United SUMS
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-4SO/4-89417
WTEMBER1989
Air
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
voc CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
-------
EPA-450/4-89-017
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION
VOC CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
By
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
Durham, NC 27707
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4393
EPA Project Officer. Norman A. Huey
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Vin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
*iicago, Hi 60604
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Office Of Air And Radiation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
September 1989
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication as received from the
contractor. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Agency, neither does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
EPA450/4-89-017
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION £lSI
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 Soil Contamination and Alternative
Remediation Techniques 2-1
2.1.1 Bioremediation 2-1
2.1.2 Incineration 2-2
2.1.3 Solvent Washing 2-3
2.1.4 Extraction/ Flush-wash 2-3
2.1.5 Volatilization 2-3
2.1.6 Encapsulation 2-3
2.1.7 Capping 2-3
2.1.8 In-Situ Stream Air Stripping 2-4
2.2 Data Gathering Approach 2-4
2.3 Soil Vapor Extraction Installations 2-4
2.4 Soil Vapor Extraction Discussion 2-8
2.4.1 Background Information 2-8
2.4.2 SVE operation 2-8
2.5 List of References 2-11
3.0 TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR VOC TREATMENT 3-1
3.1 Emission Controls 3-1
3.1.1 Carbon Adsorption 3-1
3.1.2 Thermal Incineration 3-4
3.1.3 Catalytic Incineration 3-5
3.1.4 Condensers 3-5
3.2 List of References 3-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION Ease
4.0 SELECTED STUDIES FOR SVE/VOC TREATMENT SITES 4-1
4.1 Site Discussions 4-1
4.1.1 Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant 4-1
4.1.2 Custom Products 4-6
4.1.3 Seymour Recycling 4-6
4.1.4 Verona Well Field 4-7
4.1.5 Hill Air Force Base 4-7
4.1.6 Grovel and Wells 4-7
4.1.7 Waldick Aerospace 4-8
4.1.8 Commencement Bay/S. Tacoma Channel 4-8
4.1.9 Wayland 4-8
4.1.10 Dowel 1 Schlumberger 4-9
4.1.11 LARCO 4-9
4.2 List of References 4-10
5.0 VOC CONTROL EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATES 5-1
5.1 Carbon Adsorption Cost Estimates 5-1
5.1.1 Carbon Canister Systems 5-1
5.1.2 Fixed Bed Regeneration Systems 5-4
5.2 Catalytic Incinerator Cost Estimates 5-10
5.2.1 Catalytic Incinerator Equipment Costs 5-10
5.2.2 Total Capital Investment for Catalytic
Incinerators 5-10
5.2.3 Annualized Costs for Catalytic Incinerators 5-10
5.3 List of References 5-15
6.0 HEALTH EFFECTS INFORMATION CONCERNING SVE EMISSIONS 6-1
6.1 Worker Protection Values 6-1
6.2 Chronic Toxicity Values 6-1
6.3 Carcinogenic Risk Concentrations 6-2
6.4 Lowest State Air Toxic Concentrations ' 6-2
6.5 Chemical Health Effects 6-2
6.6 List of References 6-11
APPENDIX A A-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
2.1 Typical SVE System with VOC Treatment 2-9
5.1 Equipment Costs of Catalytic Incinerator Systems 5-11
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1 Listing of Identified Soil Vapor Extraction Sites 2-5
3.1 Air Emission Requirements for SVE Installations
in Selected States 3-2
3.2 Key Emission Stream Characteristics for Selecting
VOC Treatment Systems at SVE Sites 3-3
4.1 Selected SVE Sites Utilizing VOC Treatment Systems 4-2
4.2 Emission Stream Parameters from Selected SVE
Installations 4-4
5.1 Equipment Costs for Canister Units 5-3
5.2 Unit Cost Factors for Carbon Adsorption Annualized
Costs 5-5
5.3 Equations for Carbon Adsorption Annualized Cost
Estimate 5-6
5.4 Installation Factors for Fixed Bed Carbon Adsorbers 5-9
5.5 Installation Factors for Catalytic Incinerator
Systems 5-12
5.6 Unit Cost Factors for Catalytic Incineration
Annualized Cost 5-13
6.1 Worker Protection Values 6-4
6.2 EPA Reference Dose Values for Chronic Toxicity 6-5
6.3 10"6 Carcinogenic Risk Concentrations 6-6
6.4 Lowest State Air Toxic Values 6-7
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) 1s an emerging technology in which
volatile organic chemicals (VOC) are extracted from soil through use of
a vacuum system. Fresh air may be injected or drawn into the subsurface
at locations in and around contaminated soil to enhance the extraction
process. The VOC laden air 1s withdrawn under vacuum from recovery or
extraction wells which are placed in selected locations within the
contaminated site. This air 1s then either vented directly to the
atmosphere, or it is vented to a VOC treatment system such as a carbon
adsorber or a catalytic incinerator prior to being released to the
atmosphere. The decision to employ a VOC control system treatment is
largely dependent upon VOC concentrations and applicable regulations.
The selection of a particular VOC treatment option may be somewhat more
complicated and based upon individual site characteristics.
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) was contracted by the
U.S. EPA to investigate and evaluate potential VOC control techniques
for use at SVE sites. The purpose of the investigation is to gain
insight into the operation of SVE systems in general and to develop and
summarize information on the factors associated with determining
applicable VOC control systems. These factors include the feasibility,
relative cost, and performance of various air pollution control
techniques.
Chapter 2 of this report consists of a brief overview of SVE design
and operation. It also includes a listing of SVE facilities identified
during this investigation. Chapter 3 presents a discussion of the
feasible VOC control systems and general guidelines in selecting a
control technique. Chapter 4 identifies specific sites utilizing VOC
control systems and also includes a brief discussion on specific site
criteria. If possible, the principle contaminants at each site are also
given. The information contained in Chapter 4 is based upon a
literature review as well as upon responses to site questionnaires.
Chapter 5 presents capital and annualized cost estimation techniques for
selected VOC control treatment systems. Chapter 6 provides a summary of
potential health effects of the contaminates extracted at each site and
relates exposure health effects values of these contaminates to ambient
concentrations with potential for health effects. The reader must then
determine if specific site values warrant further investigation.
1-1
-------
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) is one of several potential soil
remediation techniques available. However, unless VOC emissions are
controlled, this process results in contaminants simply being
transferred from one medium (soils) to another (the atmosphere). This
may be advantageous in some cases where the pollutant half-life is
significantly shorter in the atmosphere than in soils. For the most
part though, the release of VOC compounds to the atmosphere may be as
damaging to the environment as their presence in soils.
This study is designed to examine potential add-on VOC control
techniques available for SVE sites. Specifically the focus is on the
general applicability, performance specifications, reliability, and
capital and operating costs of these techniques. SVE system operation
and design is also briefly discussed.
2.1 SOIL CONTAMINATION AND ALTERNATIVE REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES
Typically, soil contamination is the result of one or more of four
main sources. An obvious common source would be leaking underground
storage tanks. Other sources include inadequate disposal and storage
practices, accidental spills and landfill leachate.
These sources may result in contamination from an extremely wide
variety of compounds including metals and various toxics as well as
VOCs. Moreover, the pollutant concentrations will vary appreciably from
site to site with no uniform or typical concentration evident. This
investigation focuses upon the use of SVE with subsequent VOC treatment
as the remediation technique for soil contamination. SVE is employed as
a remediation technique for VOCs in soils and is less useful for other
contaminants such as heavy metals, which are not volatile. This
technique is discussed in detail in Section 2.4. Some other remediation
techniques are briefly discussed below. They are mentioned here merely
to acquaint the reader with some alternative techniques currently
available.
2.1.1 Bioremediation
Bioremediation is a technique which enhances the biochemical
mechanisms naturally present in soils to degrade organic and inorganic
compounds. Microorganisms are introduced into contaminated soils via an
injection system. The efficiency of this technique is dependent upon
soil moisture and requires careful process control to establish the
appropriate microbial population. The technique has proved successful
2-1
-------
I
in treating pesticides and halogenated alphatic compounds located within
about three feet of the surface.
Advantages of this process Include no transportation costs (since
no soil 1s removed), and low operation and maintenance costs.
Disadvantages Include Incomplete destruction of some compounds and
treatment times that may last several years.
2.1.2 Incineration
This technique 1s actually comprised of several different thermal
degradation methods, including conventional pyrolysis, rotary kiln,
fluidized bed, and multiple hearth incinerators. Each method is
discussed in more detail below.
2.1.2.1 Conventional Pvrolvsis
This technique is best suited for sludges, solids, or liquid wastes
containing a large amount of volatile hydrocarbons. The waste is fed
into an indirect-fired chamber, where 1t 1s heated to between 1,000 and
1,600*F. Typically, either just enough oxygen is injected to generate
the required heat, or the hot gases are recycled back to the pyrolyzer.
This process results in high destruction efficiencies of volatile
organics present, but requires a large capital Investment, highly
trained personnel, and a potentially hazardous char.
2.1.2.2 Rotary Kiln
This incinerator consists of a refractory lined steel cylinder,
positioned at a slight incline, and rotated. Rotary kilns are usually
equipped with secondary combustion chambers to ensure complete
combustion of off-gases. Residence times will average up to four hours
for some solid wastes, and temperatures usually average 1,200*F. The
rotary action provides air turbulence, solids mixing, and enhances heat
transfer to the solid waste. These systems offer good reliability, and
high organic destruction efficiencies. Disadvantages include high
capital and operating costs, the need for skilled operators, and
frequent replacement of the refractory lining if abrasive or corrosive
wastes are incinerated.
2.1.2.3 Fluidized Bed
A fluidized bed incinerator consists of a refractory lined steel
reactor vessel which contains a bed of inert material such as silica
sand. This material is heated to the desired temperature and then
fluidized by air blowing up through the bed. These incinerators offer
high organic destruction efficiencies, but require high capital and
operating costs, limitations on suitable waste forms, highly trained
personnel, and emissions of particulate matter that will require
controls.
2.1.2.4 Multiple-Hearth
These incinerators consist of a steel shell containing several
vertically stacked hearths. Waste solids and sludges are introduced
2-2
-------
Into the top hearth and eventually fall through drop holes to the bottom
hearth. Air is introduced into the bottom hearth and flows up counter
current to solids flow. Multiple hearth incinerators work best with
wastes having fairly uniform size characteristics, to avoid plugging the
drop holes. This technique is well suited for incinerating sewage
treatment plant sludges. It is less well suited for controlling
organics, as most of these compound volatilize in the top hearth.
After-burners can be used to control organics but destruction
efficiencies are usually not as high as with other incineration
techniques.
2.1.3 Solvent Washing
This technique consists of excavating soils from contaminated areas
and washing the contaminants from the soil using water or an aqueous
solution. The contaminated effluent is then treated or disposed. For
this technique to be effective, it is important to ensure that the
contaminates are soluble either in water or in a selected aqueous
solution.
2.1.4 Extraction/Flush-Wash
Extraction/flush-wash involves the washing of contaminants from
soils using water or another aqueous solution which is injected into the
contaminated area. This mixture is then pumped to the surface for
removal, recirculation, or onsite treatment and reinjection. This
technique is generally limited to compounds that are water soluble,
since substitution of another aqueous solution typically includes
organic compounds which are pollutants themselves.
2.1.5 Volatilization
In this treatment system, contaminated soils are removed from the
area and the solvent constituents arc allowed to volatilize into the
atmosphere. However, this simply results in a transfer of contaminants
from one medium to another, without any control of the pollutants.
Moreover, control of VOCs emanating from soil volatilization is
difficult since the VOCs are fugitive emissions.
2.1.6 Encapsulation
This technique consists of excavating contaminated soils and
preparation of a non-permeable membrane into which the contaminated
soils are placed. Typical membranes include synthetic and/or compacted
clay liners. In essence, this technique is landfill ing and therefore
must comply with numerous RCRA requirements.
2.1.7 Capping
Capping is similar to encapsulation except that the contaminated
soils are not removed from the site. Instead, a non-permeable membrane
is simply placed over the area to prevent the escape of volatile
contaminants into the atmosphere. This technique, while certainly
suitable at many sites, involves no real cleanup of the contaminated
2-3
-------
soil. Capping 1s typically used in conjunction with SVE to enhance VOC
migration to the extraction wells.
2.1.8 In-Situ Steam A1r Stripping
This technique, still 1n development stages, uses steam and hot air
Injection wells to remove petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons from
contaminated soils. The system consists of two hollow blades that
Inject steam and hot air Into the soil at a depth up to thirty feet.
The mixture heats the soil and raises the temperature of the chemicals,
enhancing their evaporation rate. Eventually the chemicals migrate to
the surface where they are trapped in a metal box and piped to a
processor. The processor condenses the chemicals into liquid, which is
eventually sent to an incinerator.
2.2 DATA GATHERING APPROACH
The approach used to obtain information involved contacting EPA
Regional and State representatives, and SVE equipment vendors. In
general, equipment vendors were very reluctant to reveal information
concerning locations of SVE systems, let alone design details. It was
therefore decided to concentrate on extracting information through EPA
and State contacts. Initially, both Superfund and RCRA administrators
within EPA Regional offices were contacted. It was hoped that at least
some Regions would be able to use computerized data bases to search for
all SVE sites within that Region. However, it was found that presently,
such a database is not available to any Region, though efforts to
incorporate all SVE sites onto a computer database are underway in some
Regions. Instead, Regional personnel provided information on SVE sites
known to be active and appropriate State contacts for these sites.
Other sources employed during this phase of the investigation
include a literature search and an examination of the Record of Decision
(RODs) database. This is a computerized listing of potential and
selected remediation techniques for various landfill sites throughout
the country. It is not limited to SVE, and in fact SVE sites are a
relatively small part of the total database. Nonetheless, several sites
were identified through this method.
2.3 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION INSTALLATIONS
This investigation identified 29 soil vapor extraction systems
within the United States. Information on these installations is
presented in Table 2.1. The actual number of sites in the country is
certainly higher than this figure, but the actual number includes
numerous smaller sites that are only in operation for a period of days
or weeks, and may be controlled by private industry. Given these facts,
information on these sites is difficult to accumulate, and it was
decided to concentrate upon the larger sites where more extensive
engineering work had been performed.
2-4
-------
Table 2.1
LISTING OF IDENTIFIED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SITES
Facility/Location
Grovel and Wells,
Grovel and
Service Station,
Way! and
Wai dick Aerospace
Industrial Tank Farm
Service Station,
San Juan
Tyson Dumpsite,
Tyson's Lagoon
Service Station,
Bellview
Aware Study,
Nashville
Petroleum Fuels
Terminal, Grainger
Seymour Facility,
State
MA
MA
NJ
P.R.
P.R.
PA
FL
TN
IN
IN
Reoion
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
Pollutants VOC
Identified Control Equipment
TCE, PCE,
MC, DCE, TCA
Gasoline
PCE, Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Gasoline
TCE, Toluene,
Ethyl benzene,
Xylene,
Trichloro-
propane,
1,1,1,2-TTCA
Gasoline
TCE, Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Gasoline
1,2-DCA,
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Reference
1
1,2
3
4,5
5
4,6
4
4
4,5
8
Seymour
Benzene,
Vinyl Chloride,
1,1,1-TCA,
Others
2-5
-------
Table 2.1 -- continued
LISTING OF IDENTIFIED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SITES
Facility/Location
Thomas Solvents Co.,
Battle Creek
(Verona Well Field)
Kimross Facility,
Kimross
Lansing Facility,
Lansing
Bangor Facility,
Bangor
Hillside Facility,
Hillsdale
Custom Products,
Stevensville, MI
Twin Cities Army
Plant, New Brighton
Troy Facility, Troy
Paint Storage
Warehouse, Dayton
State Region
MI 5
MI 5
MI 5
MI 5
MI
MI
MN
OH
OH
5
5
5
5
Pollutants VOC
Identified Control Equipment Reference
OCA, TCA, DCE, Y
TCE, PCE, Vinyl -
chloride,
Chloroform,
Carbon Tetra-
chloride,
Benzene, Toluene,
Xylene, Ethyl -
benzene,
MEK, MIK
1,1,1-Trichlo-
roethane
TCE
Toluene,
Benzene,
Xylene,
Ethyl benzene,
Styrene,
Ketones,
Chloroethane, MC
TCE
PCE
TCE, TCA,
Toluene
Acetone, MC
TCE, Toluene,
Xylene
Acetone,
Toluene, Xylene,
Ketones
N
4,7
5
4
9,10
5
2-6
-------
Table 2.1 -- continued
LISTING OF IDENTIFIED SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SITES
facility/Location State Region
Texas Research TX 6
Inst., Austin
Waverly Facility, NE 7
Waverly
Hill AFB, Salt UT 8
Lake City
Dowel 1 WY 8
Schlumberger, Casper
LARCO, Casper WY 8
Southern Pacific AZ 8
Spill, Benson
Electronics Co, CA 9
Santa Clara
Storage Tank, CA 9
Cupertino
Well 12A, Tacoma WA 10
Ponders Corner WA 10
Pollutants VOC
Identified Control Equipment
Gasoline N
Carbon N
Tetrachloride
Jet Fuel Y
Chlorinated Y
Hydrocarbons,
Toluene, Xylene,
Benzene, Ethyl -
benzene
Toluene Y
Dichloropropene N
1,1,1-TCA N
TCA, TCE, DCA N
DCE,
TCE, PCE, MC Y
TTCA, DCA, TCA
1,2 DCA, TCE, Y
TTCA
Reference
5
11
12
13
13
4
4
4
4,14
15
Pollutant Kev
DCE: Dichloroethene
TCE: Trichloroethene
PCE: Perchloroethene
MC: Methylene Chloride
DCA: Dichloroethane
TCA: Trichloroethane
TTCA: Tetrachloroethane
MEK: Methyl Ethyl Ketone
MIK: Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
2-7
-------
2.4 SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION DISCUSSION
Typically, an SVE system (Figure 2.1) consists of extraction wells,
Inlet wells (optional), piping headers, vacuum pumps, flow meters,
vacuum gauges, sampling ports, an air/water separator (optional), a VOC
control system (optional), and a cap (optional). Extraction wells are
usually designed to fully penetrate the contaminated soil. These wells
are normally constructed of slotted, plastic pipe placed in permeable
packing to allow vapor flow Into the pipe. The VOC in the contaminated
area migrate through the soil into the pipe where it is either released
to the atmosphere or vented to an air pollution control device. The
decision to employ an air pollution control device 1s usually dependent
upon the expected VOC concentration and applicable regulations. The VOC
compounds migrating to the extraction wells will typically be the
lighter and middle fraction compounds with molecular weights up to about
200 g/mol or organic compounds containing up to twelve to fifteen carbon
atoms. Heavier compounds have more of a tendency to remain in the soil
unless the vacuum is increased.
2.4.1 Background Information
A soil vapor extraction system centers upon the extraction of VOC
laden air from contaminated soil. Inlet or injection wells, usually
located at the boundaries of the contaminated area, may be used to
enhance VOC laden airflow to the extraction wells. Inlet wells are
passive, with ambient air being drawn into the ground at the well
locations due to pressure differentials caused by the removal of air
from the extraction wells. Injection wells are active, and force air
into the ground at the well locations. Injection wells may be used as
part of a closed loop SVE system. The injection well inlet air may
supplied by the VOC control treatment exhaust, or the vacuum pump
(blower) exhaust at the site engineers discretion.
The piping used in SVE systems is generally PVC (or another
plastic) with the headers being either plastic or steel. Some systems
employ quick release flanges to allow for movement of inlet and/or
extraction wells easily. Some SVE installations contain multiple
systems, with each system having its own wells and blowers. Insulation
is occasionally used on the piping and headers especially in colder
climates to prevent condensate freezing.
In some cases, it may be necessary to install an air/water
separator prior to vapor treatment, particularly if carbon adsorption is
used. Depending upon the concentration and type of pollutants present,
the condensate may then need to be handled as a hazardous waste.
2.4.2 SVE Operation
The operation of an SVE system is relatively simple. The blower
(vacuum pump) and other necessary equipment is turned on and the flows
come to equilibrium. The steady state flowrate reached for a given
system is usually a function of the equipment, flow control devices,
system geometry, soil permeability, and site characteristics.
2-8
-------
Vapor
Treatment
Inlet
Well
Extraction
'Well
Air/Water
Separator
Contaminated
Soil
Grounduat er
Table
Figure 2.1 Typical SVE System With VOC Treatment
2-9
-------
The blower provides reduced pressure 1n the extraction wells and
induces airflow into any inlet wells present. If injection wells are
employed, the discharge pressure from the vacuum pump (or after the VOC
treatment device if present) is used to inject air into the wells. The
reduced pressure in the extraction wells (combined with net airflow from
inlet or injection wells if present) is sufficient to volatilize a large
number of organic compounds and induce VOC migration to the extraction
wells. At the extraction wells, compounds pass through the permeable
membrane within the pipe and into the well itself where the VOCs are
drawn out of the soil, and towards the vacuum pump.
In some cases, an air/water separator is employed prior to the
vacuum pump, to prolong the system life and increase the efficiency of
any VOC treatment system present. In addition, a non permeable cap is
often placed over the contaminated area to prevent fugitive VOC
migration out of the soil, and promote movement towards the extraction
wells.
The exhaust air from the vacuum pump is sampled on a routine basis
and used in conjunction with flowrate measurements to determine the VOC
extraction rate and total amount of VOC extracted from the site.
Typically, the extraction rate is initially high and gradually decreases
over time. In the latter stages of an extraction operation, the blower
is often cycled to conserve energy. This is typically done as follows:
the blower is turned on, flows come to equilibrium and the extraction
rate is measured. After a period of time has elapsed, the extraction
rate is again measured. If the rate has decreased appreciably, the
blower is turned off and the site is allowed to settle. After settling,
the process is repeated. This procedure is employed because in the
latter stages of operation (i.e., after the initial extraction rate has
decreased appreciably), the VOC extraction rate becomes diffusion
limited by soil moisture, and is not a function of the vacuum applied to
the extraction well. In this case, increasing the vacuum to the
extraction well will not increase the VOC extraction rate. This is why
the site is allowed to "settle." That is, VOCs are allowed to diffuse
out of the moisture or particles within the site and into the soil
spaces, where they can be subsequently extracted when the blower is
turned on.
2-10
-------
2.5 LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Telecon, Sink, M. PES Inc., with Margaret McDonough, EPA
Region I. February 13, 1989.
2. "Case Study of Soil Venting", Pollution Engineering. J.R.
Connor, July 1988. p.74.
3. Telecon. Sink, M. PES Inc. with Bill Frietsche, EPA Region II,
February 15, 1989.
4. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction Systems.
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, EPA,
Cincinnati, OH. August 1988.
5. Camp Dresser and McKee. 10101 Linn Station Rd., Louisville, KY
40223. February 1989.
6. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Eugene Dennis, EPA Region
III, February 15, 1989.
7. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Margaret Guierro, EPA
Region V, March 8, 1989.
8. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Peggy Pierce, EPA Region V,
April 18, 1989.
9. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Art Kliewrath, EPA Region
V, March 24, 1989.
10. Correspondence. Jim Jacques Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
to Mike Sink PES, Inc. May 1989.
11. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Steve Auchterlonie, EPA
Region VII, March 22, 1989.
12. Correspondence. Capt Mike Elliot, Tyndall AFB, to Mike Sink,
PES, Inc. May 1989.
13. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Chuck Raffleson, State of
Wyoming, March 21, 1989.
14. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Kevin Rochlin, EPA Region
X, May 15, 1989.
15. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Dave Tetta, EPA Region X,
May 22, 1989.
16. CH2M Hill. Seymour Recycling Corp. Hazardous Waste Site
Feasibility Study. August 1986.
2-11
-------
CHAPTER 3
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR VOC TREATMENT
The decision to employ VOC control equipment in conjunction with
SVE systems is largely dictated by applicable State regulations. These
regulations vary considerably from State to State. A number of States
have active and stringent air pollution programs, necessitating the use
of VOC control equipment on SVE emissions. Other States appear less
active, allowing some SVE emissions to vent directly to the atmosphere.
Moreover, the VOC regulations themselves vary from State to State, with
some States concentrating on risk assessment, others on maximum
allowable emission rates, and still others emphasizing the control of
specific compounds. Table 3.1 summarizes emission regulations for
several States requiring VOC control of SVE emissions.
3.1 EMISSION CONTROLS
In general, there are four available choices for the VOC treatment
system. These include: carbon adsorbers, thermal incinerators,
catalytic incinerators, and condensers. Table 3.2 provides general
guidelines for selecting vapor treatment systems at SVE sites. These
guidelines were developed from conversations with EPA Regional
personnel, State and local agency contacts, and published information on
air pollution control techniques. A brief discussion of each technique
is also presented.
3.1.1 Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption is commonly employed as a pollution control
technique and/or for solvent recovery. It can be applied to very dilute
mixtures of VOC but typically performs better with concentrations
exceeding 700 ppmv. Carbon adsorption units can be designed to achieve
efficiencies of 99 percent. Actual efficiencies may be somewhat lower,
ranging from 60 to 90 percent, depending upon inlet concentration and
other factors such as stream temperature, moisture content (relative
humidity), and maintenance. The technique is somewhat sensitive to
certain inlet parameters, including both temperature and moisture.
Usually, dehumidification is necessary if high humidity (i.e, relative
humidity >50 percent) is present. Cooling of the stream is usually
required if the stream temperature exceeds 150*F.
An advantage to this technique is that carbon adsorption can
usually handle variable stream conditions, such as VOC concentration ana
flowrate, somewhat better than the other three VOC treatment techniques.
This insensitivity lends itself well to the conditions likely to occur
at SVE sites where flowrates and concentrations may vary significantly
3-1
-------
State
TABLE 3.1
AIR EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR SVE INSTALLATIONS
IN SELECTED STATES
Requirement
WA
WY
MN
NO
MA
PA
BACT requirement for new sources
Including SVE Installations.
Control equipment decided on case-
by-case considering pollutant
emitted1
BACT requirement for new sources
including SVE installations.
Control equipment decided on case-
by-case considering pollutant
emitted2
SVE installations fall under odor
control and toxics regulations.
Decided on case-by-case basis
Employment of VOC control device
decided on basis of maximum
allowable emissions (Ibs/hr) based
upon chemical classification4
Emission controls decided on case-
by-case considering specific
pollutants emitted
Decided on case-by-case basis based
upon pollutant rates and air
emission standards6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4
Reference 5
Reference 6
3-2
-------
C/5
CSJ
CO
LU
CO
i t/)
<-> i
*«/!
U
4V
•^
^
tt>
u
^
ra
.c
g
S
c
XI O
U 4->
•«- ra
4-» O.'*-
00 E S-
•*• tv ra
S_ H- >
O)
u
re
S- O) tt)
.c re 3
O t. 4->
* v>
E o —
re f— o
tt) U. Z
oo
c •
o c
i- O
•»- re
E &-
LU 4->
C
0)
u
c
o
t^
c
ra E
O> 0)
L. 4->
H- co
^1)
Sfe» IS)
O
O.
re
S*
•O 0)
11
11
(J_ QJ
o
o
4>> in
O) I
•^ ^D
o> m •
X Q?
§y
c
ra i. ra
i— <4- e
3 k.
O tt) O
o ra a)
z J- a.
LU
O
tn
V
O)
>
4V
•^
00
C
a>
c
^5
O
in
V
>
a.
Q.
o
o
f*.
A
e
0
4^
C Q.
O i-
to
CO
ra A
0 «t
4V
O
*f—
O *3
*4f
4J ^»
10 <4-
E ^3
pM« f^
o ra
I_ C
4V O
O 4^
u ra
t-
C O
ra a.
0 0
i
1
0)
>
4^
•fM
V)
c
O
IS)
\
\
^
%
a.
o
0
A
O
•^
4^
ra
f— L.
ra ai
E c
O) U
£ C
H» •-»
ci
4V «/»
T3
» c
- a> 3
•o-o o
ra -^ a.
tt) X E
f- 0 0
u
- e
4-» W tt)
3 f- 4V
E ra
(O U C
•^ T- 0)
x> e o> •
tt> O 4->
•k »
3 ra jCr—
0 ^ «
o >^ c ra
.c i- re o
a. 3
co U O •—
O 1- C 3
^g*.-
1
1
tt)
>
4^
•i^
b^
C
tt)
I/)
1
1
>
OL
Q.
O
O
A
C
O
U 4^
••- ra
>> tt)
f— C
ra •*-
4-> U
ra c
c
-S* °*
£
T3 tt) t-
tt) t- Q.
4V 3
*E re o
•^ i-0
«*-
o
e 4->
O) 1 CO
•»» O) U
U »-•»-
•»- 3 4J
»*. 00 00
I*. CO t-
0) tt) S-
i- a>
1— O.4-I
ra u
> J- re
§o t-
ra" W
a: > u
u.
o
0
esj
V
a)
_>
4^
*^»
CO
C
tt)
i
i
.^
E
a.
a.
o
o
o
m
A
0
4^
ra
c
a>
O)
u
c a>
a>
"u "S
£ =
tt) O)
3 4->
E ra
ra
o lo
U- 3
O)
a>
-------
over the course of the cleanup. Moreover, this technique performs best
with compounds having a molecular weight between 50 and 150 g/mol, or
organic compounds containing between about four to ten carbon atoms,
which falls into the range of compounds likely to be extracted by SVE
systems. Carbon adsorption systems are the most prevalent vapor
treatment method at SVE sites. It is typically chosen as the VOC
control technique unless the emission stream contains a very high
concentration of organics, which would then make catalytic incineration
potentially cheaper.
Two different methods to employ carbon adsorption are used at SVE
sites. One method utilizes a fixed bed regenerative system allowing
reuse of the carbon bed, while the other employs carbon canisters which
cannot be reused. The fixed bed systems usually have higher capital and
annualized costs relative to carbon canisters. The fixed bed system is
typically used at sites where the duration of the cleanup is fairly
long. This makes the added cost of the regenerative system economically
feasible as compared to replacing canisters. For sites with a
relatively short cleanup time, the canister system will likely have
reduced annualized costs relative to a regenerative system.
An additional consideration when selecting between the two options
is the availability of steam for use as a regenerator. Some locations
may not have a ready supply of steam available, which may tend to
increase the operating costs and hence annualized costs of a fixed bed
system. In these cases, vacuum desorption may be used to desorb the
bed.
3.1.2 Thermal Incineration
This technique is widely used to control a variety of emission
streams containing VOC. Thermal incineration is able to handle a
broader range of compounds compared to other techniques, with
efficiencies exceeding 99 percent for concentrations above 200 ppmv.
Additionally, this technique can achieve efficiencies exceeding 95
percent for concentrations as low as 50 ppmv, as compared to carbon
adsorption which works best with concentrations greater than about 700
ppmv as stated above. Although thermal incinerators can accommodate
minor fluctuations in flowrate (e.g., ± 10 percent), this technique is
not well suited for streams with variable flowrate conditions since this
tends to change mixing and residence times from design values and hence
lowers combustion efficiency.
Thermal incineration can be applied to streams with dilute
mixtures of VOC in air and performs best with relatively constant
flowrates. Typically, supplemental fuel is required to maintain
combustion, especially if treating dilute VOC streams as is the case
with numerous SVE sites. This tends to increase operating costs
relative to other VOC treatment systems and make this technique less
attractive. In fact, thermal incineration is rarely used for VOC
treatment at SVE sites, due to relatively high annualized costs.
Thermal incineration may be considered at sites requiring little or no
supplemental fuel.
3-4
-------
3.1.3 Catalytic Incineration
Catalytic Incinerators are similar to thermal Incinerators in
design and operation except that they employ a catalyst to enhance
combustion. The catalyst allows the reaction to take place at lower
temperatures reducing the amount of supplemental fuel necessary relative
to thermal Incineration. Typical design efficiencies for this technique
are usually around 95 percent although 99 percent 1s quoted in some
cases. Actual efficiencies may be somewhat lower (e.g. 90 percent)
depending upon operational and maintenance practices.
This technique is not as broadly applicable as thermal
incineration because the catalyst Is more sensitive to pollutant
characteristics and process conditions. Moreover, compounds such as
halogens (e.g. chlorinated hydrocarbons) lead, mercury, tin, zinc, and
phosphorous, may damage the catalyst and severely affect performance.
Some newer base metal catalysts are better able to withstand moderate
concentrations of these contaminants, although these pollutants can
still damage the newer catalysts at higher concentrations. Note that
the metal compounds are not very volatile and are unlikely to be
extracted by SVE in large amounts. Nonetheless, it 1s possible that a
small amount of these metals may appear in the SVE vacuum pump emission
stream, and may damage a catalyst if present. Moreover, numerous
halogens are light enough to be extracted in large amounts if present in
the contaminated soil. This is one reason catalytic incinerators are
not usually selected as the VOC control system when heavy metals or
halogens are contaminates. Like thermal incineration, catalytic
incineration can achieve high destruction efficiencies at low
concentrations but is sensitive to fluctuations in inlet stream
flowrates. Catalytic incineration, while not as common as carbon
adsorption, is employed at selected sites. This technique is usually
chosen over thermal incineration for SVE sites because of lower
operating costs.
3.1.4 Condensers
Condensers are generally used as raw material and/or preliminary
air pollution control devices for removing VOC contaminants prior to
other control devices. Condensers are also used as the primary control
device for emission streams with concentrations in excess of 5,000 ppmv.
This limits their applicability at SVE sites relative to the other three
devices.
The nature of VOC concentration in the extraction wells at SVE
sites is that of high initial concentration and a lowering of the
concentration as VOCs are removed from the soil. This variability in
VOC concentration will decrease the overall control efficiencies of
condensers at SVE sites. Removal efficiencies for condensers are
typically less than that for the other three techniques ranging from
about 50 to 80 percent using chilled water. Removal efficiencies
approaching 90 percent are possible using subzero refrigerants (e.g.,
ethylene glycol, freon). This significantly increases capital and
operating costs, however. No SVE sites using condensers as the VOC
treatment system were found, due to low collection efficiency and high
annual costs.
3-5
-------
3.2 LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Jim Nolan, Pudget Sound Air
Agency. July 6, 1989.
2. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Chuck Raffleson, State of
Wyoming, July 7, 1989.
3. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Libby Henderson, State of
Minnesota, June 1989.
4. State of New Jersey Regulation 7:27-16.6.
5. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Robert Ledger, EPA Region
I. June 1989.
6. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc., with Eugene Dennis EPA Region
III. June 22, 1989.
8. U.S. EPA. Handbook. Control Technolgies for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. EPA-625/6-86-014. September 1986.
3-6
-------
CHAPTER 4
SELECTED STUDIES OF SVE/VOC TREATMENT SITES
The purpose of this section is to illustrate how the information
presented in Chapter 3 has been utilized in determining remedies for
specific sites. Table 4.1 provides a list of selected SVE sites, vapor
treatment systems, and pollutants extracted. This information was
obtained through conversations and questionnaires with EPA Regional
personnel, appropriate State and local agency personnel, and a review of
the literature available on specific sites. A brief description of each
site given in Table 4.1 is provided below.
The quantity of the data obtained for the various sites presented
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 vary appreciably. In some instances, all data
gathered was secured through telephone conversations. In other cases,
completed questionnaires or site reports were used to obtain the
necessary information for SVE installations. Table 4.2 presents the SVE
process data for the sites given in Table 4.1. In some cases, a single
emission concentration was given, although the VOC concentration will
typically decrease over time. Air flow rates given are based upon
either design values or actual measured rates.
The presence of VOC control equipment on SVE installations is
usually dictated by applicable State regulations. These regulations
will vary significantly from State to State as discussed in Chapter 3.
4.1 SITE DISCUSSIONS
4.1.1 Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
The plant is located in New Brighton, MN. SVE systems have been
used to clean up sites within the plant. The two sites receiving the
most attention have been Site D and Site G.
Site D is located on the Arsenal Sand Kame deposit and was likely
used for open burning prior to 1970. Soil sampling has revealed soil
VOC concentrations up to 8,000 ppm with TCE (trichloroethylene) being
the most prominent. Additionally, excessive levels of barium, chromium,
lead, phenolics, and PCBs have been found at this site.
Site G is located on the boundary between the Arsenal Sand Kame
deposit and the Twin Cities Formation. This site was used as an open
4-1
-------
TABLE 4.1
SELECTED SVE SITES UTILIZING VOC TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Site
Location
Vapor Treatment System
Pollutants Identified
TCAAP
Pilot 1
TCAAP
Pilot 2
Custom
Products
Seymour
Recycling
Corp.
Verona
Well Field
Hill AFB
Grovel and
Wells
Waldick
Aerospace
Well 12A
Service
Station
Dowel!
Schlumberger
New Brighton, MN
New Brighton, MN
Statesville,MI
Seymour, IN
Battle Creek, MI
Hill AFB, UT
Grovel and, MA
Well Township, NJ
Tacoma, WA
Wayland, MA
Casper, WY
Dowel 1 Casper, WY
Schlumberger
LARCO
Casper, WY
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Catalytic Incineration
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption
(proposed)
Carbon Adsorption
Catalytic Incineration
(Area 1)
Carbon Adsorption (Area 2)
Catalytic Incineration
TCE
TCE; 1,2-DCA
PCE
Benzene, Vinyl
Chloride, others
DCA; TCA; DCE;
TCE; MEK; MIK;
others
Jet Fuel
TCE; PCE; MC;
DCE; TCA
PCE, Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
TTCA; TCA; TCE; MC;
others
Gasoline
Toluene,
Benzene,
Xylene,
Ethyl benzene
Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
Toluene
4-2
-------
TABLE 4.1 (continued)
SELECTED SVE SITES UTILIZING VOC TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Site
Location
Vapor Treatment System
Pollutants Identified
Paint Dayton, OH
Warehouse
Tysons
Lagoon
Western
Processing
Ponders
Corner
Tysons Lagoon, PA
Kent, WA
Ponders Corner, WA
Incineration
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorber
Carbon Adsorption
Acetone, Toluene;
Xylene; ketones
1,2-DCA; 1,1,1-TCA;
TCE; TCP; Toluene;
Ethyl Benzene; Xylene;
1,1,1,2-TTCA
MC; Chloroform, TCE
others
1,2-DCA; TCE;
TTCA
Pollutant Key:
DCE: Dichloroethene
TCE: Trichloroethene
PCE: Perch!oroethene
MC: Methylene Chloride
DCA: Dichloroethane
TCA: Trichloroethane
TTCA: Tetrachloroethane
TCP: Trichloropropane
MEK: Methyl Ethyl Ketone
MIK: Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
4-3
-------
TABLE 4.2
EMISSION STREAM PARAMETERS FROM
SELECTED SVE INSTALLATIONS
Site
TCAAP 1
TCAAP 2
Custom
Products
Seymour
Recycling
Corp.
Verona Well
Field
Hill AFB
Grovel and
Wells
Waldick
Aerospace
Well 12A
Wayland
Dowel!
Schlumberger
(Area 1)
Dowel!
Schlumberger
(Area 2)
Flowrate
(ff3/min)
4,400
11,300
N/A
N/A
1000
1500
25-155
250-800
N/A
600
90-260
50-300
Pollutant Concentration Control
(ppm)
500
200
N/A
N/A
N/A
2500 (at present)
(initial 38,000)
189 (average)
N/A
N/A
150 (initial)
3-260ug/ft3
1-15.8 mg/1
Efficiency
(%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
96 average
(based on
test data)
99
(based on
test data)
99
(based on
pilot study)
N/A
N/A
> 98
(based on
test data)
t 95
(based on
test data)
4-4
-------
TABLE 4.2 (continued)
EMISSION STREAM PARAMETERS FROM
SELECTED SVE INSTALLATIONS
Site
LARCO
Paint
Warehouse
Tysons
Lagoon
Western
Processing
(ST-201)
Ponders
Corner
Fl owrate
(ffVmin)
1500
N/A
N/A
3450
N/A
Pollutant Concentration
(ppm)
2500
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Control Efficiency
(%)
98
(based on
design)
N/A
N/A
90
(based on
design)
N/A
N/A: Not Available
4-5
-------
dump between the 1940's and 1970's. Soil testing revealed VOC
concentrations 1n the range of 1,000 ppm with TCE and 1,2-dichloro-
ethylene being the most prominent. Excessive levels of cadmium,
chromium, lead, and phenolics were observed at this site.
Both pilot and full scale studies have been performed at the
plant. The pilot study was conducted at site D and consisted of
injection and extraction wells 1n addition to a carbon adsorption
system. Carbon adsorption was selected over thermal Incineration
because of operating cost advantages. Catalytic Incineration was not
selected because of a high probability that compounds present (e.g.,
halogens, chromium, lead, etc.) may foul the catalyst, as well as
somewhat higher operating costs relative to carbon adsorption.
A full scale field system was installed at Site G consisting of
injection and extraction wells. A carbon absorber system was selected
for vapor treatment for the identical reasons given above at site D. A
full scale field system was also installed at site D after completion of
the pilot study. The field system at site D did not include any VOC
treatment. No reason was given for exclusion of VOC treatment at this
site.
4.1.2 Custom Products. Inc.
This facility is located in Stevensville, MI. Cleanup at this
site has been completed and the SVE system is currently shut down. The
system consisted of six injection wells and one extraction well venting
to a carbon adsorber. The primary contaminant was found to be
perch!oroethylene (PCE). Soil concentrations ranged from 9 to 5,600 ppm
within the contaminated area. Carbon adsorption was selected primarily
because of low operating costs relative to catalytic and thermal
incineration. No further information on the VOC treatment system was
provided.
4.1.3 Seymour Recycling
This site is located approximately two miles southeast of Seymour,
IN and encompasses a fourteen acre area. From 1970 to early 1980, the
Seymour Recycling Corporation (SRC) operated a processing center for
waste chemicals. During this period, various wastes stored at the
facility leaked and spilled from storage drums creating both odor and
fire problems.
A consent decree filed in 1982 resulted in the removal of one foot
of topsoil from about 75 percent of the sites surface. Contaminated
soil remains however, and extends into aquifers on the site. A SVE
system has been chosen to remove the remaining VOCs. The primary
pollutants of concern include trichloroethylene, perch!oroethylene,
benzene, toluene, dichloroethylene, and heavy metals.
At present, the system is still in the planning stage. The system
will include a carbon adsorber for treatment of VOCs. This technique
was chosen on the basis of low operating cost and the fact that halogens
and heavy metals may damage a catalytic incinerator.
4-6
-------
4.1.4 Verona Well Field
This site 1s located outside of Battle Creek, MI and serves as a
main potable water source for the city. The Thomas Solvents facility
located near the field site was judged responsible for contamination of
the wells. The primary contaminants found Included perchloroethylene
(PCE) and 1,1,1-tHchloroethylene. An SVE system was employed at the
well field to assist In cleanup and removal of solvents. The system
consisted of fourteen extraction wells venting to carbon adsorber
canisters, with a backup system to prevent carbon breakthrough. A
carbon system was selected over catalytic Incineration on the basis of
operating costs, and the probability of halogen damage to the catalyst.
Carbon canisters were selected over a regenerative system due to an
anticipated short cleanup time frame. The exhaust gas is vented to the
atmosphere through a 30-foot stack. No information was provided on the
criteria for selecting carbon adsorber canisters, nor was any
performance or cost information provided.
4.1.5 Hill Air Force Base
This facility is located at the Hill AFB which is about 20 miles
north of Salt Lake City, UT. The area was contaminated with over 2,500
gallons of jet fuel in January 1985. The depth of contamination extends
to 50 feet in some areas. The SVE system consists of three extraction
wells venting to two parallel catalytic incinerators. One incinerator
is a fixed bed design, and the other uses a fluidized bed approach. The
initial VOC concentration to the inlet of the incinerators was in excess
of 35,000 ppmv, which may be sufficiently high to consider condensation,
and is presently averaging 2500 ppmv, which is probably not high enough
for condensation.
The SVE system provides a vacuum of 50 inches of water at the
extraction wells. The flowrate averages between 1200 and 1500 scfm,
with a relative humidity exceeding 80 percent. The VOC control system
is required by state regulations due to the large volume of contaminates
emitted. The selection of the VOC control system was the responsibility
of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The selection criteria was based upon
the concentration of contaminates in the extraction wells, and the high
relative humidity of the stream. These factors made catalytic
incineration a cheaper alternative than carbon adsorption. Test data
indicates both incinerators can operate with a destruction efficiency in
excess of 99 percent.
4.1.6 Grovel and Wells
The site is located at Valley Manufacturing Products Co., Inc. in
Groveland, MA. Valley Manufacturing has been operating since the mid
1960's and numerous degreasing solvents and cutting oils have been used
at the site. The contamination resulted from a leaking underground
storage tank and improper storage and handling of solvents and oils.
The SVE system consists of extraction wells and an air/water separator
venting to a carbon adsorber canister system. Backup canisters are used
to prevent any carbon breakthrough.
4-7
-------
Carbon adsorption was selected on the basis of operating costs.
Some operational difficulties have been encountered with the VOC
treatment system. The canisters were misplaced upstream of the blower
Intake. This has resulted 1n excessive water Introduction to the
activated carbon causing high carbon usage. Proper placement of
canisters is usually downstream of the blower to increase the gas stream
temperature and decrease the relative humidity into the canisters.
4.1.7 Wai dick Aerospace
This site 1s located in Well Township, NJ and consists of 12 air
inlet wells and three extraction wells. Inlet well placement was
situated such that four inlet wells serve each extraction well. Soil
sampling revealed perchloroethylene (PCE) to be the primary contaminant,
with soil concentrations reaching 1,300 ppm. The SVE system utilizes a
variable speed blower which provides flowrates ranging from 200 acfm to
800 acfm.
A carbon adsorber canister system was selected to control PCE
emissions from the vacuum pump. A canister type system was chosen over
a carbon regenerative system because a canister system is generally
cheaper to operate on a short term basis than either a regenerative
carbon system or an alternative control technique such as a catalytic
incinerator. The canister system is expected to achieve 99 percent
control efficiency based upon monitoring conducted during a pilot study.
4.1.8 Commencement Bav/S. Tacoma Channel (Well 12A)
This site is located in Tacoma, WA. Approximately 256,000 ft3 of
soil was contaminated with 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. An SVE system
with carbon adsorption for vapor treatment has been selected for the
cleanup. The system is presently in the design stage.
A vapor treatment system is considered necessary because the
expected VOC concentrations from the vacuum pump will exceed the
regulated minimum. A carbon adsorber system has been selected on the
basis of cost effectiveness. Additional information on this site may be
obtained when the system becomes operational.
4.1.9 Waviand
This is the site of a former gasoline service station that was in
operation from the mid 1930's to 1976, when it was closed. However, the
underground gasoline storage tanks were not removed until 1985. During
removal, it was discovered that the tanks had been leaking,
contaminating the soil with gasoline. The SVE system consists of 28
horizontal wells located at a depth between 4 and 4.5 feet. Horizontal
wells were employed due to a shallow water table. The system provides a
vacuum of about 20 inches of water in the extraction wells. The
flowrates average about 50 cfm per well, for a total system flowrate of
1400-1500 cfm.
A regenerative carbon adsorber system was chosen for VOC
treatment. Regulations required a VOC treatment system at the site.
4-8
-------
However, no rationale for selecting carbon adsorption was given, nor was
PES able to obtain performance Information on the adsorption system.
4.1.10 Powell Schlumberqer
This site consists of two areas: the "toluene area", and the
"abandoned sump area". SVE was chosen as the remediation technique
based upon soil porosity, principal soil contaminants, and cost
effectiveness.
The toluene area SVE system consists of two extraction wells, a
liquid knock-out drum, a particulate dry filter, the vacuum blower, and
a catalytic Incinerator. The pollutants extracted consist of toluene,
benzene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes, with concentrations in the
extraction wells varying from about 3,620 ppmv down to 100 ppmv. The
initial VOC concentration was high enough to make catalytic incineration
feasible relative to carbon adsorption. The flow rate from the
extraction wells varies from 50 to 300 cfm. The stream enters the
incinerator at about 50'F and exits at 800*F. The choice of catalytic
incineration was based upon the states' BACT requirement and the cost
effectiveness calculations.
The SVE system for the abandoned sump area consists of two
extraction wells, a liquid knockout drum, a particulate dry filter, the
vacuum blower, and a carbon adsorption unit. The pollutants extracted
consist of a mixture of chlorinated hydrocarbons including
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethane. and 1,1-dichloroethene. Pollutant concentrations varied
from 260 ng/ft3 down to about 3 »»g/ft3. It was not possible to convert
this value to a ppmv value because the individual compound
concentrations were unknown. A carbon adsorber canister system was
selected based upon the BACT requirement and cost effectiveness (the low
organic concentration indicates catalytic incineration would require a
large amount of supplemental fuel and hence, have a higher cost than
carbon adsorption).
4.1.11 LARGO
This site consists of an SVE installation removing petroleum
products from the area. The SVE system consists of several extraction
wells, a liquid knockout drum, the vacuum blower, and a catalytic
incinerator, VOC concentrations venting to the incinerator average
around 2500 ppm, with a flowrate of about 1500 cfm. The stream enters
at about 50'F and exits at about 600'F, A catalytic incinerator was
chosen based upon the States' BACT requirement and cost effectiveness
calculations.
4-9
-------
4.2 LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Project Documentation for In-S1te Volatization Sites D and G
of Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant.
2. State of Technology Review: Soil Vapor Extraction Systems.
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory. Cincinnati,
OH. August 1988.
3. Design Report. Soil Vapor Extraction Study at the Waldick
Aerospace Device Site. O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc.
Edison, NJ. 1988.
4. Correspondence, Kevin Rochin, EPA Region X, to Mike Sink, PES,
Inc. June 1989.
5. Correspondence, Chuck Raffleson, State of Wyoming, to Mike
Sink, PES, Inc. June 1989.
6. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Removal of
Chlorinated Solvent and Toluene Contamination at the Dowel 1
Schlumberger Facility, Casper, Wyoming. Western Water
Consultants, Inc. Laramie, WY. November 1987.
4-10
-------
CHAPTER 5
VOC CONTROL EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATES
This chapter presents a discussion of capital and annualized costs
of VOC control equipment employed at SVE installations. Cost data were
available in few cases; therefore, for the most part, the cost estimates
presented rely solely upon approved EPA costing procedures outlined in
Reference 1. These procedures utilize operating and equipment
parameters (e.g., flowrates and pollutant concentrations) to provide a
study type cost estimate having ± 30 percent accuracy in most cases. In
addition, most cost estimates presented in Reference 1 are based on
April 1986 dollars. To obtain costs in April 1989 dollars, it is
necessary to escalate the Reference 1 costs by three years using the CE
equipment index. As a general rule, cost estimates should not be
escalated beyond five years. Appendix A contains detailed examples of
the costing procedures outlined in this chapter.
5.1 CARBON ADSORPTION COST ESTIMATES
Four types of carbon adsorption equipment is available to collect
VOCs: 1) disposable/rechargeable canister system; 2) fixed bed
regeneration; 3) traveling bed adsorbers; and 4) fluidized bed
adsorbers. Of these, only the first two were found to be employed at
SVE installations. Different procedures are used in estimating the
costs of regenerative and canister systems. Therefore, they will be
discussed separately.
5.1.1 Carbon Canister Systems
Carbon canister systems are normally used for control of lower
volume air streams and are generally employed on sources where the
expected volume of VOC recovered is fairly small. Carbon canister
systems cannot be desorbed at the site, and must be either landfilled,
or shipped back to the vendors central facility for desorption. In
addition, the effluent from canisters is usually not monitored
continuously (via an FID, for example), meaning that operators do not
have an indication of breakthrough. Appendix A contains an example of
the costing methodology discussed below.
5.1.1.1 Capital Costs for Canister Systems
The capital cost of a canister system is typically a function of
only the carbon cost. The carbon cost (Cc, $) is the product of the
carbon requirement (Me, Ibs) and the cost of activated carbon ($/lb).
5-1
-------
The current cost of activated carbon 1s about $2/lb (Reference 2). The
carbon requirement for canisters can be estimated using equation 5-1 below:
MC • Mvoc (*) (1 + ND/NA)
where: Me • carbon requirement (Ibs)
M - VOC Inlet loading (Ib/hr)
i « adsorption time (hrs)
A • adsorption capacity (Ibs VOC/lbs carbon)
ND * number of beds desorbing
NA * number of bed adsorbing
The values of M , t, and Ac 1n equation 5-1 may not be known for
a given SVE installation. However, note that the product of Mvoc and t
represents an approximation of the amount of pollutant to be extracted,
which is usually known. Thus, the amount of pollutant to be extracted
(in Ib) can simply be substituted as an estimation of the product of
M and t. The value of A was conservatively estimated at 1 Ib VOC/10
ID carbon (References 1, 3). Moreover, no beds desorb for cannister
systems (i.e. ND • 0). Therefore equation 5-1 can be written:
Me - 10 [Mvoc][t] 5-1A
The number of canisters required is determined by simply dividing the
value of Me calculated from equation 5-1A by the amount of carbon
contained within a canister (typically 150 Ibs). The result rounded to
the next highest digit yields the required canister number, RCN.
Equipment costs (EC) for Calgon's Ventsorb canister, common in
industry, are provided in Table 5.1. This cost includes the carbon,
vessel, and necessary connections, but do not include freight, taxes, or
installation charges. The canister costs given in Table 5.1 are
estimated based upon the cost of Calgons "BPL" carbon (4 x 10 mesh), a
commonly used industrial adsorbent. The costs are given in April 1986 S
and should be escalated using the CE equipment cost index. A factor of
1.08 is used to estimate the costs of taxes and freight.
The cost of materials and labor is significantly less for canister
systems than for fixed bed systems. Twenty percent of the sum of the
canister costs can be used to estimate the total capital investment
(TCI) cost of a canister system as equation 5-2 shows:
TCI = 1.2 [CEC] 5-2
where: TCI = Total Capital Investment Cost
CEC = Canister Equipment Cost - 1.08 RCN [EC]
5.1.1.2 Annual ized Costs for Canister Systems
The annual ized cost of a canister system is comprised of direct
costs and indirect costs. Direct costs are those which relate to systerr,
flowrate and include utilities, raw materials, and operating and
5-2
-------
TABLE 5.1
EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR CANISTER UNITS
(April 1986 $)
Quantity Equipment Cost EC. each*
1-3
4-9
10-29
> 30
$ 687
$ 659
$ 622
$ 579
'The canister equipment cost CEC, is obtained by
multiplying the appropriate equipment cost, EC, by
the required canister number, RCN. Costs are quoted
for canisters containing 150 Ibs of carbon.
5-3
-------
maintenance costs. Indirect costs are considered fixed and Include
overhead, property taxes, Insurance, and capital recovery.
For canister systems, utility costs Include electricity and solid
waste disposal. Other direct costs Include operating costs, maintenance
costs, and solid waste disposal costs. Indirect costs consist of
overhead, property tax, insurance, administrative and capital recovery
costs. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present the necessary factors and equations
to estimate direct and indirect annual1zed cost for canister systems.
The information contained in these tables is taken directly from
Reference 1, and are presented to give the reader an indication of the
estimation method used in this chapter. It is recommended that the
reader familiarize himself with the methodology presented in Reference 1
for a more complete understanding of the cost estimation techniques
presented herein.
The capital recovery factor 1s a function of the interest rate and
the expected equipment lifespan, in most cases. This factor reflects
the fact that most companies incur an opportunity cost when financing
the installation of control equipment. Typically, the opportunity cost
duration equals the expected equipment lifespan, and the annual
interest rate is usually estimated to be 10 percent. For example,
carbon adsorbers and catalytic incinerators have typical lifespans of
ten years, and are usually installed in plants for control of a
continuous process. The process is typically expected to operate at
least as long as the control device. At SVE facilities, however, the
usual cleanup time is far less than ten years, meaning the VOC control
device lifespan for SVE applications will be significantly less than the
expected lifespan on a continuous process. It would therefore be
inappropriate to estimate the capital recovery factor based upon
expected equipment lifespan, since the opportunity cost will not be
recovered (or paid out) over a series of years. Since the cleanup
duration at SVE sites varies significantly from site to site, but
generally lasts much less than one year, the capital recovery factor
will be assumed to equal 1.0 as provided in Table 5.2.
Since the control equipment has an expected lifespan of ten years,
there may be some salvage value associated with these systems. However,
since the salvage value may vary significantly for this equipment, this
value is assumed zero in this chapter.
5.1.2 Fixed Bed Regenerative Systems
These units are normally used to control continuous streams over a
wide range of flowrates and VOC concentrations. These systems are
commonly employed at sites in which the expected cleanup duration is
relatively long. Typically, the system consists of two or more carbon
beds. One bed will be adsorbing while the other(s) will be either in a
regenerative phase or idle.
The capital cost of a fixed bed system is primarily a function of
the amount of carbon necessary for control and the cost of the vessels
used to enclose the carbon. This in turn, depends upon the amount of
pollutant introduced to the system. For SVE installations, this is
simply the total amount of pollutants extracted by the SVE systems over
5-4
-------
TABLE 5.2
UNIT COST FACTORS FOR CARBON ADSORPTION ANNUALI2ED COSTS
Cost Element
Unit Costs Factor
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
1. Utilities:
a. Steam (Ct)
b. Cooling Water"
c. Electricity
2. Operating:
a. Operating Laborb
b. Supervisory labor
3. Maintenance:
a. Labor"
b. Materials
4. Replacement:
a. Carbon0
b. Labor
S6.00/103 Ibs 3.5 Ibs steam/1b VOC
adsorbed
$0.772 C
S13.00//0.5 hr/shift
15% of operator labor
514.30//0.5 hr/shift
100% of Maintenance Labor
$2.00/1b
100% of Replacement Carbon
5. Solid Waste Disposal (Canister Systems only):
a. Disposal Cost
b. Transportation
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
1. Overhead
2. Property Tax,
Insurance, and
Administrative
Costs
3. Capital Recoveryd
$72/canister
As appropriate
0.60 x (2a + 2b + 3a + 3b)
0.04 x TCI
CRF x TCI
* Assumes cooling water cost of $0.225/103 gal, taken from Reference 1
Operating and maintenance labor costs are taken from Reference 4 and
have been updated using the CE index.
c Reference 2.
d CRF is assumed to equal 1.0 as stated in Section 5.2.2.
5-5
-------
TABLE 5.3
EQUATIONS FOR CARBON ADSORPTION ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATE
Cost I tun
Equation
1. Direct Costs
a. SttM Costs, Cg
b. Cooling Water Cost CCH
c. Electricity
1. Pressure drop, Pfa,
for Regenerative Systems
(based upon superficial
velocity of 60 ft/min.)
C, « 3.5x10 J M^ (HRS) Pt
where: Mvoc • inlet VOC loading, Ibs/hr
HRS • operating hours per year
Pf • Steam Price, S/103 Its
ccw " 3'43 cs pcw
where: P • cooling water price, S/10 gal
(assumed to equal SO.225/103 gal)
Pb « tb t2.6063
where: tb « bed thickness, ft carbon
or tb « 0.0166 Me
LO
2. Pressure drop PC,
for canister systems
PC « 0.04710C * 9.29 x 10"4 Oc2
where: Ofi • emission stream flowrate,
ft/min.
3. System fan horsepower, h ,
4. Cooling water horsepower, h
5. Required electricity usage
per year, kWh
0. Carbon Replacement Cost, CRC
npsf * 2'5 X 1°'4 l
or PC3 QC
•pew hpc- * t2'5 " 10"\wHs3/n
where: qcu * cooling water flowrate, gal/min
H « required head (usually 100 ft H20)
S * specific gravity of fluid
n * pump and motor efficiency
KUh = 0.746
*
HRS
CRC * CRFC [1.08 Cc * Cct]
where: CRFe « Capital Recovery Factor for Carbon
Cc * Carbon Cost S/lb
C .« Replacement labor cost S/lb
(typically about S0.05/lb)
5-6
-------
the lifetime of the installation. The auxiliary costs of a fixed bed
system such as fans, pumps, condensers, decanters, and piping are
usually factored from the costs of carbon and vessels. The costing
procedures for regenerative systems contained within this chapter apply
to horizontal adsorber vessels only. Appendix A contains an example of
the costing methodology discussed below.
5.1.2.1 Costs of Carbon
This cost (Cc, $) is the product of the initial carbon requirement
(Me, Ib) and the cost of activated carbon ($/lb). The current cost of
activated carbon is about $2/lb (Reference 2). The initial carbon
requirement may be estimated in identical fashion to the canister system
using equation 5-1, except that a two bed system with one bed desorbing
and the other adsorbing (i.e., ND-NA-1) is assumed. Equation 5-1 then
becomes:
Me - 160 [Mvoc] 5-1B
The cost of carbon is then:
Cc - $2.00 (Me) 5-3
where: Cc * carbon costs, 1989$
5.1.2.2 Vessel Costs
This cost (Cv) is primarily determined by vessel dimensions, which
in turn, depend upon the amount of carbon contained per vessel (Mc/2),
and the superficial gas velocity through the bed, Vb. The value of Vb
is typically established empirically. For the purposes of this report,
this value is taken to be 60 ft/min. (Reference 1). It is assumed the
vessels used are cylindrical. The necessary dimensions can then be
calculated using equations 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6:
D - 0.127 Me Vb - 3.81 Mc/Q 5-4
2 Q
where Q « volumetric flowrate per adsorbing vessel, (ft3/nrin)
L - 2 (7.87) [Q] 2 - 0.00437 TQ1 2 5-5
Me Vb Me
and S - -K D (L + D/2) 5-6
EPA has developed a correlation between S and vessel cost Cv, based upon
vendor data and given in equation 5-7:
Cv » exp [18.827 - 3.3945 In [S] + 0.3090 [ln[S]]2 5-7
where Cv « vessel cost, April 1986 $
and 228 < S $ 2,111 ft2
5-7
-------
5.1.2.3 Purchased Equipment Cost
The cost of auxiliary equipment can be estimated as a function of
the sum of Cv and Cc as given 1n equation 5-8.
CA - 1.39 [Cc + Cv (NA+ND)] 5-8
where: CA * Purchased Equipment Cost of adsorber system
and 1.39 « Factor to account for auxiliary equipment cost
5.1.2.4 Total Capital Investment
The total capital Investment (TCI) Is estimated from the total
purchased cost, C., via an overall direct/indirect installation cost
factor. Table 5.4 provides the breakdown of the direct and indirect
cost factors for fixed bed carbon adsorbers. These cost factors reflect
"average" conditions and may vary appreciably from site to site. Also,
the cost of site preparation and buildings will depend upon site
specific factors and are not Included in this analysis.
5.1.2.5 Regenerative Carbon Adsorption Annualized Cost Estimates
The annual operating cost (annualized cost) of regenerative systems
is comprised of three elements: 1) direct costs; 2) indirect costs; 3)
recovery credits. No data on solvent recovery rates were available for
the sites examined. Therefore, the recovery credits for carbon systems
examined in this study were assumed negligible. The remaining two
annual cost elements are discussed separately. Table 5.2 presents the
factors used to estimate direct and indirect annualized costs. Table
5.3 gives the equations used to estimate several components of annual
cost. These equations were taken directly from Reference 1, and are
presented to give the reader an indication of the estimation method used
for these variables. It is recommended that the reader familiarize
himself with the methodology presented in Reference 1 for a more
complete understanding of the costing methodology presented herein.
Direct Annual Costs. Direct costs are those which are related in
some manner to the quantity of gas processed by the control system.
This includes costs for utilities (steam, electricity, water, etc.) raw
materials, maintenance materials, replacement parts, operating,
supervisory, and maintenance labor. Maintenance labor is estimated to
be 110 percent of operating labor, to reflect increased skill levels.
Carbon replacement costs for regenerative systems are assumed zero for
purposes of this report. If necessary, Tables 5.2 and 5.3 can be used
to obtain a replacement cost estimate.
Indirect Annual Costs. These costs are usually considered "fixed"
costs, in that they are not usually related to the size and operation of
control equipment and would have to be paid even if the system shut
down. This includes costs for overhead, property taxes, insurance, and
capital recovery. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present the necessary equations to
estimate direct and indirect annual costs for regenerative systems.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5.4
INSTALLATION FACTORS FOR FIXED BED CARBON ADSORBERS
Cost Item Cost Factor
DIRECT COSTS
1) Purchased Equipment Cost
Adsorber Ce + Cv
Auxiliary Equipment 0.39 [Cc + Cv]
Taxes 0.03 C.
Freight 0.05 CA
Total Purchased Equipment
Cost, TPE 1.08 C. (C4 - 1.39 [Cc+
[CJ)
2) Installation Direct Costs
Foundations and supports 0.08 TPE
Erection and handling 0.14 TPE
Electrical 0.04 TPE
Piping, Installation, and
Painting 0.04 TPE
Total Installed Direct Cost 0.30 TPE
Total Direct Cost 1.30 TPE
INDIRECT COSTS
Engineering and Supervision 0.10 TPE
Construction, field expenses,
and fee 0.15 TPE
Startup and Performance Test 0.03 TPE
Contingency 0.03 TPE
Total Indirect Costs 0.31 TPE
Total Capital Investment - 1.30 TPE + 0.31 TPE - 1.61 TPE
5-9
-------
5.2 CATALYTIC INCINERATOR COST ESTIMATES
In general, a study type cost estimate of a catalytic Incinerator
system 1s somewhat more complex than that of a carbon adsorber. Several
process variables have a significant Impact on the costs of a catalytic
Incinerator, Including emission stream flowrate, temperature, percent
LEL, and heat content. In addition, the preheat temperature, catalyst
bed outlet temperature, auxiliary fuel requirements, dilution air
requirements, and heat exchanger efficiency are some additional
variables necessary to estimate capital and annual 1zed costs. A number
of calculations and steps are required to obtain this information, and
inclusion of these equations and steps are beyond the scope of this
report. A detailed procedure to calculate the necessary variables is
presented in Reference 1. For the purposes of this report, it is
assumed that these variables are already known.
The reader should note that cost estimates presented in Reference
1 for incinerator systems are unavailable for flowrates under 5,000
scfm. Since many SVE installations operate at lower flowrates, it may
be necessary to obtain vendor cost quotes directly for these cases, as
extrapolating the cost data in Reference 1 below 5,000 scfm is not
recommended. Appendix A contains an example of the costing methodology
discussed below.
5.2.1 Catalytic Incinerator Equipment Costs
The equipment cost of a catalytic incinerator can be directly
related to the flowrate at standard conditions and heat exchanger
efficiency. Figure 5.1 presents the equipment costs of catalytic
incinerators (in April 1986 dollars). The equipment includes the
burner, fan, housing, skid mounting, instrumentation and controls, a ten
foot stack, catalyst, and heat exchanger if applicable. The cost data
apply to dilute VOC waste gas requiring a temperature of 600*F at the
catalytic bed inlet. The data may be applied to emission streams
requiring dilution air by substituting the flue gas flowrate at standard
conditions for the emission stream flowrate. The capital cost of a
catalytic incinerator system is obtained using a factored approach
identical to that described in Section 5.1.1.
5.2.2 Total Capital Investment for Catalytic Incinerators
Table 5.5 provides the factors needed to estimate total capital
investment (TCI) of a catalytic incinerator system, from the purchase
cost obtained from Figure 5.1. The factors reflect "average" conditions
and may vary appreciably from site to site. These factors are taken
directly from Reference 1. The cost of site preparation and buildings
will depend on site specific factors and are not included in this analysis
5.2.3 Annualized Costs for Catalytic Incinerators
For incinerators, annualized costs are comprised of two elements:
direct costs and indirect costs. No recovery credits are possible with
an incinerator system. Table 5.6 presents the factors used to estimate
direct and indirect annualized costs. The items comprising direct and
indirect costs are discussed below.
5-10
-------
1.000
50
Volume Row Rate, 1,000 scfra
100
Figure 5.1 EQUIPMENT COSTS OF CATALYTIC INCINERATOR SYSTEMS
5-11
-------
TABLE 5.5
INSTALLATION FACTORS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATOR SYSTEMS
Cost Item
Cost Factor
DIRECT COSTS
1) Purchased Equipment costs, PEC
Incinerator
Auxiliary Equipment"
Instrumentation and Controls
Taxes
Freight
Total Purchased Equipment Cost, TPE
From Figure 5.1
As required
0.1 PEC
0.03 PEC
0.05 PEC
1.18 PEC
2) Direct Installation Costs
Foundation and supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Site Preparation (incl. Bldgs)
Total Installation Direct Costs
Total Direct Costs
0.08 TPE
0.14 TPE
0.04 TPE
0.02 TPE
0.01 TPE
As required
0.30 TPE & Site Prep.
1.30 TPE & Site Prep.
INDIRECT COSTS
Engineering and Supervision
Construction and Field Expense
Construction Fee
Start up
Performance Test
Contingency
Total Indirect Costs
Total Direct and Indirect Costs or Total
Capital Investment, TCE
0.08 TPE
0.05 TPE
0.10 TPE
0.02 TPE
0.01 TPE
0.03 TPE
0.31 TPE
1.61 TPE & Site Prep.
8 Includes ductwork and other equipment not normally associated with
unit furnished by vendor.
5-12
-------
TABLE 5.6
UNIT COST FACTORS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATION ANNUALIZED COSTS
DIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Utilities:
a. Fuel
b. Electricity
See Reference 1 to calculate fuel requirement
Use following values of P:
Catalytic Incinerator - 6 in. H20
Heat Exchanger:
35% Efficient - 4 in. H20
50% Efficient - 6 In. H,0
70% Efficient - 15 in. FLO
2. Operating Labor:
a. Operator Labor8 $13.00/hr//0.5 hr/shift
b. Supervisory Labor 15% of Operator Labor
3. Maintenance:
a. Maintenance Labor $14.30/hr//0.5 hr./shift
b. Materials
4. Replacement Parts
a. Catalyst
INDIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Overhead
$100% of Maintenance labor
As appropriate {see Section 5.2.3.1)
0.60 x (2a + 2b + 3a + 3b)
2. Property Tax, Insurance,
Administration 0.04 TCI
3. Capital Recovery
CRFb [TCI - 1.08 x Ceat]
3 Operating and Maintenance Labor costs are taken from Reference 4 and
updated using the CE index.
b This factor is assumed to equal 1.0 as discussed in Section 5.2.3.2.
5-13
-------
5.2.3.1 Direct Costs
These costs consist of utilities (I.e. fuel and electricity),
operating labor, maintenance labor, and replacement parts (i.e.
catalyst). Equations to calculate fuel requirements are beyond the
scope of this report and can be found In Reference 1. An equation to
calculate electricity costs is provided below:
C. - 0.746 0 P HRS Pe S 5-9
6356 n
where: Q
P
HRS
Pe
S
n
flowrate, acfm
pressure drop, in H20 (see Reference 1 for appropriate
value)
operating hours per year
Price of electricity
Specific gravity of fluid (usually 1.00)
combined fan and motor efficiency (usually 60-70
percent)
Assuming that Pe « $0.059/kWh; S - 1.00; and n - 0.65, equation 5-9
becomes:
Ce - 1.06 x 10"5 Q P HRS 5-10
Operating labor and maintenance costs are calculated using the
factors provided in Table 5.6. Replacement parts include the catalyst.
Given that catalyst life is conservatively estimated at two years, it
will probably not be necessary to replace the catalyst at SVE
installations. If necessary, equation 5-11 can be used to obtain the
catalyst replacement costs.
CRC - Ccat x 1.08 x CRFcat 5-11
where: CRC - Catalyst replacement cost
C - Initial catalyst cost ($)
1.1)8 - factor for taxes and freight
CRFcat « Capital recovery factor for catalyst, equals 0.5762
for catalyst life of two years.
5.2.3.2 Indirect Annualized Costs
As shown in Table 5.6, indirect annualized costs consist of
overhead , property tax, insurance and administration, and the capital
recovery factor, CRF. For the purposes of this report, the capital
recovery factor is assumed to equal 1.0 as discussed in Section 5.1.1.5,
For a catalyst incinerator, the purchased cost of replacement catalyst
must be subtracted out of the capital recovery factor since it is
included in replacement parts, to avoid double counting. Note that if
no replacement catalyst is purchased, the capital recovery cost becomes
simply the product of the capital recovery factor and the total capital
investment. The salvage value of a catalytic incinerator system is
assumed to equal zero for purposes of this report.
5-14
-------
5.3 LIST OF REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA. EAB Control Cost Manual (Third Edition). EPA
450/5-87-001A. OAQPS. RTP, NC. February 1987.
2. Telecon. Sink, M. PES, Inc. to Al Roy, Calgon Corp. June
19, 1989.
3. Carbon Adsorption Handbook. P.N. Cheremlsinoff and F.
Ellerbush, Editors. Ann Arbor Science. Ann Arbor, MI.
1978.
4. U.S. EPA. Handbook. Control Technologies for Hazardous Air
Pollutants. EPA-625/6-86-014. September 1986.
5-15
-------
CHAPTER 6
HEALTH EFFECTS INFORMATION CONCERNING SVE EMISSIONS
This chapter provides the reader with information which can be
used to help evaluate the potential for adverse health effects from SVE
emissions. Tables are presented which summarize various types of health
concerns for exposure to specific organic compounds identified from SVE
installations. By comparing these values with known or estimated levels
of ambient concentration, they may be used to begin to assess the
potential for adverse health effects from SVE emissions. The values
presented reflect the lowest acceptable level of exposure for the noted
areas of concern. In addition, a summary of health effects for the
specific organic compounds emitted from SVE sites is provided.
6.1 WORKER PROTECTION VALUES
Table 6.1 provides the relevant OSHA permissible exposure limits
in 8 hour time weighted average (TWA) concentrations. The permissible
exposure limit is defined by OSHA to indicate the maximum concentration
of a pollutant to which an employee may be exposed over the duration
specified by the limit (e.g. 8 hour TWA). These values are followed by
the NIOSH recommended 8 or 10 hour TVA and/or ceiling exposure limits.
Finally, the ACGIH exposure limits for concentrations based on an 8 hour
work day, 40 hour work week are presented. All values are based on
inhalation and expressed as micrograms per cubic meter (i»g/m3).
6.2 CHRONIC TOXICITY VALUES
Table 6.2 displays values associated with Dose-Response Assessment
for chronic toxicity. These values are expressed as a Reference Dose
(RfD) by the Environmental Protection Agency and represent safe daily
lifetime exposure limits. All values are based on inhalation and
expressed as micrograms per cubic meter (<»g/m3).
A Reference Dose represents an estimate of the daily exposure to
the human population that is likely to be without a detectable risk of
harmful effect during a lifetime (70 years) of continuous (24 hr/day)
exposure. The 1989 Health Effects Assessment Summary states that RfDs
are used as reference points for gauging the potential effects of other
doses. Usually, doses that are less than the RfD are not likely to be
associated with health risk.
6-1
-------
6.3 CARCINOGENIC RISK CONCENTRATIONS
Table 6.3 presents the quantitative estimates of the 10*6
carcinogenic risk concentrations for pollutants identified from SVE
installations. The values given in Table 6.3 define concentrations
levels (in ug/nr) that represent significant risk. Significant risk is
defined as one cancer case per 1,000,000 (106) people exposed over a
seventy year lifetime. As an example, a benzene concentration of 0.12
ug/m3 is estimated to cause one cancer case per 106 population exposed
continuously over a seventy year lifetime. The values in Table 6.3 are
derived from unit risk factors.
6.4 LOWEST STATE AIR TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS
Table 6.4 lists the lowest state air toxic ambient air
concentrations for emissions of organic compounds identified as being
emitted from Soil Vapor Extractions. The values in this table represent
the lowest acceptable chemical concentration a person may be exposed to
1n some states for either an 8 or 24 hour averaging time period. All
values are expressed in units of micrograms per cubic meter Ug/m).
For individual State air toxic concentrations see Reference 1.
6.5 CHEMICAL HEALTH EFFECTS
This section addresses the health effects of chemicals involved in
the SVE survey. Each chemical is listed with reference to its common or
synonymous name followed by information concerning the adverse effects
from exposure.
Acetone, commonly referred to as dimethyl ketone, is moderately
toxic by various routes. It is a common air contaminant that results in
headaches from prolonged inhalation. At 500 ppm it begins irritating
the eyes. At this same level it becomes a skin irritant resulting from
its defatting action. Acetone is a dangerous disaster hazard. Due to
vigorous reactions to oxidizing material, it can cause fire and
explosions.
Benzene is a narcotic which is moderately toxic by intraperitoneal
and subcutaneous (i.e., beneath the skin) routes. Inhalation and
ingestion of benzene effects the blood and central nervous system.
Although benzene is moderately toxic through these routes, it may be
eliminated chiefly through the lungs, when fresh air is breathed.
Benzene causes mild irritation to the skin, but acts as a strong
irritant to the eyes. It has been determined poisonous by intravenous
exposure and possibly other routes. Chronic benzene poisoning by skin
contact has been reported. Benzene has a definite cumulative action,
and temporary exposure to relatively high concentrations will likely not
cause damage to the blood forming system. However, daily exposure to
100 ppm or less will cause damage over a prolonged period of time.
Benzene is a human carcinogen which may be related to myeloid leukemia.
It has also been termed an experimental teratogen and tumorigen, and
shows mutagenic data.
6-2
-------
Carbon tetrachlorlde, also known as carbon tet and freon 10, 1s a
probable human carcinogen, and experimental teratogen. It Is poisonous
by ingestion and moderately toxic by Inhalation. Central nervous
system, pulmonary, gastrointestinal and other systemic effects 1n humans
have been noted. Carbon tet 1s a narcotic as well as a severe eye and
mild skin irritant. Contact dermatitis can result from skin contact.
It damages liver, kidneys and lungs. Individual susceptibility varies
widely. Dangerous when heated to decomposition, carbon tet emits highly
toxic fumes of phosgene.
Benzene chloride is more commonly referred to as chlorobenzene.
It is moderately toxic by ingestion. Chlorobenzene is a strong narcotic
with slight irritant qualities. Dichlorobenzols are strongly narcotic.
Little is known of the effects of repeated exposures at low
concentrations, but damage may be caused to both liver and kidneys.
Ethyl chloride is commonly referred to as chloroethane. It is
moderately toxic by ingestion and inhalation. Ethyl chloride is an
irritant to skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. It has been noted as
harmful to eyes. Ethyl chloride gives warning of Us presence, but it is
possible to tolerate exposure to it until one becomes unconscious. It
is the least toxic of all the chlorinated hydrocarbons. Ethyl chloride
can cause narcosis (a stupor), although the effects are usually
transient.
Chloroform, also known as trichloromethane, 1s poisonous to humans
by ingestion and inhalation. It is also moderately toxic by
intraperitoneal and subcutaneous routes. A suspected human carcinogen,
chloroform is termed an experimental teratogen. It is dangerous to life
at 14,000 ppm after an exposure for 30 to 60 minutes. The maximum
concentration tolerated for several hours or for prolonged exposure with
slight symptoms is 2,000 to 2,500 ppm. The harmful effects are
narcosis, and damage to the liver and heart. Chloroform causes
irritation to the conjunctiva (mucous membranes of the eyes).
Experimental data shows that upon inhalation, it causes dilation of the
pupils with reduced reaction to light, as well as reduced intraocular
pressure. In the initial stages of contact with chloroform, there is a
feeling of warmth of the face and body, then irritation of the mucous
membrane followed by nervous aberration. Prolonged inhalation will
bring paralysis accompanied by cardiac respiratory failure and finally
death.
The chemical 1,1-dichloroethylene is synonymous with the names
1,1-dichloroethene, and dichloroethene. Dichloroethene is a poison by
inhalation and ingestion. It is also an experimental carcinogen and
mutagen by skin contact, inhalation, and other routes. Dichloroethene
may also display similar characteristics to vinyl chloride.
Ethylene dichloride is synonymous with the names
1,2-dichloroethane, dichloroethane, and DCA. It is poisonous by
inhalation, Ingestion, and intravenous routes. Dichloroethane is
moderately toxic by skin contact, intraperitoneal, and subcutaneous
routes. Vapors produce irritation to respiratory tract and conjunctiva,
6-3
-------
TAiLE 6.1
WORKER PROTECTION VALUES Ug/m3)
CHEMICAL
acetone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloroethane
dichloropropene
ethyl benzene
gasoline
jet fuel
ketones
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl iaobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
petrol eon hydrocarbons
styrene
1,1,1,2- tet rach I oroethane
1 , 1 , 2 , 2- tet rach I oroethane
toluene
trichloroethene
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
1,1.2-trichloroethane
1,2,3-trichloropropane
vinyl chloride
xylene (mixed)
OSHA
1,800,000
32,446**
12,600
350,000
2,600,000
9,780
» • •
4,000
5,000
435,000
900,000
...
...
590,000
205,000
353,577"
...
215,000
...
7,000
375,000
270,000
1,900,000
45,000
60,000
2,600**
435,000
NIOSH
590,000
320
12,600 (60 min Ceil)*
...
...
9,730 (60 min Ceil)*
...
4.050*
...
...
...
...
...
590,000
200,000
lowest feasible limit
...
213,000*
...
lowest detectable limit
376,000*
134,000*
1,904,000*
...
...
lowest detectable limit
434,000*
ACGIH
1,780,000
30.000
30,000
350,000
2,600,000
50,000
20,000
40,000
5,000
435,000
900,000
...
...
590,000
205,000
350,000
...
215,000
...
7,000
375,000
270,000
1,900,000
45,000
60,000
10,000
435,000
Conversion based on 25* centigrade
• Conversion based on 20* centigrade
6-4
-------
TMLE 6.2
EPA REFERENCE DOSE VALUES
FOR CHRONIC TOXICITY
acetone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloroethane
dichloropropene
ethyl benzene
gasoline
jet fuel
ketones
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyt ketone
methylene chloride
petrol eon hydrocarbons
styrene
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
toluene
trichloroethene
1.1,1-trichloroethene
1.1,2-triehloroethane
1,2,3-trichloropropene
vinyl chloride
xylene (mixed)
HO
NO
*°
NO
ND
ND
300
80
3,000
5,000
—
10,000
ND
ND
—
1,000
ND- not determined
Reference 2.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6.3
10~6 CARCINOGENIC RISK CONCENTRATIONS* (M9/M3)
acetone
benzene 0.12
carbon tetrachloride 0.067
ehlorobenzene
ehIoroethane
chloroform 0.043
1,1-dichloroethene 0.020
1,2-dichloroethane 0.038
dichloropropene —
ethyl benzene —
gasoline —
jet fuel
ketones —
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone —
methylene chloride 2.12
petroleon hydrocarbons —
styrene —
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane —
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane . 0.017
toluene —
trichloroethene 0.59
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.063
vinyl chloride 0.24
xylene —
8 Reference 2, 6, 7.
6-6
-------
TABLE 6.4
LOWEST STATE AIR TOXIC VALUES
acetone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chloroethene
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloroethane
dichloropropene
ethyl benzene
gasoline
jet fuel
ketones
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
petroleum hydrocarbons
styrene
1,1, 1 ,2-tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2,2- tetrachloroethane
toluene
tri chloroethene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane
1,2,3-trichloropropane
vinyl chloride
xylene (mixed)
AVERAGING TINES
8-HOUR
11,800
150
300
• •*
250
200
20
50
4,350
18,000
• • «
...
5,900
400
1,800
• • m
2,150
6.3 (annually)
34.4
1,870
1,350
19,000
225
3,000
50
2,170
24-HOUR
8,000
1.2
0.67
• » •
0.43
0.2
0.39
80
120
15,000
...
...
160
54
2.4
...
39
1.2
51
6.1
1200
0.99
14.3
1.0
59.2
Reference 1.
6-7
-------
corneal clouding, equilibrium disturbances, narcosis, and abdominal
cramps. This substance has been listed as a possible human carcinogen
by the EPA.
The chemical alpha-chloroallyl chloride Is commonly referred to as
dlchloropropene. It 1s poisonous by Inhalation and 1ngest1on and
moderately toxic by dermal route. Dlchloropropene 1s a strong irritant
that has shown mutagenic data. This chemical has produced liver and
kidney injury in experimental animals.
Ethyl benzene typically causes irritation to skin and mucous
membranes. A concentration of 0.1% of the vapor in air is an irritant
to human eyes. A concentration of 0.2% is extremely irritating at
first, then causes dizziness, irritation of the nose and throat and a
sense of constriction in the chest. No data is available regarding the
effect of chronic exposure. Ethyl benzene is an experimental teratogen.
Gasoline (from 50-100 octane) is synonymous with the name petrol.
Gasoline is a common air contaminant, moderately poisonous by
inhalation. Repeated or prolonged dermal exposure causes dermatitis, as
well as blistering of the skin. Inhalation and ingestion routes cause
central nervous system depression. Pulmonary aspiration can cause
severe pneumonitis. Some addiction has been reported from inhalation of
fumes. Brief inhalations of high concentrations can cause a fatal
pulmonary edema. Overexposure can cause hyperemia of the conjunctiva
and other disturbances of the eyes. Sufficient high concentrations in
air can cause it to become an asphyxiant.
Kerosene is synonymous with the names jet fuel, kerosine, and coal
oil. It is a poison by intravenous route. Kerosene 1s slightly toxic by
ingestion causing irritation of the stomach and intestines with nausea
and vomiting. Aspiration of vomitus can cause serious pneumonitis,
particularly in young children. Inhalation of high concentrations of
vapor can cause headache and stupor.
Ketones are associated with synonyms such as dimethyl ketones and
acetone, but no general statement can be made to the toxicity of this
compound. Some are highly volatile and may have a narcotic or
anesthetic effect. Skin absorption as well as inhalation may be routes
of entry into the body. None of the ketones have been shown to have a
high degree of chronic toxicity.
The chemical 2-Butanone is commonly referred to as methyl ethyl
ketone or MEK. It is an experimental teratogen. MEK is moderately
toxic by ingestion and dermal routes. It acts as an strong irritant and
affects peripheral nervous system and central nervous system. Eye
irritations occur at 350 ppm. MEK may also display similar
characteristics to ketones.
Hexone is commonly referred to as methyl isobutyl ketone or MIBK.
MIBK is moderately toxic by ingestion and inhalation, also poisonous via
intraperitoneal routes. It is a human systemic irritant by inhalation
and narcotic in high concentrations. MIBK may also display similar
characteristics to ketones.
6-8
-------
Methane dichloride, commonly referred to as methylene chloride, is
poisonous by Ingestion and Intravenous routes. It 1s moderately toxic
by Inhalation and other routes. Inhalation of methylene chloride,
effects the blood and central nervous system. It 1s moderately
Irritating to the eyes, but acts as a severe Irritant to the skin. It
has shown mutagenlc data, and 1s referred to as a strong narcotic but
has few other acute toxicity effects. It 1s listed by EPA as a probable
human carcinogen.
Petroleum mixtures of hydrocarbons from C2H6 and up are
synonymous with the names base oil, crude oil, and coal oil. Petroleum
hydrocarbons are noted as an experimental neoplastigen and carcinogen.
Styrene, a chemical which is poisonous by Ingestion and
intravenous routes, is also moderately toxic by inhalation and
intraperitoneal routes. Styrene is a skin and eye irritant. It has
shown mutagenic data, and is termed an probable carcinogen. This
chemical is a human systemic irritant and central nervous system
effects. It can cause irritation, violent itching of the eyes at 200
ppm, lacrimation, and severe human eye injuries. Its toxic effects are
usually transient and result in irritation and possible narcosis.
The chemical 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane is commonly abbreviated
TTCA. This possible human carcinogen displays moderate skin and severe
eye irritant. TTCA is a human systemic irritant by inhalation. When
heated to decomposition it emits very toxic fumes of C1-.
Acetylene tetrachloride is synonymous with the names
tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, TTCA, and perch!oroethene.
Tetrachloroethane is poisonous by inhalation and ingestion and
moderately toxic by skin contact. This probable human carcinogen is
considered to be the most toxic of common chlorinated hydrocarbons. It
is an irritant to the eyes, mucous membrane and upper respiratory trac..
It can cause dermatitis, produce atrophy and cirrhosis of the liver.
Central nervous system and peripheral nerve system effects can result
from exposure. Initial symptoms from vapors are lacrimation,
salivation, and irritation of the nose and throat. Continued exposure
results in restlessness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting and narcosis.
Tetrachloroethane shows mutagenic data. It is considered to be a very
severe industrial hazard and its use has been restricted or even
forbidden in certain countries.
Toluene, also known as methyl benzene, is common air contaminant
with human central nervous system and psychotropic effects. Toluene is
poisonous by intraperitoneal route, and moderately toxic by inhalation
and subcutaneous routes. This chemical typically causes skin and eye
irritation. Inhalation of 200 ppm of toluene for 8 hours may cause
impairment of coordination and reaction time. Higher concentrations (up
to 800 ppm) not only increase these effects but cause them to be
observed in a shorter time period. At 200-500 ppm, headache, nausea,
eye irritation, loss of appetite, bad taste, lassitude, impairment of
coordination and reaction time are reported, but are not usually
accompanied by any laboratory or physical findings of significance. At
6-9
-------
higher concentrations the same effects occur along with anemia, and
leucopenia, and an enlarged liver may be found 1n rare cases.
Acetylene trichloride commonly referred to as trlchloroethene,
trlchloroethylene, and TCE. It 1s an air common contaminant poisonous
by Intravenous route. This experimental carcinogen is moderately toxic
by other routes. Trichloroethene 1s a severe eye irritant. A form of
addiction has been observed In exposed workers.
The chemical 1,1,1-trichloroethane, is synonymous with the names
TCE, chloroethene, and methyl chloroform. The health effects associated
with this chemical are human psychotropic, gastrointestinal, and central
nervous system oriented. It is moderately toxic by ingestion and
intraperitoneal routes. TCE is a moderate skin and severe eye irritant.
In high concentrations it has been labeled narcotic. TCE has been known
to cause a proarrhythmic activity, which sensitizes the heart to
epinephrine induced arrhythmias. When this material is massively
inhaled as drug abuse, it will cause a cardiac arrest. EPA lists this
pollutant as a probable human carcinogen.
The chemical 1,1,2-trichloroethane is also known as
Beta-trichloroethane. It is poisonous by intravenous and subcutaneous
routes and moderately toxic by ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, and
intraperitoneal routes. B-trichloroethane is a moderate skin and severe
eye irritant. It has narcotic properties and acts as a local irritant
to the eyes, nose and lungs. It may also be injurious to the liver and
kidneys. This chemical is an experimental carcinogen with mutagenic
data. EPA lists this chemical as a possible human carcinogen.
Allyl trichloride is commonly referred to as
1,2,3-trichloropropane. This chemical is poisonous by ingestion,
inhalation, and possibly other routes. It is also moderately toxic by
skin contact and displays mutagenic data.
Vinyl chloride also known as chloroethene and chloroethylene, is a
human brain carcinogen, experimental neoplastigen and tumorigen by
inhalation. It causes skin burns by rapid evaporation and consequent
freezing. In high concentration, it acts as an anesthetic. It is a
severe irritant by inhalation to skin, eyes, and mucous membranes.
Chronic exposure of vinyl chloride has shown liver injury. Circulatory
and bone changes in the fingertips have been reported in workers
handling unpolymerized materials.
Xylene, commonly referred to as aromatic hydrocarbons or
dimethyl benzene, is poisonous by intraperitoneal route. It is
moderately toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and subcutaneous routes.
Xylene is a severe human eye irritant and may cause some temporary
corneal effects, as well as some conjunctival irritation. Irritation
can start at 200 ppm. It is also a moderate skin irritant with human
irritant (systemic) effects.
6-10
-------
6.6 LIST OF REFERENCES
1. National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse. Draft Report,
OAQPS, RTP, NC. July 1989.
2. USEPA. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Second
Quarter, FY 1989.
3. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienlsts,
Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for
1987-1988. Second Printing.
4. Sax, N.I., and Lewis, R.J., Hawley's Condensed Chemical
Dictionary. Eleventh Edition.
5. Sax, N.I., and Lewis, R.J., Hazardous Chemicals Desk
Reference.
6. Integrated Risk Information System.
7. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
6-11
-------
APPENDIX A
CONTROL EQUIPMENT COST ESTIMATES
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
The purpose of this appendix is to provide case examples
utilizing the costing procedures outlined in sections 5.1 and 5.2, which
are taken from Reference 1. The case examples presented in this section
are hypo-thetical examples selected to illustrate the appropriate
costing methodology. All three examples assume replacement costs (i.e.
carbon, catalyst) to be zero.
A.1.1 Carbon Canister System
Table A.I contains process information to be used for the
purposes of calculating capital and annualized costs for the canister
system example. Note that the flowrate for this example is less than
the flowrates for the other two examples. This reflects the fact that
canister systems are usually employed in cases where flowrates are
fairly low.
A.1.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate
The capital cost estimate for this system follows the methodology
given in Section 5.1.1. First, equation 5-1A is used to calculate the
carbon requirement, Me. Using the appropriate value of Mvoe given in
Table A.I, the carbon requirement is 2,000 Ibs. This value divided by
150 Ibs yields the required canister number (RCN) of 14. From Table
5.1, a canister cost of $622 each (in April 1986 $) is obtained. This
cost is escaled to April 1989 $ using a factor of 1.258. This factor
was obtained using cost indices of 391.0 (April 1989) divided by 310.9
(April 1986). The escalated canister cost (EC) then becomes $780. This
value is multiplied by the RCN (-14) and 1.08 to obtain a canister
equipment cost (CEC) of $11,800. The total capital investment (TCI) is
estimated as 120 percent of this total, or $14,600.
A.1.1.2 Annual Cost Estimate
As stated in section 5.1.1.2, annual costs consist of direct and
indirect costs. Direct costs for a carbon adsorption canister system
include electricity and solid waste disposal. The pressure drop through
a canister system is a function of flowrate and can be estimated using
the appropriate equation presented in Table 5.4. However, note that the
equation presented for canister systems is based upon a single 150 "Ib
canister. To correctly use the equation in this case, it is necessary
to divide the average flowrate by the RCN, to estimate the pressure drop
across a single canister. The total flowrate is 500 scfm. The flowrate
through each canister is 1/14 of this or 36 scfm. The equation given in
Table 5.3 then yields a pressure drop of 2.9 inches of water. The
pressure drop of any additional piping is assumed negligible, giving a
total system pressure drop of 2.9 inches water. The system fan
A-2
-------
horsepower, hpsf, 1s calculated using the equation given 1n Table 5.3,
the pressure drop calculated above, and the system flowrate given in
Table A.I (500 scfm). The horsepower 1s found to equal 0.36 hp. There
1s no cooling water for canister systems, thus hpcw equals zero.
The required electricity usage is calculated using the
appropriate equation given in Table 5.3, the horsepower requirement
obtained above, and the operating hours given in Table A.I. The annual
electricity usage 1s found to be 135 kWh/yr. The electricity cost is
obtained by multiplying this value by the cost of electricity given in
Table 5.2 ($0.059/kWh). This yields an annual electricity cost of about
$10.
Operating labor costs are estimated by dividing the operating
hours (500) by the hours per shift (8) and multiplying this quotient
(62.5) by operator hours per shift given in Table 5.2 to obtain a value
of 31.3 hours. This value is multiplied by the estimated labor rate of
$13.00/hr to obtain an operating cost of $410/yr. Supervisory labor is
estimated as 15 percent of this total, or $60/yr. Maintenance costs are
estimated in Identical fashion except the labor rate is slightly higher
to reflect greater skills. Maintenance labor costs are estimated to be
$450/yr. Materials costs are assumed to equal this value, at $450/yr.
Solid waste disposal costs consist of transportation and landfill
costs. For this example, transportation costs were assumed to be zero.
Landfill costs are given in Reference 1 as between $35 and $65 per
canister. To obtain a landfill cost estimate, the higher value
($65/canister) was escalated to April 1989 $ using the CE general index.
Note that the equipment cost indices are inappropriate since this cost
is not equipment related. Using the appropriate indices (354.6/318.4)
to escalate the costs to April 1989 $, the landfill costs per canister
are about $72. Multiplying this cost by the RCN (14) yields a landfill
cost of $1,000.
Indirect cost items include overhead, property tax, insurance and
administration, and the capital recovery cost. The capital recovery
factor is assumed to equal 1.0 as stated in Section 5.1.1.2.
Overhead costs are estimated as 60 percent of the sum of
operating and maintenance costs as shown in Table 5.2. The overhead
cost in this case equals $830/yr. Property tax, insurance, and
administration costs are estimated at four percent of the TCI ($13,100)
or $520/yr. The capital recovery cost is estimated to equal the TCI,or
$14,100. Table A.2 presents a summary of the annualized costs for this
example.
A.1.2 Regenerative Carbon Adsorber System
For purposes of calculating capital and annualized costs, the
information contained in Table A.3 is assumed to have been obtained
prior to attempting capital and annualized cost estimates.
A-3
-------
TABLE A.I
Item and Description Value
M^, Inlet loading 25 Ibs/hr
HRS, Operating hours 500 hrs/yr
Flowrate, scfm 500
A-4
-------
TABLE A.2
ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR CARBON CANISTER SYSTEM
Cost Element Value
DIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Utilities
a. Electricity $ 10
b. Solid Waste Disposal $1,000
2. Operating:
a. Labor $ 410
b. Supervision $ 60
3. Maintenance
a. Labor $ 450
b. Materials $ 450
4. Landfill SI.OOP
Total Direct costs $3,380
INDIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Overhead $ 820
2. Property Tax, Insurance, and
Administration $ 520
3. Capital Recovery Cost $14.100
Total Indirect costs $15,440
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS $18,820
A-5
-------
TABLE A.3
REGENERATIVE CARBON ADSORPTION PROCESS INFORMATION
Item and Description
Value
loading
HRS, operating hours
Ps, steam price
Pcw, cooling water price
Qe, flowrate
H, required head
S, specific gravity of fluid
n, pump and motor efficiency
Cc, carbon cost
Cce, replacement labor cost
qcw, cooling water flowrate
25 Ibs/hr
500 hrs/yr
S6.00/103 Ibs
SO.30/103 gal
5000 acfm
100 ft. H20
1.00
65 percent
$2.00/1b
$0.05/lb
20 gpm
A-6
-------
A.1.2.1 Capital Costs
Proceeding as Section 5.1.2 suggests, equations 5-1B and 5-3 are
used to calculate the cost of carbon. These equations yield a carbon
requirement of 4,000 Ibs and a cost of $8,000. Next, equations 5-4
through 5-7 are used to obtain the vessel dimensions. Using values
given in Table A.3, equation 5-4 yields a diameter of 3.05 feet, while
equation 5-5 gives a length of 27.3 feet. Equation 5-6 then gives a
value of 276 for S. Using equation 5-7 gives a vessel cost in April
1986 dollars of $13,500. This cost 1s then updated to $17,000 in
Springl989 $ using the CE cost Index. Equation 5-8 is then used to
obtain the purchased equipment cost of $58,400. The total purchased
equipment cost (TPE) includes taxes and freight and is estimated as 108
percent of the purchased equipment cost. The TPE in this example equals
$63,100. The total capital Investment (TCI) is estimated as a function
of the TPE as shown in Table 5.4. A factored estimation method is used
to obtain the TCI. For this example, the TCI equals $101,500.
A.1.1.2 Annualized Costs
As section 5.1.2.5 indicates, annualized costs for a regenerative
carbon adsorber system includes direct and indirect costs. Direct costs
for a regenerative system consists of steam, electricity, and water
costs, as well as operating labor, maintenance costs and replacement
parts. For the purposes of this report, replacement parts for a
regenerative system is assured to be zero given that SVE installations
operate for short periods of time.
To estimate the steam costs Cs, the appropriate equation given in
Table 5.3 yields a cost of $260 using the values given in Table A.3.
Similarly, the cooling water cost is estimated as $270. To estimate the
system pressure drop, it is first necessary to calculate the bed
thickness. This is done using the equation given in Table 5.3 under
electricity costs. The bed thickness for this example is calculated as
0.80 feet. In turn, this yields a system pressure drop (Pb) of 2.08
inches of water. Next, the system fan horsepower, hpsf, is calculated
as 2.6 hp. Similarly, the cooling water horsepower, hpcw, is calculated
as 0.77 hp. The required electricity usage is then calculated at 1,260
kwh/wk using the appropriate equation in Table 5.3. The electricity
cost is then estimated as $80/yr using a cost factor of $0.059/kwh as
given in Table 5.2.
Operating labor is calculated using system operating hours per
year from Table A.3 (500) and dividing this value by 8 hrs/shift,
multiplying by 0.5 hr per shift as given in Table 5.2, and multiplying
this product by $13.00/yr. This yields a operating labor cost of
$410/yr. Supervisory labor is estimated at 15 percent of this cost or
$60/yr. Maintenance labor is estimated in an identical fashion as
operating labor, or $450/yr. This higher cost reflects increased skill
levels for maintenance personnel. Materials are estimated at 100
percent of this value, or $450/yr. Replacement costs and solid waste
disposal costs are estimated to be zero for this case.
A-7
-------
TABLE A.4
ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR REGENERATIVE CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
Cost Element Value
DIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Utilities:
a. Steam $ 260
b. Cooling water $ 270
c. Electricity $ 80
2. Operating:
a. Operating Labor $ 410
b. Supervisory Labor $ 60
3. Maintenance:
a. Maintenance labor $ 450
b. Materials $ 450
4. Replacement
a. Carbon $ 0
b. Labor $ 0
Total Direct Costs $1,980
INDIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Overhead $ 820
2. Property Tax, Insurance, and
Administrative $4,060
3. Capital Recovery $101.500
Total Indirect Costs $106,380
Total Annualized Costs $108,360
A-8
-------
Indirect annuallzed costs consist of overhead which 1s estimated
as 60 percent of operating and maintenance costs, or $820/yr. Property
tax, Insurance and administration 1s estimated as four percent of the
total capital Investment or $4,060. Finally, the capital recovery cost
1s estimated as $101,500 as stated in Section 5.1.2.5. The salvage
value is assumed zero. Table A.4 provides a summary of the annualized
costs for this example.
A.2.1 Catalytic Incinerator System
Table A.5 provides data from which the capital and annualized
costs of a catalytic incinerator system are estimated. As stated in
Section 5.2, calculation of several variables (e.g., supplemental fuel
and dilution air requirements, and initial catalyst requirement)
arebeyond the scope of this report. Reference 1 can be used to obtain
the values for these parameters and to acquaint the reader with a more
detailed cost methodology for catalytic incinerator systems. For
purposes of this report, it is assumed that the variables given in Table
A.5 are known and do not need to be calculated.
A.2.1.1 Capital Cost
Using Figure 5.1, a catalytic incinerator equipment cost of about
$79,000 in April 1986 $ is obtained for a flowrate of 5000 scfm with no
heat exchanger. The cost of auxiliary equipment is assumed zero for
this example. This cost can be updated to April 1989 $ by use of the CE
cost index as follows: $79,000 x (391.9/310.6) - $99,700. Table 5.5
can then be used to obtain a total purchased equipment cost of $117,650
(99,700 x 1.18). The total capital investment (TCI) is then estimated
as $189,420.
A.2.1.2 Annualized Cost
As stated in Section 5.2.3, annualized costs consist of direct
and indirect costs. For a catalytic incinerator, direct costs are
composed of utilities, operating and maintenance costs, and replacement
parts (i.e., catalyst). Given that SVE installations typically have a
short lifetime, it is assumed that no catalyst replacement is necessary
and hence, replacement costs are zero.
From Tables 5.6 and A.5, an approximation of the system pressure
drop, P, can be obtained, and equals 6 inches of water for the
incinerator, and 1 inch water for ductwork and stack for system total of
7 inches water. Equation 5-10 is then used to obtain the electricity
cost of $190/yr. From Table A.5, the fuel requirement is taken to be
$4,000/yr. Operating costs are estimated by taking the operating hours
per year (500), dividing this by 8 hr/shift, multiplying this quotient
by 0.5 hrs/shift, and multiplying the result by $13.00/hr to obtain
S410/yr. Supervisory costs are estimated as 15 percent of this value,
or $60/yr. Similarly, maintenance costs are estimated at $450/yr, with
materials also estimated at $450/yr. As stated above, replacement costs
are assumed zero for this example.
Indirect annualized costs consist of overhead, property tax,
insurance and administration, and the capital recovery cost. The
A-9
-------
TABLE A.5
CATALYTIC INCINERATOR PROCESS INFORMATION
Item and Descr1ot1on
Value
Q, System flowrate, scfm
Heat exchanger efficiency
Fuel requirements
MRS operating hours per year
S, specific gravity of fluid
n, combined fan and motor efficiency
'cat'
initial catalyst cost using base metals)
Ductwork and stack pressure drop
5,000
none required
$4,000/yr
500
1.00
65 percent
$18,000
1 inch H20
A-10
-------
capital recovery factor 1s assumed to equal 1.0 1n this report as
discussed In Section 5.2.3.2. Overhead costs are estimated at 60
percent of operating and maintenance costs, for a total of $820/yr.
Property tax, Insurance and administration 1s estimated as four percent
of the total capital Investment, or $7,580/yr. Finally, the capital
recovery cost equals the total capital Investment or $189,420. The
equipment salvage value 1s assumed zero for this case. Table A.6
provides a summary of the annual 1 zed costs for this example.
A-ll
-------
TABLE A.6
ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATOR SYSTEM
Cost Element Value
DIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Utilities
a. Electricity $ 190
b. Fuel $4,000
2. Operating:
a. Labor $ 410
b. Supervision $ 60
3. Maintenance
a. Labor $ 450
b. Materials $ 450
4. Replacement
a. Catalyst $ 0
Total Direct Costs $5,560
INDIRECT ANNUALIZED COSTS
1. Overhead $ 820
2. Property Tax, Insurance, and
Administration $7,580
3. Capital Recovery Cost $189.420
Total Indirect Costs $197,760
Total Annualized Costs $203,380
A-12
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(fltat nod Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-450/4-89-017
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION VOC CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT
AUTHOR(S)
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Pacific. Environmental Services, Inc.
3708 Mayfair, Suite 202
Durham, North Carolina 27707
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
B. REPORT DATE
September 1989
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
DCN 90-203-080-61-02
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
61
11. CONTRACT/OP. ANT NO.
68-02-4393
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) is an emerging technology in which volatile organic
chemicals (VOC) are extracted from soil through use of a vacuum system. Fresh air may
be injected or drawn into the subsurface at locations in and around contaminated soil
to enhance the extraction process. The VOC laden air is withdrawn under vacuum from
recovery or extraction wells which are placed in selected locations within the con-
taminated site. This air is then either vented directly to the atmosphere, or.it is
vented to a VOC treatment system such as a carbon adsorber or a catalytic incinerator
prior to being released to the atmosphere. The decision to employ a VOC control system
treatment is largely dependent upon VOC concentrations and applicable regulations.
The purpose of the report is to provide insight into the operation of SVE systems
in general and to develop and summarize information on the factors associated with
determining applicable VOC control systems. These factors include the feasibility,
relative cost, and performance of various air pollution control techniques.
The report consists of a brief overview of SVE design and operation and includes a
listing of SVE facilities identified during this investigation. The report also identi-
fies specific sites utilizing VOC control systems and includes a brief discussion on
specific site criteria. The report presents capital and annualized cost estimation
techniques for selected VOC control treatment systems.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Soil Vapor Extraction
Air Pollution
Superfund
Remediation
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Soil Vapor
Extraction
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PACES
22. PRICE
EPA F*rm 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) PNKVIOUS COITION i* OMOLCTE
------- |