost of the purchased equipment for the 9122
system is thus $302,624 ($282,344 for the system units
plus $20,280 for membranes). The purchased equip-
ment cost includes shakedown testing and on-line moni-
toring equipment for pH, temperature, and conductivity
measurements.
The 9142 system purchased equipment includes:
• a leachate and permeate (first stage) unit ($593,878)
with 40 leachate-membrane modules ($101,400 for
leachate-membranes) and ten permeate-membrane
modules ($25,350 for permeate-membranes); and
• one concentrate (high-pressure stage) unit
($160,644) with six membrane modules ($15,210
for concentrate-membranes).
The total cost of the purchased equipment for the 9142
system is thus $896,482 ($754,522 for the system units
plus $141,960 for membranes). The purchased equip-
ment cost includes shakedown testing and on-line moni-
toring equipment for pH, temperature, and conductivity
measurements.
3.4.4 Startup and Fixed Costs
Working capital is based on the amount of money cur-
rently invested in supplies and consumables. The work-
ing capital cost of supplies and consumables is based
on maintaining a one-month inventory of these items.
(See "Supplies Costs" and "Consumables Costs" for the
specific amount of supplies and consumables required
for the operation of the system. These quantities were
used to determine the amount of supplies and
consumables required to maintain a one-month inven-
tory of these items.)
Insurance and taxes are usually three to five percent of
the total purchased equipment capital costs. Insurance
and taxes are assumed to be five percent of the pur-
chased equipment capital costs (9).
The cost for the initiation of monitoring programs has not
been included in this estimate. Depending on the site
and the location of the system, however, local authori-
ties may impose specific guidelines for monitoring pro-
grams. The stringency and frequency of monitoring re-
quired may have significant impact on the project costs.
Rochem does monitor pH, temperature, and conductiv-
ity with in-line monitoring equipment. The cost of this in-
line monitoring equipment is included in the purchased
equipment cost listed in the "Equipment Costs" section.
A contingency cost of five percent of the purchased
equipment capital costs is allowed for any unforeseen or
25
-------
unpredictable cost conditions. These include, but are
not limited to, strikes, storms, floods, and price varia-
tions (9,10).
3.4.5 Labor Costs
Labor costs are limited to labor rates, per diem, daily
transportation, and travel. Labor rates include overhead
and administrative costs. Per diem is estimated at $70
per day per person. Daily transportation includes a
rental car and fuel at $50 per day. Round-trip travel
costs are assumed to be $600 per round trip per person.
Only Rochem personnel on-site for equipment installa-
tion and shakedown testing require per diem, daily
transportation to the site, and round-trip travel to the
site. Operators are assumed to be site personnel that
will be trained by Rochem personnel during shakedown
testing. Thus, operators do not require per diem, daily
transportation to the site, or round-trip travel to the site.
Operating labor requirements for a 24-hpd operation are
one technician for four hours a day at $25 per hour for
both the 9122 and the 9142 systems. This is based on
treating Demonstration leachate (hazardous landfill
leachate). For other leachates that require less operator
monitoring, operating requirements could be as low as
one to two hpd for a 24-hpd operation.
The following labor costs are listed under "Site Prepara-
tion Costs." Equipment installation labor requirements
are one supervisor at $50 per hour and one technician at
$25 per hour for 12 hpd for four days. Shakedown
testing labor requirements are one supervisor at $50 per
hour and one technician at $25 per hour for 12 hpd for
three days. Daily transportation includes one rental car
during equipment installation (four days) and during
shakedown equipment testing (three days). Travel in-
cludes two round trips (one trip for the supervisor and
one trip for the technician to perform equipment installa-
tion and shakedown testing).
3.4.6 Supplies Costs
Supplies costs for this cost estimate are limited to PPE
(personal protective equipment) and spare parts. The
cost of PPE is estimated at $31 per week per technician.
Based of information from Rochem, spare parts are
estimated at $4,500 per year and $16,000 per year for
the 9122 and the 9142 systems, respectively. Spare
parts include: electrical parts, PVC pipes for repairs,
membrane cushions, pulsation dampers, pump belts,
pump valves, and pump seals.
3.4.7 Consumables Costs
Consumables required for the operation of the Rochem
DTM technology are limited to cartridge filters, mem-
brane cleaners, pH adjustment chemicals, and electric-
ity. Cartridge filter replacement is based on treating
SITE Demonstration leachate (hazardous landfill
leachate). This requires the cartridges to be replaced
after each cleaning cycle. The 9122 system has two
units that each require one cartridge filter. The 9142
system has two units that each require two cartridge
filters. This approximates to the 9122 and the 9142
systems expending five and ten cartridge filters per
week, respectively. The volume of membrane cleaners
required is based on treating SITE Demonstration
leachate. This requires one-and-one-half gallons (5.7
liters) of membrane cleaner per hour of cleaning for the
9122 system and three gallons (11 liters) of membrane
cleaner per hour of cleaning for the 9142 system. The
cost of membrane cleaners is estimated at $21.50 per
gallon ($5.68 per liter) of cleaner. The off-line time due
to cleaning is estimated at four percent. The volume of
pH adjustment chemicals (hydrochloric acid) is based
on treating SITE Demonstration leachate. This requires
6.25 gallons (24 liters) of hydrochloric acid for every
1,000 gallons (3,800 liters) of permeate produced. The
cost of pH adjustment chemicals is estimated at $0.95
per gallon ($0.25 per liter). Normal power consumption
for the 9122 and the 9142 systems is estimated at 12.4
kW and 31 kW, respectively. Electricity rates are as-
sumed to be $0.11/kW-hour.
3.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs
Two effluent streams are anticipated from the Rochem
DTM technology: the permeate stream and the concen-
trate stream. For this cost estimate, it is assumed that
the permeate does not require further treatment and can
be discharged to a local POTW. The nominal cost of
discharging the permeate to a POTW is not included in
this cost estimate.
The concentrate waste disposal cost is leachate- and
concentrate-specific and thus is not included in this cost
estimate. Depending on concentrate-specific character-
istics and geographical location, options for treating the
concentrate include: solidification/stabilization, thermal
evaporation, incineration, and recirculation back to the
landfill (for municipal landfills). For the SITE Demonstra-
tion, a fee was paid to a waste disposal company to
transport the concentrate off-site for treatment and dis-
posal. The disposal fee paid for the Demonstration
concentrate was $0.82 per gallon ($0.22 per liter) of
concentrate, or at a 75% permeate recovery, $0.27/
permeate-gallon ($0.07/permeate-liter).
3.4.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping,
Handling, and Transport Costs
It is assumed that the only residuals or solid wastes
generated from this process will be used PPE, used
adsorbents, and used cartridge filters. The disposal and
transportation cost for 55-gallon (208-liter) drums of
these residuals and solid wastes is estimated at $435
per 55-gallon (208-liter) drum. This is based on disposal
costs paid during the SITE Demonstration. For the 9122
system, it is assumed that the following residuals or
solid wastes will be generated: one-half drum of used
PPE per year, six drums of used adsorbents per year,
and seven drums of used cartridge filters per year. For
the 9142 system it is assumed that the following residu-
26
-------
als or solid wastes will be generated: one-half drum of
used PPE per year, 12 drums of used adsorbents per
year, and 14 drums of used cartridge filters per year.
3.4.10 Analytical Costs
Only on-line pH, temperature, and conductivity mea-
surements (to verify that equipment is performing prop-
erly) are included in this cost estimate. Clients may
elect, or may be required by local authorities, to initiate a
planned sampling and analytical program at their own
expense. The cost for Rochem's on-line monitoring equip-
ment is included in the purchased equipment cost.
The analytical costs associated with environmental moni-
toring have not been included in this estimate due to the
fact that monitoring programs are not typically initiated
by Rochem. Local authorities may, however, impose
specific sampling and monitoring criteria whose analyti-
cal requirements could contribute significantly to the
cost of the project.
3.4.11 Facility Modification, Repair, and
Replacement Costs
Maintenance costs are assumed to consist of mainte-
nance labor and maintenance materials. Maintenance
labor and materials costs vary with the nature of the
liquid waste and the performance of the equipment.
Based on information from Rochem, the annual mainte-
nance labor and materials cost is estimated at $5,000
per year and $9,000 per year for the 9122 and the 9142
systems, respectively. This is in addition to the cost for
spare parts listed under "Supplies Costs." Costs for
design adjustments, facility modifications, and equip-
ment replacements are not included in this cost esti-
mate.
3.4.12 Site Restoration Costs
Since both the 9122 and the 9142 cases are for fixed
facilities, there are no site restoration costs for this cost
estimate.
27
-------
Section 4
Treatment Effectiveness
4.1 Background
4.1.1 Site History and Contamination
The SITE Demonstration of the Rochem DTM technol-
ogy was performed at the Central Landfill Superfund
Site in Johnston, Rhode Island. The Central Landfill is a
solid waste disposal facility operated by the Rhode
Island Solid Waste Management Corporation. It is the
largest landfill in New England and is composed of two
areas: a 121-acre disposal area and a 33-acre expan-
sion area. Historically, disposal of hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes took place in the 121-acre section of
the landfill. Waste disposal activities in this area were
discontinued in April 1993, however, 12 acres of the 33-
acre expansion area are still being used for the disposal
of non-hazardous municipal solid waste. Located within
the 121-acre area is a half-acre (approximately) area
where large volumes of liquid industrial waste were
disposed of in several trenches excavated into bedrock.
This area is commonly referred to as the "hot spot" and
is currently undergoing cleanup.
Presently, several wells are being used to intercept
leachate from the site to prevent off-site migration of
contaminated liquids. Priortothe Demonstration, leachate
from Well MW91ML7, located downgradient from the
"hot spot," was characterized during a pump test con-
ducted on-site. Table 4-1 presents the results of the pre-
demonstration characterization of the leachate. As shown
in the table, analytical results indicate that the leachate
contained moderate to high levels of VOCs, low to
moderate levels of metals, and a high level of dissolved
solids. Based on this characterization, the levels of
constituents present were determined to be high enough
to evaluate the technology but also within an acceptable
range for treatment. Therefore, the leachate was judged
suitable for treatment for a Demonstration of the DTM
technology. Approximately 33,000 gallons (125,000 li-
ters) of leachate from Well MW91ML7 were treated by
the DTM technology during this SITE Demonstration.
4.1.2 Treatment Objectives
Priortothe Demonstration, bench-scaletreatability tests
were conducted at the Rochem facility in Torrance,
California on leachate from a hazardous waste landfill in
the western U.S. The leachate was contaminated with
many of the same constituents as the Central Landfill
leachate, including VOCs, heavy metals, and high dis-
solved solids. The purpose of the treatability tests was to
determine how effectively the technology could treat the
leachate. Data were also obtained so Rochem could
establish the type of DTM system to be used, the order
of system units, and the type of membranes to be used
for a demonstration at that site. The treatability tests
aided Rochem in developing claims for the quality and
quantity of water that the DTM system could produce
when treating hazardous landfill leachate. The results
from the treatability tests are presented in Appendix B of
this report. Rochem did not conduct treatability tests on
the leachate from the Central Landfill itself prior to this
Demonstration.
Based on the prior treatability tests, Central Landfill
leachate waste characterization, and other information
provided by the developer, critical and secondary (non-
critical) objectives were developed for the Rochem DTM
technology SITE Demonstration. Critical objectives are
important for evaluation of the developer's claims. Sec-
ondary objectives are of interest to future applications of
the DTM technology but are not directly related to the
developer's claims. The following objectives were devel-
oped for the Rochem Demonstration:
Critical Objectives:
• determine if the technology could meet the
developer's claims for contaminant rejections of
greater than 90% for VOCs, greater than 92% for
TOC, and greater than 99% forTDS and metals;
• determine if the technology could achieve and main-
tain a system treated water recovery rate of 75% or
greater; and
• evaluate the DTM technology's resistance to mem-
brane fouling and scaling by determining the change
in flux as a result of liquid waste (leachate) treat-
ment over the course of the Demonstration.
Secondary Objectives:
• develop capital and operating costs for the DTM
system;
28
-------
Table 4-1.
Constituent
Central Landfill Leachate Waste Stream Pre-
Demonstration Characterization Results
Average Concentration
(Mfl/L)
Table 4-1. Continued
Constituent
Average Concentration
Volatile Organics
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichlorethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Freon 1 1
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenze
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Semivolatile Organics
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
3- and 4-Methylphenol
Methylnaphthalenes
Metals
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Zinc
Anions
Fluoride
Chloride
Nitrogen (as Nitrate)
Nitrate
Orthophosphate
Sulfate
Alkalinity
Bicarbonate as CaCO3
Carbonate as CaCO3
Hydroxide as CaCo3
Total as CaCo3
3,000
66
3,300
35,000
11
140
270
1,600
620
250
88
2,800
130
210
100
2,300
29,000
280
1,600
27
14
3
28
50
33
33
7
160
9
0.30
1.4
0.004
140
0.02
49
200
22
0.10
0.23
110
560
0.82
0.06
0.16
10
1,300
2
7
1
73
2,400
ND
ND
2,400
Other Analytes
Ammonia
Dissolved Silica
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Surfactants(MBAS)
pH (pH units)
Total Organic Carbon
Oil and Grease
510
24
4100
120
5
7
360
22
(continued)
• determine whether the DIM system could meet
applicable or relevant regulatory criteria for dis-
charge of the permeate;
• evaluate the ease of use, reliability, and mainte-
nance requirements of the DIM system;
• calculate a material balance for the overall process
for water and primary constituents; and
• estimate the potential fugitive emissions from the
system during use.
These objectives were utilized to evaluate the DIM
technology's effectiveness in treating leachate from the
Central Landfill.
4.1.3 Treatment Approach
The Rochem Demonstration was designed to treat
leachate for up to 21 days for eight to ten hpd. A test of
this duration was felt to be sufficient to evaluate the
quantity and quality of permeate produced, to allow an
assessment of the technology's ability to resist mem-
brane fouling and scaling, and to allow several cycles of
membrane cleaning. Cleaning of the DIM membranes
was to be performed at the discretion of the operator,
typically based on an increase in module pressure read-
ings.
A brief equipment shakedown of the DIM system, utiliz-
ing potable water and then the Central Landfill leachate,
was initiated immediately preceding the Demonstration
to check the system and to refine operating criteria such
as feed flow rate and module pressure. Leachate was
treated for about eight hours during shakedown.
Rochem planned to operate the system at a relatively
constant permeate (product water) production rate dur-
ing the Demonstration. Also, the system was to be set to
achieve a water recovery rate of 75% or greater. No
chemical pretreatment of the raw feed was planned.
However, because of the pH (6.8) of the untreated
leachate, Rochem decided to use acid addition for pH
control during the Demonstration. Hydrochloric acid was
added to the first-stage and also to the high-pressure
unit feed streams in an attempt to lower the pH to
between 5 and 6.
29
-------
Leachate was pumped continuously at two gpm (eight
Ipm), 24 hpd into the leachate storage tanks. This was
the maximum that Well MW91ML7 could produce. Be-
cause the unit supplied by Rochem was designed for a
feed flow rate of four gpm (15 Ipm) or greater, the test
was planned to run for eight to ten hpd in order to supply
this feed flow rate. The DTM equipment is normally run
24 hpd. Operating only eight to ten hpd required Rochem
to flush the modules at the end of each day and shut the
system down overnight.
4.2 Testing Methodology
Sampling and data collection were performed during the
Demonstration in order to evaluate project objectives. A
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (11), developed
specifically for the Rochem DTM technology Demon-
stration, set forth detailed procedures for sampling and
analysis.
Samples withdrawn from sample taps located on the
face of the DTM control units were collected from 11
process streams throughout the system. The raw feed
was the system input, while the final permeate and final
concentrate streams were the system output. These
streams were considered the most important in assess-
ing system performance. Measurements used in evalu-
ating the critical objectives for the Demonstration were
designated as critical parameters. The critical param-
eters consisted of VOCs; metals; TDS; TOC; system
operating pressures and flow rates; and totalized flows
of the raw feed, final permeate, and final concentrate
streams. Parameters that were used to assess the
secondary objectives were designated non-critical. Non-
critical field measurements included turbidity, pH, tem-
perature, conductivity, chemical oxygen demand (COD),
calcium, hardness, silt density index (SDI), and electric-
ity consumption. Non-critical laboratory analytical mea-
surements were anions, ammonia, and methylene blue
active substances (MBAS).
Samples for off-site laboratory analysis were collected
once per day during leachate treatment. These samples
were collected at different times each day in order to
avoid potential bias in the results. On two selected days,
samples were withdrawn from the three main process
streams three times per day at two-hour intervals to
evaluate short-term variations in the critical parameters.
Off-site laboratory analyses included VOCs, total met-
als, TDS, total solids (TS), TOC, ammonia, and anions.
Field analyses and process measurements of non-criti-
cal parameters were designed to supplement the labo-
ratory data and to provide real-time information on pro-
cess operation. Samples for field analyses were col-
lected once or twice per day, depending on the analysis.
Measured field parameters included turbidity, pH, tem-
perature, conductivity, silica, alkalinity, COD, calcium,
and hardness.
The critical objective for percent rejection of contami-
nants was evaluated utilizing the daily system feed and
final permeate concentrations. The developer claimed
that the DTM system could reject greater than 90% of
VOCs, 99% of heavy metals and TDS, and 92% of TOC.
The target VOCs (those detected at significant levels in
liquid waste characterization samples and considered
critical for the Demonstration) were chlorobenzene; 1,2-
dichlorobenzene; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; ethylbenzene;
toluene; and xylenes. The target metals included barium,
calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, so-
dium, and strontium.
System operational parameters were measured to as-
sess the field performance and cost of the DTM system.
Flow rates, totalized flows, pressures, and electricity
usage were recorded on field log sheets hourly during
system operation. The developer claimed that the DTM
technology could achieve a 75% or greater system
water recovery rate while treating the Central Landfill
leachate. This critical objective was evaluated by utiliz-
ing the totalized flows for the raw feed and the final
permeate. In addition, totalized flows and process stream
flow rates aided in evaluating contaminant mass bal-
ances.
After the Demonstration, the DTM system was evalu-
ated for flux losses to assess membrane fouling and
scaling. This critical test objective was addressed with
baseline testing on a saline solution of known conductiv-
ity. Pre- and post-demonstration baseline testing deter-
mined the change in flux (flow rate per unit membrane
area) from before treatment of the leachate to after
treatment of the leachate. Field samples and samples
for off-site laboratory analysis taken during the baseline
test included: conductivity, TDS, pH, and temperature
measurements of the feed and permeate streams. Op-
erating pressures, flow rates, and totalized flows were
also monitored. Baseline testing was performed on only
the first-stage and high-pressure units because they
received most of the liquid waste loading and were the
most susceptible to scaling and fouling. Membrane per-
formance was further evaluated utilizing process data
and samples that were collected during leachate treat-
ment. In addition, samples of non-critical parameters
including alkalinity, ammonia, anions, silica, and total
solids were collected from various streams and ana-
lyzed. These parameters, along with SDI measurements,
aided in assessing the fouling potential of the system's
feed and concentrate streams.
To measure vent emissions during the Demonstration,
integrated gas samples were collected in Summa™
canisters from a system intermediate concentrate hold-
ing tank vent. Gas flow measurements from a totalizing
device were also obtained. Gas was discharged from
the intermediate concentrate holding tank only when the
HPU was between treatment cycles and the first-stage
unit was filling the tank with concentrate. Gas sampling
was conducted during four days of process operation for
approximately thirty minutes several times per day in
order to obtain representative samples. These gas mea-
surements, in combination with VOC mass balances,
30
-------
were used to estimate the significance of fugitive VOC
emissions and to determine if these emissions impacted
calculated contaminant rejections.
Discharge samples from the DIM processes final per-
meate holding tank were analyzed for COD, biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), total toxic organics (TTO), heavy
metals, total suspended solids, and oil and grease to
determine if local discharge criteria were met. In addi-
tion, samples from the final concentrate holding tank
were analyzed for liquid waste disposal purposes.
Throughout the Demonstration, leachate draw-down and
flow rate measurements from Well MW91ML7 were
recorded. These data, along with other draw-down data
collected by Region I EPA from surrounding wells, were
utilized for a long-term pump test by the EPA. This long-
term pump test was separate from, but coordinated with,
the Rochem SITE Demonstration; it was designed to
measure the effect of leachate pumping on the water
levels of the surrounding wells.
Quality Assurance (QA) measures were followed to
ensure that the data collected to evaluate project objec-
tives were acceptable and of known quality. These
measures included equipment calibrations, quality con-
trol samples, field duplicate samples, and matrix spike
and matrix spike duplicate samples. Also, field and
laboratory technical systems reviews were conducted
by an independent EPA auditor.
4.3 Detailed Process Description
The DTM technology can use MF, UF, or RO membrane
materials, depending on the application. The membranes
are generally more permeable to water than to contami-
nants or impurities. MF, which typically utilizes mem-
branes with a pore size of 0.05 to 2 microns, retains
particulates, colloids, and microorganisms. UF, which
typically uses membranes with pore sizes ranging from
0.005 to 0.1 microns, is efficient in removing colloids and
macromolecules (12). Dissolved ionized salts will usu-
ally permeate MF and UF membranes. In contrast, RO
will remove ionic species such as sodium chloride and
calcium sulfate as well as many organic compounds
(13). In RO, water in the feed is forced through a
membrane by an applied pressure that exceeds the
osmotic pressure of the feed. This water, called "perme-
ate," has a lower concentration of contaminants. The
impurities are selectively rejected by the membranes
and are thus concentrated in the "concentrate" left be-
hind. The percentage of water that passes through the
membranes is a function of operating pressure, mem-
brane type, and concentration and chemical characteris-
tics of the contaminants. The DTM technology utilized
thin-film composite RO membranes, for all stages, dur-
ing the Demonstration at the Central Landfill.
The patented membrane module features larger feed
flow channels and a higher feed flow velocity than
conventional membrane separation systems. According
to the technology developer, these characteristics allow
the DTM greater tolerance for dissolved solids and
turbidity and a greater resistance to membrane fouling
and scaling. Suspended particulates are readily flushed
away from the membranes during operation. The high
flow velocity, short feed water path across each mem-
brane, and the circuitous flow path create turbulent
mixing to reduce boundary layer effects and minimize
membrane fouling and scaling. In addition, the devel-
oper claims that the design of the DTM allows easy
cleaning and maintenance of the membranes—the open
channels facilitate rinsing and cleansing of particulate
matter, and membranes can be removed from modules
as needed for replacement.
Figure 4-1 is a cutaway diagram of the DTM. Membrane
material for the DTM is formed into a cushion surround-
ing a porus spacing material. The membrane cushions
are alternately stacked with hydraulic discs on a tension
rod. The hydraulic discs support the membranes and
provide flow channels for the feed liquid to pass over the
membranes. After passing through the membrane mate-
rial, permeate flows through collection channels out of
the module to a product recovery tank. A stack of
cushions and discs is housed in a pressure vessel.
Flanges seal the ends of the module in the pressure
vessel and provide the feed water input and the product
(permeate) and reject (concentrate) output connections.
The number of discs per module, number of modules,
and the membrane materials can be custom-designed
to suit the application.
Modules are typically combined in a treatment unit or
stage. DTM units can be connected in series to improve
permeate water quality or in parallel to increase system
treatment capacity. The DTM system design includes
built-in multi-media filters and cartridge filters for each
unit to remove suspended particulates from the input
feed and to protect pumps and membranes from physi-
cal damage. The multi-media filters are cleaned by
backwashing; cartridge filters are manually replaced as
needed. To monitor the operation of the modules, the
system is equipped with micro-processor controlled pres-
sure and flow meters.
A three-stage DTM process was used to treat the leachate
at the Central Landfill site. Each stage was a separate
DTM unit interconnected with piping and tankage. Two
DTM stages were used in series to produce the final
permeate. The third DTM stage was a HPU which
further treated the concentrate from the first-stage to
increase system water recovery. A schematic of the
multi-stage DTM process utilized during the Demonstra-
tion is presented in Figure 4-2. The system operated up
to eight hpd for 19 days at a continuous feed flow rate of
3 to 4.5 gpm (11 to 17 Ipm). The second-stage and the
high-pressure units were not continuously fed, but rather
operated in a semi-batch mode due to the system
design.
Two 5,000-gallon tanks stored leachate that was pumped
continuously from Well MW91ML7. This leachate was
then pumped to a 100-gallon feed tank for the first-stage
31
-------
Feed water
Permeate (product)
Concentrate (reject)
Joining flange
\
i \
JJ L
V
J
-(,=
)
— ( . 1
}
-( =
J
— ( . 1
)
— ( . 1
J
-(. '
J
— { . 1
)
-( c=
J
r i 1
)
f
/
/
. /
1 ^J U ^
L X V >
J—
<
^>-
1 ci
1 -- V-
1 d
^v
i d =C
1 — -• v-
1 <
1 — = =^v
1 d — ^
^v
1 d
1 , )—
\ d ==!J^
1 — = =rv
1 .r
i* < ^
I \ ^ >i
\ /
\ /
Membrane cushion /
Pressure
vessel
End flange
Tension rod
Figure 4-1. Cutaway diagram of the Rochem disc tube™ Module
unit. After filtration, contaminated leachate was pumped
into the first-stage unit at pressures which ranged from
600 to 1,000 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)
[4,100 to 6,900 kiloPascals (kPa)]. The first-stage unit
had eight modules that utilized standard thin-film com-
posite (TFC) membranes. The permeate produced from
this unit was directed to a holding tank designated for
first-stage permeate, and was then fed at 700 to 1,000
psig (4,800 to 6,900 kPa) to the second-stage unit for
further treatment.
The second-stage unit, which had two modules that
utilized standard TFC membranes, was not brought on-
line until enough first-stage permeate accumulated in its
feed holding tank. The second-stage permeate was the
system's final permeate, while the second-stage con-
centrate was recycled into the first-stage feed line.
Rochem had originally planned to use a different DTM
system for the Demonstration in which the first-stage
unit and the second-stage unit were combined in a
single pre-fabricated container and the HPU housed in a
separate container. With this type of system, the sec-
ond-stage unit is not operated in a semi-batch mode, but
is continuously fed permeate from the first-stage unit.
The concentrate from the first-stage unit was routed to a
300-gallon holding tank. This concentrate was fed at 1 to
3.5 gpm (4 to 13 Ipm) and 900 to 1,800 psig (6,200 to
12,000 kPa) into the HPU. Use of the HPU was initiated
later than the first two stages, after accumulation of first-
Hydraulic disc
stage concentrate; the HPU was operated in a batch
mode. The HPU had two stainless steel modules that
utilized TFC membranes specially modified for high
pressure. The purpose of the HPU was to reduce the
volume of the first-stage concentrate, thereby reducing
the final liquid waste volume and increasing the system
water recovery rate. High pressure was needed to over-
come the osmotic pressure of the first-stage concen-
trate. HPU permeate was recycled into the first-stage
permeate tank (feed for the second stage). The HPU
produced the system's final concentrate. Initially, the
HPU was operated in a recycle mode to allow the HPU
concentrate to reach an optimal concentration and fur-
ther increase the system's water recovery rate. This
mode of operation was discontinued after the first two
days of the Demonstration. It was determined by Rochem
that the desired system water recovery rate could be
achieved without the concentrate recycle mode; recy-
cling the concentrate increased the chance of HPU
membrane fouling and scaling.
Permeate was used to rinse and clean the DTMs. Rins-
ing was performed on the second-stage and high-pres-
sure units between most batch treatment cycles each
day to displace any residual leachate from the mem-
brane surfaces. The second-stage unit was rinsed ap-
proximately four to five times each day, and the HPU
was rinsed approximately two to three times each day.
All stages were then rinsed at the end of the day to flush
the system prior to shut-down overnight. At the end of
32
-------
Second stage
(final)
permeate tank
Feed steam
Concentrate steam
Permeate steam
To municipal
sewer
Figure 4-2. Schematic of Rochem DIM process used during SITE demonstration.
the day, the first-stage unit was rinsed with approxi-
mately 50 gallons (190 liters) of first-stage permeate; the
second-stage unit was rinsed with approximately 34
gallons (130 liters) of final permeate; and the HPU was
rinsed with approximately 20 gallons (76 liters) of first-
stage permeate. Cleaning was accomplished by adding
cleaning agents—either alkaline for fouling, acidic for
membrane scale, or detergent for both—to the rinse
tanks for each unit and recirculating the solution through
the modules. Membranes were cleaned at the discretion
of the Rochem system operator based on an increase in
module pressure readings or changes in operating tem-
perature or flow rate.
Hydrochloric acid (HCI) was added to the first-stage
feed and the HPU feed at dosing rates of 1.6 to 2.8 liters
per hour (Iph) and 0.53 to 1.6 Iph, respectively. The
addition of HCI, which facilitated pH adjustment to help
control membrane scaling, was not started until the third
day of leachate treatment. Rochem's target system feed
pH for the Demonstration was between 5 and 6.
As a precautionary measure, the final permeate was run
through activated carbon canisters to ensure compli-
ance with discharge requirements. After carbon treat-
ment, it was stored and batch-discharged to the sanitary
sewer.
4.4 Performance Data
4.4.1 General Chemistry
The leachate treated by the Rochem DTM technology at
the Central Landfill was a mixture of organic and inor-
ganic contaminants that proved to be a difficult chal-
lenge to the technology based on the Demonstration
results. Table 4-2 presents the average concentrations
of contaminants measured in the system feed, perme-
ate, and concentrate process streams during the Dem-
onstration. The average levels of chlorobenzene and
1,2-dichlorobenzene in the feed were high at 21 and 16
mg/L, respectively. Metals were present at mg/L levels;
iron (at 48 mg/L) and calcium (at 130 mg/L) were
significant because of their potential for membrane scal-
ing. The presence of other metals, such as barium and
strontium, and anions, such as fluoride and sulfate, also
represented a potential for scaling of the membranes.
Silica, another sealant of concern, was present in the
leachate at 15 mg/L. The TDS in the feed averaged
4,900 mg/L. As a result of treatment, TDS in the final
33
-------
Table 4-2.
Contaminant
Average Concentrations for the System Feed,
Permeate, and Concentrate Streams
Average Concentration (mg/L)
System
Feed
Final
Permeate
Final
Concentrate
Target VOCs
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 16 .76 23
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.70 <0.081 <0.80
Chlorobenzene 21 2.7 36
Ethylbenzene 0.79 <0.031 1.1
Toluene 1.8 0.083 3.4
Xylenes 1.3 <0.039 <1.7
Target Metals
Barium 1.4 <0.014 4.3
Calcium 130 <1.1 410
Iron 48 O.38 140
Magnesium 250 <1.6 850
Manganese 21 <0.14 70
Potassium 150 <1.8 550
Sodium 710 <5.7 2,500
Strontium 0.89 <0.0068 2.9
Anions
Chloride 2,500 <13. 11,000
Fluoride <2.7 <0.10 11
Nitrate <12 <0.40 <26.
Sulfate 81 <1.8 300
Other Parameters
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia
Silica
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Solids
Total Organic Carbon
1,600
650
15
4,900
5,800
460
<1.0*
5.3
<0.63*
<32
<100
<15
4,100
2,300
86
17,000
21,000
1,600
' = Permeate concentration is based on 6 sampling days.
concentrate increased to about 17,000 mg/L, a level
high enough to be of concern for solids precipitation and
scaling. Ammonia was present in the feed a 650 mg/L
and was removed effectively by the technology. The
high level of ammonia in the feed was probably due to
past disposal of septic tank waste and sewage in the
landfill. The alkalinity of the leachate was primarily bicar-
bonate alkalinity. Alkalinity values were slightly depressed
in the permeate due to pH adjustment in the feed and
the resultant production of carbon dioxide (CO2). For
example, permeate alkalinity was found to be about 10
mg/L (as CaCO3) after CO2 stripping. The high alkalinity
of the feed was significant because it limited Rochem's
ability to adjust the leachate pH down to the desired
level to help control precipitation and membrane scaling
during the Demonstration.
Two silt density index (SDI) measurements were taken
towards the end of leachate treatment. The SDI pro-
vides an indication of a water's fouling nature due to
suspended silt or colloidal material. For the Demonstra-
tion leachate, the measured SDIs were 14 and 19 (16.5
average). For conventional RO membrane designs, a
maximum SDI value of 5 is generally recommended to
assure reliable operation (14, 75).The measured values
greatly exceeded this guideline and indicate the difficult
nature of the Demonstration leachate.
4.4.2 Contaminant Removals
Contaminant removals were calculated as percent re-
jections from daily feed and permeate concentrations.
Table 4-3 summarizes the calculated mean percent
rejections achieved for the target contaminants consid-
ered critical for this Demonstration. The mean percent
rejections achieved by the technology for all but three of
the target contaminants met or exceeded the developer's
claims based on their average values as shown in the
table. The calculated mean percent rejections of 1,2-
dichlorobenzene; ethylbenzene; toluene; and xylenes
were greater than the specified criteria of 90%. For
Chlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene, the calculated
mean percent rejections were less than the Demonstra-
tion criteria of 90%, but the 90% rejection criteria fell
within the 95% confidence intervals for these VOCs.
Laboratory VOCs quantitations for two days of leachate
treatment, August 27 and 28, 1994, are estimated be-
cause of instrument calibration problems. VOC percent
rejections calculated from these data for those days are
also estimated. The daily percent rejections were used
to calculate the average percent rejections presented in
Table 4-3. These average percent rejections were recal-
culated without including the estimated VOC data. The
revised rejections for Chlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlo-
robenzene were 87.7% and 89.9%, respectively. Rejec-
tions for other VOCs either did not change or increased
slightly. Since the estimated VOC data agree with other
analytical parameters and process measurements dur-
ing the period in question, the average percent rejec-
tions using all VOC data points are thought to be valid.
TOC and TDS measurements showed rejections greater
than the specified criteria. All target metals except po-
tassium showed mean rejections greater than the Dem-
onstration criteria. The mean rejection for potassium (at
least 98.7%) was within the 95% confidence interval
(98.0 to 99.4%). These results indicate that the DTM
system was very effective in removing all classes of
contaminants in the Central Landfill leachate.
Vent emissions were measured during the Demonstra-
tion from an intermediate concentrate holding tank in the
system. Multiple VOC concentration and flow rate mea-
surements were taken over four operating days. VOC
losses on a mass basis were calculated from these
measurements and are shown along with losses based
on percent rejections in Table 4-4. Comparing the emis-
sion results to the system VOC percent rejections (based
on mass) shows the vent losses to be no more than
0.5% of the total rejection of any given compound on
any day. Therefore, these system losses did not signifi-
cantly affect the calculated percent rejections of VOC
contaminants. Calculated VOC rejections for the tech-
nology may actually be biased low due to potential VOC
losses from feed samples that foamed during sample
34
-------
Table 4-3.
Target Contaminants Average Percent Rejections
Contaminant
Developer's Claims
Percent Rejection
Average Percent
Rejection Achieved*
95% Confidence
Interval
Target VOCs
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Target Metals
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
>90%
>90%
>09%
>90%
>90%
>90%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>99%
>92%
94.9%
>87.6%
86.8%
>95.6%
93.8%
>95.0%
>99.0%
>99.2%
>99.2%
>99.3%
>99.4%
>98.7%
>99.2%
>99.2%
>99.4%
>96.7%
92.7-97.1%
83.5-91.7%
83.1-90.5%
94.1-97.1%
90.5-97.1%
92.3-97.7%
98.3-99.7%
98.5-99.9%
98.6-99.8%
98.6-99.9%
98.7-100.0%
98.0-99.4%
98.5-99.9%
98.5-99.9%
98.9-99.9%
95.6-97.8%
'Greater than symbol indicates that at least one measured value was below the method detection limit.
Table 4-4. VOC Gas Loss on a Mass Basis Compared to System Percent VOC Regjection
Date
8/17
8/17
8/17
8/17
8/18
8/18
8/18
8/18
8/19
8/19
8/19
8/19
8/20
8/20
8/20
8/20
Compound
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Feed
Mass
(mg)
144141.0
7520.4
1 8594.2
14207.3
135009.0
6107.6
16072.5
11572.2
182493.0
7434.9
15545.7
12842.1
120726.0
4024.2
10060.5
8048.4
Permeate
Mass
(mg)
8296.2
181.0
307.8
181.0
8729.7
166.3
328.4
166.3
10366.4
188.5
358.1
188.5
9899.4
61.3
240.4
61.3
%
Rejection*
94.2%
97.6%
98.3%
98.7%
93.5%
97.3%
98.0%
98.6%
94.3%
97.5%
97.7%
98.5
91 .8%
98.5%
97.6%
99.2%
Gas
VOC
Rate
(mg/min)
2.050
0.170
0.500
0.345
2.403
0.176
0.546
0.362
1.335
0.083
0.219
0.167
2.230
0.135
0.349
0.269
Time
(min)
126
126
126
126
143
143
143
143
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
Gas
VOC
loss
(mg)
258.3
21.4
63.0
43.5
343.6
25.2
78.1
51.8
192.2
12.0
31.5
24.0
321.1
19.4
50.3
38.7
%
Rejection
with
gas loss
94.1%
97.3$
98.0%
98.4%
93.3%
96.9%
97.5%
98.1%
94.2%
97.3%
97.5%
98.3%
91 .5%
98.0%
97.1%
98.8%
%
Change
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
'Percent rejection = [ [the mass of a compound in the feed stream minus the mass of the compound in the permeate stream (input minus
output)] divided by the mass of the compound in the feed stream (input)] * 100
35
-------
collection. These potential losses are discussed in more
detail under Section 4.4.5, "System Mass Balance."
4.4.3 Water Recovery Rate
Flow rates, totalized flows, pressures, and electricity
usage were recorded on field log sheets at hourly inter-
vals during system operation. Totalized flows were used
in the calculation of system water recovery rates. Sys-
tem water recovery is defined as the volume of final
permeate divided by the volume of feed, times 100%.
Figure 4-3 illustrates the daily percent system water
recoveries. Breaks in the data represent periods when
the system was off-line due to weather, maintenance, or
temporary mechanical problems. The average system
water recovery rate for the Demonstration was 73.3%
with a 95% confidence interval of 70.7 to 75.9%. The
developer's claim of 75% system water recovery falls
within this confidence interval.
The calculated daily water recovery rates ranged from
66.4 to 84.4%. The system recovery rate was equal to or
greater than the claim of 75% on eight days of treat-
ment. These daily recovery rates were reduced by the
use of first-stage and final permeate for module rinsing
during treatment. However, an allowance was not made
for permeate lost due to these rinses because they were
part of the operation for the system used during the
Demonstration. For full-scale continuous field operating
conditions this would have little effect overall. Rinsing
was performed on the second-stage unit and the HPU
between batch treatment cycles each day to displace
residual leachate from membrane surfaces. For typical
better-integrated DTM systems in which the second-
stage unit operates in a continuous mode with the first-
stage unit, rinsing of the second-stage unit would not be
required, and recovery rates may be higher (75 to 80%)
when treating a similar waste (2). Because the system
was not operating 24 hpd, rinsing (or flushing) with
permeate was also performed on all units at the end of
each day prior to shut-down overnight. These flushes
were taken into account in the evaluation of daily recov-
ery rates, as was the start-up time required each day
until the system reached steady-state operating condi-
tions. Nevertheless, the daily system shut-down and the
semi-batch mode of system operation made it more
difficult to accurately determine daily recovery rates.
More data on recovery rate performance for other appli-
cations of this technology can be found in Appendix A,
"Vendor's Claims."
4.4.4 Membrane Performance
Baseline testing was performed to help evaluate mem-
brane physical performance and to determine whether
there was a significant decrease in flux (permeate flow
rate per unit membrane surface area) over the course of
the Demonstration. Testing was conducted prior to and
after leachate treatment on a saline solution of known
conductivity so that comparable data could be devel-
oped. Recorded permeate flow rates for the first-stage
unit and the HPU, the units receiving the bulk of liquid
80
>,
8
(D
3
<1)
O
'ro
•o
0) JU
ro
s
i i i
— t-
— t-
i — i
m
ZlAvc
— Avc
3. Da
3. Sys
ly Percent Recov(
>tem % Recovery
srj
I
73.3%
, — ,
i-i
— |
-i—
—
-i—
-i—
— i-
— i—
i-i
rn
1 I
— 1—
— |
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-3. Rochem DTM System Daily Percent Water Recovery.
36
-------
waste loading, were standardized so that pre- and post-
demonstration data were comparable (16). Table 4-5
presents the calculated results for the baseline testing.
A Monte Carlo error analysis was also performed to
assess the variability in these calculated results (17, 18).
The calculated change in flux (essentially change in flow
rate since the membrane area remained constant) for
the first-stage unit over the course of the Demonstration
was approximately -30A12.6% at 95% confidence. For
the HPU, the calculated change in flux over the course
of the Demonstration was about -83A2.2% at 95% con-
fidence.
These results indicate that a significant decrease in flux
occurred for both units due to the action of the leachate
on the membranes. However, the technology developer
maintains, and other data seem to verify, that mem-
branes in the HPU were probably damaged by an acid
excursion during acid cleaning performed to remove
sealants or during acid dosing forpH control. The baseline
conductivity data for the HPU indicate that some condi-
tion other than scaling or fouling contributed to the flux
loss. Average permeate conductivity increased for the
HPU by an order of magnitude (from 300 to 2,900
micromhos per centimeter) between the initial and final
baseline tests. This suggests that the membranes were
damaged. The acidic solution may have caused local
weaknesses in the membranes which allowed more
impurities to pass through them. Visual inspection of the
HPU membranes after final baseline testing showed
them to have a blemished appearance compared to
membranes from the other units. The HPU membranes
were a new type of TFC membrane, different from those
used in the other units, and may have been more
sensitive to acid (low pH) (2). It is possible that scaling or
fouling of the HPU membranes could have been an
additional factor in the large decrease in the standard-
ized flow rate. In the first-stage unit, the quality of the
permeate improved by about 25% based on conductivity
readings observed during baseline testing. Therefore,
damage to these first-stage membranes from acid clean-
ing is not indicated.
Table 4-5. Rochem DIM Technology Baseline Test Results
First-Stage Unit Baseline Results
Test
Initial Baseline
Final Baseline
A Flux
Average
Standardized
Flow Rate
2.92 gal/min
2.03 gal/min
83.6%
95%
Confidence
Interval
+/- 0.41 gal/min
+/- 0.24 gal/min
+/- 1 2.6%
High-Pressure Unit Baseline Results
Test
Initial Baseline
Final Baseline
A Flux
Average
Standardized
Flow Rate
1.61 gal/min
0.26 gal/min
83.6%
95%
Confidence
Interval
+/- 0.1 6 gal/min
+/- 0.02 gal/min
+/- 2.2%
System operating data during leachate treatment was
also evaluated to determine the performance of mem-
branes during the Demonstration. Figures 4-4 and 4-5
depict pressure and flow rate trends for the first-stage
and the high-pressure units. The flow rate data were
standardized for pressure, temperature, and liquid waste
concentration in the same manner as the baseline data.
The standardized data are also presented on the graphs.
Breaks in the data represent periods when the system
was off-line due to weather, maintenance, or temporary
mechanical problems. Standardized flow rates were simi-
lar to the actual flow rates during the Demonstration.
In general, the data presented in these figures show an
increase in operating pressures and a decrease in flow
rates overtime, indicating a decrease in overall perfor-
mance for the units receiving the bulk of liquid waste
loading during treatment. A sharp decrease in perfor-
mance is seen during the first two days of treatment
(pressure increasing and flow rate decreasing). After
this point, the system was shut down for thorough
membrane cleaning. This performance decrease is prob-
ably a result of the lack of pH adjustment to control
precipitation and membrane scaling. HCI addition for pH
adjustment was initiated after this time and seemed to
help maintain membrane performance; membrane clean-
ing was not required for the next ten days of treatment.
Figures 4-6 and 4-7 illustrate pH and alkalinity trends,
respectively, during leachate treatment. Feed pH de-
creased from about 6.8 at start-up to about 6.1. The acid
dosing rate was increased on August 18, 1994. Mea-
sured alkalinity (predominantly bicarbonate alkalinity)
demonstrated a similar trend in response to acid addi-
tion. The decrease in alkalinity was especially notice-
able in the concentrate stream. However, the high alka-
linity limited Rochem's ability to reduce the feed and
concentrate stream pH to help reduce precipitation and
the potential for membrane scaling. The measured alka-
linity of the final permeate stream was about 10 mg/L (as
CaCO3) after CO2 stripping.
The feed pressure in the first-stage unit began increas-
ing on about August 22,1994. The system recovery rate
was increased on August 24,1994 by Rochem, and this
was followed by additional pressure increases, as well
as, a decrease in flux until the end of the leachate test.
During this period, routine membrane cleaning was con-
ducted for short periods of time almost every day of
operation. Apparently, the first-stage membranes were
beginning to foul or scale, and increasing the recovery
rate compounded this problem. As a result, the system
experienced a reduction in flux and a reduction in per-
meate quality for some contaminants. Figure 4-8 illus-
trates a trend in the reduction of permeate quality (most
notable near the end of the Demonstration) for TDS,
TOC, and total VOCs. Laboratory VOC quantitations for
two days of leachate treatment, August 27 and 28,1994,
are estimated because of instrument calibration prob-
lems. Since the estimated VOC data correspond to
other analytical parameters and process measurements
during the period in question, which indicate a decrease
in technology performance, the VOC data points are
37
-------
1000
900'
800-
700-
600
2 500 H
o
D. 400 -
300-
200-
100 -
System
off-line
Average Feed Pressure
Average Permeate Flow Rate
Average Standardized Permeate Flow Rate
System
off-line
4.5
--4
--3.5
--3
-I-2-5 I
3
£
ro
+ 2 a:
_o
u.
--1.5
-- 1
--0.5
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/30 8/31 9/1
Date (1994)
Figure 4-4. Pressure and Flow Rates vs. Time for the First-Stage Unit.
9/2
1800
1600--
1400--
1200-•
$ 800SL
£
600 +,
400 -•
200-•
System
off-line
^-
Average Feed Pressure
Average Permeate Flow Rate
Average Standardized Permeate Flow Rate
System
off-line
:l I '
1.6
-•1.4
-•1.2
•• 1 .E
£
S
-•0.8 V
ro
OL
O
-•0.6 E
-•0.4
-• 0.2
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-5. Pressure and Flow Rates vs. Time for the High-Pressure Unit.
38
-------
8.00
7.00 -
6.00 -
5.00 -
4.00 3
3.00 -
2.00 -
1.00 -
0.00
System
off-line
H 1—
-Feed
-Concentrate
-Permeate
System
off-line
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-6. Measured pH of the System Input and Output Streams.
20000
18000 '
0 6 A-
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/158/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/278/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-7. Measured Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) of the System Input and Output Streams.
39
-------
160
8/118/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1
Date (1994)
Figure 4-8. Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and Total Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) vs. Time for the
Final Permeate Stream.
thought to be valid. Membrane cleanings were helpful in
maintaining system performance, but the leachate did
appear to foul the membranes over the course of the
Demonstration based on the leachate treatment data.
However, due to the short duration of the system shake-
down and of the Demonstration, it was not possible for
Rochem to fully optimize the membrane cleaning proce-
dures for this leachate (2). It is possible that a better
cleaning procedure could be developed to improve mem-
brane performance.
Figure 4-9 presents the pressure and flow rate trend for
the second-stage unit during leachate treatment. The
flow rates shown are not standardized. Although there
was a temporary decrease in permeate flow rate for this
unit during the latter part of the Demonstration, overall
flow rate remained fairly steady. Pressure showed a
gradual increase overtime. This unit did not seem to be
affected by the leachate. However, the feed to this unit
was first-stage permeate, which had significantly re-
duced contaminant levels compared to the raw feed
shown in Table 4-2.
Analysis of operational information indicates that mem-
branes in the first-stage unit and HPU may have suf-
fered some irreversible scaling during the first two days
of leachate treatment, prior to the technology developer
implementing pH control. During the remainder of
leachate treatment, pH adjustment was used to control
scaling, and this appeared to be helpful as long as the
system recovery rate was not pushed too high. This
initial "hit" to the membranes probably explains why flux
in the first-stage unit (considered the most important by
the evaluator because it treats the raw leachate) never
fully recovered. However, the operational data also show
a flux decrease of 30 to 35% after this initial "hit," which
corresponds to the baseline results. It should be noted
that the membranes were cleaned thoroughly (by per-
forming multiple non-routine cleanings) after the initial
"hit," but were not cleaned thoroughly again until after
leachate treatment was completed. Although not abso-
lutely comparable, the final baseline results for the first-
stage unit indicate that after this initial cleaning the flux
recovered to a level greater than that at the end of
leachate treatment, after thorough post-treatment mem-
brane cleaning. This means that cleaning was capable
of removing scaling or fouling and restoring membrane
performance, as the technology developer claimed. How-
ever, the first-stage unit flux did not recover to the level
observed in baseline testing before leachate treatment
(there was still an overall reduction in flux of approxi-
mately 30%), probably due to impacts to the mem-
branes prior to implementing pH control.
Taking all baseline and leachate treatment data to-
gether, it appears that some degree of irreversible scal-
ing and fouling of membranes occurred. It is difficult to
specify to what degree this occurred because of the
variable system operation and performance. In addition,
according to Rochem, membranes have a definite break-
40
-------
1,200
1,000
800 -•
O)
'
-------
35,000
30,000 -•
25,000 --
20,000 -•
15,000 --
10,000 --
5,000
0
System
Off-line
System
Off-line
H 1 h
-I h
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-10. Total Dissolved Solids (IDS) Input and Output Streams vs. Time.
2,500 •
2,000 - -
1,500 - -
1,000 - -
500--
System
Off-line
System
Off-line
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-11. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Input and Output Streams vs. Time.
42
-------
50,000
5,000--
0
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-12. Chlorobenzene Input and Output Streams vs. Time.
9,000
8,000 ••
5,000 -•
4,000 -•
3,000 ••
Ih
2,000 ••
1,000 -•
- Feed Stream
• Concentrate
- Permeate
System
Off-line
System
Off-line
8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 8/30 8/31 9/1 9/2
Date (1994)
Figure 4-13. Toluene Input and Output Streams vs. Time.
43
-------
Table 4-6. Rochem System Critical Contaminant Mass Balance
Summary
Percent Deviation
from Closure
Analyte Name %
Target Metals
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Target VOCs
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Solids
8.4
6.2
12
1.7
1.3
-1.8
-0.2
3.7
55
55
40
56
43
59
1.1
2.7
-3.3
contaminant over the entire Demonstration. A negative
deviation indicates excess output from the system dur-
ing the Demonstration.
Totalized flow measurements were utilized in the mass
balance calculations. Due to the semi-batch system
configuration and operation, there was some hold-up
volume in the intermediate process tanks at system
shut-down each day. In order to minimize the daily effect
of these hold-up volumes, 18-day flow totals were uti-
lized for the input and output streams to calculate an
overall mass balance for each contaminant. In addition
to the hold-up volumes, the final permeate was used in
rinse cycles during system operation. After rinsing, some
of this permeate was discharged through the concen-
trate process line. As a result, totalized volumes for the
concentrate were biased high. Therefore, adjustments
were made to account for the volume of permeate used
in rinse cycles that was measured (or recorded) as
concentrate.
System mass balance calculations gave good results for
metals, TOC, TDS, and TS. The overall mass balances
for metals were within 15 percent of closure, which is
considered a good balance for this type of process. The
closures for TOC, TDS, and TS were within plus or
minus 5 percent at 2.7%, 1.1%, and -3.3% respectively.
These results indicate that analytical data and system
flow measurements were of good quality and that these
contaminants were accounted for.
Target VOCs showed a typical loss of 40 to 60% through
the system. The levels of VOCs in the final concentrate
were lower than expected based on feed levels and the
system water recovery rate. These differences are prob-
ably due to VOC losses during system sampling and
possibly due to VOCs adhering to membrane surfaces.
As discussed under "Contaminant Removals" above,
gas emissions resulted in individual VOC losses of only
up to 0.5% per day or a total of 9% for 18 days. This
small amount does not account for the VOC losses
observed in the mass balance results. The feed and
especially the final concentrate process streams were
foaming during sampling due to acid addition and sys-
tem pressurization, making sampling for VOCs difficult
and probably resulting in VOC losses to the atmo-
sphere. Organic fouling of the membranes was appar-
ently occurring during leachate treatment, as evidenced
by the amount of membrane cleaning required using an
alkaline cleaner. Rochem used more alkaline cleaning
solution (26 gallons) than acidic cleaning solution (10
gallons) over the course of the Demonstration. Alkaline
cleaners are used to remove organic or biological foul-
ing; acidic cleaners are normally used to remove inor-
ganic scaling. Biological fouling was not a factor since,
pre-Demonstration leachate characterization results were
negative for coliform bacteria, indicating low biological
activity. In addition, acidifying the feed leachate may
have inhibited biological activity. VOCs may have been
responsible for some of the fouling, possibly in combina-
tion with iron or silica, however, these organic foulants
would have probably been removed from the mem-
branes during cleaning cycles and would therefore not
be accounted for in the mass balance.
4.4.6 Permeate Disposal
During the Demonstration, final permeate was collected
in holding tanks and then discharged to the sanitary
sewer under a modification to the Central Landfill's
Industrial Waste Discharge Permit. As a precautionary
measure, before collection in the holding tanks, the final
permeate was sent through activated carbon canisters
to ensure compliance with discharge requirements. Table
4-7 displays the monitoring parameters and permit limits
listed under the modification to the Central Landfill's
permit along with the maximum daily and average daily
permeate concentration results from the Rochem sys-
tem. The permeate results listed are based on samples
taken prior to carbon treatment and over 18 sampling
days, except for cyanide, BOD, and oil and grease.
Cyanide, BOD, and oil and grease were sampled twice
after carbon treatment for permeate disposal purposes.
The measured quality of the permeate from the DTM
technology complied with discharge permit requirements
for metals. The maximum daily and average daily con-
centrations for TTO were 10.13 mg/L and 3.4 mg/L,
respectively, indicating the average daily concentration
for TTO was slightly above the TTO discharge limit of
2.13 mg/L. Discharge limits for cyanide and oil and
grease were met after activated carbon polishing. Limits
44
-------
Table 4-7.
Permeate Discharge Comparison to Permit Limits
Monitoring
Parameters
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
TTO
BOD
COD
TSS
Oil and Grease
Permit Limits
Maximum daily
(mg/L)
0.04
0.4
1
0.3
0.7
0.1
1
0.3
2.13
N/A
N/A
N/A
125
Permeate Concentration
Rochem
Maximum daily
(mg/L)
<.01
<.01
<.02
<.05
<.05
<.005
0.1
<.005*
10.13
<6*
60"
902
10*
Permeate Concentration
Rochem
Average Daily
(mg/L)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.06
3.4
3.4
N/A
9.29"
N/A
N/A
* Value was obtained after permeate carbon polishing.
** Value based on 16 measurements out of 18 measurements
N/A Not Applicable
< Less than the practical quantitation limit
for BOD, COD, and TSS were listed as not applicable
(N/A) under the modification to Central Landfill's permit,
however, the maximum daily concentrations for these
parameters are also presented in Table 4-7.
The low TDS and turbidity of the permeate lend it to
treatment with many suitable polishing technologies.
Based on technology performance during this Demon-
stration, only minimal polishing treatment was required
to meet discharge limits. Permeate pH adjustment may
be required to meet discharge limitations, if acid is used
during treatment to lower the system feed pH. This could
be accomplished by aeration to remove CO2 and thereby
increase pH. In some applications, permeate from the
DTM technology may meet the discharge limitations
without the need for further treatment.
4.4.7 Maintenance, Cleaning, and Reliability
The primary maintenance activity for this technology is
membrane cleaning. The technology is designed to
facilitate membrane cleaning to maintain performance
and extend membrane life. During the Demonstration,
membrane cleaning was initiated at the operator's dis-
cretion, typically based on an increase in module pres-
sure, flow rate, or temperature readings. Various chemi-
cal cleaners were added to a rinse cycle to perform
membrane cleaning to remove scaling and fouling agents.
Membrane cleaning cycles were helpful in maintaining
technology performance. For each unit, short cleaning
cycles (approximately 30 to 60 minutes in duration) were
used to maintain daily treatment effectiveness. More
extensive cleaning was occasionally required to remove
accumulated membrane deposits. This extensive clean-
ing was partially effective in restoring module flow rates
(flux).
The reliability of the technology during the Demonstra-
tion was good. After some initial adjustments, the sys-
tem ran steadily with short breaks for routine membrane
cleaning. The feed pump for the first-stage unit was
defective and had to be replaced towards the end of the
Demonstration. As a replacement pump was not on site,
the system was down for one day while a pump was
delivered. Typically, spare pumps and components would
be on-site, and replacement could be completed in a few
hours (2).
Aside from mechanical problems and membrane clean-
ing, technology reliability is most dependent on proper
feed liquid waste pretreatment procedures and system
operational settings. For the most part, these factors are
determined during system shakedown and initial opera-
tion. Due to the variability of liquid waste, system adjust-
ments may be required later. These adjustments may be
made at the front panel by simply inputting the desired
operating parameters to the unit.
4.5 Process Residuals
The DTM process separates contaminants from liquid
waste and generates two process waste streams: per-
meate (treated water) and concentrate (liquid waste).
The permeate can be discharged to the local POTW,
into surface waters, or reinjected through underground
injection wells, if appropriate discharge limitations are
met and the proper permits are obtained. When dis-
charge requirements are not met, polishing treatment is
required. Depending on its composition and classifica-
tion, the concentrate may be a hazardous waste and
may require further treatment and disposal.
The approximate volume ratio of permeate to concen-
trate (including used cleaning solutions and unused
samples) produced during the Demonstration was 3:1.
Permeate generated was discharged to a local POTW.
Although not classified as a RCRA waste, the concen-
trate required off-site treatment prior to land disposal
due to its elevated levels of hazardous constituents.
Concentrating the liquid waste volume reduced trans-
45
-------
portation and treatment costs. Other options for concen-
trate treatment or disposal include solidification/stabili-
zation, evaporation, and recirculation into the landfill by
surface application in the case of municipal landfill
leachate (2).
Other wastes requiring disposal after the Rochem SITE
Demonstration included contaminated tubing used to
convey the leachate and concentrated liquid waste to
and from the Rochem equipment; the tarp placed under
the equipment to contain any spills; the adsorbent pil-
lows and booms used to collect the liquids that leaked or
spilled during the Demonstration; and contaminated per-
sonal protective equipment. These solid wastes were
placed in drums and were incinerated prior to their
ultimate disposal.
During treatment of liquid waste containing VOCs, there
may be minor releases of volatile contaminants to the
atmosphere from intermediate process holding tanks.
Such losses were measured during the Demonstration
at the Central Landfill. These losses did not significantly
influence system performance results, but may require
mitigation to reduce air emissions in some cases. Air
emissions from auxiliary storage tanks may also need to
be monitored and controlled.
46
-------
Section 5
Other Technology Requirements
5.1 Personnel Requirements
The Rochem DIM system is designed for semi-auto-
matic operation. DIM control units are equipped with
memory-programmable microprocessor controls and
automatic shut-down logic. Rochem has two standard
systems for liquid wastewater treatment: Model 9122,
with a capacity of 3,000 to 9,000 gpd (11,000 to 34,000
Ipd), and Model 9142, with a capacity of 10,000 to
32,000 gpd (3,800 to 120,000 Ipd). Larger systems are
also available for increased treatment capacity. Due to
the automatic control of the DIM systems, personnel
requirements for both Model 9122 and Model 9142 are
approximately the same. Once installation and shake-
down are complete, a single technician usually can
operate the system. However, these requirements will
vary depending on the characteristics of the system
feed.
For the Demonstration, two technicians working one
ten-hour day installed the three-stage Model 9122 sys-
tem utilized to treat the Central Landfill leachate. Instal-
lation activities included staging the equipment and mak-
ing hose and electrical connections. Once the equip-
ment was installed, two technicians performed a shake-
down test to refine operating parameters. The shake-
down test lasted about ten hpd for two days. Due to the
hazardous nature of the Demonstration and the leachate,
the remoteness of the test site, and the temporary
facilities, two technicians were present during treatment.
The technicians operated, monitored, and maintained
the DTM system throughout the day.
For commercial operations at a fixed facility, when treat-
ing hazardous leachate, four man-hours per day are
estimated to be required fora 24-hpd operation. A single
system operator may perform all required duties includ-
ing checking system operating parameters (i.e., flow,
pressure, pH, temperature, conductivity), collecting and
analyzing samples, cleaning membranes, and making
process modifications. When treating non-hazardous
leachates, as few as one to two man-hours per day for a
24-hpd operation are required. Equipment installation
and shakedown testing are performed by Rochem per-
sonnel. Typically, system installation can be accom-
plished with one Rochem supervisor and one technician
working 12 hpd for three to five days. Shakedown test-
ing usually requires one Rochem supervisor and techni-
cian working 12 hpd for two to five days (4).
When working with hazardous wastes, personnel oper-
ating the DTM technology must have completed the
OSHA-mandated 40-hour training course and have an
up-to-date refresher certification. Potential chemical
splash hazards exist for workers handling the wastewa-
ter to be treated, the acid solutions used for pH control,
and the solutions used for cleaning the membranes.
However, when handled properly with the appropriate
PPE, the potential risks are minimized. For most sites,
PPE worn by system technicians will include gloves,
safety goggles, steel-toed boots, and coveralls. De-
pending on the composition of the liquid waste treated
by the DTM system, additional protection such as respi-
rators may be required.
5.2 Community Acceptance
Potential hazards related to the community are minimal.
The Rochem DTM system generates minimal chemical
and no particulate air emissions. The Rochem DTM
treatment equipment is essentially a closed system ex-
cept for tank vents. Therefore, even when liquid wastes
containing volatile organic contaminants are treated, the
potential for on-site exposure to airborne contaminants
is low. Proper and secure chemical storage practices for
acids and cleaning solutions minimizes the threat of
community exposure. The use of a secondary contain-
ment area for the storage of the feed water and the
concentrated liquid waste decreases the likelihood of a
contaminant release into the environment.
The quantity of containerized liquid wastes produced
depends on the quality of the wastewater treated and
the type of conveyance system installed around the
Rochem DTM equipment. If the concentrate is conveyed
directly to a treatment works and the permeate can be
discharged without treatment, the amount of container-
ized liquid wastes is relatively small. In this case, the
movement of transport vehicles through the community
is not significant. If the Rochem DTM system operates in
a remote area with no access to conveyance structures,
47
-------
the amount of containerized liquid wastes requiring trans-
port could be more significant.
The Rochem technology has the slight potential to cause
inconveniences to the surrounding community through
the generation of noise and odor. The compressor gen-
erates the greatest level of noise in the system. This
noise level is not high and would only be an annoyance
to neighbors nearby. Noise impacts may be mitigated by
enclosing the compressor or blocking the sound waves
from reaching nearby receptors. There may be minor
releases of volatile contaminants to the atmosphere
from intermediate process holding tanks. These releases
are probably more of a concern to the process operator
than the surrounding community, but emissions control
equipment may be required.
The regulators and public of the region are invited to
observe SITE projects firsthand during the Visitor's Day
enables the public to see what is being done by the EPA
to clean up the environment and gives them a chance to
ask questions about the technology being demonstrated.
During the Rochem SITE Demonstration, a Visitor's Day
was conducted on August 16, 1994 to inform the public
about the Rochem DTM system and the SITE Demon-
stration Program. Visitor's Day activities included a brief
tour of the site and the technology. In addition, presenta-
tions were given by the developer, the EPA SITE project
manager, Region I EPA, and the SITE evaluation con-
tractor (SAIC). Participants in Visitor's Day included
regulatory personnel, remediation contractors, and mem-
bers of the general public.
48
-------
Section 6
Technology Status
Rochem Separations Systems, Inc. based in Torrance,
California is licensed to supply the DIM technology in
the United States. They are a subsidiary of the Swiss-
based Rochem Group which developed and patented
the DIM technology. The DIM units and systems are
designed and fabricated in Germany. They have been
manufactured since 1981. The HPU, such as the one
used during the Demonstration at the Central Landfill,
represents a new design. The HPU is used to further
concentrate the liquid waste and reduce the liquid waste
volume. As a result, the treated water recovery rate is
increased.
6.1 Previous/Other Experience
Rochem has over 800 installations of the DTM technol-
ogy worldwide, mostly in Europe. During the last six
years, the technology has been used to treat leachate at
more than 50 landfills in Europe, according to Rochem.
Rochem has also had projects in the U.S. At the French
Limited Superfund Site near Crosby, Texas, the technol-
ogy treated lagoon water contaminated by petrochemi-
cal wastes (volatile organics, phenols, heavy metals,
and polychlorinated biphenyls). Two DTM units with 30
modules and one with 10 modules were used to treat 3
million gallons (11.4 million liters) of lagoon water per
month at this site. According to the developer, nearly 40
million gallons of water were processed at a 30 to 50
percent recovery rate. TOC levels from 1,700 to 1,800
mg/L in the lagoon water were reduced to 20 to 25 mg/L
in the treated water, less than the EPA discharge re-
quirements (5). At the Superior Landfill near Savannah,
Georgia the technology is currently treating municipal
landfill leachate at a feed flow rate of 6,000 to 7,000
gallons per day (23,000 to 26,000 Ipd). According to the
developer, over 200,000 gallons (760,000 liters) of
leachate have been treated to date at a 73 to 74%
recovery rate (4).
As part of the SITE Demonstration, bench-scale treat-
ability tests were conducted on leachate from a hazard-
ous waste landfill in California contaminated with VOCs,
heavy metals, and high total dissolved solids. Average
contaminant rejections from a two-stage system utilizing
thin-film composite RO membranes were 93% for total
VOCs, 99% for most metals, 92.6% for TOC, and 99.3%
for TDS. Design water recovery rates during the treat-
ability studies were lower than the design water recov-
ery rate of 75% for the Demonstration at the Central
Landfill. Results from this treatability study are pre-
sented in Appendix B of this report.
6.2 Scale-Up Capabilities
Rochem has four standard systems available for liquid
waste treatment: Model 9122, rated for 3,000 to 9,000
gpd (11,000 to 34,000 Ipd); Model 9142, rated for 10,000
to 32,000 gpd (38,000 to 120,000 Ipd); Model 9152,
rated for 33,000 to 79,000 gpd (125,000 to 300,000 Ipd);
and Model 9532, rated for 9,000 to 133,000 gpd (34,000
to 500,000 Ipd). All are one-stage systems containing a
leachate DTM unit and a permeate DTM unit. A high-
pressure unit can be combined with any system. The
modular design and construction of the DTM units al-
lows them to be combined in series to increase product
quality or in parallel to increase treatment capacity.
Labor requirements are only slightly greater for larger
treatment systems, primarily for maintenance and mem-
brane replacement activities. The use of membranes
and consumables (chemicals, filters, electricity, etc.) will
increase with system treatment capacity. However, the
cost per permeate-gallon for treatment with the DTM
technology decreases with increasing treatment capac-
ity.
Based on the results of this Demonstration, liquid waste
treatability testing is strongly recommended prior to
process design and application. On-site pilot-scale treat-
ability testing should be performed to determine opera-
tional and maintenance procedures such as chemical
addition and membrane cleaning requirements. In addi-
tion, pretreatment requirements can be formalized.
Rochem normally performs an on-site pilot-scale treat-
ability test lasting two to six weeks prior to process
installation (4).
Treatment effectiveness is very waste-specific. Although
any significant treatment concerns can probably be iden-
tified from preliminary waste characterization data, bench-
scale treatability testing can be used to determine mem-
brane compatibility with the liquid waste and expected
permeate quality. This can be performed off-site by
shipping samples of liquid waste to Rochem's laboratory
49
-------
facility or on-site by Rochem using a bench-scale sys- attention requirements for system monitoring and main-
tern, tenance can be as little as one to two hpd. For more
difficult or hazardous wastes, greater operator attention
After installation, a few days to a week, depending on may be required. Rochem personnel must be present
the application, are required to properly shakedown the during pilot-scale treatability testing to operate the tech-
system. Once on-line, the DIM technology can operate nology and evaluate process operational requirements.
24 hpd with breaks for cleaning and maintenance. This Site personnel can be trained to operate the technology
is the most cost-effective mode of operation. Operator after installation.
50
-------
References
1.Rochem Separation Systems, Inc. "The Use of
Membrane Systems to Treat Leachate." SITE
Proposal.
2.Telecommunications between Rochem and SAIC.
1994-1995.
S.Osmonics, Inc. "Operation of Process Evaluation
Systems," Engineering Memorandum #18.
September 1, 1977.
4.American Water Works Association."Removal of Low
Molecular Weight Organic Contaminants from
Drinking Water Using Reverse Osmosis
Membranes," 1987 Annual Conference Proceedings:
Part 2 Sessions 23-28. Kansas City, MO. June 14-
18, 1987.
S.Collins, Mark and Ken Miller. "Reverse Osmosis
Reverses Conventional Wisdom with Superfund
Cleanup Success." Environmental Solutions,
September 1994. pp 64-66.
6.DuPont Company, Plastic Products and Resins Dept..,
Permasep Products, Wilmington, DE. "Pretreatment
Considerations for Reverse Osmosis." Technical
Bulletin No. 401. September, 1977.
7.Evans, G.M. "Estimating Innovative Technology Costs
for the SITE Program," EPA/RREL for Journal of Air
Waste Management Association. Volume 40, No. 7.
July 1993.
S.Douglas, J.M. Conceptual Design of Chemical
Processes; McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1988.
9.Peters, M.S., Timmerhaus, K.D. Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers. Third Edition.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1980.
10.Garret, D.E. Chemical Engineering Economics. Van
Nostrand Reinhold. New York, 1989.
11.Science Applications International Corporation.
"Quality Assurance Project Plan, Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation: Rochem
Separation Systems DTM Technology at Central
Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island." August-
September, 1994.
12.Osmonics, Inc. "The Filtration Spectrum." 1984.
13.Porter, M.C., Nuclepore Corp., Pleasanton, California,
"Selecting the Right Membrane," Chemical
Engineering Progress (Vol. 71, No. 12) December
1975; pp. 55-61.
14.American Water Works Assocication. Water Quality
and Treatment, A Handbook of Community Water
Supplies. Fourth Edition, 1990; p.724.
15.American Society for Testing and Materials. 1987.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards; Volume 11.
Standard Test Method for Silt Density Index (SDI) of
Water (ASTM D 4189-82). Washington D.C. pp 212
-213.
16.American Society for Testing and Materials. 1985.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards; Volume 11.
Standard Practice for Standardizing Reverse
Osmosis Performance Data (ASTM D 4516-85).
Washington D.C. pp. 845-846.
17.LaGrega, M.; Buckingham, P.; Evans J. Hazardous
Waste Management; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1994;
pp 872-877.
18.Tustaniwskyj, Dr. J. Computer Aided Analysis and
Design; University of California, San Diego: Winter
1994; pp 261-268.
19.Morenksi, Frank. Graver Water, Union, NJ. "Current
Pretreatment Requirements for Reverse Osmosis
Membrane Applications," Abstract IWC-92-38.
51
-------
Appendix A
Vendor's Claims
This appendix presents the claims made by the vendor,
Rochem Separations Systems, Inc., regarding Disc
Tube™ Module Technology, the technology under con-
sideration. This appendix was written solely by Rochem,
and the statements presented herein represent the
vendor's point of view based on independent tests,
demonstrations, and commercial activities. Publication
here does not indicate EPA's approval or endorsement
of the statements made in this section; EPA's point of
view is discussed in the body of the rept.
Rochem Separation Systems is the world leader in
membrane technology for the treatment of landfill
leachate. Rochem has been producing membrane filtra-
tion systems since 1981 and leachate treatment sys-
tems since 1988. Currently, the total installed capacity of
Rochem leachate treatment systems is over 1 million
gallons per day.
Rochem has a proven technology for leachate treat-
ment. The patented Rochem Disc Tube™ reverse os-
mosis (RO) modules when combined with our systems
experience results in a packaged system that can easily
remove both organic and inorganic compounds. As of
September 1995, Rochem has treatment systems oper-
ating on over 60 landfills worldwide. These systems
range from 1500 gallons per day to over 750,000 gallons
per day from a single site.
Rochem systems offer reliability, high treatment effi-
ciency, low operating costs and low personnel require-
ments. The microprocessor controls on the system allow
it to operate reliably with minimal operator attention. The
remote monitoring and control capability of the units
allow full data logging and normal operation from a
remote site.
The systems are capable of removing a variety of con-
taminants, both organic and inorganic. Rejection rates
are typically greater than 99% for inorganic compounds
and for organic compounds greater than 100 molecular
weight. By using Rochem's high pressure (2000 and
3000 psi) systems, recovery rates of over 95% can be
achieved.
The Rochem Disc Tube™ Module Technology SITE
Demonstration was a somewhat representative example
of what the technology is capable of. The results show
that even on a difficult stream the system will operate
reliably. While we believe that in a permanent installa-
tion with additional start-up and break-in time the results
would have been much better, the results obtained were
very good.
There were a number of factors, most relating directly to
the data collection and timing of the Demonstration,
which forced Rochem to operate the equipment slightly
differently than a typical leachate application. These
factors included running the equipment only eight to ten
hours per day, using very small interstage tanks, using
three separate units instead of two integrated ones, not
aerating the feed before it entered the unit, and not
having a sufficient shake-down and break-in period.
The Disc Tube™ modules are a tangential flow separa-
tion system. This means that the feed flows across the
surface of the membrane while a portion passes through
the membrane as permeate. This tangential flushing
action and the optimized hydrodynamics in the module
are the primary factors in keeping the membrane clean
and operating properly. When the unit stops, the flush-
ing action stops. Even though the modules are rinsed
with permeate before the pumps stop, not all the leachate
and foulant are flushed from the modules. This means
that foulants had an opportunity to collect on the mem-
branes every night. Typically, membrane systems, in-
cluding the Disc Tube, operate better when they operate
continuously than when frequently started and stopped.
Better performance in term of recovery, reduced fouling
and scaling and better rejection would be expected from
a continuously operating system than from the intermit-
tent operation of eight to ten hours per day seen during
the Demonstration.
The small interstage tanks contribute to the frequent
starts and stops of the unit. Tanks were necessary to
buffer the concentrate between the First Stage and the
High Pressure Unit, and between both those units and
the permeate polishing unit. The hold up volume was a
concern during the demonstration due to potential loss
of volatile compounds that could reduce the accuracy of
the mass balance around the system. With such a small
volume however, both the HPU and the Second Stage
permeate polishing unit started and stopped numerous
52
-------
times each day as the tanks filled and emptied. It was
not possible to completely balance the flow rate be-
tween the units to eliminate these starts and stops.
These extra starts and stops required the use of perme-
ate to rinse the units (this clean water was discharged as
concentrate, resulting in a double decrease in measured
recovery rate), as well as increasing the fouling and
scaling as discussed above. In a permanent installation,
the interstage tanks would be larger to decrease the
number of starts and stops required. Also, the first stage
and the permeate polishing unit are in one integrated
unit with no interstage tanks required.
Another major difference between the Demonstration
and a normal installation was the handling of the leachate
before treatment. During the Demonstration, all possible
actions were taken to reduce the loss of VOCs from the
storage tanks. This required the full pH adjustment be
completed in the first stage unit. The chemical reaction
that takes place when you add acid to leachate is that
the carbonate and bicarbonate compounds are con-
verted to carbon dioxide that then is released as a gas if
the maximum solubility is exceeded. In the case of the
Central landfill leachate, approximately 4,800 ppm of
carbon dioxide were generated during the acidification
process, resulting in a release of nearly 3,500 ppm of
carbon dioxide gas. This gas caused difficulties both
during the operation of the unit and during sampling.
The gas caused samples to foam, making it very difficult
to take proper VOC samples. From an operational end,
the gas made it very difficult to get a smooth flow
through the flow transmitters, which resulted in the unit
never running as smoothly as it could have. In a perma-
nent installation, a large portion of this problem is re-
moved by having preliminary pH adjustment done in a
holding tank before the DTM system. This allows the
gas to escape creating a much more stable operating
environment. Also, any precipitates that form due to the
acid addition settle out and are not removed by the pre-
filters on the unit. In addition, at all landfills, the leachate
is aerated before being treated by the DTM system.
The largest inconsistency between the Demonstration
and normal operational procedures was the lack of
sufficient shake-down and break-in time. The Demon-
stration was driven by a number of scheduling con-
straints. These included the desire to finish the Demon-
stration within the current budget year, weather con-
cerns, regulatory concerns, equipment availability and
personnel schedule conflicts. All of these added to-
gether made for a demonstration with inadequate time
to truly develop the necessary operating parameters for
the best results. With less than four days of operating
time before the beginning of sample collection, there
was not sufficient time to develop full operational plans.
Membranes show a substantial break in period. This
period can range from 20 hours to over 100 hours
depending on the feed water. It appears that the break-
in period had not completed before the base line testing.
This means that the membranes were tested at a level
to which the performance could never be restored. This
is not a problem as Rochem's experience allows for the
complete break-in in the system design. The initial test-
ing did not allow the full break-in to occur during the
Demonstration. During the Demonstration, the flux rate
(flow per area of membrane surface) of the modules
never declined to below the design value for the system.
The lack of experience with the fouling characteristics of
this leachate required development of an appropriate
cleaning procedure during the Demonstration. The con-
flicting requirements of maintaining the maximum opera-
tional time while developing the cleaning procedure
caused a decrease in the efficiency of both. This meant
that more cleanings were done for shorter periods of
time while the most efficient cleaner was determined.
Due to the unique nature of the SITE program and the
intended audience for the report, there are a number of
costs included which would not apply to most Rochem
installations. Most of the Fixed Costs, Labor Costs,
Supplies Costs, and Facility Modification Costs would
not be applicable to the operation of the unit at an
operating landfill. These costs might be pertinent to the
cost of a cleanup at an uncontrolled hazardous waste
site.
There are two other points regarding the costs of the
system. First, on most leachate a recovery rate of 75-
80% can be achieve without the use of the High Pres-
sure stage. This results in an immediate saving on
capital costs and consumables. This is especially true
for municipal solid waste leachate. Second, the cost
estimate for the 9122 system is for a unit operating at
the lowest possible capacity. The 9122 system can
handle up to three times the volume of leachate, with
very little extra equipment (an additional 6 Disc Tube™
modules). This would reduce the cost by a factor of
more than two. The 9142 system could have its capacity
increased by an additional 50% that would also reduce
its cost per gallon. Rochem believes that the normal
amortized capital and operating costs of a two stage
(first stage and permeate polishing stage) operating at
the mid-point of unit capability is $0.03 per permeate-
gallon.
Rochem stands by the claims we made for the Demon-
stration. Discharge criteria are part of Rochem's normal
performance guarantee. The Rochem Disc Tube™ Sys-
tem can effectively treat landfill leachate at a minimum
of 75% recovery while maintaining a rejection rate of
>90% for VOCs, 92% for TOC, and 99% for Heavy
metals and TDS. Better performance has been achieved
at a number of sites around the world. The attached
documentation shows the performance of Rochem sys-
tems and a variety of landfill and waste water applica-
tions.
The following documents showing the performance of
the Rochem Disc Tube™ system at other sites are
attached. Table 1 is a summary of analyses taken by an
EPA contractor of a Rochem unit operating at a Subtitle
D landfill in Southern Georgia, as part of the develop-
ment of categorical standards and Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) for leachate treatment.
53
-------
Samples were taken 24 hours per day for five days with
the samples for each day composited.
Table 2 is performance data from a Rochem Disc Tube™
system operating at a Subtitle D landfill in Northern
Georgia. This landfill has purchased a Rochem system.
A long term pilot test was conducted from June to
December of 1994, with the permanent system installed
in December of 1994. In September 1995, this landfill
received a permit from the State of Georgia to directly
surface apply the permeate from the Rochem system.
Table 3 is data from the landfill at Ihlenberg, Germany.
This is the largest landfill in Europe, and produces a very
large quantity of leachate. Rochem has been treating
the leachate from this landfill since 1989. The landfill has
expanded the capacity with additional Rochem systems
on three different occasions.
Rochem would like to thank the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, especially our SITE project man-
ager Mr. Douglas Grosse. We also thank SAIC, and all
of the individuals involved for their efforts on this project.
Without all of their efforts, this project would never have
been a success.
Table 1.
Compound
MSW Landfill Leachage Treatment Data - US EPA Sampling and Analysis
Subtitle D Cell, Summary Data
Units
Feed
Permeate 1
Permeate 2
Detection Limit
Ammonia as Nitrogen
BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chloride
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Phenols
Total Sulfide (lodometric
Total Suspended Solids
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Benzole Acid
Hexanoic Acid
P-Cresol
Phenol
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
2,4,5-TP
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Dicamba
MCPP
Hexane Extractable Material
Hexavalent Chromium
Nitrate/Nitrite
PH
Total Phosphorus
Aluminum
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Sulfur
Yttrium
Zinc
1 ,4-Dioxane
Acetophenone
Alpha-Terpineol
Diethyl Ether
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
ng/l
mg/l
mg/l
ng/l
ng/l
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
ng/l
H9/I
H9/I
ng/l
ng/l
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
units
mg/l
H9/I
H9/I
ng/l
ng/l
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
66
1340
1600
266
2580
690
1310
16
190
16.8
276
1780
330000
92800
94500
4580
76300
4290
275000
1440'
3597.29
413.06
8903.46
6963.05
771 .75
1228.84
366.68
3182.72
1328.03
40.1
23.4
14.2
2.3
933
6
0.04
2.02
7.04
0.03
92.5
4.1
78.8
18.1
4080
2.8
13.4
1 3.448
1 0.643
47.203
98.142
12.7
70
65
53
133
28
333
4.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
815
11400
3010
2570
152
6780
514
18600
BDL
2001.87
BDL
133.21
148.82
275.17
123.21
95.63
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.57
5.27
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.53
5
BDL
1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
77.1
379
104
BDL
3.6
BDL
296
BDL
BDL
276.14
BDL
BDL
BDL
19.51
29.03
16.05
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.39
4.56
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
10
10
10
50
1
4
2
1
51
1000
123
100
50
50
10
10
10
99
0.2
1
2
0.2
50
5
0.01
0.01
52
4
49
14
1000
2
9
10
10
10
50
(continued)
54
-------
Table 1. continued
Compound
Ethylbenzene
Terbuthylazine
Vinyl Chloride
1 ,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
2,4,5-T
Benefluralin
Diallate
Diazinon
Dichlorprop
Disulfoton
Gamma-BHC
Hexamethylphosphoramide-2
MCPA
Phosphamidon E
Propachlor
Units
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
ng/l
H9/I
H9/I
ng/l
ng/l
H9/I
Feed
34.509
10.1
15.121
0.22
0.8
0.33
2.16
9
7.3
14
0.25
7.14
58
5
0.7
Permeate 1
BDL
BDL
13.108
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Permeate 2
BDL
BDL
10.228
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Detection Limit
10
5
0.2
0.2
0.2
2
2
1
2
0.05
2
50
5
0.1
BDL = Below Detection Limit
Table 2. Municipal Solid Waste Leachate - Northern Georgia
Rochem Leachate Treatment System - July 1995 Analysis
Parameter Feed
Permeate
Units
General
PH
Conductivity
COD
TSS
TDS
BOD
Sulfate
Chloride
Alkalinity
Ammonia-Nitrogen
6.5
4940
510
N/A
1510
2500*
BDL
450
1830
N/A
N/A
126
BDL
BDL
18
34*
BDL
13
46
9.7
units
mho/c
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Appendix I - Metals - Georgia
Total Antimony (Sb) 0.012
Total Barium (Ba) 1.4
Total Nickel (Ni) 0.03
Total Selenium (Se) 0.02
Appendix IX, Georgia Modified Standard Method
Volatile Organics (EPA 8260) (GMSM)
Benzene 3.7
Chloroethane 9.5
1,1 Dichloroethane 22
1,2 Dichloroethane 1.5
Methylene Chloride 98
Ethylbenzene 14
MEK(2-butanone) 780
MIBK (methyl isobutyl ketone) 170
Styrene 7.3
Tetrachloroethene 1.7
Toluene 210
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.2
Trichloroethene 2.1
Xylenes (total) 69
Base/Neutral Extracable Organics (EPA 8270) (GMSM)
Diethylphthalate 23
Acid Extractable Organics (EPA 8270)(GMSM)
Cresol (o,m,p) 280
Phenol 28
Herbicides, Chlorinated Acid Derivartives (EPA 8150-GC/EC)
2,4,5-TP 0.3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
(continued)
55
-------
Table 2. continued
Parameter
Toxic Metals
Barium
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Total Formaldehyde
(Ba)
(Fe)
(Pb)
(Hg)
(Se)
Feed
1400
70000
7
0.2
15
580
Permeate
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Units
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
Volatile Organics (EPA 8260)
Benzene
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
Acid Extractable Organics (EPA 8270)
* = Previous Result
NA = not analyzed for
BDL = Below Detection Limit
4
9
22
6
14
98
210
2
69
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
H9/I
Phenol
Base/Neutral Extractable Organics (EPA 8270)
Diethylphthalate
28
23
BDL
BDL
H9/I
H9/I
Table 3.
Parameter
Rochem Leachate Treatment System - Hazardous Constituent Removal Rates
Ihlenberg Lanfill, Germany
ed Concentration
(mg/l)
Permeate Concentration
(mg/l)
Removal
COD
BOD
Sodium
Chloride
Calcium
Magnesium
Ammonium
Arsenic
Cyanide
Heavy Metals
2619
184
3255
3091
192
97
380.00
0.25
2.35
0.25
1.20
2.50
2.40
2.70
0.90
0.30
0.40
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
99.95%
98.64%
99.93%
99.91%
99.53%
99.69%
99.89%
>98%
>99.79%
>98%
56
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Procedures and Results
for Rochem Separation Systems'
DDisc Tube™ Module Treatability Tests
Prepared By:
Science Applications International Corporation
10240 Sorrento Valley Road, #204
San Diego, California 92121
Submitted to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther Xing Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA Contract No: 68-CO-0048
Work Assignment No: 0-31
September 25, 1992
57
-------
I. Introduction
Treatability testing of the Rochem Separation Systems'
Disc Tube Module (DIM) system took place in Rochem's
facility in Torrance, California during the week of July 27,
1992. Testing was performed on samples of leachate
from the Gallery Well at the Casmalia Resources site in
Casmalia, California. The aqueous phase of the leachate
was pumped from the Gallery Well into 15-gallon DOT
approved drums and shipped via truck to the Rochem
Separations Systems' facility the week previous to the
testing. The week following completion of all treatability
tests, all of the leachate was returned to the Casmalia
Resources site via truck in the 15gallon DOT approved
drums.
Testing was conducted using bench-scale DTM sys-
tems equipped with reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration
membranes. Rochem Separation Systems' (Rochem)
personnel assembled and operated the bench-scale
systems used during the tests. SAIC personnel per-
formed sampling and field analysis of samples from
process streams during the test; samples were also sent
to SAIC's subcontract laboratory for analyses.
II. Purpose and objectives of the
Treatability Tests
The treatability tests were designed to accomplish sev-
eral objectives in order to prepare for a full demonstra-
tion test of the Disc Tube Module (DTM) technology.
The treatability tests were conducted to provide data for
the developer (Rochem) to design a system for treating
the waste liquid, including the number and types of DTM
units to be used, the order of units in the treatment
system, and the membrane types to be used. Informa-
tion from the treatability tests will be used by Rochem to
develop claims for the quality of water that can be
produced by treatment of the waste liquid using their
system.
The treatability tests also provided an opportunity for
SAIC to test the field and laboratory methods to be used
to analyze process stream samples during the demon-
stration test. This information will be used to develop the
Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) for the demonstration test.
III. Summary of Events
Testing of two different reverse osmosis (RO) mem-
branes, two different micellular-enhanced ultrafiltration
(MEUF) membrane units, and one regular ultrafiltration
(UF) membrane unit was performed. The testing proto-
col outlined in Rochem's Treatability Test Plan (which
may be found in Appendix A) was followed during the
tests. However, due to information gathered in the initial
phase of testing and due to time constraints" this proto-
col was modified during testing. The following text de-
scribes the testing that took place on each day of the
treatability tests.
The laboratory equipment was set up on Monday, July
27. Testing of the first system, consisting of RO followed
by MEUF, commenced on Tuesday afternoon. The RO
unit contained approximately 4 ft2 of membrane mate-
rial; a thin film composite (TFC) polyamide RO mem-
brane was used. This is a commonly used membrane
and one that is good for many general applications of
RO.
The RO unit was set up to receive raw feed (leachate)
directly from one of the 15-gallon storage/shipment drums
via a flexible hose. Leachate in a drum was sampled for
laboratory and field
analysesprior to connection to the system. The perme-
ate produced from thesystem was collected in a stain-
less steel pot, which was kept covered during the tests
except when samples or measurements were taken.
The reject (concentrate) from the membrane module
was redirected back to the feed drum so that operation
occurred in a continuous recycle mode. All units were
operated in a similar fashion during the treatability tests.
After approximately two hours of operation of this unit,
and after several gallons of clear-looking permeate had
been produced, a cloudy yellow liquid was seen in the
permeate hose. The unit was stopped, and after investi-
gation it was determined that a slipped O-ring was
allowing raw feed to enter directly to the permeate side
of the unit. The test was considered scrapped because
the permeate was contaminated, and a repeat test was
planned for the following morning. SAIC did not collect
any of the permeate for laboratory analyses before the
problem occurred. However, an interim sample of the
permeate had been collected by Rochem, and this
sample was later used for field analyses. This aborted
test is referred to as RAMX1 in the data tables.
On the morning of July 29, a new drum of raw feed was
used for the RO test. A modification of the RO unit was
made, substituting a module with approximately 35 mem-
brane cushions (25 ft2 of membrane area) for the previ-
ous unit with nine membrane cushions (approximately 4
ft2 of membrane area) in order to produce permeate at a
faster rate. The test was halted after approximately half
an hour because the permeate was not clear. A missing
O-ring was determined to be the cause, the module was
repaired, and the test restarted within another half an
hour. Samples were collected and the system run was
completed approximately 80 minutes after restart. These
samples were labelled RAMX-P1 and C1 for permeate
and concentrate.
After the permeate had been sampled, approximately
4.5 gallons of the liquid (half of the permeate produced)
was transferred to the mixing/f eed tank on the UF unit.
Two quarts (0. 5 gallons) of unscented mineral oil were
added to the liquid in the tank, along with 125 ml of non-
ionic surfactant (approximately 1%, by volume). The
mixture was agitated to form a milky, white emulsion,
and then the UF unit was started. A polytetrafluoro
58
-------
ethylene UF membrane was used f or this test. A suf f
icient quantity of permeate f or sampling purposes was
produced after 20 minutes of operation. Samples of the
permeate and concentrate were collected for laboratory
and field analyses (RAMX-P2 and C2).
On Thursday, July 30, a new test run was started using
a new batch of raw feed. This test consisted of two-
stage RO using differentmembranes in each stage. The
first stage utilized a TFC polyamide RO membrane. The
second stage utilized a high rejection TFCpolyamide
membrane designed to reject smaller molecular weight
compounds. The f irst stage of RO was run on the raw
feed, requiring three hours to produce sufficient perme-
ate for sampling and further testing (RBRB-PI and Cl) .
The second stage of RO used the same unitl and ran for
almost four hours before samples of permeate and
concentrate were collected (RBRB-P2 and C2).
While the second stage RO test was conducted, another
test of UF occurred concurrently, a new drum of raw
feed was treated with a non-micellular UF unit contain-
ing a polyetheramide UF membrane. Treatment with this
unit finished and the permeate and concentrate from the
UF run was sampled just after those of the second stage
RO unit (UF-PI and Cl).
IV. Sampling, Monitoring, and Field
Analysis Procedures
During the treatability tests/ samples of all of the raw
feed, permeate, and some concentrate process streams
were collected for potential laboratory analyses. These
samples were held in coolers, the volatile organic samples
and the herbicide samples on ice,until theywere either
sent to the laboratory or set aside to bediscarded.
Further discussion of the samples sent to the laboratory
may be found in section VI. of this document.
There was no attempt during this testing to evaluate
process mass balances because the bench-scale equip-
ment used did not allow process measurements accu-
rate enough for this purpose. A process mass balance
will be evaluated during the pilot-scale demonstration
test.
Sampling Procedures
Samples of the raw feed were collected directly from the
storage drums. The samples for volatile organic analy-
ses were collected using a clean disposable glass drum
thief. All of the other raw feed samples were collected
using a small polyethylene siphon pump. This pump was
decontaminated between uses, and was always flushed
with the liquid being sampled before any samples were
collected. Extra liquid was collected in beakers for field
tests.
All of the permeate samples were collected from the
stainless steel collection pots using glass beakers. The
stainless steel pots used during the test were decon-
taminated according to the procedures for laboratory,
glassware and tools. The beakers used for sample
collecting were decontaminated on both the inside and
the outside to reduce the potential for cross contamina-
tion. Clean gloves were worn while sampling permeate.
Concentrate samples were collected using the sampling
method appropriate for their container. RO concentrates
were sampled from the raw feed drum using the method
described for feed sampling. UF concentrates were
sampled from the feed vessel on the UF unit using glass
beakers.
Field Analysis Procedures
Several analyses and measurements were performed
on process stream samples in the field. Field measure-
ments included:
• Temperature
• 0 pH
• Conductivity
• Turbidity
• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
• Total hardness
• Calcium
The temperature of the process stream samples was
measured with a glass thermometer. Conductivity and
pH were measured with field meters by placing probes
directly into a sample of the liquid. These meters were
appropriately calibrated each morning, and the calibra-
tion of the pH meter was checked each time the meter
was used. Dilutions were sometimes made to enable
measurement of conductivity in samples with an undi-
luted conductivity higher than 19,000'gmhos/cm, the
instrument range limit.
Turbidity was measured with a turbidimeter which was
standardized to an appropriate standard before each
sample measurement. Some samples were too turbid to
be measured using the turbidimeter, which measures
turbidity to 200 NTU.
The COD of the process stream samples was measured
using a calorimeter (filter photometer) and vials pre-filled
with reagent, following the instrument-supplied proce-
dures including use of a constant-temperature incubator
set at 1500C. Three ranges of COD concentration could
be measured using three different sets of vials: low
range, 0-150 ppm; high range, 0-1,500 ppm; and high
range plus, 1 -15,000 ppm. Because the general concen-
trations of COD in the samples were unknown, several
dilutions were prepared for each measurement on sev-
eral of the concentration ranges.
The total hardness and calcium of the samples were
measured using a titration technique with prepackaged
59
-------
reagents and a digital titrator. Some of the samples
required dilution to avoid problems with interferences
from other constituents or characteristics of the liquid.
Some concentrate samples could not be titrated prop-
erly due to opacity or interference, even at high dilution
ratios.
Total iron was measured on some of the samples using
a calorimetrictest kit with pre-filled ampules. None of the
analyses were within the concentration range for this
analysis kit (0-1 ppm) . Since this analysis was not an
official part of the treatability test, no special dilutions
were made to get iron results. No iron results are
reported.
Vapor Monitoring
For health and safety purposes, an Hnu portable gas
detector witha 10.2 eV probe,and an LEL meter, were
used during thetreatability tests. The Hnu was used to
monitor for volatilecompound emissionsfrom the treat-
ment system, to analyze the headspace of concentrate
and permeate collection containers, and to monitor for
hazardous vapors in the breathing zone. The LEL meter
was used to check for potentially explosive conditions
around the process equipment. No potentially explosive
conditions were encountered.
V. Results of Field Analyses
Table 1 presents a summary of the results of field
analyses performed on treatability test process stream
samples. This, summary was compiled from the field
laboratory notebook where all data was written during
testing. Organic and inorganic parameter analysis helped
to evaluate process performance in the field and gener-
ally correlated well with the laboratory analytical results
presented in the following section. Heat generated from
the process operation contributed to elevated permeate
and concentrate temperature readings.
Discussion of Methods and Method QC
Duplicate pH, temperature and conductivity measure-
ments showed good repeatability. For pH, occasional
secondary checks with pH paper were also performed
and confirmed the results from the meter. The results for
these measurements agreed with values which could be
anticipated based on previous information on the leachate
and on knowledge of the process.
The calcium and hardness determinations were some-
times limited in accuracy due to interferences by other
materials in the liquids; dilutions were sometimes, but
not always, helpful. More apparent problems with inter-
ferences were encountered during the determinations
for hardness than those for calcium; the color change for
hardness was frequently too gradual to pinpoint the
correct titration point. Only one of each titration was
performed on each sampled stream so no duplicate
measurements were made. However., several different
raw feed samples from different feed batches were
measured and the results show good reproducibility.
COD was a more complex analysis to perform in the
field than other measurements. The COD concentra-
tions in each of the streams could not be accurately
predicted, therefore several dilutions in several of the
available test ranges were prepared for each sample.
The comparability of the measurements made, using
different dilutions and different reagent vials, ranged
from fairto poor. Even when measuring the same sample
vial twice for COD in the calorimeter, readings showed
poor reproducibility (up to 10% RPD). The results re-
ported for this measurement are often averages of mul-
tiple readings for each sample, and are therefore only
approximate. The two concentrate samples analyzed
were not diluted enough to allow readings within the
calibration range.
Observations
Observations on the samples from each process stream,
and on process operation, were made during sampling
and testing activities. General observations included:
• The raw feed was yellow in color, highly turbid and
had a strong odor.
• All RO permeate samples appeared clear and color-
less. The odor of these samples ranged from mod-
erate to slight.
• The RO concentrate generated from treatment of
the raw feed was more turbid than the feed, and
formed a yellow precipitate when allowed to sit.
• The permeate samples from the MEUF seemed to
contain high levels of surfactant which formed
bubbles and had a surfactant odor. The RAMY
samples exhibited less surfactant behavior than the
RAMX samples.
• Concentrate samples from the MEUF runs were an
opaque milky-white. The samples eventually sepa-
rated into a white layer and a cloudy layer.
• The permeate from the UF run was a pale
yellowgreen color.
• The headspace Hnu reading inside the RO perme-
ate container sometimes had higher readings than
the raw feed.
• O-rings are vital to the proper operation of the DTM
unit. Missing or unseated o-rings caused the only
operational problems during the testing.
• Brown staining, most likely from iron, formed on the
membranes during each first-stage test. This did not
seem to affect the short-term performance of the
system.
60
-------
Table 1. Summary of Treatability Test Field Analysis Results
Associated
Laboratory
Sample Number
RAMX'-RF*
RAMX'-P1*
RAMX-RF-01
RAMX-P1-02
RAMX-C1-03
RAMX-P2-04
RAMX-C2-05
RAMY-P2-06
RAMY-C2-07
RBRB-RF-08
RBRB-P1-09
RBRB-C1-10
RBRB-P2-11
RBRB-C2-12
UF-RF-15
UF-P1-16
UF-C1-17
Date
of
Test
7/28
7/28"
7/29
7/29
7/29
7/29
7/29
7/29
7/29
7/30
7/30
7/30
7/30
7/30
7/30
7/30
7/30
Test
Type
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.MEUF
RO.RO
RO.RO
RO.RO
RO.RO
RO.RO
UF
UF
UF
Process
Stream
Raw Feed
Permeate
Raw Feed
1st Stg Perm
1st Stg Cone
2nd Stg Perm
2nd Stg Cone
2nd Stg Perm
2nd Stg Cone
Raw Feed
1st Stg Perm
1st Stg Cone
2nd Stg Perm
2nd Stg Cone
Raw Feed
Permeate
Concentrate
Chemical
°2
Demand
(mg/L)
22,000
6,000
25,000
5,800
NA
12,000
>1 6,500
8,500
>49,000
32,000
4,100
NA
1,500
NA
26,000
29,000
NA
Calcium
(as CaCO3)
(mg/L)
3,760
NA
NA
171
NA
76
NA
78
NA
3,840
64
NA
14
NA
NA
3,960
NA
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
(mg/L)
8,280
NA
NA
410
NA
290
NA
200
NA
7,800
188
NA
31
NA
NA
NA
NA
Conductivity
(|imhos/cm)
18,000
424
19,600
576
54,700
665
613
749
345
16,600
574
44,800
123
957
14,200
13,600
15,600
PH
5.4
4.3
5.1
4.1
5.2
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
5.2
4.8
5.3
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.4
Temp.
(°F)
71
58
70
82
82
72
NA
72
74
68
79
94
79
83
70
69
68
Turbidity
(NTU)
>200
1
>200
1.3
NA
140
NA
3.7
emulsion
>200
1.4
high
0.3
8.3
NA
3.9
high
* RAMX' was an aborted test
** Permeate sample from RAMX' was collected by Rochem, and tested the following day after chilling on ice overnight.
NA - Not Analyzed
VI. Laboratory Analyses
Identification of Samples for Laboratory
Not all of the process stream samples collected were
sent to the laboratory for analysis. Samples were sent to
the laboratory for analysis based on the results of field
tests and the recommendations of the developer.
Samples were sent to the laboratory for analysis on July
30 and 31. On July 30, all of the samples from the first
RO run (raw feed and permeate) were sent for all
analysis parameters, as were samples of the permeate
from the second MEUF run (RAMY) . Samples of the
concentrate from the second MEUF run were sent for
volatile organics analysis, herbicide analysis, and total
phenol analysis. Samples of the permeate from the first
MEUF run (RAMX) were sent for volatile organics analy-
sis only, due to apparent high surfactant levels.
Samples sent on July 31 were hand delivered to the
laboratory. The samples sent included an equipment
blank for volatile organic compounds, metals, cations,
and total Phenols analyses, and a field blank for volatile
organic compounds analysis.
All of the samples from the two-stage reverse osmosis
test (RBRB) raw feed, first-stage permeate and second-
stage permeate were sent for all analyses. A set of
duplicate samples for all analyses of the second stage
permeate from this run were also sent to the laboratory.
From the straight UF run, samples of the raw feed and
permeate were sent to the laboratory f or volatile organ-
ics and total phenol analyses.
Laboratory Analysis Results
The results from the laboratory analyses are presented
in Table 2 for all analytes. The results are organized by
the type of system tested (run type) Table 3 presents
calculations of the percent rejections of the measured
parameters achieved by each treatment system tested.
These percent rejections were calculated from the raw
feed and permeate analyte concentration and are ap-
proximations; they are intended to show general trends
for the three treatment systems tested.
61
-------
Table 2. Results of Treatability test Laboratory Analysis
Process Stream
Laboratory Sample Number
(Units)
Raw Feed
RAMX-RF-01
(PPb)
1st Stg Perm
RAMX-P1-02
(PPb)
2nd Stg Perm
RAMX-P2-04
(PPb)
2nd Stg Perm
RAMY-P2-06
(PPb)
2nd Stg Cone
RAMY-C2-007
(PPb)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
TOTAL VOCs
HERBICIDES
2,4-D
2,45-TP
Dichloroprop
Dicamba
METALS/CATIONS
Calcium
Iron
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
Zinc
OTHER ANALYTES
Total Phenols
TOC (ppm)
TDS (ppm)
640,000 B
1 ,000,000 B
4,400
2,600
10,000
30,000
1 1 ,000
1 ,600,000
59,000
2,100
340 J
1 1 ,000
330 J
2,900
9,300 J
3,600
6,400
10,000
1,800
6,800
490,000 B
1 ,600,000 B
1,900
310J
2,000
9,400
6,700
620,000
1,400
<500
<500
1,600
<500
370
5,100
400 J
<500
430 J
<500
<500
3,411,570
<5000
<2500
<5000
165,000
1,780,000
179,000
59,000
1,120,000
42,400
1,550,000
3,140
4,310
275,000
8,125
18,000
2,739,610
<5.0
9.57
<5.0
147
160,000
14,400
10,800
88,000
3,750
182,000
9,800
495
51,800
1,840
846
240,000 B
1,800,000
<500
<500
500 J
2,400
2,700
810,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
6,200
520 J
<500
<500
<500
<500
2,862,320
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
160,0006
1,400,000 B
<500
<500
<500
1,100
1,500
730,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
4,700
360 J
<500
<500
<500
<500
2,297,660
<5.0
16.1
<5.0
124
158,000
15,100
11,100 B
94,500
3,940
208,000
11,200
3,380
121,000
2,500
499
170,000
470,000 B
<500
<500
360 J
1,600
1,800
720,000
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
1,400
950 J
<500
<500
<500
<500
1,366,110
125
10.9
300
79.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
270,000
NA
NA
continued
62
-------
Table 2. Continued
i coi I y |jc -~-~
Process Stream
Laboratory Sample Number
(Units)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
TOTAL VOCs
HERBICIDES
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
Dichloroprop
Dicamba
METALS/CATIONS
Calcium
Iron
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
Zinc
OTHER ANALYTES
Total Phenols
TOC (ppm)
TDS (ppm)
Raw Feed
UF-RF-015
(PPb)
650,000 B
1,100,000 B
8,300
2,700
12,000
32,000
10,000
2,100,000
63,000
2,200
390 J
13,000
230 J
3,500
110,000
2,600
6,300
1 1 ,000
2,000
7,000
4,136,220
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
260,000
NA
NA
Permeate
UF-P1-016
(PPb)
440,000 B
950,000 B
1,500
990
6,400
20,000
8,200
2,100,000
21,000
<500J
220 J
2,800
210 J
1,500
100,000
3,000
430 J
2,900
200 J
820
3,660,170
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
510,000
NA
NA
LJIdl II\O
Equipment
Blank
(PPb)
10 B
20 B
<5
<5
<5
2J
<5
24
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<10
<10
<5
<5
<5
<5
<0.50
<0.25
O.50
O.50
<560
235 B
<3225
<505
<10
<1075
65 B
<55
126
NA
NA
Field
Blank
(PPb)
27
12
<5
<5
<5
3J
<5
14
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<10
<10
<5
<5
<5
<5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA - Not Analyzed
J - Estimated Quantity
B - Comound was detected in associated laboratory blank
-------
Table 3. Calculated Percent Rejections of Treatability Test Analytes Based on Laboratory and Field Analysis Concentration Results
Parameter
Percent
Rejection (a)
1 st Stage
Percent
Rejection (a)
2nd Stage (b)
Percent
Rejection (a)
Both Stoages (b)
Percent
Rejection (a)
1 st Stage
Percent
Rejection (a)
2nd Stage
Percent
Rejection (a)
Both Stages
Percent
Rejection (b)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Methylene Chloride 23.4% 67.3%
Acetone -60.0% 12.5%
Carbon Disulfide 56.8% >74%
1,1-Dichloroethane 80.0% >75%
Chloroform 68.7% 88.3%
2-Butanone 61.3% -17.7%
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 97.6% >64%
Trichloroethene 85.5% >69%
Benzene 87.2% NC
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 45.2% 7.8%
2-Hexanone 88.9% 10.0%
Toluene 95.7% NC
Xylene >93% NC
TOTAL VOCs 19.1% 15.9%
HERBICIDES
2,4-D NC NC
2,4,5-TP NC -68.2%
Dichloroprop NC NC
Dicamba 99.9% 15.6%
METALS/CATIONS
Calcium 91.0% 1.3%
Iron 92.0% -4.9%
Potassium 81.7% -2.8%
Magnesium 92.1% -7.4%
Manganese 91.2% -5.1%
Sodium 88.3% -14.3%
Nickel -212.1% -14.3%
Zinc 88.5% -582.8%
OTHER ANALYTES
Total Phenols 81.2% -133.6%
TOC (ppm) 77.4% -35.9%
TDS (ppm) 95.3% 41.0%
FIELD ANALYTES
75.0%
-40.0%
>95%
96.3%
54.4%
>99%
<95%
>82%
49.5%
90.0%
>95%
>92%
32.0%
NC
NC
NC
99.9%
91.1%
91.6%
81.2%
91.6%
90.7%
86.6%
-256.7%
21.6%
56.0%
69.2%
97.2%
71.6%
81.7%
69.6%
97.1%
95.5%
86.1%
98.8%
98.2%
97.9%
96.3%
96.0%
99.1%
99.6%
82.6%
98.8%
NC
99.0%
NC
98.2%
98.5%
94.7%
98.2%
98.0%
96.8%
39.7%
97.7%
89.5%
84.5%
97.0%
68.1%
50.0%
91 .2%
>86%
90.0%
60.0%
93.2%
78%
77.2%
72.6%
>54%
NC
59.6%
56.1%
81.1%
NC
73.4%
79.3%
NC
78.1%
78.4%
79.0%
79.7%
35.9%
85.1%
52.1%
75.8%
90.9%
90.8%
97.3%
99.6%
99.5%
94.4%
99.9%
>99.6
>98%
99.2%
98.9%
>99.6%
>99%
93.0%
99.5%
NC
99.8%
NC
99.5%
99.7%
>94.5%
99.6%
99.6%
99.3%
87.8%
98.5%
98.4%
92.6%
99.3%
32.3%
13.6%
81.9%
46.7%
37.5%
0.0%
66.7%
78.5%
57.1%
9.1%
-15.3%
73.6%
88.3%
11.3%
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
COD
Calcium
Hardness
Conductivity
Turbidity
76%
NC
NC
97%
>99%
-46%
NC
NC
-30%
-1 80%
66%
NC
NC
96%
>98%
87%
98%
97%
96%
>99%
63%
78%
83%
78%
>78%
95%
99.6%
99.6%
99.2%
>99.8%
-1 1 .5%
NC
NC
4%
>98%
NC - Not Calculated: samples were not analyzed or results were below detection limits.
(a) - Percent rejections calculated based on initial and cinal concentration for stage or stages. Permeate values below MDL were calculated
as > minimum percent rejections
(b) - Percent rejections calculated based on data from second RO run (RAMY)
64
-------
OA/OC of Laboratory Results
The Quality Control (QC) results of the laboratory analy-
ses were good in general. The QC for specif ic analyses
are discussed below.
In order to achieve good quantif ication of the volatile
organic compounds, each sample was run using two
dilutions. Because of the high levels of organic com-
pounds in most of the samples, the detection limits were
50 to 500 ppb. Most surrogate compound recoveries
were within control limits and all laboratory control
samples were within control limits. In the initial data
submitted from the laboratory, vinyl acetate was re-
ported as detected in nearly all samples; however, in the
final data package it was reported that these results
were false positives.
The results for field duplicate samples for VOCs were
very inconsistent for some analytes, especially acetone
and 2-butanone, two of the more prevalent compounds.
Upon review it was determined that the duplicate samples
were analyzed at different dilutions, a laboratory error,
which accounts for the data inconsistencies.
Small amounts of acetone, methylene chloride, and
chloroform were detected in the equipment blank and
field blank samples, and both acetone and methylene
chloride were detected in laboratory method blanks. The
levels of blank contamination were very low as com-
pared to sample results and do not affect data quality.
The highly organic nature of the sample matrix for most
samples caused some problems with the herbicide analy-
sis. Some analytes were detected in only the undiluted
samples while others were detected in only the diluted
samples. However, the laboratory has confidence in the
analysis results. Surrogate recoveries were good, ex-
cept for Dalapon which was not a target analyte. Labora-
tory control samples were within limits for herbicide
analysis. Field duplicate results were comparable.
All laboratory QC results for metals were within limits.
Iron and nickel were detected in both the equipment
blank and laboratory blanks. The levels are generally
low as compared to sample values. However, it is pos-
sible that contamination from process equipment may
have occurred, leading to both the equipment blank
results and@ to the seeming increase in nickel concen-
tration during the RO-MEUF test run.
Laboratory QC for total phenols, total organic carbon
and total dissolved solids were within limits.
VII. Conclusions for the Treatability Test
Percent Rejections
Percent rejections of measured parameters were calcu-
lated and were presented in Table 3. Based on these
approximate percentages, the two-stage reverse osmo-
sis system produced the greatest rejections of organic
and inorganic contaminants overall.
System Operation
The DTM bench-scale systems operated as expected
except for operational problems caused by missing or
unseated o-rings. A process unit could be returned to
operation quickly after identification of a problem. Chang-
ing of membranes and unit cleaning seemed to proceed
smoothly. A larger scale operation will require more
setup and shakedown time to ensure that the system is
operating properly before testing begins. The o-ring
problems experienced during bench-scale testing were
a result of having to change membranes an the same
module several times for different tests. During the pilot-
scale demonstration, shakedown testing should eliminate
this problem.
The Gallery Well leachate formed a brown layer on the
membranes during operation, most likely due to a high
iron content. While this did not effect the short-term
process performance, it should provide a good test of
the ability of the module to self-clean and resist detri-
mental fouling and scaling problems.
Based in part on the results from the treatability tests,
the developer has selected a two-stage system for the
demonstration test. This system will consist of a first-
stage unit using a thin film composite polyamide reverse
osmosis membranel followed by another unit using a
high rejection ("tight") thin film composite polyamide
reverse osmosis membrane like the membrane used
during treatability. A post-treatment unit for polishing of
the effluent water (permeate) may be used during the
demonstration test to meet discharge requirements, but
will not be considered part of the system for the demon-
stration test.
Field Analysis Protocols for the Demonstration
The methods used for field analysis are all suitable for
use during the demonstration. The conductivity mea-
surement would even be suitable for a critical analysis.
The measurement of COD using a calorimetric tech-
nique provides some useful and reasonably quick infor-
mation on the organic content of the process streams.
More experience with the use of the instrument, and
additional equipment for volumetric measurement for
dilution and aliquoting would make this method even
more useful and accurate. The acquisition of COD stan-
dards for testing and verification would increase the
confidence of results from using this method.
Laboratory Analysis Protocols for the
Demonstration
All laboratory analyses used during the treatability test-
ing would be suitable for use during the demonstration
test. More herbicides were detected than expected from
previous characterization results; herbicide analysis is
likely to be performed during the demonstration because
herbicides in water tend to be strictly regulated. How-
65
-------
ever, the accuracy of this analysis may not be as good Acetone, 2-butanone and methylene chloride are the
as for other types of organic compounds. Experience most prevalent volatile organic compounds in the Gal-
with analysis of this leachate has shown that acceptable lery Well leachate. Special precautions and procedures
analyses of other organic parameters (volatile organic will be followed during further analysis of 'this leachate
compounds, phenols and TOC) can be performed de- to ensure acceptable data in generated for these corn-
spite the highly organic nature of the samples. pounds.
66
-------
Appendix C.
Treatability Test Plan
67
-------
July 20, 1992
Treatability Testing Protocol
The following protocol will be followed in the handling
and processing of all samples from the Casmalia Re-
sources facility in preparation for a SITE demonstration
at that facility. The testing will be completed using bench
scale system configurations using small quantities of
material (less than 20 gallons). The objectives of the test
are to develop data on the optimum system configura-
tion, including the number and type of units. Additional
objectives are the selection of the most appropriate
membranes and the development of reduction goals for
the SITE demonstration.
The treatability testing is being overseen by Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) as a con-
tractor to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. SAIC is responsible forthe collection of samples
at the Casmalia Resources site, shipment of the waste
to the Rochem facility and the handling of all testing
residues at the conclusion of the treatability testing. All
samples will be shipped in DOT approved plastic drums
and will be transported by a certified hazardous waste
hauler.
The purpose of the SITE demonstration is to demon-
strate the effectiveness of the Rochem. Disc Tube™
modules in the concentration of hazardous constituents
in landfill leachate. To achieve this end, three main
membrane processes utilizing the Disc Tube will be
explored during the treatability testing. The three pro-
cesses are reverse osmosis (RO), ultrafiltration (UF)
and micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration (MEUF).
Reverse osmosis uses a semipermeable membrane to
selectively remove dissolved materials from water based
on the relative permeabilities. Water has a very high
permeability and passes through the membrane very
quickly, while salts, heavy metals and most organics
pass through much more slowly. Due to the difference in
permeation rates, very high separation rates (as high as
99%+) can be achieved for most inorganic materials and
organic materials with a molecular weight of more than
100.
Ultrafiltration uses a porous membrane with a known,
but very small pore size to filter contaminants from
water. Typically membranes with a pore size of 5,000 to
100,000 molecular weight are used, with a standard of
approximately 20,000. Because of the pore size, the
materials larger than the pores are completely removed,
while smaller materials pass through. A typical applica-
tion of UF is the separation of oil from water.
Micellar-enhanced ultrafiltration is an extension of tradi-
tional UF technology. In MEUF, a material is added to
the raw water which forms a micellar emulsion. The
emulsion is formed in such a way that it preferentially
binds certain materials, either metals or organic com-
pounds and holds them in large molecules. When the
emulsion is passed across a UF membrane, the emul-
sion containing the contaminants is removed from the
water, allowing contaminants, which would be smaller
than the membrane pore size if not encapsulated in the
emulsion, to be removed.
Treatability Protocol
During the treatability testing we intend to explore three
different system configurations and several different
membranes. The first configuration will be as follows:
RO -» MEUF
This configuration uses RO as the main purification
process and MEUF as an additional process to remove
trace organics.
The second configuration will be as follows:
MEUF -» RO
In this configuration, the organics will be removed before
the RO step. This will be tested to determine if higher
concentrations allow better removal in MEUF, or if lower
concentrations improve the efficiency of the RO pro-
cess.
The final configuration will be as follows:
UF^RO
This process will use the same membranes as the
MEUF step, but will not have an emulsion- forming
material added. This step is necessary to demonstrate
68
-------
the effectiveness of the emulsion in the effectiveness of
the separation.
During the treatability testing, at least two different RO
membranes and two different UF membranes will be
tested. Multiple membranes will be tested to identify the
best membrane to treat the specific leachate at the
Casmalia Resources site.
UF & MEUF Testing
Ultrafiltration and Micellar-Enhanced Ultrafiltration tests
will be conducted in a bench scale UF test cell. The unit
consists of a 10-gallon stainless steel holding tank, pre-
filter, pressure pump and Disc Tube module. The mod-
ule used can contain from one to nine membrane cush-
ions, for a total membrane area of 0.45 to 4.0 square
feet. For this test it is anticipated that nine cushions will
be used. The system operates in recirculation mode.
The pump draws two gallons per minute (gpm) of feed
from the tank and passes it through the module. A
portion of the liquid passes through the membrane and
is filtered. The remaining concentrated liquid returns to
the tank for further concentration. During initial startup
the filtered liquid will also be returned to the tank.
For these tests, it is anticipated that approximately five
to ten gallons of feed will be used. The test will probably
be run in 5-gallon batches, i.e., 5 gallons of liquid put in
the feed tank and re-processed until it is highly concen-
trated then 5 more gallons of feed will be added. This will
allow the production of more filtrate for later testing.
RO Testing
The RO treatability tests will be performed using a high
pressure pump and a Disc Tube module. The module
used will contain approximately 4 square feet of mem-
brane. The maximum pressure used will be 1000 psi.
The high pressure pump will take suction from a con-
tainer, probably a 5- gallon pail. The concentrated mate-
rial will be returned to the pail, the filtered material will be
collected in another container. During startup, the fil-
tered material will be returned to the feed container.
This test will be performed on water which has been pre-
filtered. If raw feed is used, it will be filtered through a 10
micron cartridge filter as it is being transferred to the
feed container. If UF or MEUF filtrate is used, it has
already been filtered to less than 1 micron.
Parameters to be Measured
The field parameters which will be measured are the
same for UF, MEUF and RO systems. The main param-
eters of interest are pressure and filtrate flow rate. Both
test cells are fitted with pressure gauges to measure
both the inlet and outlet pressure of the module, both of
which will be recorded. Feed flow through the module
will be determined by the pump used. Both cells use
positive displacement pumps which flow a set amount of
water on each revolution. Filtrate flow will be measured
using a graduated cylinder and a stopwatch. In addition,
additional field analyses may be performed. These may
include, but are not limited to conductivity, pH, COD,
temperature, turbidity and calorimetric tests for specific
water parameters.
Samples of all feed streams and filtrate streams will be
taken. Based on field measurements, samples from the
most promising tests will be analyzed at an approved
laboratory. Sampling and analysis will be done by SAIC.
SAIC is preparing a Sampling and Analysis Plan.
Health and Safety
The scope of the work to be done under this plan is
bench scale treatability testing. The test to be performed
will be batch mode tests using very small volumes of
liquids. No more than 20 gallons of material will be used
at any given time.
All appropriate precautions will be taken in handling and
testing the materials. All treated and untreated materials
will be stored in plastic DOT approved shipping contain-
ers (drums). The shipping containers will be stored in
plastic secondary containment vessels. The volume of
the secondary containment will be sufficient to contain at
least 150% of the volume of waste stored therein.
During actual testing, steps will be taken to minimize any
potential spills. The test equipment will be set up in
secondary containment vessels, and all transferring of
liquids will be done in those areas. During actual testing,
containers will be kept closed. Necessary venting will be
done using PVC hose to outside of the building.
The area the testing will be done in contains no floor
drains. A complete spill cleanup kit including absorbent,
brooms and shovels, and disposal drums will be avail-
able at all times.
Ventilation to the testing room will be positive pressure
forced air. The return vent from the room will be blocked
to prevent drawing vapors to other areas of the building.
The following measures will be taken to minimize haz-
ards associated with the test. The area of the test will be
monitored with both an organic vapor analyzer and an
LEL monitor. The action level for the organic vapor
monitor will be 5 ppm above background. The action
level for the LEL monitor will be 10%. All equipment will
be leak tested with fresh water before testing of contami-
nated materials begins.
Standard operating procedures will include the follow-
ing.
A. Buddy system (no one works alone)
B. Decontamination and contamination control
1. Defined contamination zone
2. Defined contamination control zone. A haz
waste trash receptacle and wash bucket will be
available at the exit from the control zone.
69
-------
3. Non-essential personnel will be exclude from the
contamination zone
4. Gloves and contaminated clothing will be removed
before leaving the contamination zone.
5. All non-disposable items will be washed before
being removed from the contamination zone.
6. All personnel involved with the project will wash
hands, face and forearms before eating, drinking,
or leaving for the day.
7. Food and beverage will not be allowed in the
contamination zone. Smoking will be prohibited.
A list of emergency numbers will be posted, including
fire department, hospital, ambulance and other regula-
tory agencies. An airhorn will be used as an evacuation
signal. All personnel in the building will be advised of the
emergency plan, evacuation procedures and meeting
location. A daily safety meeting will be held for all
personnel involved with the project. The meeting will
discuss the days, tasks and the physical hazards of the
project and the need for all personnel to be aware of
their surroundings and to seek help in the lifting of heavy
objects. The safety meeting will also discuss the place-
ment of emergency equipment (telephone, procedure to
summon aid, fire extinguisher placement, etc.).
In the event of an accident, injured persons will be
decontaminated unless the injury is life threatening. Any
medical personnel will be notified of the nature of mate-
rials involved.
The following personnel protection equipment will be
used.
A. Steel toed boots
B. Gloves (nitrile or vinyl for lab work, covered with
heavy nitrile or neoprene for material handling and
sampling.)
C. Goggles
D. Respirators with organic vapor cartridges
E. Aprons or tyvek will be worn for splash protection.
Decontamination
Between each different feed stream and at the conclu-
sion of the test, all equipment will be rinsed with water
until no contamination is evident. The equipment will be
triple rinsed at the conclusion of testing. All rinse waters
will be collected. All feed samples remaining, concen-
trate, filtrate, rinsate or any other liquid generated during
the testing will be collected and returned to the Casmalia
Resources site for treatment/disposal during the subse-
quent Technology Demonstration Test. Materials re-
turned to the Casmalia site will be transported in DOT
approved containers (plastic drums) by a certified waste
hauler. Any solid waste (filter cartridges, rubber gloves,
etc.) will be collected and disposed of by SAIC in accor-
dance with all applicable regulations.
Reporting
A report detailing the analytical results of the treatability
testing will be written. The report will include a summary
of the laboratory results as well as field data. This data
will be used to determine the Developers Claims for the
SITE demonstration at the Casmalia Resources facility.
70
------- |