oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Control Technology
Center
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-87-017
August 1987
Air Stripping of
Contaminated Water
Sources—Air
Emissions and
Controls
control if technology center
-------
EPA-450/3-87-017
AIR STRIPPING OF CONTAMINATED WATER SOURCES -
AIR EMISSIONS AND CONTROLS
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
SPONSORED BY:
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
August 1987
U S. Environmental Protection
ft^ion 5, Library {PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, iZw
Chicago. IL 60604-3590
-------
NOTICE
This report was prepared by Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park,
NC. It has been reviewed for technical accuracy by the Emission Standards
and Engineering Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
and the Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory of the Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not
intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of
this report are available from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared for the Control Technology Center by M.A. Vancit,
R.H. Howie, D.J. Herndon, and S.A. Shareef of Radian Corporation. The EPA
project leader was R.J. McDonald of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Also serving on the EPA project team was M. Kosusko of the
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory.
n
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 BACKGROUND .......................... 2-1
2.1 Ground Water Contamination Sources ........... 2-1
/2.2 Potential Clean-up Techniques .............. 2-1
2.3 Data Gathering Approach ................. 2-2
/2.4 Air Stripper System Installations ............ 2-4
2.5 References ....................... 2-12
3.0 AIR STRIPPING TECHNOLOGY AND EMISSIONS ............ 3-1
<3.1 Air Stripping Technology ................ 3-1
3.2 Air Emissions From Air Strippers ............ 3-3
3.3 Factors Affecting Air Emissions ............. 3-10
3.4 References ....................... 3-26
4.0 EMISSION CONTROLS ...................... 4-1
4.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption .......... 4-5
4.2 Thermal Incineration .................. 4-14
4.3 Catalytic Incineration ................. 4-15
4.4 Flares ......................... 4-16
4.5 References ....................... 4-20
5.0 COST OF CONTROLS ....................... 5-1
5.1 Granular Activated Carbon ................ 5-1
5.2 Thermal Incineration .................. 5-5
5.3 Catalytic Incineration ................. 5-11
5.4 Control Technology Cost Comparison ........... 5-18
5.5 References ....................... 5-24
6.0 SITE VISIT REPORTS ...................... 6-1
6.1 Site A ......................... 6-1
6.2 Site B ......................... 6-5
6.3 Verona Well Field .................... 6-9
6.4 References ....................... 6-14
7.0 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AIR IMPACTS FOR CONTROLS ........ 7-1
7.1 References ....................... 7-8
Appendix A
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
2-1 List of Identified Air Strippers 2-5
3-1 Available Data on Air Stripper Loadings and Performance ... 3-4
3-2 Estimates of Uncontrolled Air Emissions 3-11
3-3 Summary of Estimated Air Emissions 3-17
3-4 Summary of Calculated Loadings for 52 Air Strippers 3-19
3-5 Summary of Reported Removal Efficiencies 3-20
4-1 Air Emission Requirements for Air Strippers 4-2
4-2 Facilities Using Air Emission Controls on Air Strippers . . . 4-4
4-3 Parameters and Removal Efficiencies for Air Emissions
Control Devices 4-6
4-4 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorber Performance Data for the
Tyson's Dump Site 4-8
4-5 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorber Performance Data for
Verona Well Field 4-10
4-6 Mixture Compositions and Target Concentrations for Catalytic
Oxidation Tests 4-19
5-1 Air Stream and Carbon Bed Data for Four Facilities 5-3
5-2 Installed Costs for GAC Control 5-4
5-3 Unit Cost Factors and Consumption Bases for GAC Control ... 5-6
5-4 Operating Costs for GAC Control 5-7
5-5 Estimated Installed Costs for Thermal Incinerators at Four
Sites 5-9
5-6 Unit Cost Factors and Consumption Bases for Thermal
Incineration Control 5-10
5-7 Estimated Operating Costs for Thermal Incineration Control
at Four Sites 5-12
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number paqe
5-8 Estimated Installed Costs for Catalytic Incinerator
at Traverse City, MI 5-13
5-9 Operating Costs for Catalytic Incineration Control at
Traverse City, MI 5-14
5-10 Estimated Installed Costs for Catalytic Incinerators at
Four Sites 5-15
5-11 Unit Cost Factors and Consumption Bases for Catalytic
Incineration Control 5-17
5-12 Operating Costs for Catalytic Incineration Control at Four
Sites 5-19
5-13 Summary of Costs for GAC, Incineration, and Catalytic
Incineration Controls 5-20
7-1 Emission Factors for Fuel Combustion 7-2
7-2 Estimated Utility Requirements for Each Site 7-4
A-l EPA Telephone Contacts A-2
A-2 State Telephone Contacts A-5
A-3 Facility Telephone Contacts A_g
A-4 Equipment Vendor Telephone Contacts A-10
A-5 Engineering Consultants Telephone Contacts A-ll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
3-1 Typical air stripper system 3-2
3-2 Removal efficiency of PCE for a pilot scale air stripper. . . 3-22
3-3 Emissions as a function of time for six air strippers .... 3-23
3-4 Emissions as a function of time at four air strippers .... 3-24
4-1 Destruction efficiency of a pilot scale catalytic incinerator
for benzene and toluene in air stripper exhaust 4-17
4-2 Destruction efficiency of a pilot scale catalytic incinerator
for organic mixtures simulating air stripper exhaust 4-18
6-1 Air stripping system with on-site carbon regeneration at
Site A 6-2
6-2 Air stripping system with on-site carbon regeneration at
Site B 6-7
6-3 Air stripping system with non-regenerable carbon at Verona
Well Field 6-11
7-1 Organic removal and estimated emissions for control devices
at Site A 7-5
7-2 Organic removal and estimated emissions for control devices
at Site B 7-6
7-3 Organic removal and estimated emissions for control devices
at Verona Well Field 7-7
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Control Technology Center (CTC) was established by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development and the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards to assist State and local air pollution
control agencies in the implementation of their air toxics and other pollution
control programs. Three levels of assistance can be accessed through the
CTC. First, a CTC HOTLINE has been established to provide telephone
assistance on matters relating to air pollution control technology. Second,
more in-depth engineering assistance can be provided when appropriate.
Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of
technical guidance documents, development of personal computer software,
and presentation of workshops on control technology matters.
The technical guidance documents, such as this one, focus on topics
of national interest that are identified through contact with State and local
agencies. The purpose of this document is to identify air pollution control
alternatives and present information on removal efficiencies, costs, and other
relevant impacts of control. The decision of whether or not to regulate a
source category and the selection of the technology on which to base regulation
is the responsibility of the individual State or local authorities. This
document is intended to provide technical assistance in making such decisions.
By inclusion in this document, EPA does not necessarily endorse the use of any
particular control technology for all applications.
-------
This document is one of the first products to be developed by the
CTC. Because of the number of questions that the CTC received about the
control of air emissions from air stripping towers and the knowledge that
this process is commonly used in many States, the CTC determined that
information on this subject would be of interest to many State and local
ayencies
1-2
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
Packed tower air stripping is often selected to treat contaminated water
sources. However, unless controlled, the contaminants are simply transferred
from the water bodies to the air. The purpose of this study was to
investigate the emission controls presently being used for air strippers,
their performance, and the capital and operating costs of these controls.
This information was collected through a literature search, telephone
contacts, and site visits. This report presents the available performance and
cost data for the air stripper emission controls identified in this study.
When actual cost data were not available, estimates were made and are also
presented in this report.
2.1 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION SOURCES
In general, ground water contamination occurs due to four main sources.
Underground storage tank leaks are often a source of ground water
contamination. Improper disposal practices and accidental spills are another
source of ground water contamination. Ground water contamination can also be
caused by process leaks. Finally, landfill leachate, containing a wide range
of chemicals, can be a major source of ground water contamination.
The above contamination sources can result in varying concentrations of
»
many different compounds. The concentration of a given compound found does
not appear to depend on the contamination source. Some of these contaminants
may be potential carcinogens, while others may be toxic or cause odor or taste
problems.
2.2 POTENTIAL CLEAN-UP TECHNIQUES
After ground water contamination has been discovered and a clean-up is
deemed necessary, the type of clean-up technology must be selected. Air
stripping, aqueous-phase carbon adsorption, diffused-air aeration, in-ground
aeration, spray tower, redwood slat tower, and photochemical oxidation are
some examples of ground water clean-up techniques presently being used. Of
l-l
-------
these, air stripping and aqueous-phase carbon adsorption are the most
prevalent.
Air stripping is often compared to aqueous-phase carbon adsorption when
evaluating cleanup alternatives. When technically feasible, air strippers are
often selected over carbon adsorbers due to their lower operating cost. In
general cost comparisons, air stripping costs have been reported to range from
2 to 30 cents per 1,000 gallons compared to 20 to 90 cents per 1,000 gallons
1 2
for aqueous-phase carbon adsorption. Even with the additional expense of
an air emission control device, the total cost of an air stripper system can
be less than that of an aqueous-phase carbon adsorber.
Costs of installing and operating the air stripping system with emissions
control (carbon adsorber) were compared with costs for a temporary
aqueous-phase, granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment system used at the
o
Verona Well Field site. In this comparison, the air stripping system with
emission control resulted in the lower total project cost for operation longer
than two years. For shorter operation periods, the aqueous-phase carbon
system offers lower costs.
Each cleanup project requires careful consideration of technical,
economic, and environmental factors. Although air stripping may offer
economic advantages, aqueous-phase GAC may be selected for its capability to
maintain effluent quality in spite of flow variation, changes in contaminant
mix or levels, and ability to be thermally regenerated insuring destruction of
contaminants.
2.3 DATA GATHERING APPROACH
A systematic contact procedure was followed to collect information on
currently operating air strippers and their air emission control systems.
Regional EPA Offices were contacted initially. They provided information on
air strippers operating in their regions as well as other contacts in State
agencies, private contractors, and at the site. The State personnel provided
data and contacts with private contractors at specific sites as well. Private
contractors mainly supplied data for specific air stripper systems. Equipment
vendors were contacted throughout the investigation. In addition, literature
sources were also reviewed during the study and pertinent information was
2-2
-------
extracted from these published sources. The above information sources are
briefly described below.
2.3.1 EPA Regional and Program Offices
EPA Regional offices were contacted at the starting point. Project
managers for ground water clean-up projects were contacted first, if a name
was available. The project managers often had data on an air stripping site
and also provided names of sites other than their own that use air stripping.
Contacts were made with several branches within a Region to obtain a thorough
listing of air stripper sites. In the Waste Management Divisions within the
Regional Offices, Superfund Branch Chiefs were usually contacted for
information. In the Water Management Division, appropriate Branch Chiefs for
either ground water or drinking water were contacted. Although not usually
able to supply data on air strippers, the Branch Chiefs were able to provide
names of other EPA personnel with data on air strippers.
In addition to Regional EPA Offices, the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory (MERL) and Office of Drinking Water were contacted. MERL
identified several reports on air stripping and other methods for contaminated
water clean-up. The Office of Drinking Water supplied information on field
studies.
2.3.2 State Air and/or Water Personnel
While contacting EPA personnel, the names of State personnel
knowledgeable about air strippers operating in their state were sought. The
State contacts given were usually involved with water quality offices or
Superfund clean ups. Although not obtained for all States, these names were
used as primary contacts within a State, when available.
Additional names were obtained from the National Air Toxics Information
Cleaning House (NATICH) database. This database provided names of the persons
involved with air discharge permits for all the States. Because of time
constraints, not all States were contacted during this study. Contacts were
made with agencies in about 30 States.
2-3
-------
2.3.3 Equipment Vendors
Several equipment vendors were contacted for information on air strippers
and control devices. Sometimes a previous EPA or State contact provided the
name of a vendor. In other cases, if a vendor was known to have supplied
equipment at a site, that vendor was contacted. Usually, however, a company
was selected for contact because of its advertised listing in the Thomas
Register or the "Pollution Engineering" Environmental Equipment Directory.
Because of client confidentiality requirements by the vendors, little
information was collected from this source.
2.3.4 Plant Personnel
When information on an air stripper was incomplete or unavailable to the
EPA or State personnel, a contact at the site was sometimes given. Plant
personnel were contacted only if referenced by someone.
2.3.5 Private Consultants
Private consultants were able to provide significant information on
several sites. Plant personnel frequently referred questions on the air
strippers to their consulting engineering firm. EPA and State personnel also
sometimes referred questions to the consulting firm. In some instances,
consulting firms provided contacts within their own firm for information on
other air stripper installations.
2.3.6 Literature
A literature search was performed to gather general information on air
stripping. Although not extensive, it did provide some data on air strippers
and references for contacts in industry.
2.4 AIR STRIPPER SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS
This study identified 177 air stripper systems in the United States. It
is uncertain what fraction of the total air stripper systems currently
operating have been identified. Table 2-1 shows the location and general site
data for the air strippers identified during this investigation.
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF IDENTIFIED AIR STRIPPERS
Facllltv/Locatlon
Name
—
Confidential
Confidential
General Dynamics
Private Industry
Unidentified
Unidentified
Hughes Aircraft
Motorola 52nd St.
Unidentified
Aerojet
AMD, Inc. (1)
AMD, Inc. (2)
Applied Materials
Baldwin Park
Bechtel National. Inc.
Beckman Instruments
BKK Landfill
Calabasas Landfill
CMco Well Sta. 16-01
Fa1rch1ld
Firestone
Gas-N-Save, Armour Oil
McClellan AFB
Modern Landfill
Palos Verdes Landfill
Private Industry
Raytheon
City
EPA Region I
City of Scottsdale
Scottsdale
Tucson
Phoenix
N. Hlywd-Brbnk D1st.
Sacramento
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Valley County
Merced
Portervllle
West Covlna
CMco
South San Jose
Salinas
Davis
Sacramento
Palos Verdes
San Jose
Mountain View
State
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Startup
Date Superfund Type
8/87 N GW
4/87 N GW
N GW
n v*«
GW
GW
1984 D**
4/87 GW
6/87 GW
DW
GW
GW
GW
GW
1988 N DW
GW
8/85 N GW
LF
LF
DW
GW
2/86 G*
GW
N GW
LF
LF
GW
GW
•-
References
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
13
14
6
15,16
6
6
11
17
1 C
iz>
16
18,19
6
20
6
21
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF IDENTIFIED AIR STRIPPERS
ro
i
Fad 1 1ty/ Location
Name
Sharps Army Depot
VaMan Associates
Lowry Landfill
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
CT American Water Co.
Kellogg-Deerlng
Pratt 4 Whitney
Private Industry
Unidentified
Unidentified
Five Ash Well
Harris Corp.
IT Corporation
Piper Aircraft
Pratt 4 Whitney
Private Industry
Private Industry
Sydney Mine
Scoffeld Barracks
Dyco Co., Inc.
ACME Solvent
Mystic Tape/Borden Chem.
Sundstrand
Main St. Well Field
Boe 1 ng
City
Lathrop
Santa Clara
Denver
South Cheshire
Her 1 den
Darlen
Norwalk
Mlddletown
Ft. Pierce
Port Malabar
Ft. Lauderdale
Melbourne
Vero Beach
West Palm Beach
Hill sborough County
Wheeler AFB
Des Molnes
Rockford
Northfleld
Rockford
Elkhart
Wichita
State
CA
CA
CO
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
HI
IA
IL
IL
IL
IN
KS
Startup
Date
1984
1985
1984
"5/87
7/86
4/84
2/87
1984
"1983
1/85
9/86
7/87
7/87
10/86
Superfund Type
GW
GW
Y LF
DW
GW
DW
DW
Y GW
GW
GW
N GW
N GW
N DW
Y GW
GW
GW
Y GW
GW
GW
N GW
N GW
Y GW
GW
GW
GW
Y DW
N GW
References
22,23
24
25
8
6
8
6
26
6
6
27
28,29
30
31
6
32
31
6
6
33,34
35
36
37
37
37
38,39
40,41
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF IDENTIFIED AIR STRIPPERS
Facll 1tv/Locat1on
Name
General Electric
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
M/A-COM
Private Industry
Private Industry
Unidentified
U. S. Coast Guard
Verona Well Field
Wurtsmlth AFB
Organlcs/LaGrange Inc.
Sundstrand Heat Transfer
AAR Brooks i Perkins
Brunswick D1v.
Clark Equip. Co.
Dowel 1 D1v.
Gast Manufacturing
Gast Manufacturing
Marathon Petr.
Cooper Ind.
U. S. Avlex
Westslde Landfill
Chemcentral
Unidentified
Unidentified
City
Arkansas City
Dedham
Acton Water District
Burl Ington
Raynham
Burl Ington
Thurmont
Traverse City
Battle Creek
Oscoda
Fennvll le
Dowaglac
Cadillac
Muskegon
Springfield
Kalkaska
Brldgman
Benton Harbor
Cadillac
Albion
N1les
St. Jos. City
Grand Rapids
Atwater
Spring Grove
State
KS
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
Startup
Date Superfund Type
GW
GW
1984 N DW
GW
1984 DW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
9/84 Y GW
1982 N GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
LF
LF
4/85 N GW
3/86 N GW
References
40,42
6
43
6
8
6
6
6
6
18
3,44,45
46
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
48
49
49
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF IDENTIFIED AIR STRIPPERS
ro
i
co
Fac1l1tv/Locat1on
Name
Electronic Ind.
General Mills
WMtaker Site
Private Industry
Eaton
Monroe Auto
Gllson Rd.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Channel Master, Inc.
Denvllle Water Dept.
E. Hanover Water Dept.
McGraw Edison
Private Industry
Private Industry
South Brunswick TWP
VO-TECH H.S.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
City
New Hope
Mlnneapol Is
Mlnneapol Is
St. Louis
Kearney
Cozad
Nashua
State
MN
MN
MN
MO
NE
NE
NH
Startup
Date
5/85
5/85
9/86
7/86
Town of East Hanover NJ
Rocky H111
Mountainside
Falrfleld
Pla1nf1e1d
Rockaway
Vestal
Ellenvllle
Denvllle
East Hanover
Olean
Dover
Brunswick
Warren County
H1cksv1lle, Long
Garden City Park
Lake Success
Queens
Floral Park
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
Island NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
7/83
1985
1984
1987
2/82
1979
1984
1985
1985
1985
1984
1984
1985
Superfund Type
N GW
GW
N GW
GW
GW
N GW
Y GW
GW
DW
DW
DW
DW
N DW
GW
GW
DW
DW
GW
GW
GW
DW
GW
DW
DW
N DW
DW
DW
References
49
49
49
6
50
50
18
6
8,51
8
52
8
8,51,53
6
6
51
51
6
6
6
8,51
6
8,54
8
52
8
8
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF IDENTIFIED AIR STRIPPERS
IN.
I
Facll 1tv/Locat1on
Name
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Citizens Water Supply
EPA Region II
Jamaica Water Supply Co.
Jamaica Water Supply Co.
Private Industry
Private Industry
Private Industry
Suffolk Co. Water Auth.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Chem Dyne
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Superior Tube Co.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Al 1 led Bendlx
AMP, INC.
AMP. INC.
AMP, INC.
City
New Hyde Park
Brewster
South Huntlngton
Cortland
Northport
Great Neck, Long
Hlcksvllle
Nassau County
Nassau County
Long Island
Zanesvll la
Dayton
Hamilton
Upper Merlon (13)
Hatboro (J2)
WarMngton
Upper Merlon (12)
NorMstown
Hatboro (fit
Flower Town Well
South Mont rose
WllHamstown (#1)
Codorus (fl)
Codorus (12)
State
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Island NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Startup
Date Superfund Type
1985 DW
1983 N DW
GW
GW
1984 DW
1984 DW
GW
DW
DW
GW
GW
GW
DW
N DW
2/88 N GW
GW
1985 DW
1985 DW
1982 DW
1985 DW
"1980 N DW
1984 DW
N DW
GW
GW
GW
GW
References
8
8,54,55
6
6
6,8
8,54
6
54
54
6
6
6
6
51
56
57
8
8
8
8
52
8
58
59
59
59
59
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF IDENTIFIED AIR STRIPPERS
ro
i
Facllltv/Locatlon
Name
AMP, INC.
AMP, INC.
Audubon Water Co.
Audubon Water Co.
AVCO Lycomlng (1)
AVCO Lycomlng (2)
AVCO Lycomlng (3)
Boyertown Landfill
Fischer 4 Porter
4th St., AVCO Lycomlng
Ind. Solvent & Chem.
Laurel Pipeline Co.
Lycomlng Ck. Well Field
McCoy Electronics, Inc.
Mlddletown Borough Auth.
PENNDOT (Bur. of Avla.)
Private Industry
Rockwell International
Spec. Screw Mach. Prod.
Sun Refining & Marketing
Tyson's Dump Site
Upper Merlon Res. (ID
Well L-8, N. Penn Water
Westlnghouse Electric
Whlstlewood Apts.
York County Refuse Auth.
J. T. Baker Co.
City
WllHamstown (12)
Springfield
W11 11 amsport
W11 11 amsport
W11 11 amsport
Warmlnster
W11 11 amsport
New berry
Bethel
W1111 amsport
Peters
Mlddletown Borough
Lower Swatara
Reading
Du Bo1s
Norrlstown
Upper Merlon
Upper Merlon
Lansdale
Cumberland
Hopewel 1
State
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
TN
Startup
Date Superfund Type
GW
GW
DW
DW
GW
GW
ru
un
LF
2/86 Y GW
GW
RW
un
GW
1986 DW
GW
GW
ftW
Lin
GW
GW
ftW
un
GW
LF
1983 N DW
DW
GW
GW
GW
GW
References
59
59
6
6
59
59
59
6
60
59
59
59
8
59
59
59
6
59
59
59
61
58
59
59
6
59
6
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF IDENTIFIED AIR STRIPPERS
ro
i
Facllltv/Locatlon
Name
Unidentified
Unlflrst
Dudley's Store
Sp1l lanes Mobil
Dowty Electronics
Keith Martin
Unidentified
Ponders Corner
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
City
Chesapeake
WHllamstown
East Montpeller
Shelburne
Brandon
N. Bennlngton
City of Tacoma
Tacoma
Schofleld
Hart! and
Rothschild
Wausau (#2)
Eau Claire
Wausau (11)
Delavan
State
VA
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
WA
WA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
Startup
Date Superfund Type
1985 OW
DW
GW
GW
GW
GW
1983 Y GW
1984 Y GW
N GW
2/84 N DW
N GW
8/84 N GW
1988 Y GW
N DW
9/84 N DW
References
8
62
63
63
63
63
35,64
35
65
8.51.65
65
65,66
67
65
52
GW = Ground Water
LF = Landfill Leachate
DW = Drinking Water
-------
2.5 REFERENCES
1. Letter and attachments from Stenzel, M. H., Calgon Carbon Corporation to
Vancil, M., Radian Corporation. February 25, 1987.
2. Brooks, K., Groundwater Treatment Know-how Comes of Age. Chemical Week.
May 20, 1987.
3. Byers, W.D. Control of Emissions from an Air Stripper Treating
Contaminated Groundwater. (Presented at the 1986 Summer National Meeting
of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Boston, Massachusetts.
August 1986.) 13 p.
4. Letter from Stover, E., Stover & Associates, to Vancil, M. A., Radian
Corporation. March 18, 1987. 2 p.
5. Telecon. Cochrane, D., Region 1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M. A., Radian Corporation. February 6, 1987.
6. Letter from Zienkiewicz, A. W., Hydro Group, Environmental Products
Division, to Vancil, M.A. Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
1 p. plus enclosures.
7. Telecon. Bush, D., Groundwater Technology, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. March 3, 1987.
8. Letter from Dyksen, J.E., Malcom Pirnie, Inc., to Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. March 13, 1987. 1 p. plus enclosures.
9. Telecon. Opalski, D., Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
10. Telecon. Hussey, J.R., Dames & Moore, with Vancil, M. A., Radian
Corporation. March 25, 1987.
11. Telecon. Sharp, C., State of California, Department of Health Services,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
12. Telecon. Johnson, S., Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 24, 1987.
13. Telecon. Gingrass, M., AMD, Inc., with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 27, 1987.
14. Telecon. Marek, B., State of California, Air Resources Board, Bay Area
Air Quality Management District, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 26, 1987.
15. Telecon. Curnow, B., Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 24, 1987.
2-12
-------
16. Letter from Ryan, W. P., State of California, Department of Health
Services, to Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. April 3, 1987.
17. Telecon. Levinson, L., Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
18. Blaney, B.L. (Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), and
Branscome, M. (Research Triangle Institute). Air Strippers and Their
Emissions Control at Superfund Sites (Draft). (Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.) March 19, 1987. 23 p.
19. Telecon. lerardi, M., Civilian Engineer at McClellan Air Force Base,
with Herndon, D., Radian Corporation. March 6, 1987.
20. Telecon. Nejih, C., State of California, Department of Health, with
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 13, 1987.
21. Telecon. Berkins, T., State of California, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Francisco Bay, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 25, 1987.
22. Telecon. Morgan, N. Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil., M.A., Radian Corporation. February 30, 1987.
23. Corbin, M.H., N. Metzer, and P.S. Puglonesi (Roy F. Weston, Inc.) Novel
Technology Evaluation for Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions Control.
(Prepared for U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency.) Edgewood
Area, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. Report No. AMXTH-TE-CR 86099.
January 1987. 91 p.
24. Telecon. Dirks, G., Varian Associates, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 27, 1987.
25. Telecon. Mearz, G., City of Denver, Colorado, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 18, 1987.
26. Telecon. Rios, I., Region 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 9, 1987.
27. Telecon. Stevens, B., CH2M Hill, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 13, 1987.
28. Telecon. Mclntyre, G.T., CH2M Hill, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 11, 1987.
29. Mclntyre, G.T., J.K. Cable and W.D. Byers. Cost and Performance of Air
Stripping for VOC Removal at Three Full-Scale Installations. (Presented
at the 60th Annual Joint Technical Conference of the Florida Section of
the American Water Works Association, the Florida Pollution Control
Association, and the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators
Association, West Palm Beach, Florida. November 1986.) 15 p.
2-13
-------
30. Telecon. Brooks, S., State of Florida, Department of Environmental
Regulations, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
31. Telecon. Watts, J., State of Florida, Department of Environmental
Regulations, with Varlashkin, C., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
32. Telecon. Walker, R., State of Florida, Department of Environmental
Regulations, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 26, 1987.
33. Telecon. Hayes, E., Hillsborough County, Florida, with Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
34. Letter from Hayes, E., Hillsborough County, Florida, to Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. March 1, 1987.
35. Telecon. Schilling, B., CH2M Hill, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 10, 1987.
36. Telecon. Fuerst, A., Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 12, 1987.
37. Telecon. Batel, M., State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency,
with Varlashkin, C., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
38. Telecon. Nolan, C., Region 5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 12, 1987.
39. Telecon. Yashitani, J., Camp, Dresser & McKee, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 23, 1987.
40. Telecon. Power, J., State of Kansas, Department of Health and
Environment, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 19, 1987.
41. Telecon. Everhardt, M., Boeing, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 20, 1987.
42. Telecon. Miller, C., General Electric, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 20, 1987.
43. Telecon. Dayian, L., Acton Water District, Massachusetts, with
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
44. Telecon. McKay, P., State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 13, 1987.
45. Trip Report. R.H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
6 p. Report of March 11, 1987, visit to Verona Well Field.
2-14
-------
46. Stallings, R.L. and T. N. Rogers (Research Triangle Institute.)
Packed-Tower Aeration Study to Remove Volatile Organics from Groundwater
at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan. (Prepared for Air Force
Engineering Services Center.) Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.
Environmental Protection Agency Report No. ESL-TR-84-60. June 1985.
216 p.
47. Letter from Edwards, G.M., State of Michigan, Department of Natural
Resources, Air Quality Division, to Crenshaw, J., U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards.
November 25, 1986. 2 p.
48. Telecon. Sutherland, J., EDI Engineering & Science, with Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. March 4, 1987.
49. Telecon. Chamberlain, L., State of Minnesota, Pollution Control Agency,
with Varlashkin, C., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
50. Telecon. Schlenker, R., State of Nebraska, Department of Environmental
Control, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
51. Letter from Schorr, P., State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection, to Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 6, 1987.
1 p. plus enclosures.
52. Love, O.T., Jr., W.A. Feige, J.K. Carswell, R.J. Miltner, R.M. Clark, and
C.A. Fronk (Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
Aeration to Remove Volatile Organic Compounds from Ground Water.
(Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.) Cincinnati, Ohio.
Publication No. EPA/600/2-86/024. March 1984. 56 p.
53. Removing Organics from Groundwater through Aeration Plus GAC. Journal of
the American Water Works Association. 76(5): 42-47. May 1984.
54. Letter from Longacker, W.P., State of New York, Department of Health, to
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 3, 1987.
1 p. plus enclosures.
55. Wallman, H. (Nathan L. Jacobsen & Associates) and M.D. Cummins.
(Technical Service Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
Design Scale-Up Suitability for Air Stripping Columns. (Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.) Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication
No. EPA/600/S2-86/009. March 1986.
56. Telecon. Gallo, D., CH2M Hill, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 16, 1987.
57. Telecon. Kunkel, H., Site Manager, Chem-Dyne Site, with Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. April 7, 1987.
2-15
-------
58. Telecon. Yohe, T., Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, with Vancil,
M.A., Radian Corporation. February 11, 1987.
59. Letter from Ramamurthy, K., Commonwealth of Pennslyvania, Department of
Environmental Resources, to Varlashkin, C., Radian Corporation. February
23, 1987.
60. Letter from Gross, W.H., Fischer & Porter to Downes-Valls, G., Region 3,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7 p. Information regarding
quarterly report on underground recovery system at Fischer & Porter site.
61. Baker/TSA, Inc. Treatability Study Report Tyson's Dump Site (Draft).
(Prepared for NUS Corporation.) NUS Subcontract No. Z0830907. February
1986. 58 p.
62. Telecon. Johnson, C., Johnson Associates, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. April 22, 1987.
63. Letter from Garabedian, H.T., State of Vermont, Agency of Environmental
Conservation, to McDonald, R., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(OAQPS). May 1, 1987.
64. Letter from Merry, K.J., City of Tacoma, Washington, to Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. February 17, 1987, 1 p. plus enclosures.
65. Telecon. Boushon, L., State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural
Resources, with Varlashkin, C., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
66. Design and Evaluation of an Air-Stripping Tower for Removing VOCs from
Groundwater. Journal of the American Water Works Association.
7.8(9): 87-97. September 1986.
67. Memo from CH2M Hill to Region 5, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
September 23, 1985. 33 p. plush attachments. Design Analysis; Initial
Remedial Measure; Air Stripping Facility; Eau Claire Municipal Well
Field; Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
2-16
-------
3.0 AIR STRIPPING TECHNOLOGY AND EMISSIONS
Air stripping is a method frequently used to remove volatile organic
pollutants from ground water. The high removal efficiency and relatively low
cost of air stripping make it an attractive technology for ground water
cleanup. However, a major environmental concern is the cross media transfer
of contaminants in the water to air, without reducing the volume of the
contaminants. The transfer of ground water contaminants from ground water to
air is the focus of this section. Air emissions from currently operating air
strippers are characterized and the factors affecting emissions are discussed.
3.1 AIR STRIPPING TECHNOLOGY
Air stripping technology is based on the principle of vapor-liquid
equilibrium. Contaminated water is contacted with large volumes of ambient
air. The concentration of contaminants in the influent air is far below
equilibrium, providing the driving force for transfer of contaminants from
water to air. The schematic of a typical air stripper system is shown in
Figure 3-1. Contaminated water is pumped from the water source to the tower,
where it is countercurrently contacted with air. The water entering the tower
trickles down over a packed media which generates a thin film of water for air
contact. The thin film provides a large surface area for air to water
contact.
Air flow through the stripper column is provided by a blower. The air
blower can be placed either before or after the column. Placement of the
blower before the column is referred to as forced draft. Placement of the
blower after the stripper column is referred to as induced draft. In cases
where the effluent air stream is routed to an air emission control device,
blowers are often placed both before and after the column. This blower
arrangement is normally referred to as a balanced draft.
The effluent air stream is generally exhausted from the stripping column
to the atmosphere. However, the contaminated air stream is routed to an
emission control device at several sites. Emission controls used to control
air emissions from air strippers are discussed in Section 4.
3-1
-------
Pump
00
I
ro
Contaminated
Water Source
Clean
Air
Packed
Column
Contaminated
Air
Blower
Air Emission
Control Device
(Optional)
Blower
Blower
Effluent
Water
Effluent
Polishing
(Optional)
Note: One or two blowers
installed per system.
Blowers shown indicate
possible location.
Effluent
Discharge
DC
i—
O>
Figure 3-1. Typical air stripper system
-------
The stripped water leaving the column can be treated several ways. Often
it is discharged to a river, drainage ditch, or other surface water supply.
In some cases, the stripper effluent is routed through another treatment unit
such as an aqueous-phase carbon adsorber or routed to a water treatment
system. Although not often done, the water can also be discharged back to the
aquifier or other source of the contaminated water.
3.2 AIR EMISSIONS FROM AIR STRIPPERS
As discussed above, air stripping is a technology which transfers organic
contaminants from water to air. Unless the contaminated air stream is routed
to an air emissions control device, the organic compounds volatilized from the
water become air emissions. To characterize these emissions from air
strippers, data were collected on currently operating air strippers. A total
of 177 operating air strippers were identified and available data on pollutant
loadings, design, operation, and performance were collected. The completeness
of data available for individual air strippers varied. However, the data
collected for 52 of the 177 air strippers were sufficient to characterize air
pollutant loadings. Of these 52, sufficient data (reported stripper
efficiency) were available to estimate volatile organic emissions from 46 air
strippers. The data collected on pollutant loadings, design, operation, and
performance for the 52 air strippers are presented in Table 3-1.
The quality of the data presented in Table 3-1 varies widely. The basis
for the majority of reported values is unknown. If the basis is known, the
value is footnoted appropriately in Table 3-1. For some strippers, all data
gathered were obtained through telephone contacts, while data for others are
based on site visits or test reports. Concentration data presented in
Table 3-1 are from weekly or monthly inlet water sampling, pilot studies, and
estimates used for design of the air strippers. A single concentration was
usually obtained for a contaminant although the inlet concentration varies
with time. The water flow rates were either design capacities or actual
measured rates. At some sites, the reported water flow rate is significantly
lower than the design rate. The stripper removal efficiency data were from
actual influent and effluent monitoring data in some cases and from estimated
design efficiency in others.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1. AVAILABLE DATA ON AIR STRIPPER LOADINGS AND PERFORMANCE
Facility /Location
Name City
Confidential - Stover(l)
Confidential - Stover(2)
Unidentified Scottsdale
Unidentified City of Scottsdal*
Hughes Aircraft Tuscon
AMD , Inc . Sunnyvale
Baldwin Park Valley County
Unidentified South Che si re
CT American Water Co.
Private Industry
Unidentified Ft. Pierce
Unidentified Port Malabar
Air Stripper Design and Operation
Water Pollutant Column Packing Air Air To
c d
Flow Cone. Loading Diam. Ht . No. of Flow Water j
b
State (gpm) Pollutant (ug/1) (kg/yr)
f
200 BZ
TOL
XYL
VO
f
600 BZ
XYL
EBZ
EDC
VO
AZ 3700 TCE
AZ 7 VOC
AZ 4200 TCE
TCA
EDC
VO
h
CA 175 VOC
CA 970 TCE
PCE
VO
CT 1700 TCE
CT 300 TCA
CT 200 TCE
FL 350 TCE
PCE
VO
FL 1000 VOC
f
1000
1000
1000
3000
f
10000
f
5000
f
5000
f
1000
21000
h
200
130000
f
800
f
100
f
200
1100
h
2000
h
710
330
1040
100
75
20000
11.3
V,
76
87.3
h
57
381.
381.
381.
1144.
11446.
5723.
5723.
1144.
24038.
1411
1736.
6410
801.
1602
8814.
667
1313
610
1924
324.
42
7631
7
50
58
108
(ft) (ft) Cols. (cfm) Ratio
f
,6 4 20 1 2700 100
.6
.6
.7
f
,8 4 25 2 4000 50
.4
.4
.7
.4
.8 10 14 1 25000 50
f f
.2 9/9 6/25 3/3 4800 30
.3
.6
.1
.7
.9 8 18 1 4000 30
.7
.6
.3 9x8 26 1 8000 35
.9 4.5
•2 * f
.5 4 16 1 2000 50
.7
f
.7 9x9 12 1 9000 70
Reported
Removal
Eff.(X)e REFERENCES
f
100 1
f
100
f
100
100
f
99.9 1
f
99.8
f
99.8
f
99
99.8
h
99 2
98 3
f
99.4 4
99.5
g
99
99.3
h
99.5 5
h
99 2
99
99
h
99 2
70 3
99.9 3
h
99 6
h
99
99
h
99 7,8
-------
TABLE 3-1. AVAILABLE DATA ON AIR STRIPPER LOADINGS AND PERFORMANCE (Cont.)
a
Facility /Location Water
Flow
Name City State (gpm) Pollutant
f
Sydney Mine Hillsborough County FL 150 EDC
MCL
TCA
DCE
VO
h
Boeing Wichita KS 56 TCE
h
Acton Water District Acton MA 417 TCA
DCE
TCE
VO
h
Site A MI 1400 TCE
TCA
CO VO
1 h
cn Site B MI 155 CF
MCL
EDC
h
Verona Well Field Battle Creek MI 1900 EDC
TCA
DCE
TCE
PCE
VO
Electronic Ind. New Hope MN 75 TCE
MCL
PCE
TCA
EDC
CF
VO
Air Stripper Design and Operation
Pollutant Column Packing Air Air To
c d
Cone. Loading Dlao. Ht. No. of Flow Water
b d
(ug/1) (kg/yr) (ft) (ft) Cols. (cfm) Ratio
h
24
h
9
h
8
h
2
43
h
6000
h
25
h
25
h
10
60
h
4000
h
300
4360
1
1500
ND
ND
h
5
h
12
h
10
h
1
h
10
38
200000
20
4700
150
8.9
15
204893.
f f
6.9 4 1 4700 220
2.6
2.3
0.6
12.3
641.0 1
19.9 5.5 20 1 3000 50
19.9
8.0
47.7
h
10683.7 8000 40
801.3
11645.2
h
440.0 3 45 1 1300 60
f
18.1 10 40 1 5500 20
43.5
36.2
3.6
36.2
137.7
28617.1 1 10000 1000
2.9
672.5
21.5
1.3
2.1
29317.3
Reported
Removal
Eff.U)* REFERENCES
h
100 9,10
h
100
h
100
h
100
100
f
98 11,12
99 2,13
99
99
99
h
99.8 14
h
100
99
h
99.9 15
h
100 16,17,18
h
100
h
100
h
100
h
100
100
ND 19
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
TABLE 3-1. AVAILABLE DATA ON AIR STRIPPER LOADINGS AND PERFORMANCE (Cont.)
a
Facility/Location Water
Flow
Name City State (gpm) Pollutant
Whltaker Site Minneapolis MN 50 TOL
EBZ
XYL
VO
Monroe Auto Cozad NE 1940 TCE
Unidentified Rockaway NJ 1400 TCE
MTBE
DIPE
VO
Unidentified Rocky Hill NJ 35 TCE
Unidentified Mountainside NJ 625 TCE
OJ PCE
^ f ™
Unidentified PlainfieLd NJ 3600 PCE
Denvllle Water Dept. Denville NJ 500 TCA
PCE
VO
E. Banover Water Dept. East Hanover NJ 750 TCE
South Brunswick TWP Brunswick NJ 1100 TCE
PCE
DCE
VO
VO-Tech H.S. Warren County NJ 30 TCE
Unidentified Queens NY 3000 PCE
TCE
VO
Unidentified Garden City Park NY 1200 PCE
Air Stripper Design and Operation
Pollutant Column Packing Air Air To
c "
Cone. Loading Diam. Ht. No. of Flow Water
d
(ug/1) (kg/yr) (ft) (ft) Cols. (cfra) Ratio
23000
14000
53000
90000
600
250
50
50
350
80
1000
100
1100
200
5
7
12
50
75
40
118
30
300
j.
100
400
90
2194.0 1 270 40
1335.5
5055.7
8585 . 1
2220.7 5 1 10000 40
667.7 9 25 1 37500 200
133.5
133.5
934.8
n
5.3 6 10 2 2600 80
1192.4 5x4 26 1 3300 40
119.2
1311.6 f
1373.6 12x10 24 1 19200 40
4.8 9 25 1 4000 60
6.7
11.4 f
71.5 7x13.8 4.5 1 6000 60
157.4 7 10 1 13000 90
6.3
83.9
247.6
1.7 1.5
1717.0 12x7 15 1 16000 40
572.3
2289.4
206.0 7.5 16 1 5600 35
Reported
Removal
Eff.(X)6 REFERENCES
ND 19
ND
ND
ND
90 20
h
100 2,21,22
h
95
h
99
99.1
99 2,22
h
99 2
h
90
h
98.2
99.6 2
h
100 22
h
86
91.8
h
76 22
h
99 2,22
h
99
h
99
99
95 3
h
97 2
h
90
95.3
h
94 2
-------
TABLE 3-1. AVAILABLE DATA ON AIR STRIPPER LOADINGS AND PERFORMANCE (Cont.)
Facility /Location
Name City State
Unidentified Brews ter NY
Unidentified New Hyde Park NY
Unidentified Lake Success NY
Unidentified Floral Park NY
Unidentified Northport NY
Citizens Water Supply Great Neck, Long Island NY
EPA Region II Hicksville NY
Unidentified Zanesvllle OH
Unidentified Hatboro (»1) PA
Unidentified Upper Merlon (#3) PA
Water
Flow
b
(gpm) Pollutant
600 PCE
EDC
TCE
VO
2400 TCE
PCE
VO
2400 TCE
3000 TCE
TCA
VO
1300 PCE
2000 BZ
PCE
TCE
VO
100 MEK
300 TCE
DCE
VO
215 TCE
MTBE
DIPE
EDC
PCE
VO
690 TCE
Air Stripper Design and Operation
Pollutant Column Packing Air Air To
c d
Cone. Loading Dlam. Ht. No. of Flow Water
(ug/1) (kg/yr) (ft) (ft) Cols. (cfm) Ratio
h
110
h
49
h
17
176
h
300
h
100
400
30
h
300
h
50
350
h
450
h
200
h
55
h
40
295
1000
15000
3000
18000
h
300
h
130
h
20
h
15
h
10
475
h
15
f
125.9 4.8 17.8 1 3000 38
56.1
19.5
201.5
1373.6 12x7 21 1 12800 40
457.9
1831.5
137.4 7x12 21 1 14000 41
1717.0 12x7 18 1 16000 40
286.2
2003.2
1116.1 6 16 1 5200 30
763.1 10 24 1 21400 80
209.9
152.6
1125.6
190.8 3.5
8585.1 4 20 1 1850 45
1717.0
10302.2
123.1 5.5 25 1 6300 220
53.3
8.2
6.2
4.1
194.8
19.7 4.5 10 1 1400 15
Reported
Removal
Eff.(X)* REFERENCES
h
99 2,23,24
h
99
h
99
99
h
97 2
h
90
95.3
97 25
h
97 2
h
95
96.7
h
99 2,3
h
99 2,23
h
99
h
99
99
99 3
97 25
97
97
h
99 2
h
99
b
95
h
99
h
98
98.8
h
95 2
-------
TABLE 3-1. AVAILABLE DATA ON AIR STRIPPER LOADINGS AND PERFORMANCE (Cont.)
Facility/Location Water
Flow i
b
Na
-------
TABLE 3-1. AVAILABLE DATA ON AIR STRIPPER LOADINGS AND PERFORMANCE (Cont.)
a
Facility/Location Water
Air Stripper Design and Operation
Pollutant Column Packing Air Air To
c A
Flow Cone. Load! tut Dlam. Ht. No. of Flow" Water
b
Name City State (gpm) Pollutant
City of Tacoma Tacoma WA 3500 1,1,2,2-TCA
ICE
DCE
VO
Unidentified Wausau (#1) UI 2000 TCE
DCE
PCE
TOL
XYL
VO
Unidentified Hart land UI 1000 TCE
CO
1 ~~"~~
VO
d
(ug/1) (kg/yr) (ft) (ft) Cols. (cfm) Ratio
h
300 2003.2 12 23 5 145000 300
h
130 868.1
h
100 667.7
530 3539.0
h
72 274.7 9.3 24.5 1 16000 30
h
82 312.9
h
60 228.9
h
30 114.5
h
17 64.9
261 995.9
h
240 457.9 9 26.8 1 6700 50
Reported
Removal
g
Eff.(X) REFERENCES
h
95 29,30
h
99
h
99
96.7
h
98 2,31
h
96
h
98
h
96
h
96
97.0
h
99 2,25,31
This is the total flow to all air strippers at the site.
b
Pollutant abbreviations used are: BZ • Benzene; TOL - Toluene; XYL - Xylene; VO - Total Volatile Organics (calculated as the sum of pollutants reported);
EBZ - Ethylbenzene; EDC - Ethylene Dlchlorid* or Dlchloroethane; VOC - Volatile Organic Compounds (provided by facility rather than calculated);
TCA =• Trlchloroethane; TCE - Trichloroethylene; MCL - Methylene Chloride; DCE - Dichloroethylenej PCE - Perchloroethylene or Tetrachloroethane;
MTBE - Methyl-tertlary-butyl-ether; DIPE - Dlisopropylether; MEK - Methyl Ethyl Ketone; 1,2,3-TCP - 1,2,3-Trichloropropane; 2-MPH - 2-Methylphenol;
CHLBZ — Chlorobcnezenei and CF - Chloroform.
c
Pollutant loadings calculated using reported water flow and influent concentration. In some cases, only the design flow was available which may result in an
overestimate of pollutant loading. All air strippers are assumed to operate 8,400 hours per year in calculating loadings which is equivalent to 350 days of
operation each year.
d
In most cases only the air to water ratio or the air flow rate was provided. In this case, one was calculated from the other using the reported water flow rate.
However, in some cases, air to water ratios and air flow rates were provided that do not match precisely.
e
These are efficiencies reported by the sites or other Information sources and are generally not supported by test data. VO removal efficiencies are calculated
based on the reported efficiencies for Individual pollutants. The calculated VO removal efficiencies are weighted averages.
Reported values are based on design.
'An efficiency for removal of EDC was not available. An efficiency of 99 percent was estimated based on the reported efficiencies for the other pollutants.
u
Reported values are based on actual monitoring or sampling.
Initial concentration based on sampling. Concentration has reportedly dropped since start-up.
g
-------
As shown in Table 3-1, the water treated by air stripping contains
various pollutants. By far, the majority of sites are contaminated with
chlorinated ethanes or ethylenes. Of the 52 sites for which loadings are
presented, 34 are contaminated with trichloroethylene, 17 have
perchloroethylene, 9 have 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 7 have dichloroethylene,
and 8 have dichloroethane contamination. The remaining sites are contaminated
by toluene, xylenes, benzene, and several chlorinated methanes, ethers, and
aromatics.
The data presented in Table 3-1 were used to estimate and characterize
uncontrolled air emissions from each air stripper. Since contaminants are
simply transferred from the influent water to air, the air emissions were
estimated by multiplying the influent loading by the reported removal
efficiency. Assuming 8400 hours per year of air stripper operation, annual
emissions were calculated for each stripper by pollutant. The total volatile
organic emissions were also calculated for each air stripper as the sum of the
individual pollutants. These estimated air emissions are presented in
Table 3-2. In addition, the air flow rates and calculated pollutant
concentrations are provided in Table 3-2. The emission estimates presented in
Table 3-2 do not account for air emission controls in place at some
facilities.
The estimates of uncontrolled air emissions are further summarized in
Table 3-3. The averages and ranges of estimated annual emissions and
concentrations are presented by pollutant. As shown in Table 3-3, the average
total volatile organic emissions from air strippers is 2.0 Mg/yr. The range
of estimated total volatile organic emissions is 1.6 kg/yr to 24 Mg/yr. The
average concentration of total volatile organics in the effluent air is
7.8 ppmv. Effluent air concentrations of total volatile organics range from
0.03 ppmv to 110 ppmv.
3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING AIR EMISSIONS
There are four major factors that effect air emissions from air
strippers. These are: (1) the pollutant loading to the air stripper, (2) the
removal efficiency obtained by the air stripper, (3) the changes in the
pollutant loading with time, and (4) the annual period of operation. Each of
these factors are discussed in detail below.
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF UNCONTROLLED AIR EMISSIONS
Co
I
Facility /Location
Name City State
Confidential - Stover(l)
Confidential - Stover(2)
Unidentified Scottsdale AZ
Unidentified City of Scottsdale AZ
Hughes Aircraft Tuscon AZ
AMD, Inc. Sunnyvale CA
Baldwin Park Valley County CA
Unidentified South Cheslre CT
CT American Water Co. CT
Private Industry CT
Unidentified Ft. Pierce FL
Unidentified Port Malabar FL
Air
Flow
a
(cfm) Pollutant
2700 BZ
TOL
XYL
VO
4000 BZ
XYL
EBZ
EDC
VO
25000 TCE
voc
4800 TCE
TCA
EDC
VO
VOC
4000 TCE
PCE
VO
8000 TCE
TCA
TCE
2000 TCE
PCE
VO
9000 VOC
Pollutant
Cone . In
b
Air
(ppmv)
3.00
2.55
2.21
7.76
60.77
22.34
22.34
4.75
110.19
0.69
d
ND
16.43
2.03
5.54
23.99
ND
4.02
1.51
5.53
0.50
ND
ND
0.05
0.25
0.30
0.20
Air
c
Emissions
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF UNCONTROLLED AIR EMISSIONS (Cent.)
Facility /Location
Name City State
Sydney Mine Hillsborough County FL
Boeing Wichita KS
Acton Water District Acton MA
Site A MI
Site B MI
Verona Well Field Battle Creek MI
Monroe Auto Cozad NE
Unidentified Rockavay NJ
Unidentified Rocky Hill NJ
Air
Flow
a
(cfm) Pollutant
4700 EDC
MCL
TCA
DCE
VO
TCE
3000 TCA
DCE
TCE
VO
TCE
TCA
VO
1300 CF
MCL
EDC
5500 EDC
TCA
DCE
TCE
PCE
VO
10000 TCE
37500 TCE
MTBE
DIPE
VO
2600 TCE
Pollutant
Cone . In
b
Air
(ppmv)
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
ND
0.08
0.11
0.03
0.22
ND
ND
ND
4.7
ND
ND
0.06
0.10
0.11
0.01
0.07
0.34
2.47
0.22
0.06
0.06
0.34
0.03
Air
c
Emissions
(kg/yr)
6.9
2.6
2.3
0.6
12.3
628.2
19.7
19.7
7.9
47.3
10662.3
801.3
11528.8
439.6
ND
ND
18.1
43.5
36.2
3.6
36.2
137.7
1998.6
667.7
126.9
132.2
926.8
5.3
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF UNCONTROLLED AIR EMISSIONS (Cont.)
CO
I
Facility /Location
Name City
Unidentified Mountainside
Unidentified Plainfield
Danville Water Dept. Danville
E. Hanover Water Dept. East Hanover
South Brunswick TWP Brunswick
VO-Tech H.S. Warren County
Unidentiifed Queens
Unidentified Garden City Park
Unidentified Brewster
Unidentified New Hyde Park
Unidentified Lake Success
Air
Flow
a
State (cfm) Pollutant
NJ 3300 TCE
PCE
VO
NJ 19200 PCE
NJ 4000 TCA
PCE
VO
NJ 6000 TCE
NJ 13000 TCE
PCE
DCE
VO
NJ TCE
NY 16000 PCE
TCE
VO
NY 5600 PCE
NY 3000 PCE
EDC
TCE
VO
NY 12800 TCE
PCE
VO
NY 14000 TCE
Pollutant
Cone . In
b
Air
(pporv)
4.43
0.32
4.75
0.71
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.15
0.00
0.11
0.26
ND
1.04
0.40
1.44
0.35
0.42
0.31
0.08
0.80
1.29
0.32
1.61
0.12
Air
c
Emissions
(kg/yr)
1180.5
107.3
1287.8
1368.1
4.8
5.7
10.5
54.4
155.8
6.2
83.1
245.2
1.6
1665.5
515.1
2180.6
193.7
124.7
55.5
19.3
199.4
1332.4
412.1
1744.5
133.2
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF UNCONTROLLED AIR EMISSIONS (Cent.)
OJ
I
Fac 11 ity /Locat Ion
Name City State
Unidentified Floral Park NY
Unidentified Northport NY
Citizens Water Supply Great Neck, Long Island NY
EPA Region II Hicksville NY
Unidentified Zanesville OH
Unidentified Hatboro (#1) PA
Unidentified Upper Merlon (#3) PA
Unidentified Warrington PA
Unidentified Hatboro (12) PA
Air
Flow
a
(cfm) Pollutant
16000 TCE
TCA
VO
5200 PCE
21400 BZ
PCE
TCE
VO
MEK
1850 TCE
DCE
VO
6300 TCE
MTBE
DIPE
EDC
PCE
VO
1400 TCE
500 TCE
TCE
EDC
PCE
VO
Pollutant
Cone . In
b
Air
(ppoiv)
1.29
0.21
1.50
2.12
0.75
0.10
0.09
0.93
ND
55.70
15.39
71.09
0.24
0.16
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.44
0.17
0.71
ND
ND
ND
ND
Air
c
Emissions
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF UNCONTROLLED AIR EMISSIONS (Cont.)
CO
I
Facility/Location
Name City
Lycoming Ck. Well Field Williamsport
Superior Tube Co. Norristown
Tysons Dump Upper Merlon
Upper Merlon Res. (#1) Upper Merlon
Unidentified Chesapeake
Unifirst
City of Tacoma Tacoma
Air
Flow
a
State (cfm) Pollutant
PA 56000 TCE
PCE
DCE
VO
PA 300 TCE
PA 1,2,3-TCP
XYL
TOL
ANILINE
PHENOL
2-MPH
EBZ
VO
PA 27900 TCE
VA 54100 CF
CBBrC12
CHBr2Cl
CHBrS
VO
VT PCE
WA 145000 1,1,2,2-TCA
TCE
DCE
VO
Pollutant
Cone . In
b
Air
(ppmv)
0.61
ND
ND
ND
45.11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.21
0.16
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.32
ND
0.13
0.07
0.08
0.28
Air
c
Emissions
(kg/yr)
2755.3
ND
ND
ND
1093.7
295.4
165.7
ND
0.5
0.8
0.4
ND
ND
477.3
634.6
500.7
350.3
60.4
1546.0
5.6
1903.0
859.4
661.1
3423.5
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF UNCONTROLLED AIR EMISSIONS (Cont.)
CO
I
Facility /Location
Name City
Unidentified Wausau (#1)
Unidentified Hartland
Air
Flow
a
State (cfm) Pollutant
WI 16000 TCE
DCE
PCE
TOL
XYL
VO
WI 6700 TCE
Pollutant
Cone . In
b
Air
(ppmv)
0.21
0.32
0.14
0.12
0.06
0.85
0.84
Air
c
Emissions
(kg/yr)
269.2
300.4
224.4
109.9
62.3
966.1
453.3
a
Pollutant abbreviations used are: BZ » Benzene; TOL = Toluenes XYL - Xylene; VO = Total Volatile Organics
(calculated as the sum of pollutants reported); EBZ = Ethylbenzene; EDC = Ethylene Dichloride or
Dichloroethane; VOC •» Volatile Organic Compounds (provided by facility rather than calculated);
TCA - Trichloroethane; TCE - Trichloroethylene; MCL = Methylene Chloride; DCE = Dichloroethylene;
PCE « Perchloroethylene or Tetrachloroethane; MTBE = Methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether; DIPE = Diisopropylether;
MEK - Methyl Ethyl Ketone; 1,2,3-TCP - 1,2,3-Trichloropropane; 2-MPH - 2-Methylphenol;
CHLBZ - Chlorobenezene; and CF « Chloroform.
b
Pollutants concentration in air calculated from air flowrate and estimated emission rate based on ideal
o
gas law. Molecular weight assumed to be 100 g/mol for VOC. Air temperature assumed to be 60 F.
c
Air emissions calculated from pollutant loading and reported removal efficiency based on 8400 hours
per year operation.
ND
No Data. Insufficient data available to calculate this value.
-------
TABLE 3-3. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AIR EMISSIONS
Pollutant
No. of Concentration
Data (ppmv)
Points Average Range
Annual Emissions
(kg/yr)
Average Range
Aniline
Benzene
Bromoform
Chloroform
CHBr?Cl
CHBrCl £
Chlorooenzene
Dichloroethylene
Diisopropyl ether
Ethyl benzene
Ethylene Dichloride
Methyl ene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
2-Methyl phenol
Methyl Tertiary Butyl ether
Perchloroethylene
Phenol
1,1,2, 2 -Tetrachl oroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1 , 2 , 3 -Tri chl oropropane
Toluene
Xylene
Volatile Organic Compounds
1
3
1
2
1
1
0
7
2
lc
7C
1
1
1
2d
15d
1
lp
8f
34f
1
2n
4h
3h
NDa
22
0.01
2.4
0.05
0.09
ND
2.3
0.04
22
1.8
0.01
ND
ND
0.11
0.49
ND
0.13
0.41
4'7b
NDD
1.3
8.2
0.2
ND
1-66
NA
0.16-4.7
NA
NA
ND
>0. 01-15
0.02-0.06
NA
9.02-5.5
NA
ND
ND
0.06-0.16
>0. 01-2.1
NO.
NAa
0.01-2.03
0.01-55.7
ND
0.12-2.6
0.06-22
NA
5.0
4,190
60
540
350
500
ND
400
66
5,710
410
2.6
190
2.1
90
360
9.8
1,900
250
1,440
1,920
250
1,790
820
NAb
380-11,400
NA
440-635
NA
NA
ND
0.6-1,660
7.8-130
NA
6.1-1,590
NA
ND
NA
53-130
4.0-1,660
ND
NA
2.3-800
1.6-10,600
NA
110-380
62-5,710
110-1,700
Total Volatile Organics1 46
7.8
0.03-110 2,020 1.6-24,000
?ND = No Data. Insufficient data available.
DNA = Not Applicable. Data available for only one stripper.
Sufficient data were available to calculate concentration for only 6 of of
.the 7 data points.
Sufficient data were available to calculate concentration for only 15 of the
17 data points.
Sufficient data were avalaible to calculate concentration for only 6 of the 8
fdata points.
Sufficient data were available to calculate concentration for only 29 of the
34 data points.
Sufficient data were available to calculate concentration for only 3 of the 4
.data points.
Sufficient data were available to calculate concentration for only 2 of the 3
.data points.
Values presented for total volatile organics represent the averages and
•ranges of values presented in Table 3-2.
^Sufficient data were available to calculate concentration for only 37 of the
46 data points.
3-17
-------
3.3.1 Pollutant Loading
The single most important factor affecting emissions from an air stripper
is the volatile organic loading. Air strippers generally achieve high removal
efficiencies. Therefore, the majority of pollutant quantities going into the
air stripper (influent water) are transferred to the air. The pollutant
loading is a function of two parameters, the pollutant concentration in the
water and the flow rate to the air stripper. The pollutants present and the
loadings vary widely at actual air stripper locations.
Pollutant loadings for the 52 air strippers were calculated from data
collected on influent water flow rates and pollutant concentrations for these
strippers. These calculated loadings were presented in Table 3-1 and are
summarized in Table 3-4. As shown in Table 3-4, total volatile organic
loadings range from 1.7 kg/yr to 29.3 Mg/yr. The individual loadings were
calculated as the product of the water flow rate times the pollutant
concentration. It was assumed that the volatile organic compounds reported
are the only ones present in the water.
3.3.2 Removal Efficiency
The air stripper removal efficiency can also affect air emissions. The
greater the removal efficiency, the higher the organic emissions.. However,
the removal efficiencies reported for operating air strippers are almost all
above 90 percent, making the effect on air emissions minor. Over 50 percent
of the reported efficiencies are greater than 99 percent. A summary of
reported removal efficiencies is presented in Table 3-5 by pollutant.
o
The lowest removal reported, 44 percent, is for bromoform. Low removals
were also reported for this column for other brominated methanes and
chloroform. Chloroform removal of up to 99 percent is reported for another
air stripping column, so the previous column may not be designed to achieve
high removal efficiency. The removal efficiency can be enhanced by
increasing the air to water ratio or increasing the packing height. Both of
these parameters can be adjusted to achieve greater removal efficiencies. The
3-18
-------
TABLE 3-4. SUMMARY OF CALCULATED LOADINGS FOR 52 AIR STRIPPERS
Pollutant
Aniline
Benzene
Bromoform
Chloroform
CHBr9Cl
CHBrCl2
ChloroDenzene
Dichloroethylene
Diisopropyl ether
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ene Dichloride
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
2-Methyl phenol
Methyl Tertiary Butyl ether
Perchloroethylene
Phenol
1,1,2, 2-Tetrachl oroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1 , 2 , 3-Tri chl oropropane
Toluene
Xylene
Volatile Organic Compounds
Influent
No. of Concentration
Data (ug/1)
Points Average Range
1
3
1
3
1
1
0
7
2
3
8
2
1
1
2
19
1
1
9
35
1
4
5
3
226
3730
8
530
34
36
95
409
35
6,370
173
15
100
160
90
355
198
300
81
7,660
29,000
6,710
14,823
44,000
NAb
200-10,000
NA
1500
NA
NA
NA
2-3,000
20-50
100-1,400
5-1,000
9-20
NA
NA
50-130
3-4,700
NA
NA
5-300
1-200,000
NA
30-23,000
17-53,000
57-130,000
Calculated Loading
(kg/yr)
Average Range
15.1
4200
137
590
584
618
6.3
365
71
2,350
360
2.8
190
11
93
370
74
2,000
225
2,360
1,940
719
2,450
838
NA
382-11,400
NA
2.1-1,320
NA
NA
NA
0.6-1,720
8-134
7-5,720
1.3-1,600
2.6-2.9
NA
NA
53-134
4.1-1,710
NA
NA
1.7-800
2-28,600
NA
114-2,190
65-5,720
109-1,740
Total Volatile Organics 51*
11,120 12-205,000 2,740
1.7-29,300
aNote that the averages and ranges presented in this table represent more data
points than in Table 3-3. The reason for this occurrence is that removal
efficiencies were not available for all air strippers.
,be calculated if the removal efficiency was available.
Emissions could only
UNA = Not Applicable. Data available for only one stripper.
Only 51 because data are incomplete for Site B.
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-5. SUMMARY OF REPORTED REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Pollutant
Aniline
Benzene
Bromoform
Chloroform
CHBr.Cl
CHBrCK
Chlorooenzene
Dichloroethylene
Diisopropyl ether
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ene Dichloride
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
2-Methyl phenol
Methyl Tertiary Butyl ether
Perchloroethylene
Phenol
1,1,2 , 2-Tetrachl oroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1 , 2 , 3-Tri chl oropropane
Toluene
Xylene
Volatile Organic Compounds
Total Volatile Organics
No. of
Data
Points
1
3
1
1
1
1
0
7
2
1
7
1
1
1
2
17
1
1
8
34
1
2
4
3
46
Reported
Removal Efficiency
Average Range
58
99.6
44
48
60
81
ND
98.6
97.0
99.8
99.3
100
99
70
97.0
96.5
74
95
95.4
98.3
99
98
98.4
98.8
97.5
NAb
99-100
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
96-100
95-99
NA
79-100
NA
NA
NA
95-99
86-100
NA
NA
70-100
76-100
NA
96-100
96-100
98-99.5
58.1-100
Henry's Law
Constant
mq/1 in air
mg/1 in water
0.00011
0.130
0.024
0.141
86,000
8.53
0.164
0.094
NDB
0.149
0.050
0.133
0.0018
ND
ND
0.324
0.000019
0.016
0.27
0.184
1.16
0.129
0.12
24, 32, 33, and 34. If different values were cited, an average
^of cited values is presented.
NA = Not Applicable. Data available for only one stripper.
ND = No Data. Insufficient data available.
3-20
-------
effect of air to water ratio on the removal efficiency is shown graphically in
Figure 3-2.35
Other compounds removed at less than 90 percent efficiency have higher
water solubility and less volatility than the compounds removed at greater
than 90 percent. The compounds observed having lower removal efficiency have
lower Henry's Law constants. The Henry's Law constant is the constant of
proportionality for equilibrium between low concentrations of a compound in
water and air. As the Henry's Law constant increases, the ease of removal
increases. The Henry's Law constants for each of the contaminants identified
in this study are provided in Table 3-5 for comparison.
3.3.3 Pollutant Loading Changes
As discussed above, the major factor affecting emissions from air
strippers is the volatile organic loading in the contaminated ground water.
This loading does not usually remain constant, however. The water flow rates
to air strippers generally remain constant, but pollutant concentrations
typically vary with respect to time. This variance in influent concentration
at fairly constant flow rate results in pollutant loading changes.
Historical influent pollutant concentrations for 10 operating air
strippers were obtained. These data have been used to estimate emissions as a
function of time for the 10 sites. Estimated emissions for these 10 sites are
presented graphically in Figures 3-3 and 3-4. Emissions from the 10 sites are
presented separately in two figures due to the differences in time periods for
which data are available.
As shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4, ain emission rates generally decrease as
a function of time. Typically, the initial air emission rate decreases
rapTdly and then levels off for a period of time. After this period of
leveling off, the ground water pollutant concentrations and resulting
emissions are expected to gradually drop. However, Figures 3-3 and 3-4 do not
indicate a decrease in emission rates after the period of leveling off and for
12 22 30
a couple of strippers the emission rate actually increases. ' '
3-21
-------
Percent Removal
to
I
IQ
c:
n>
CO
i
CO TO
Cl fD
0> 3
— • O
(D <
QJ
co -h
rt -••
-5 O
— j* .j.
TD (D
-O 3
0) O
-5 <<
OJ
O
O
-J
Ol
-a
o
<-*•
Ul
o
(O
o
>
_,
i-^
o
(D
DO
0)
o-
©
©
©
©
©
©
4870200R
-------
170
I
IX3
CO
k.
o»
*-x
in
z
g
in
w
2
+ City of Tacoma, WA
0 Ft. Pierce, FL6 1?
A Verona Well Field, MI
v Fischer & Porter, PA36
X Sydney Mine. FL10
D Boeing, KS
6 7
MONTHS
Fiaure 3-3. Emissions as a function of time for six air strippers
-------
EMISSIONS (kg/yr)
o o o o
o -Jft—L—1 I
O TJ
o rt> o o
o 3 -5 n
7T < c
<< _,. fl,
a> 01
-------
3.3.4 Annual Period of Operation
The period of annual operation can affect the annual emissions from air
stripping. Cold temperatures in some parts of the nation can cause freezing
problems that prevent year-round operation. However, this situation is
uncommon. Most of the operating strippers are operated year round, 24 hours
per day and incur very few operational problems. Generally, only normal
preventative maintenance is required with special attention given to bacterial
buildup on the packing. Buildup of iron bacteria is the most common problem
encountered. This potential problem is normally controlled by periodic
recirculation of chlorine or an acidic solution (pH 3 to 4). This operation
normally requires interruption of ground water stripping, but the downtime is
generally less than 8 hours per occurrence.
3-25
-------
3.4 REFERENCES
1. Letter from Stover, E., Stover & Associates, to Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. March 18, 1987. 2 p.
2. Letter from Dyksen, J.E., Malcom Pirnie, Inc., to Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. March 13, 1987. 1 p. plus enclosures.
3. Letter from Zienkiewicz, A. W., Hydro Group, Environmental Products
Division, to Vancil, M.A. Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
1 p. plus enclosures.
4. Telecon. Opal ski, D., Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
5. Telecon. Gingrass, M., AMD, Inc., with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 27, 1987.
6. Telecon. Stevens, B., CH2M Hill, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 13, 1987.
7. Telecon. Mclntyre, G.T., CH2M Hill, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 11, 1987.
8. Mclntyre, G.T., J.K. Cable and W.D. Byers. Cost and Performance of Air
Stripping for VOC Removal at Three Full-Scale Installations. (Presented
at the 60th Annual Joint Technical Conference of the Florida Section of
the American Water Works Association, the Florida Pollution Control
Association, and the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators
Association, West Palm Beach, Florida. November 1986.) 15 p.
9. Telecon. Hayes, E., Hillsborough County, Florida, with Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
10. Letter from Hayes, E., Hillsborough County, Florida, to Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. March 1, 1987.
11. Telecon. Power, J., State of Kansas, Department of Health and
Environment, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 19, 1987.
12. Telecon. Everhardt, M., Boeing, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 20, 1987.
13. Telecon. Dayian, L., Acton Water District, Massachusetts, with
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
14. Trip Report. R. H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
6 p. Report of March 12, 1987 visit to Plant A.
3-26
-------
15. Trip Report. R.H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
5 p. Report of March 12, 1987 visit to Site B.
16. Telecon. McKay, P., State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 13, 1987.
17. Byers, W.D. Control of Emissions from an Air Stripper Treating
Contaminated Groundwater. (Presented at the 1986 Summer National Meeting
of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Boston, Massachusetts.
August 1986.) 13 p.
18. Trip Report. R.H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
5 p. Report of March 11, 1987 visit to Verona Well Field.
19. Telecon. Chamberlain, L., State of Minnesota, Pollution Control Agency,
with Varlashkin, C., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
20. Telecon. Schlenker, R., State of Nebraska, Department of Environmental
Control, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
21. Removing Organics from Groundwater through Aeration Plus GAC. Journal of
the American Water Works Association. 76(5): 42-47. May 1984.
22. Letter from Schorr, P., State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection, to Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 6, 1987.
1 p. plus enclosures.
23. Letter from Longacker, W.P., State of New York, Department of Health, to
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 3, 1987.
1 p. plus enclosures.
24. Wallman, H. (Nathan L. Jacobsen & Associates) and M.D. Cummins.
(Technical Service Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
Design Scale-Up Suitability for Air Stripping Columns. (Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.) Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication
No. EPA/600/S2-86/009. March 1986.
25. Love, O.T., Jr., W.A. Feige, J.K. Carswell, R.J. Miltner, R.M. Clark, and
C.A. Fronk (Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
Aeration to Remove Volatile Organic Compounds from Ground Water.
(Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.) Cincinnati, Ohio.
Publication No. EPA/600/2-86/024. March 1984. 56 p.
26. Baker/TSA, Inc. Treatability Study Report Tyson's Dump Site (Draft).
(Prepared for NUS Corporation.) NUS Subcontract No. Z0830907. February
1986. 58 p.
27. Telecon. Yohe, T., Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, with Vancil,
M.A., Radian Corporation. February 11, 1987.
3-27
-------
28. Telecon. Johnson, C., Johnson Associates, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. April 22, 1987.
29. Telecon. Schilling, B., CH2M Hill, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 10, 1987.
30. Letter from Merry, K.J., City of Tacoma, Washington, to Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. February 17, 1987, 1 p. plus enclosures.
31. Telecon. Boushon, L., State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural
Resources, with Varlashkin, C., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
32. Design and Evaluation of an Air-Stripping Tower for Removing VOCs from
Groundwater. Journal of the American Water Works Association.
78(9): 87-97. September 1986.
33. Stallings, R.L. and T. N. Rogers (Research Triangle Institute.)
Packed-Tower Aeration Study to Remove Volatile Organics from Groundwater
at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan. (Prepared for Air Force
Engineering Services Center.) Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.
Environmental Protection Agency Report No. ESL-TR-84-60. June 1985.
216 p.
34. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal (TSDF) - Air Emission Models (Draft Report).
April 1987. pp. D-l through D-19. Research Triangle Park.
35. Cummins, M.D., (Technical Support Division, Office of Drinking Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.) Field Evaluation of Packed Column
Air Stripping Pensacola, Florida. (Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.) Cincinnati, Ohio. January 1987. 20 p.
36. Letter from Gross, W.H., Fischer & Porter to Dowenes & Vails, G.,
Region 3, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7 p. Information
regarding quarterly report on underground recovery system at Fischer &
Porter site.
3-28
-------
4.0 EMISSION CONTROLS
The presence of air emission controls on air strippers is generally
dictated by applicable State regulations. These regulations vary considerably
from State to State. Some States base their regulations on risk assessment.
The short-term toxicity and long-term carcinogenic risks are determined for
the emissions from a site and compared with preset limits. If the risks are
greater than the maximum allowable risks, controls must be applied to the air
stripper exhaust. Other States set a maximum allowable emission rate. This
rate can either be independent of the type of compounds present or may be
compound specific. When the emissions are estimated to exceed the set limit,
controls must be applied. Often, the need for controls is determined on a
case by case basis. State requirements are summarized in Table 4-1 for
several States requiring control of air stripper emissions. When controls are
required, an efficiency of 85 to 99 percent reduction is usually
specified.1'2'3
Of the 177 air strippers identified in this study, 17 are equipped with
air emission controls. Table 4-2 lists these 17 facilities and the air
emission control installed at each site. Of these 17 facilities, one uses a
catalytic incinerator, two have flares, two have thermal incinerators, and 12
have granular activated carbon adsorbers. Installation of the air control
device was required by the State at 9 of these sites. One site, ADM,
Incorporated, indicated that the air control device was not required. The
reason for installation of this control device was not determined and two
additional air strippers without controls were later installed at this site.
The reason for installation of air emission control devices at the remaining
7 sites was not identified.
As shown in Table 4-2, twelve of the air strippers with air emission
controls are used to treat ground water contamination. Four treat landfill
leachate and one treats drinking water. All of the landfill leachate sites
identified in this study use some type of air emission control.
Control device performance data were obtained for two of the facilities
with emission control. Inlet and outlet concentration data based on sampling
were obtained for these two sites. Both of these facilities use carbon
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. AIR EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR STRIPPERS
STATE
REQUIREMENT
Arizona
Pima County APCDa
Emission controls are required for emissions of
more than 40 Ib/day of photochemically reactive
hydrocarbons. At least 85 percent removal must
be achieved by the control device.
New York1
Michigan0
Part 212. General Industrial Process
Regulations. Emission controls are required if
emissions exceed the maximum allowed by the
following criteria:
Compound Rating Maximum Allowed Emissions
A - most toxic 1.0 Ib/hr
B 10 Ib/hr
C 10 Ib/hr
D - Least toxic No maximum
If control is required, the control technology
must achieve 99 percent removal.
Emission controls are determined based on long
term risk. Maximum allowable emissions are set
for individual compounds and total amount of
organic compounds. Control device efficiency is
90 percent.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1. AIR EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR AIR STRIPPERS
STATE
REQUIREMENT
Vermont
Section 5-261 of Air Pollution Control
Regulations. Emission control requirements are
determined case by case. Factors considered
are:
(1) degree of toxicity and emission rate of
contaminant,
(2) proximity of source to population,
(3) emission dispersion, and
(4) cumlative impact of emissions.
California - Bay
Area AQMDe
Proposed rule - All emissions from air strippers
must be controlled except for two exclusions.
These exclusions are:
(1) no control required if less than 15 Ib/day
emissions if not expected to cause risk,
(2) no control required if emitted concentra-
tion is less than 300 ppmv.
Reference 1.
'Reference 2.
jReference 3.
^Reference 4.
"Reference 5.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-2. FACILITIES USING AIR EMISSION CONTROLS ON AIR STRIPPERS
Facll 1ty Name
U.S. Coast Guard Base
BKK Landfill
Unidentified
AMD, Inc.
Hughes Aircraft
Lowry Landfill I
Motorola, 52nd Street
Verona Well Field
McClellan AFB
Site A
Site B
Gilson Road
Chem Central
Tyson1 s Dump
Unlflrst
Chem-Dyne
Palos Verdes Landfill
^Source types: GW =
City
Traverse City
West Covlna
Plalnfleld
Sunnyvale
Tuscon
Denver •
Phoenix
Battle Creek
Sacramento
Nashua
Grand Rapids
Upper Merlon
W1ll1amstown
Hamilton
Palos Verdes
Ground Water; LF
State
MI
CA
NJ
CA
AZ
CO
AZ
MI
CA
MI
MI
NH
MI
PA
VT
OH
CA
= Landfill
Typea
GW
LF
DW
GW
GW
LF
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
GW
LF
GW
GW
LF
Leachate;
Major
Contaminants
BZ, Tol. Xyl
Landfill Leachate
PCE, TCE
TCE, DCE, TCA, DCA
TCE, DCE, TCA
1,1 -DCA, 1,2-DCA
TCA
1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCA,
PCE, TCE
MEK, Acetone, various
VOC
PRd
PR"
MeOH, EtOH, Acetone,
MEK, Tol, others
1,2,3-TCP, Xyl, Tol,
Aniline, Phenol
PCE
-r^
Landfill Leachate
DW = Drinking Water.
Typec
COX
Flare
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
INC IN
GAC
GAC
INCIN
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
Flare
Control
Reqd?
(Y/N)
Y
_
-
N
Y
Y
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-
Y
-
—
References
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,14,15
6,16
17
18
6
19
20
21
22
23
"Contaminants: BZ = Benzene; Tol = Toluene; Xyl = Xylene; PCE = Perchloroethylene, TCE = Trlchloroethylene;
DCE = Dlchloroethylene; TCA = TMchloroethane; DCA = Dichloroethane; MEK = Methyl Ethyl Ketone;
MeOH = Methanol; EtOH = Ethanol; 1,2,3-TCP = 1,2.3-Trlchloropropane.
cType: COX = Catalytic Oxidation; GAC = Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption; INCIN = Incineration.
Information treated as confidential pending company review.
-------
adsorption for control. In addition, reported control device efficiencies
were obtained for seven other facilities. These efficiencies are generally
based on either design efficiency, mass balances, or sampling of the control
device inlet and outlet. The available data for each of these eight sites is
summarized in Table 4-3.
A discussion of each control device currently being used to control
emissions from air strippers is presented in the following subsections. The
performance and operational history at each controlled facility is also
discussed.
4.1 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
Granular activated carbon adsorption (GAC) is the most prevalent air
emission control technique used for air stripper emissions. A total of 12
facilities using carbon adsorption technology were identified in this study.
Actual performance data were obtained for two of these operating carbon
adsorbers. The overall removal efficiencies determined at these sites were
99.97 and 74 percent. In addition, reported removal efficiencies were
obtained for three other operating carbon adsorbers. The reported efficiency
for two of these carbon adsorbers is 90 percent, based on design. The
reported efficiency for the third adsorber is 91 percent, based on testing.
However, the test data for this adsorber are not currently available.
Available performance data and the control system at each site are discussed
below.
20
Tvson's Dump
The air stripper at Tyson's Dump in Upper Merion, Pennsylvania, was
designed to treat landfill leachate. It began operating in 1983. Activated
carbon canisters were included in the system design to remove the organics
emitted from the air stripper. A total flow of 170 cfm is routed to four
parallel GAC canisters containing 55 gallons of carbon. The carbon is removed
for disposal and replaced once per month. This air stripping system was
recently shut down, and a new system is being built to provide better
collection of contaminated ground water and removal performance.
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-3. PARAMETERS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR AIR EMISSIONS CONTROL DEVICES
Facility
Name
U.S. Coast Guard Base
Unspecified
Hughes Aircraft
Verona Well Field
McClellan AFB
Site A
Gil son Road
Tyson's Dump
Unifirst
Control
Device
Type
COX
GAC
GAC
GAC
INC IN
GAC
INCIN
GAC
GAC
Design
Air
Flow
(CFM)
2000
20000
14400
5500
4000
8000
--
250
500
Sampling
Data
Available
Y/N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
VO
Remv.
EFF.
(%)
90
90
90
74
99.9
70-90
99.99
99.97
91
aControl Device Type: COX = Catalytic Oxidizer; GAC = Granular Activated
Carbon Adsorber; ICIN = Incinerator.
4-6
-------
The inlet and outlet of the carbon adsorber at Tyson's Dump have been
sampled to determine the control device efficiency. The testing was conducted
at this site for the U.S. EPA. The purpose of the testing was to obtain data
supporting the development of Federal regulations for air emissions from
hazardous waste treatment, handling, and disposal facilities (TSDF). A
summary of the data obtained on inlet and outlet concentrations for the carbon
adsorber at this facility are presented in Table 4-4. In addition to the
inlet and outlet concentrations, the determined efficiencies are presented by
pollutant. As shown in Table 4-4, an overall volatile organic removal
efficiency of 99.97 percent was achieved during the testing.
Verona Well Field13'14'15
At Verona Well Field, air emission control was required by the State.
The original design of this system included both the air stripper and carbon
adsorption unit. The system was designed for removal of
1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and
tetrachloroethylene from contaminated ground water. The system began
operation in September 1984.
Two parallel GAC beds of 9,500 pounds of carbon each are used for
emission control. They are 10 feet in diameter and four feet deep. The total
air flow of 5,500 cfm from the stripper is routed to two parallel carbon beds.
The air entering the GAC beds is heated by a 250,000 BTU/hr natural gas
indirect heater. The preheater is used to raise the temperature of the air by
approximately 30°F, thereby lowering the relative humidity of the air to less
than 40 percent. A relative humidity higher than 40 percent reportedly
reduces the carbon adsorber removal efficiency of the GAC unit. After carbon
reaches breakthrough, it is regenerated off-site. The carbon is removed from
the beds and replaced with regenerated carbon.
This system was designed minimizing air flow in order to reduce the
capital and operating costs for the carbon adsorber system. Larger diameter
and taller height make it possible to achieve high efficiency at lower air
flows. Lowering the air flow allowed for smaller carbon beds without a
reduction in removal efficiency.
4-7
-------
I
co
TABLE 4-4. GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSOf
DATA FOR THE TYSON'S DUMP SITE"
RER PERFORMANCE
Tnlet to
Component
1,2,3 - Trichloropropane
(o,m) - Xylene
p - Xylene
Tol uene
Ethylbenzene
1,2 - Dichlorobenzene
Other VO
Total VO
Carbon
flow
(kg/hr)
1.3E-2
5.2E-3
1.7E-3
2.8E-3
7.5E-4
9.7E-5
4.8E-4
2.4E-2
Adsorber
cone.
(ppmv)
6.7
3.8
1.3
2.4
5.5
0.05C
0.4
20.2
Effluent from
Carbon
flow
(kg/hr)
1.4E-7
2.6E-6
1.7E-6
1.6E-6
4.3E-7
1.4E-7
5.8E-7
7.3E-6
Adsorber
cone.
(ppmv)
0.0008
0.0019
0.012
0.0015
0.0003
c- H
0.0001Cfd
0.0004
0.017
Organic
Removal from
A1ra
(wt *)
99.999
99.95
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.97
Calculated based on Inlet and outlet concentrations.
"Concentrations given as both volatile and semi-volatile fractions. Volatile fraction data used only
Component concentration below detection I1n.1t. One-half of limit used for analysis.
Concentration reported for all Isomers of dichlorobenzene.
-------
Sampling data for the inlet and outlet of this carbon adsorber were
obtained. The sampling was performed to determine if emissions met the permit
requirements and determine removal efficiency of the GAC unit. Sampling was
conducted over a period of 285 minutes. These data are presented in Table 4-5
for each pollutant. As shown in Table 4-5, the removal efficiency obtained
during testing was 74 percent.
Unifirst21
The air stripping system at Unifirst in Williamstown, Vermont, has been
operating since January 1986. The system is designed to remove
perchloroethylene from ground water. Although the stripper is not large and
the corresponding air flow is low (about 500 cfm) air emission control was
required by the State. This system is near two schools, so every effort was
made to control any potentially harmful emissions. The GAC unit is oversized
for the air flow and concentration of organics, but no preheater is used on
the air stream entering the carbon bed. The GAC unit is reported to achieve
90 to 92 percent removal efficiency based on sampling and analysis. The
sampling was required by the State of Vermont to show permit compliance. The
results of this sampling are presently being prepared in a test report. The
carbon bed is regenerated on-site with steam.
2?
Chem-Dvne
In February 1987, the air stripping system at the Chem-Dyne site in
Hamilton, Ohio began operating. The stripper was installed to cleanup ground
water contaminated with a variety of organics compounds. The source of the
contamination was leaking underground storage vats. The air flow rate through
the GAC unit is 3,000 cfm. The carbon beds are steam regenerated on site.
No information was available on the removal efficiency of the GAC unit.
Site A17
Site A began operating an air stripping system in February 1984. The
system removes trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane from contaminated
ground water. Air emission control was required by the State. The carbon
adsorber system includes three parallel carbon beds of 3,000 pounds carbon
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-5. GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORBER PERFORMANCE
DATA FOR VERONA WELL FIELD1"3
Inlet
Compound
1,1-Dichlorethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 2 -Di chl oroethyl ene
Perchl oroethyl ene
1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane
Tri chl oroethyl ene
Total VO
Concentration
(ppmv)
56.6
1.1
96.9
107.9
181.2
18.4
462.1
Outlet Concentration
(ppmv)
52.0
NDb
96.9
ND
7.4
ND
156.3
Removal
Efficiency
(Wt. %)
8.0
100
0
100
96
100
74
Percent Removal = (1- (outlet concentration/inlet concentration)) x 100%.
ND = Not
4-10
-------
each. The inlet air is preheated, using a steam heat exchanger, before
entering the carbon beds. A removal efficiency of 70 - 90 percent is reported
for the GAC unit based on material balances. The carbon beds are regenerated
with 3,900 pounds of steam approximately every other day. One bed is steam
stripped for an hour while the other two remain in service. The organics
recovered from the regeneration process, about 35-50 gallons per week, are
shipped off-site for reclamation. The aqueous phase (condensed steam) from
regeneration is fed back to the air stripper.
One problem encountered at this site is dishing and channeling of the
carbon beds. This situation results in lower removal efficiency. Therefore,
the carbon beds are raked periodically to minimize dishing and channeling.
Site B18
An air stripping system was installed at Site B in December of 1985.
Originally, the air emissions were not controlled. However, after several
months of air stripper operation, the emissions were exceeding the permitted
level. Therefore, the State required that an air emission control be
installed. A GAC system was installed in October of 1986. The carbon
adsorber system consists of a single carbon bed containing 1,100 pounds of
GAC. The carbon adsorber is used to control a 1,200-1,400 cfm air stream. The
major pollutant removed from the air stream is chloroform. Air entering the
carbon bed is preheated by a 20 kW electric heater.
Based on material balances, the removal efficiencies achieved by this
system have been well below the design efficiency of 90 percent removal. The
low removal efficiencies have been attributed to poor performance of the air
preheater. The original air preheater was not sufficiently heating the air to
achieve the desired reduction in relative humidity. A larger preheater was
recently installed to alleviate this problem and the system is expected to
achieve design removal efficiencies.
The carbon bed is regenerated on-site with steam. The system is shut
down every 70 days for three hours to regenerate the carbon. After
regeneration, dry clean air is blown through the bed to dry the carbon.
Approximately 13 pounds of organic phase material are recovered during each
regeneration and sent off-site for disposal. The aqueous phase from steam
4-11
-------
regeneration is fed back to the stripper.
AMD. Inc.9
AMD, Inc., in Sunnyvale, California, installed an air stripping system in
1985 which included GAC for air emission control. This is a small unit which
is used to treat ground water containing trichloroethylene and
dichloroethylene. The GAC unit was not required by the State or regional air
quality management district. The reason for installation of the air control
device is not known. Since installation of the first air stripping system
with GAC control, two additional air strippers have been installed at this
site without air controls. No information was available on the removal
efficiency of the GAC unit.
Hughes Aircraft10
In early April 1987, Hughes Aircraft in Tucson, Arizona, began operating
an air stripping system with GAC for air emission control. Air emission
control was required by the State. The air stripper system is used to treat
ground water contaminated with trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
dichloroethylene. There are three parallel trains of air strippers, but the
arrangement for the emissions control is not known. The GAC unit is designed
to remove greater than 90 percent of the trichloroethylene at a total air flow
of 14,400 cfm. The estimated inlet organic concentrations to the GAC unit
•j -"2
used for design are 43 mg/m (7.4 ppmv) trichloroethylene, 9.3 mg/m (2.2
ppmv) dichloroethylene, and 3.6 mg/m3 (0.61 ppmv) 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Lowrv Landfill11
At Lowry Landfill in Denver, Colorado, an air stripper was installed in
1984. An air emission control device was required by law to remove the
1,1,- dichloroethane and 1,2- dichloroethane from the air stream. The
emission control currently used is a GAC canister. A second air stripper
installed at this site will begin operation in about a month with no air
emission control. Emissions control is no longer considered necessary and
4-12
-------
feasible by the State. No information was available on the removal efficiency
of the GAC unit.
Motorola12
In June 1987, an air stripper will begin operation at the Motorola 52nd
Street site in Phoenix, Arizona. This system will treat ground water
primarily contaminated with 1,1,1-trichloroethane. In addition, smaller
quantities of dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and perchloroethylene are
also present. Data are not available on performance of the full-scale system,
but a pilot study was performed in late 1986 for air stripping with GAC for
emission control. The overall removal efficiencies achieved by the pilot GAC
unit ranged form 30 to 95 percent removal. Removal efficiencies were
calculated from methane equivalents determined during testing. No information
was available on the design removal efficiency of the full scale GAC unit.
Problems encountered during the pilot study include insufficient relative
humidity reduction by the preheater, less than 100 percent regeneration of the
carbon causing a decrease in capacity, and desorption of organics from the
carbon during operation due to a decrease in loading to the system.
Plainfield8
An air stripping system at Plainfield, New Jersey is currently being
designed with air emission control. The system is designed to remove
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene from a drinking water supply. Air
emission control is required by the State. The system is designed for an air
flow rate of 20,000 cfm. The design removal efficiency for the GAC unit is
90 percent.
19
Chemcentral
The air stripping system at Chemcentral in Grand Rapids, Michigan, is
equipped with GAC for air emission control. No additional information is
available on this system.
4-13
-------
4.2 THERMAL INCINERATION
Thermal incineration is an air emission control technique currently used
for control of emissions from air strippers. Two air stripping sites using
thermal incineration were identified in this study. However, actual
performance data are not available for either of these thermal incinerators.
The design destruction efficiency at both sites is reportedly 99.9 percent or
greater.6'16
EPA has previously determined that properly designed and operated thermal
incinerators have been demonstrated to achieve greater than 98 percent
efficiency.24 Thermal incinerators operated at a combustion chamber
temperature of 1,600°F and a residence time of 0.75 seconds can achieve at
least 98 percent destruction efficiency for most nonchlorinated organic
compounds. Similarly, thermal incinerators operated at a combustion
temperature of 2000°F and a residence time of 1.0 seconds can achieve at least
98 percent destruction of most chlorinated organic compounds.
McClellan Air Force Base6'16
The air stripper at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California
began operating in December, 1986. The incinerator was installed for
destruction of methyl ethyl ketone, acetone, 1,1- and 1,2-dichloroethylene,
vinyl chloride, and trichloroethylene stripped from ground water. Although
this unit is referred to as a thermal incinerator, in a previous EPA report,
other sources indicate that a catalyst is used to enhance the removal
efficiency.16 Natural gas is used as the auxiliary fuel to heat the air to
1,800°F. The exhaust gases are used to heat the inlet water to the air
stripper for greater removal efficiency. The incinerator is capable of
treating an air flow of up to 4,000 cfm and is designed to yield 99.9 percent
destruction of incoming organics. Operational problems with the air preheater
have caused system shut-down for one month, but the exact cause was not
specified.
Gil son Road
The air stripper at the Gilson Road site in Nashua, New Hampshire, began
operation in July 1986. The control device was installed primarily for the
destruction of tetrahydrofuran, methyl ethyl ketone, butyl alcohol, and
4-14
-------
toluene, but other organics are also present in the stripper exhaust. The
control device used at Gilson Road is actually an oil-fired boiler used to
thermally oxidize organic emissions from the air stripper. The design
destruction efficiency for this boiler is 99.99 percent.
4.3 CATALYTIC INCINERATION
Catalytic incineration can be used to control the emissions from air
strippers. Similar to thermal incineration, organic compounds in the air
stripper exhaust are destroyed by oxidation. A catalyst is used to promote
the oxidation reaction, allowing high removal efficiencies at lower
temperatures. Catalyst fouling by chlorinated compounds and other materials
can be a major concern for these units. However, at least one catalytic
incinerator design and catalyst combination have been demonstrated effective
25
at destroying chlorinated organic compounds.
The only identified catalytic incinerator is located at the U. S. Coast
Guard Base in Traverse City, Michigan. The air stripping system at the U. S.
Coast Guard Base in Traverse City, Michigan, began operation in 1985. The
catalytic incinerator was included in the initial design and installation of
the air stripping system. The air stripper installed at this site is a rotary
high gravity air stripper which achieves high removal efficiencies at lower
air to water ratios than packed towers. The lower air flow for this type of
air stripper results in higher pollutant concentrations in the air stripper
exhaust.
The catalytic incinerator at Traverse City was installed for destruction
of benzene, toluene and xylene stripped from ground water. The catalytic
oxidation unit is designed for a flow of 2,000 cfm and operates at 500°F to
600 F. The design efficiency for this catalytic incinerator was 90 percent.
However, no performance data are available.
The performance of catalytic incinerators has been demonstrated for
control of organic air emissions from various sources. In general,
destruction efficiencies of greater than 95 percent can be achieved at about
840°F with a catalyst bed volume of 0.5 to 2 cubic feet per 1,000 scfm.24 In
addition, two pilot scale studies have been conducted to demonstrate the
4-15
-------
performance of catalytic incinerators for control of air stripper emissions.
The destruction performance achieved during pilot scale testing of an air
stripper exhaust stream containing benzene and toluene is presented
26
graphically in Figure 4-1. This air stream contained less than 10 ppm total
organics.
In another pilot scale study, a proprietary catalyst and fluidized bed
25
catalytic incineration system were tested. The destruction efficiencies
achieved by this unit on four mixtures of chlorinated and nonchlorinated
25
organics is presented in Figure 4-2. The pollutant concentrations for each
of these mixtures is provided in Table 4-6. These mixtures were selected to
simulate actual air stripper emission streams.
4.4. FLARES
Flares were identified as the control used to control emissions from air
stripping operations at two landfill sites. These flare were not installed
specifically for air stripper emissions control. Instead, the air stripper
emissions were routed to an existing flare at the landfill.
The two landfill sites using flares for air stripper emission control are
the BKK Landfill in West Corina, California, and the Palos Verdes Landfill in
7 23
Palos Verdes, California. ' The air strippers at both locations are used to
treat landfill leachate. No performance or operation data are available for
either of these sites.
4-16
-------
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY (%)
ID
to
(D
(O
UJ
4
c:
-5
fD
-h O
O ft)
-j in
r+
O3 -5
ft) C
3 O
tM ri-
ft) ->•
3 O
ft) 3
a> m
3 -h
O. -t,
—I o'
o -••
—• fD
C 3
fD n
3 <<
fD
o
CU
>
_i. -o
-5 -••
CO O
c-t- c*
-j. c/>
"O O
T3 a>
ft) — •
-s ro
X. 0>
3- rt
O> O>
to ^
o H
o I
m
Z.
13
m
m
S
m
o
01
o
o
en
01 H
o
CTi
3
n
fD
o>
ct-
o
-5
en '
o -
o ;
—t 00
O fD
—« 3
C tM
0> fD
3 3
fD fD
01
m
o
-------
100 -i
90 -
u
e
e
e
u
a
•
O
70 -
cr
A-*
X
-O'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
Q
A
0
Mixture 1
Mixture 2
Mixture 3
Mixture 4
700
SOO
900
1000
Catalyst Inlet Temperature, °F
Figure 4-2. Destruction Efficiency of a Pilot Scale
Catalytic Incinerator for Organic Mixtures
Simulating Air Stripper Exhaust."
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-6. MIXTURE COMPOSITIONS AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
FOR CATALYTIC OXIDATION TESTS3
Mixture
Designation
Mixture
Compounds
Target Inlet
Concentration
(ppmv)
Mixture 1
Trichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethylene
6.3
8.5
Mixture 2
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Pentane
Cyclohexane
2.7
1.5
5.6
11.5
14.1
Mixture 3
Vinyl chloride
Trichloroethylene
7.5
1.8
Mixture 4
1,2 dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
10
10
10
10
Mixture 4
1,2 dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
50
50
50
50
Reference 25.
4-19
-------
4.5 REFERENCES
1. Telecon. Lemon, D., Pima County Air Pollution Control District, Arizona,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. April 1, 1987.
2. Telecon. Spencer, D., State of New York, with Vancil, M.A. Radian
Corporation. April 1, 1987.
3. Letter from Khan. A., Southeast Permit Unit, Air Quality Division,
Michigan, to Skoog, D., State of Michigan, Department of Natural
Resources. September 4, 1985. 5 p.
4. Letter from Garabedian, H.T., Department of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering, State of Vermont, to McDonald, R.,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (OAQPS). May 1, 1987. 2 p. plus
enclosures.
5. Telecon. Lopez, S., Bay Area Air Quality Management District, State of
California, with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 2, 1987.
6. Blaney, B.L. (Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), and
Branscome, M. (Research Triangle Institute). Air Strippers and Their
Emissions Control at Superfund Sites (Draft). (Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.) March 19, 1987. 23 p.
7. Letter from Zienkiewicz, A.W., Hydro Group, Environmental Products
Division, to Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987.
1. p plus enclosures
8. Letter from Dyksen, J.E., Malcom Pirnie, Inc., to Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. March 13, 1987. 1 p. plus enclosures.
9. Telecon. Gingrass, M., AMD, Inc., with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation.
February 27, 1987.
10. Telecon. Opalski, D., Region 9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 23, 1987.
11. Telecon. Mearz, G., City of Denver, Colorado, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. February 18, 1987.
12. Telecon. Hussey, J.R., Dames & Moore, with Vancil, M. A., Radian
Corporation. March 25, 1987.
13. Telecon. McKay, P., State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources,
with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 13, 1987.
4-20
-------
14. Byers, W.D. Control of Emissions from an Air Stripper Treating
Contaminated Groundwater. (Presented at the 1986 Summer National Meeting
of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Boston, Massachusetts.
August 1986.) 13 p.
15. Trip Report. R.H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
6 p. Report of March 11, 1987, visit to Verona Well Field.
16. Telecon. lerardi, M., Civilian Engineer at McClellan Air Force Base,
with Herndon, D., Radian Corporation. March 6, 1987.
17. Trip Report. R. H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
6 p. Report of March 12, 1987 visit to Site A.
18. Trip report. R. H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
5 p. Report of March 12, 1987 visit to Site B.
19. Telecon. Sutherland, J., EDI Engineering & Science, with Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. March 4, 1987.
20. Baker/TSA, Inc. Treatability Study Report Tyson's Dump Site (Draft).
(Prepared for NUS Corporation.) NUS Subcontract No. Z0830907. February
1986. 58 p.
21. Telecon. Johnson, C., Johnson Company, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. April 22, 1987.
22. Telecon. Kunkel, H., Site Manager, Chem-Dyne Site, with Vancil, M.A.,
Radian Corporation. April 7, 1987.
23. Telecon. Nejih, C., State of California, Department of Health, with
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 13, 1987.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Distillation Operations in
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing - Background Information for
Proposed Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-83-005a. December 1983. 395 p.
25. Palazollo, M.A., C.L. Jamgochian, J.I. Steinmetz, and D.L. Lewis. (Radian
Corporation.) Destruction of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons by Catalytic
Oxidation. (Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.)
Washington, D. C. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3994. 81 p.
26. Telecon. Miller, P., Groundwater Technology, with Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. April 21, 1987.
4-21
-------
5.0 COST OF CONTROLS
This section presents a discussion of the capital and operating costs for
the controlled air stripping systems identified in this study. Limited cost
data were available for granular activated carbon (GAC) control for four sites
and catalytic incineration control for one site. These data are presented in
this section. In addition to these cost data, estimates of costs of thermal
incineration and catalytic incineration controls were also made in this study
for the four air stripper sites where GAC cost data were available. These
cost estimates are made for comparison purposes and are based on the actual
air stripper operating data and standard EPA costing procedures.
Flares were identified in this study as controls for emissions from air
1 2
strippers treating ground water at two landfill sites. ' However, due to the
limited applicability of flares for controlling air stripper emissions,
control costs were not estimated for flares in this study. In addition, no
attempt was made to estimate thermal incineration and GAC control costs for
the one site using catalytic incineration.
5.1 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
Installed cost data were obtained from four sites using GAC
control. ' ' ' The nature of these cost data varies from site to site.
Actual installed cost data were obtained for Site B. For another site (Verona
Well Field), cost estimates made during an Options Feasibility study were
provided. Contractor design cost estimates were available for the site in
Plainfield, New Jersey. For Site A, plant personnel estimated costs based on
the cost of similar equipment operating at that site. Annual operating cost
data were available for two sites, Verona Well Field and Plainfield.
Operating costs for Sites A and B were estimated in this study so that total
annualized costs for GAC control could be compared to total annualized costs
estimated for thermal and catalytic incinerators. A discussion of the
available installed cost data and the estimated operating costs for the four
GAC systems are presented below.
5-1
-------
5.1.1 Installed Costs
The installed cost of the GAC control system is dependent on the amount
of carbon required to ensure adequate VO removal. The air flow rate passing
through the bed, the adsorption cycle time, and the adsorption capacity for
the specific pollutants in the air stream affect the required amount of
carbon. Table 5-1 presents the air stream and carbon bed data for the air
stripper systems for which control cost data were available. Carbon bed data
for the Plainfield site were not available. The total weight of carbon
required for the other three sites ranges from 1,100 to 19,000 Ibs. Air flow
rates for the four sites range from 1,300 to 20,000 cfm. The adsorption
capacity of the carbon (Ib VO/lb carbon) is dependent on the type of VO in the
air stream as well as the temperature and humidity of the air stream. All
four GAC units listed in Table 5-1 are used to remove chlorinated hydrocarbons
from the air passing through the beds. The air streams are preheated to
reduce the relative humidity before passing through the carbon beds at
three facilities. This information is not available for the Plainfield site.
The temperature and relative humidity of the air streams following preheating
for sites A and B and the Verona Well Field site are also presented in
Table 5-1.
Installed capital cost data for the GAC units at the four air stripper
sites are presented in Table 5-2. The costs estimates for all sites
are presented in third quarter 1986 dollars for comparison purposes. The cost
data for site A were estimated by the plant personnel based on the cost of
similar equipment operating at that site. The costs for site B are based on
actual installed cost data. The cost data-for Verona Well Field are based on
the estimate made by the site for an Options Feasibility study. The cost data
for the Plainfield site are based on contractor design cost estimates.
The GAC systems at sites A and B include preheaters and steam regeneration
systems. The GAC system at Verona Well Field includes a preheater but no
steam regeneration system. No detailed information was available on the GAC
system at Plainfield. None of the sites provided enough details in their cost
estimates to determine what components were included in their estimates.
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1. AIR STREAM AND CARBON BED DATA FOR FOUR FACILITIES
Facility
Site A
Site B
Verona Well Field
Plalnf 1eld
A1r Flow
(cfm)
8,000
1,300
5,500
20,000
Temperature
(°F)
N/A
>80
100a
N/A
Relative
Humidity
(X)
<40
<40
<40
N/A
Bed
Type
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
N/A
No. of
Beds
3
1
2
N/A
Carbon Weight
(Ib/Bed)
3,000
1,100
9,500
N/A
Reference
3
4
5
6
aS1te representative reported temperature to be 30°F above ambient.
N/A - Not available.
en
i
CO
-------
TABLE 5-2. INSTALLED COSTS FOR 6AC CONTROL
Facility
Site A
Site B
Verona Well Field
Plainfield
Installed Cost
($, 3rd Quarter 1986)
150,000
152,000a
223,000b
500,000
Reference
3
4
5
6
aFourth quarter 1985 cost data escalated to third quarter 1986 using M&S
Equipment Cost Index.
Second quarter 1984 cost data escalated to third quarter 1986 using M&S
Equipment Cost Index.
5-4
-------
5.1.2 Operating Costs
Verona Well Field did provide estimates of operating and maintenance
costs made for an Options Feasibility study. In addition, actual carbon
regeneration and replacement costs were provided for the Verona Well Field
system. Operating and maintenance costs were also provided for the Plainfield
Site. These costs, however, may not include carbon replacement. These
operating cost estimates and estimates made using standard EPA costing
procedures for sites A and B are presented here. Some actual utility usage
data were available for sites A and B. These usage data were used to estimate
utility costs for these sites. Standard engineering factors were used to
estimate other direct and indirect operating costs. The information used to
estimate the operating costs for sites A and B are presented in Table 5-3.
The unit cost factors presented in Table 5-3 were updated using appropriate
indices.
The operating costs estimated for each site are presented in Table 5-4.
The estimated operating costs range from $77,800 for site B to $221,400 for
the Plainfield Site.
5.2 THERMAL INCINERATION
Installed and operating costs for thermal incineration control were
estimated based on air stripper operating parameters for the four sites
reporting GAC cost data. The methodology used to estimate these costs is
provided in Reference 8. The estimated costs are presented below for
comparison to the costs presented above for the four sites using GAC control.
5.2.1 Installed Costs
Costs were estimated for thermal incineration control based on the air
flow rate for each site. The major equipment costs for the incinerator
systems include the incinerators and recuperative heat exchangers. The cost
of the incinerators including fan and motor, and instrumentation and controls
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-3. UNIT COST FACTORS AND CONSUMPTION BASES FOR GAC CONTROL
en
i
en
Operating Costs
Basis for Annual
Consumption
Site
Unit Cost
Direct Operating Costs
1. Utilities:
a. Water
b Steam
c. Electricity
d. Natural Gas
2. Operating Labor:
a. Operating Labor
b. Supervision
3. Maintenance
a. Labor
b. Materials
4. Replacement
a. Parts (carbon)
b. Labor
Indirect Operating Costs
1. Overhead
2. Property Tax
3. Insurance
4. Administration
5. Capital Recovery
TOTAL ANNUAL IZED
^Reference S
Reference 2- Adjusted to
^Reference 1.
Reference 4_.
^Reference H.
Reference 12.
^Reference 8_. Adjusted to
12 gal/100 Ib steam3
3900 lb/51 hr":
440 lb/480 hr°
Fan: 8000 cftn^, 10 In. P
Fan: 1300 cfm , 10 1n. P
Preheater: 20 kWa
Preheater: 3.9 MMscf^
Preheater: 2.4 MMscf
0.5 hrs/sh1ft, 8600 hr|a
15% of operating labor
0.5 hrs/sh1ft, 8600 hrsa
100% of maintenance labor
9000 lb/5 yrc
1100 lb/5 yra
100% of replacement parts
80% of (2a+2b+3a+3b)3
1% of total capital cost3
1* of total capital cost3
2% of total capital cost3
0.163 x total capital cost3
COST = DIRECT + INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS
3rd quarter 1986 using Reference 1Q.
3rd quarter 1986 using Reference 1Q.
A, B
A
B
A
B
B
A
Verona
A, B
A, B
A, B
A, B
A
B
A, B> Verona
All
All
All
All
$0.00033/galb
$0.00518/lb^
$0.00518/lbb
$0.0508/kWhe, 8600
$0.0508/kWhe, 8600
$0.0028/ft;e« 8600
$0.0028/ft,, 8600
$0.0028/ft . 8600
K
$11.99/hrD
-
$11.99/hrb
Jl.899
$1.89g
_
-
-
-
~
hrsa
hrsa
hrs3
hrsa
hrs3
-------
TABLE 5-4. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR GAC CONTROL
Annual Ooeratlna Cost ($. 3rd auarter 1986)
Site A
Site B
Verona Well
Field Plalnfleld
Direct Operating Costs
1.
2.
3.
4.
Indt
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Utilities:
a. Water
b. Steam
c. Electricity
d. Natural Gas
Operating Labor:
a. Operating Labor
b. Supervision
Maintenance
a. Labor
b. Materials
Replacement
a. Parts
b. Labor
rect Operating Costs
Overhead
Property Tax
Insurance
Administration
Capital Recovery
TOTAL ANNUAL I2EO COST
28
3,420
6,990
10,930
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
4,340
4,340
15,620
1,500
1,500
3,000
24,450
96,400
0
41
9,880.
N/A6
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
530
530
15,620
1,520
1,520
3,040
24,780
77,800
..
_
10,410a
6,720
20,900C 120,000d
_
_
_
24,689e
-
16,000
2,230 5,000
2,230 5,000
4,460 10,000
36,350 81.375
124,100 221,400
^Reference 12. Adjusted to 3rd quarter 1986 using Reference
°N/A for not available
^Reference 12. Adjusted to 3rd quarter 1986 using Reference
Total annual operating and maintenance cost from Reference
Reference 12. Includes labor.
Assumed to Include overhead.
-------
was estimated based on the required combustion chamber sizes. The combustion
chamber for each site was sized to provide a residence time of one second to
ensure a combustion efficiency of 99 percent. The air flow rates at the four
sites were as presented in Table 5-1. The incineration combustion temperature
f\ ft
was set at 2000 F. The incinerators design includes a heat exchanger to
recover 35 percent of the heat from the combustion flue gas. Heat from the
flue gas is transferred to the air exhaust from the stripper. The cost of the
heat exchanger was estimated based on the surface area required for heat
exchange.
The costs of the incinerator and heat exchanger were used to estimate the
base equipment cost (BEC) for the system. The direct and indirect installation
p
expenses were factored from the BEC using standard engineering cost factors.
The estimated installed costs for the four incinerator systems are presented
in Table 5-5. The installed costs for these units range from $187,500 for
site B to $432,000 for the Plainfield site.
5.2.2 Operating Costs
Operating costs were estimated for the thermal incinerators designed for
each of the four sites. These estimated costs are partially dependent on the
air flow rate to the incinerator. Natural gas and electricity requirements
for the incinerators increase proportionally with increasing air flow rate.
Higher air flow rates require additional fuel to heat the air stream to
combustion temperature. Additional fan capacity is required to handle the
flue gas rates leaving the incinerator. Other direct operating costs, such as
operating labor, are only partially proportional to the air flow capacity of
the unit. Indirect operating costs, such as a property tax and insurance, are
independent of the system operating capacity. These costs were estimated
based on the total capital investment (TCI) for the incinerator system at each
site. The standard engineering cost factors used to estimate the direct and
indirect operating costs for each of the four incinerator systems are presented
in Table 5-6.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-5. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS FOR THERMAL INCINERATORS AT FOUR SITES3
en
Cost Elements
Direct Gpftg
_ .b
Purchased Equipment 6pst
tftfrer Direct Costa
Foundation and supports
Erection and handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
TOTAL DIRECT COST
Engineering and Supervision
Construction and F aqiilpman*- control s and Instrumentation, taxes, and freight.
PUtnft.ld
265,000
344,500
74,200
13.250
431.950
-------
TABLE 5-6. UNIT COST FACTORS AND CONSUMPTION BASES FOR THERMAL INCINERATION CONTROL
Operating Costs
Basis for Annual
Consumption
Site
Unit Cost
en
i
Direct Operating Costs
1. Utilities:
a. Natural Gas
2000°F combustion temperaturet 35X heat recovery3
8000 scfm°.
1300 scfmd
5500 scfm8.
20000 scfm
All
A
B
Verona Nell Field
Pla1nf1eld
$0.00280/scfmu
b. Electricity
2. Operating Labor:
a. Operating Labor
b. Supervision
3. Maintenance
a. Labor
b. Materials
4. Replacement
a. Parts
b. Labor
Indirect Ooeratlng Costs
1. Overhead
2. Property Tax
3. Insurance
4. Administration
5. Capital Recovery
TOTAL ANNUAL IZED COST
3Reference 8..
Reference 11.
^Reference 1.
Reference 4_.
.Reference 5_.
Reference 6_.
Reference 2. Adjusted to 3rd qua
8 In. P, flue gas flow rate (2000°F)a
0.5 hrs/sh1ft. 8600 hrsa
15X of operating labor
0.5 hrs/sh1ft, 8600 hrsa
100X of maintenance labor
N/A
N/A
BOX of (2a+2b+3a+3b)a
IX of total capital cost3
IX of total capital cost3
2X of total capital cost3
0.163 x total capital cost3
irter 1986 using Reference 10.
All
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
A,
B
B
B
B
B
3
B
B
B
$0.0508/kWh°
$11.99/hr9
$11.99/hr9
-------
The estimated operating costs for each of the four sites are presented in
Table 5-7. The operating costs range from $128,700 for site B to $1,123,000
for the Plainfield site.
5.3 CATALYTIC INCINERATION
During this study, one air stripper system was identified using catalytic
incineration to control air emissions. Only purchase cost data for this
catalytic incinerator at the Traverse City, MI air stripper was provided.*4
Installed and operating costs for the incinerator were estimated based on
methodology provided in Reference 8 and are presented in Table 5-8 and 5-9,
respectively. No attempt was made to estimate GAC or thermal incineration
system costs for this facility. However, installed and operating costs for
catalytic incineration control were estimated based on air stripper operating
parameters for the four sites reporting GAC cost data (sites A, B, Verona Well
Field, and Plainfield). These estimated costs for catalytic incineration
systems are presented below for comparison to the costs for GAC control.
5.3.1 Installed Costs
Costs were estimated for catalytic incineration control based on the air
flow rate data available for each of the four sites. The major equipment
costs for the incinerator systems include the incinerators, catalyst, and
recuperative heat exchangers. The costs of the incinerator less catalyst was
estimated for each system based on the air flow rate entering the incineration
unit. The catalyst requirement for each system was estimated based on the air
flow rates for each site and an assumed space velocity through the catalyst
bed of 30,000 hr" . This space velocity was selected to ensure 95 percent
destruction efficiency. The catalytic incinerator design includes a heat
exchanger to recover 35 percent of the heat from the combustion flue gas.8
Heat from the flue gas is transferred from the flue gas to the air exhaust
from the stripper. The heat exchangers were sized to raise the temperature of
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-7. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR THERMAL INCINERATION CONTROL AT FOUR SITES
on
i
ro
Direct Operating Costs
1. Utilities:
a. Fuel
b. Electricity
2. Operating Labor:
a. Operating Labor
b. Supervision
3. Maintenance
a. Labor
b. Materials
4. Replacement
a. Parts
b. Labor
Indirect Operating Costs
1. Overhead
2. Property Tax
3. Insurance
4. Administration
5. Capital Recovery
Site A
384,420
26,820
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
-
-
15,620
3.190
3,190
6,380
31.920
Annual Operating
Site B
62,140
4,360
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
-
-
15.620
1.875
1,875
3,750
18,800
Cost (S. 1986)
Verona Well
Field
264,470
17,840
6,450
970
6,450
6.450
-
-
15.620
2,840
2.840
5,670
28,350
Plalnfleld
959,600
67,050
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
-
-
15,620
4,340
4,340
8,680
43,410
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
491,900
128,700
357,900
1,123,400
-------
TABLE 5-8. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATOR
AT TRAVERSE CITY, MI
Cost Elements
Cost Factor
Installed Cost
($, 3rd quarter 1986)
Direct Costs
Purchased Equipment Cost
Other Direct Costs
1.0
121,780
Foundation and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
TOTAL DIRECT COST
Indirect Costs
Engineering and Supervision
Construction and Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start Up
Performance Test
Model Study
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.30
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.01
0.28
0.05
1.63
158,300
34,100
6,100
198,500
^Reference §
Purchased equipment costs include all major and auxiliary equipment, controls
and instrumentation* taxes and freight.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-9. OPERATING COSTS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATION
CONTROL AT TRAVERSE CITY, MI
Annual Operating Cost
($, 1986)
Direct Operating Costs
1. Utilities:
a. Fuel 28,670
b. Electricity 4,840
2. Operating Labor:
a. Operating Labor 2,450
b. Supervision 360
3. Maintenance
a. Labor 2,450
b. Materials 2,450
4. Replacement
a. Parts 4,220
b. Labor 4,220
Indirect Operating Costs
1. Overhead 5,940
2. Property Tax 1,990
3. Insurance 1,990
4. Administration 3,980
5. Capital Recovery 32,355
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST 95,920
5-14
-------
the air entering the incinerator to 895°F. This inlet temperature ensures
that an adequate overall reaction rate can be achieved to obtain the desired
o
destruction efficiency without damaging the catalyst. The cost of the heat
exchanger was estimated based on the surface area required for heat exchange.
The major equipment costs discussed above were summed and used to estimate
the base equipment cost (BEC) for the system. The direct and indirect
installation expenses were factored from the BEC using the same standard
engineering cost factors presented for the thermal incinerator system in
Table 5-5. The installed costs for the four catalytic incinerator systems are
shown in Table 5-10. The installed costs for these units range from $134,600
for site B to $585,700 for the Plainfield Site.
5.3.3 Operating Costs
Operating costs were estimated for the catalytic incinerators sized for
each of the four sites. These estimated costs are partially dependent on the
air flow rate to the Incinerator. Natural gas and electricity requirements
for the incinerators increase proportionally with increasing air flow rate.
Higher air flow rates require additional fuel to heat the air stream to
combustion temperature; additional fan capacity 1s required to handle the
higher flue gas rates leaving the incinerator. The catalyst required for the
systems also increase proportionally with the air flow rate to maintain the
desired space velocity. Therefore, catalyst replacement costs will also be
dependent on the air flow rate. Other direct operating costs, such as
operating labor, are only partially proportional to the air flow capacity of
the unit and suggested values were used to estimate these costs. Indirect
operating costs, such as a property tax and insurance, are independent of the
system operating capacity. These costs were estimated based on the total
capital investment (TCI) of the incinerator system at each site. The standard
engineering cost factors used to estimate the direct and indirect operating
costs for each of the four incinerator systems are presented in Table 5-11.
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-10. ESTIMATED INSTALLED COSTS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATORS AT FOUR SITES
en
i—1
CTi
Cost Elements
piract Costs
Purchased Equipment Cost
Othar Direct Costs
Foundation and Supports
Erection and Handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
TOTAL DIRECT COST
Indirect Costs
Engineering and Supervision
Construction and Field Expenses
Construction Fee
Start Up
Performance Test
Model Study
TOTAL INDIRECT COST
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
Cost Factor3
1.0
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.30
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.01
--
0.28
0.05
1.63
Installed Cost (1. 1986)
Verona Well
S1te A Site B Field Pla1nf1eld
188.210 82,600 153,840 359,300
244,670 107.380 199,990 467,090
52,700 23,130 43,075 100,604
9.410 4,130 7,690 17,970
306,780 134,640 250,760 585,660
bPurchas^d equipment costs Include all major and auxiliary equipment, controls and Instrumentation, taxes, and freight.
-------
Operating Costs
TABLE 5-11.
UNIT COST FACTORS AND CONSUMPTION BASES FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATION CONTROL
Basis for Annual
Consumption
Site
Unit Cost
1. Utilities:
a. Natural Gas
b. Electricity
2. Operating Labor:
a. Operating Labor
t>. Supervision
3. Maintenance
a. Labor
b. Materials
4. Replacement
a. Parts
b. Labor
Indirect Operating P-n^ts
1. Overhead
2. Property Tax
3. Insurance
4. Administration
5. Capital Recovery
1000 F combustion temperature. 35X heat recovery3
8000 scfm<;
1300 scfmd
5500 scfm®
20000 scfmf
0 In. P, flue gas flow rate* (1000°F)
0.5 hrs/shlft, 8600 hrsa
15X of operating labor8
0.5 hrs/shlft, 8600 hrs3
100% of maintenance labor3
Catalyst volume, 3 year lifetime3
100% of replacement parts3
BOX of (2a+2b+3a+3b)3
1* of total capital cost3
IX of total capital cost3
2X of total capital cost3
0.163 x total capital cost3
All
A
B
Verona Well Field
Plalnfleld
All
A, B
A, B
A, B
A, B
All
A, B
A, B
A, B
A. B
A, B
J0.00280/scfmb
$0.0508/kWhb
$11.99/hrb
$11.99/hr9
$2700/ft3h
TOTAL ANNUAL IZED COST
^Reference fl.
^Reference JJL.
.Reference 3,.
Reference 4_.
^Reference 5_.
Reference 6.
1986
Adin
Adjusted to 3rd quarter 1986 using Reference Ifi
-------
The estimated operating costs for each of the four sites are presented in
Table 5-12. The operating costs range from $86,100 for site B to $605,700 for
the Plainfield Site.
5.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY COST COMPARISON
Table 5-13 presents a summary of the installed and annualized costs for
GAC, thermal incineration, and catalytic incineration controls for all
four sites. As seen in the table, GAC systems have the lowest annualized cost
while thermal incinerators have the highest annualized cost at all sites.
5-18
-------
TABLE 5-12. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR CATALYTIC INCINERATION CONTROL AT FOUR SITES
en
i
Annual Ooeratlno Cost (S. 1986)
Site A
Site B
Verona Well
Field
Plalnfleld
Direct Operating Costs
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ind1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Utilities:
a. Fuel
b. Electricity
Operating Labor:
a. Operating Labor
b. Supervision
Maintenance
a. Labor
b. Materials
Replacement
a. Parts
b. Labor
rect Operating Costs
Overhead
Property Tax
Insurance
Administration
Capital Recovery
137,290
19.450
6.450
970
6.450
6,450
16,500
16,500
15,624
3,070
3,070
6.140
30,680
21,680
3,360
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
3,110
3,110
15,624
1,350
1,350
2.700
13.460
93.940
13.400
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
11,410
11.410
15.624
2.510
2.510
5.020
25.070
354,070
48.650
6,450
970
6,450
6,450
42,520
42,520
15,624
5,860
5.860
11.720
58.570
TOTAL ANNUAL IZED COST
268,600
86,100
201.200
605,700
-------
TABLE 5-13. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR GAC INCINERATION AND
CATALYTIC INCINERATION CONTROLS
SITE A
Air Stripper
Water Flow Rate 1,400 gpm
Organic Concentration
Trichloroethylene 4,000 ppb
Trlchloroethane 300 ppb
Total Organ1cs 4,300 ppb
Organic Removal Efficiency 99 %
Organic Emissions 11.5 Mg/yr
Air Flow Rate 8,000 cfm
Air Emission Control Efficiency and Costs
Carbon Thermal Catalytic
Adsorber Incinerator Incinerator
Control Efficiency (%) -80 98 95
Installed Cost ($) 150,000 318,000 307,000
Direct Operating Cost ($) 50,400 432,000 210,000
Total Annualized Cost ($) 96,400 492,000 269,000
5-20
-------
TABLE 5-13. (Continued)
SITE B
Air Stripper
Water Flow Rate 155 gpm
Organic Concentration
Chloroform 1,500 ppb
Methylene Chloride NR
Ethylene Bichloride NR
Chloroform Removal Efficiency 99.9 %
Chloroform Emissions 0.44 Mg/yr
Air Flow Rate 1,300 cfm
Air Emission Control Efficiency and Costs
Carbon Thermal Catalytic
Adsorber Incinerator Incinerator
Control Efficiency (%) NR 98 95
Installed Cost ($) 152,000 187,000 134,000
Direct Operating Cost ($) 31,300 86,800 51,600
Total Annualized Cost ($) 77,800 129,000 86,100
NR = Not Reported
5-21
-------
TABLE 5-13. (Continued)
VERONA WELL FIELD
Air Stripper
Water Flow Rate 1,900 gpm
Organic Concentration
Ethylene Dichloride 5 ppb
Trichloroethane 12 ppb
Dichloroethylene 10 ppb
Trichloroethylene 1 ppb
Perchloroethylene 10 ppb
Total Organics 38 ppb
Organic Removal Efficiency -100 %
Organic Emissions 0.14 Mg/yr
Air Flow Rate 5,500 cfm
Air Emission Control Efficiency and Costs
Carbon Thermal Catalytic
Adsorber Incinerator Incinerator
Control Efficiency (%) 74 98 95
Installed Cost ($) 223,000 285,000 251,000
Direct Operating Cost ($) 62,700 303,000 150,000
Total Annualized Cost ($) 124,000 358,000 201,000
5-22
-------
TABLE 5-13. (Continued)
PLAINFIELD
Air Stripper
Water Flow Rate 3,600 gpm
Organic Concentration
Perch!oroethylene 200 ppb
Organic Removal Efficiency 99.6 %
Organic Emissions 1.4 Mg/yr
Air Flow Rate 19,200 cfm
Air Emission Control Efficiency and Costs
Carbon Thermal Catalytic
Adsorber Incinerator Incinerator
Control Efficiency (%) 90 98 95
Installed Cost ($) 500,000 432,000 586,000
Direct Operating Cost ($) 120,000 1,047,000 508,000
Total Annualized Cost ($) 221,000 1,123,000 606,000
5-23
-------
5.5 REFERENCES
1. Letter from Zlenkiewicz, A.W., Hydro Group, Environmental Products
Division, to Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. February 20, 1987. 1 p.
plus enclosures.
2. Telecon. Nejih, C., State of California, Department of Health, with
Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. March 13, 1987.
3. Trip report. R.H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation to file.
6 p. Report of March 12, 1987 visit to Plant A.
4. Trip report. R.H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
5 p. Report of March 12, 1982 visit to Plant B.
5. Trip report. R.H. Howie and M.A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
6 p. Report of March 11, 1987 visit to Verona Well Field in
Battle Creek, Michigan.
6. Telecon. Opalski, D., Region 9, United States Environmental Protection
Agency with Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation February 23, 1987.
7. Economic Indicators (M & S equipment cost index). Chemical Engineering.
Vol. (93): p. 7. December 8, 1986.
8. Handbook fo Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Air and
Energy Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N. C. EPA/625/6-86/014. September 1986. pp. 47-59,
pp. 97-111.
9. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Distillation Operations in
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing - Background Information for
Proposed Standards. Research Triangle Park, N. C. Publication No.
EPA-450/3-83-005a. December 1983. p. 8-13.
10. U. S. Department of Commerce. Survey of Current Business.
Washington, D. C. Vol. 66, No. 9. p. 5-6.
11. U. S. Department of Energy. Monthly Energy Review. Washington, D. C.
Publication No. DOE/EIA-0035 (86/07). July 1986. p. 87.
12. Letter from McKay, P.A., State of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, to Vancil, M.A., Radian Corporation. April 23, 1987. 2 p.
plus enclosures
13. Letter from Dyksen, J.E., Malcom Pirnie, Inc., to Vancil, M.A., Radian
Corporation. March 13, 1987. 1 p. plus enclosures.
14. Trip Report. C. C. Allen, M. Brancome and K. Leese, Research Triangle
Institute, to Dr. Benjamin Blaney, EPA-HWERL. March 2, 1987. 11 p.
Appendix C. Report of May 29, 1986, visit to U. S. Coast Guard Facility,
Traverse City, Michigan.
5-24
-------
6.0 SITE VISIT REPORTS
Three site visits were conducted during this study. The purpose of these
visits was to obtain information on air stripper systems with GAC control.
Detailed information on the design and operation of the air strippers and GAC
control devices were obtained during the visits.
6.1 SITE A1
Site A manufactures heat exchanger equipment. Trichloroethylene and
1,1,1-trichloroethane were used in this process for degreasing operations.
The two compounds were discovered in ground water near the plant, and air
stripping technology was installed to clean up the groundwater in
February 1984.
6.1.1 General Information
Through routine monitoring of wells, the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources discovered ground water contamination by trichloroethylene (TCE) and
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). Investigation revealed that an oil and solvent
storage facility at site A was the possible contamination source. Liquid
losses during handling were identified as the cause of contamination. The
storage tanks at the facility were tested for leaks, but none were detected.
Twelve purge wells and approximately 60 to 70 monitoring wells were
installed to define the contamination plume and supply contaminated water to
the air stripper for treatment. The purge wells were placed in banks of three
around the plume. The air stripper began operating in February 1984.
6.1.2 Process Description
A diagram of the air stripping process is shown in Figure 6-1. Water is
pumped from the purge wells and combined in a single pipeline at the air
stripper. The water is pumped to the top of the packed column and is
countercurrently contacted with air. The column stands 66 feet high and is
6-1
-------
Contaminated Air
IV)
Outside
Air
A A A A A A
Packed
Tower
Two Blowers
(Parallel)
To Oil-
Water
Separator
\
\
\
To
Plant
Air
Pumps
1 \
1 \
x-^ Air
^
ter
\
r -
> 4
Carbon
Bed
1
J
DIUWOI uisunarge
Through
Stack
. —. _ _
i
"1 """ — "*" ~"
*
Carbon
Bed
1
1
\
•*-"!
*
1 - I
Carbon 1
Bed |
i
1
1 <
1
1
: u_
t-___J
Contaminated
Ground Water-
12 Purge Wells
^
Condenser
Effluent
Water
^ Aqueous Stream
i
Steam Generation
for Carbon Bed
Regeneration
Decanter
Organic
Stream
Figure 6 -1. Air Stripping System with On-Site Carbon Regeneration
at Site A
-------
made of fiberglass; the internal structure (packing support, liquid
distributors, etc) is made of stainless steel. Water is discharged from the
air stripper to two different locations. Approximately 1,100 gpm of the 1,400
gpm total water effluent is sent to an oil-water separator and is discharged
with other wastewater from the facility. The remaining effluent is used as
non-contact cooling water in the plant. This water, necessary for plant
operation, is stored in a 100,000 gallon tank. The tank supplies only enough
water for about six hours of plant operation, so it is necessary for the air
stripper to operate continuously.
The well pumping system is equipped with a warning system to notify plant
personnel if pumps have failed. Additionally, the water supply rate from the
wells can be controlled at several points. The flow rate from each well or
the flow from a bank of three wells can be varied.
Outside air is drawn into the system at 7,000-9,000 cfm by two blowers
operating in parallel. The air flows through the air stripping column, a
steam preheater, a blower, the granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorber beds,
and out an 80 foot stack. The blowers work in combination to both force and
induce air through the system. The preheater is used to lower the relative
humidity of the air to below 40 percent. This increases the amount of
volatile organic (VO) adsorption on the GAC by preventing condensation of
water in the GAC pores. The three VIC carbon adsorber beds are arranged in
parallel and contain 3,000 pounds of carbon each.
Steam is used to regenerate the carbon adsorber units. During
regeneration, one bed is removed from service and steam is passed through the
bed for one hour. The bed is then put back on-line, and another bed is
removed from contaminated air service to be regenerated. This is done for all
three beds until they are completely regenerated. Initially, the carbon beds
were regenerated every 10 - 12 hours, but influent concentrations have
decreased since startup. Regeneration is now required every 48 hours.
The steam and VO leaving the carbon bed from the regeneration process are
condensed and allowed to separate in a decanter. The aqueous phase is
recycled into the influent stream to the stripping tower; the organic phase,
approximately 35-50 gallons per week of TCE, is collected and disposed of as a
hazardous waste. TCE is not reused because it no longer contains proprietary
additives included by the solvent supplier.
6-3
-------
Very few problems have been encountered with the air stripping system.
The forced air arrangement for the carbon beds has caused some minor
difficulties. The air caused dishing of the carbon bed and allowed channeling
of air through the bed, lowering the VO removal efficiency. The beds are
raked occasionally to control this problem.
During the past year, the air stripping system was shut down for four
days to effect repairs and cleaning. Chlorine was recirculated through the
air stripping tower to clean iron bacteria deposits from the packing.
6.1.3 Performance Data for the Air Stripper and GAC
Air and water regulations affect the size of the air stripper system, the
need for air emission controls, and how long the system must operate. The
State of Michigan requires that the water discharged from the stripper contain
less than 5 ppb VO. The level of contamination allowed in the ground water at
the end of the cleanup has not been determined yet. The air permit allows a
maximum discharge of approximately 2.5 Ib/hr VO. This is based on a 10"
increase in cancer risk off-site from the facility based on the Michigan
long-term (MILT) air dispersion model and estimated ground water
contamination. The air stripper was built anticipating a 10 year lifetime.
The actual time needed to clean the ground water is unknown, however. Carbon
replacement is not expected at any time.
The air stripper is currently removing about 99.9 percent of the influent
VO in the water. Initially, the influent concentration was about 20 ppm VO.
This has decreased to 3 - 5 ppm TCE and 200 - 400 ppb TCA and is remaining
steady at this concentration. The tower effluent water typically contains 2 -
8 ppb TCE and non-detectable concentrations of TCA, based on biweekly sampling
results.
The activated carbon beds are currently removing 70 - 90 percent of the
VO in the air exhaust from the column. This estimated removal range is based
on material balances taking into account the organic volumes recovered during
regeneration of the carbon.
6-4
-------
6.L4 Cost Data
Little cost data are available on the system. In 1984, one of the three
carbon units was installed new for approximately $60,000, including the
equipment cost of about $35,000. It is estimated that it would now cost about
$150,000 to replace all three carbon beds.
6.2 SITE B2
From 1965 to 1982, site B extracted conjugated estrogens from equine
mares' urine with either methylene chloride or 1-2, dichloroethane.
Chloroform was also used on-site as a bacteriostatic agent. In 1981, ground
water contamination by these three chemicals was discovered and cleanup using
air stripping was initiated.
6.2.1 General Information
In 1981, a tank truck overflowed with liquid being emptied from the waste
holding tank at site B. Soil was excavated to clean up the spill. As a
precaution, a ground water sample was taken at the time to test for additional
contamination. The sample revealed contamination by chloroform, methylene
chloride, and 1,2-dichloroethane, although this was not from the tank spill.
The holding tank was tested for leaks, but none were detected. Through
dye tracing of the drain system at the plant, a drain from the barrel washing
area was identified as the contamination source. All drains in the facility
were designed to feed the single waste holding tank. The barrel washing area,
however, drained to a dry well instead of being connected to the collection
system. The solvents seeped from the dry well and contaminated the ground
water.
Monitoring wells were placed to define the plume of contamination. After
defining the plume of contamination, five purge wells were installed and air
stripping technology was selected. Construction of the air stripper was
completed in four months. The air stripper began operating in December 1985.
As determined using water contamination estimates and air dispersion modeling,
6-5
-------
no air emission controls were required by the State of Michigan. However,
emission testing after system start-up revealed that air emissions were
exceeding the permitted amount of 0.6 Ibs/hr. Granular activated carbon (GAC)
was installed on the air exhaust to reduce emissions. The air stripper and
emission control systems have been operating continually since.
6.2.2 Process Description
A diagram of the air stripping system is shown in Figure 6-2. Water from
the five purge wells is pumped through a single line to the air stripping
column. In the three foot diameter, 45 foot tall column, air and water
countercurrently contact over the packed media. The column has an average
water flow of 155 gpm and an air flow of 1,200 - 1,400 cfm. Water flows by
gravity from the tower to a drainage ditch feeding into the Black River and
eventually into Lake Michigan. Outside air is drawn into the system by a
forced draft blower. The air flows through the column, an electric preheater,
the GAC bed, a second blower, and out the stack. The two blowers work in
combination to both force and induce air through the system. The air
preheater is used to increase the air temperature to above 80°F, thus lowering
the relative humidity to below 40 percent. This increases the amount of
volatile organic (VO) adsorption on the GAC by preventing condensation of
water in the GAC pores.
The carbon bed is steam regenerated on-site every 7 days. The system is
shut down for three hours and the organics are steam stripped from the carbon
bed. The steam and organics are condensed and then separated in a decanter.
The aqueous phase is sent back through the air stripper, and the collected
solvent is disposed of as a hazardous waste. Usually about 13 pounds of VO
are recovered per regeneration cycle. The bed is dried with clean air after
regeneration.
Some problems have been encountered during system operation. Fouling by
iron bacteria causes a noticeable increase in pressure drop across the column.
This has occurred once at this site and was controlled by recycling acidified
water through the tower. Another problem experienced involves the air
6-6
-------
en
I
Air
Discharge
A Through
T Stack
Outside /"%J *
Air ^J
Blower
,
Packed
Tower
i
Effli
Wat
Draii
Dit
jent
9rto
lage
ch
Contaminated .
Air 1 T
Carbon
Bed
Cv5 * '
-
Steam
Generation
For Carbon Bed
Regeneration
Air ,
Preheater '
^ JsdT Condenser
L*— 7^ Contaminated Ground ^r
II . Watnr
2±i | 5 Purge Wells '
Piimn V
l_ Decs
Aqueous _^___
Stream '
! Organic
t Stream
5
-------
preheater. The preheater was not sufficiently heating the air and led to poor
VO removal by the GAC. The original preheater was not lowering the relative
humidity of the air to 40 percent. An elbow in the duct near the heater may
have been causing stratification of the air and uneven heating. The original
preheater was recently replaced with a larger unit and VO removal is expected
to improve to about 90 percent.
6.2.3 Performance Data for the Air Stripper and GAC System
The State of Michigan has regulations limiting both air and water
contaminant discharges. These regulations affect the size of the system, the
need for air emission controls, and the length of time the system must
operate. For the air stripper at site B the water discharged from
the tower must contain less than 5 ppb total VO and air emissions must be less
than 0.6 Ibs/hr. This air emission rate yields less than 10 maximum
lifetime cancer risk at the facility boundaries using the Michigan long-term
(MILT) air dispersion models. The tower must also operate until the
groundwater contains less than 5 ppb VO for an extended time. The wells are
then monitored for three years after shut-down to ensure that contamination
does not increase.
The system has been operating continuously since December 1985, and one
or two more years of operation is anticipated until the groundwater is cleaned
up. Initially, the influent water contained approximately 1.5 ppm chloroform
and smaller concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane and methylene chloride. This
rapidly decreased to lower levels, where it has remained steady since. The
effluent water has consistently been at <1 ppb total volatile organics. No
data are available on the air discharge, but the GAC is designed to remove 90
percent of the entering VO. This removal has not been observed because of the
humidity problems mentioned previously. Testing will be performed shortly to
determine VO removal effectiveness with the new preheater.
6-8
-------
6.2.4 Cost Data
Little cost data were available for the system. It was estimated that
the carbon steel stripping tower and auxiliaries cost $130,000 to construct,
Approximately $150,000 capital was expended on air emission control.
Generally, air emission control at least doubles the capital costs for the
system and greater than doubles the operation and maintenance costs.
6.3 VERONA WELL FIELD3
Verona Well Field supplies drinking water to Battle Creek, Michigan. In
early 1984, ground water clean up was deemed necessary to contain the spread
of a contamination plume in the well field. In September, 1984, an air
stripping system began operating for this purpose.
6.3.1 General Information
Routine well monitoring at Verona Well Field identified contamination by
several volatile organic compounds in the ground water. An investigation
revealed that the sources of the contamination were: (1) a leaking
underground storage tank at a solvent recycling company, Thomas Solvents,
about 1 mile south of the well field, (2) spills at a railroad loading spur
for the same company, and (3) spills at a section of railroad southeast of the
well field. Since Thomas Solvents declared bankruptcy, "Superfund" money was
allocated for the clean up. From June to September 1984, aqueous-phase
granular activtated carbon (GAC) was used to treat the ground water while the
air stripper was being installed. In September 1984, the air stripper began
operation. Gaseous-phase, granular activated carbon was installed for air
emission control. The system draws water from a row of existing wells in the
field. Pumping from these wells prevents the plume from spreading to other
wells currently supplying potable water. In late 1986, several wells were
installed near the site of the underground storage tank. In April 1987, the
air stripper will start treating ground water pumped from these wells.
6-9
-------
6.3.1 Process Description
A diagram of the air stripper is shown in Figure 6-3. Contaminated water
from the well field and storage tank site is pumped to a wet well at the air
stripper. The water is pumped at 2,000-2,400 gpm to the top of the column.
The water flows over the packed media and is countercurrently contacted with
air. Water leaves the column and is discharged to a river. The 10 foot
diameter, 60 foot high column is constructed of PVC wrapped with fiberglass.
The column is packed with 40 feet of polypropylene packing. The system
operates only at design air and water flow rates. No controls are used to
vary the operating rates.
Air is induced through the column at 5,500 cfm by a blower following the
column. The blower then forces air through a preheater and two parallel GAC
beds. The air is discharged to the atmosphere through two stacks after
exiting the GAC beds. The preheater raises the air temperature about 30°F and
lowers the relative humidity to 40 percent or less. Air temperature is
measured before and after the preheater.
The GAC beds are four feet deep and 10 foot in diameter and contain a
total of 19,000 pounds of carbon. The carbon beds are replaced when
breakthrough occurs. After an estimated 50 percent of the carbon capacity has
been used, periodic testing of the outlet air is to determine if breakthrough
has occurred. The time required to reach 50 percent of capacity is estimated
from theoretical relationships supplied by the carbon vendor. When
breakthrough occurs, the air stripping system is shut down and the spent
carbon is vacuumed out of the beds. The carbon is shipped off-site for
regeneration and new carbon is charged to the beds. The entire carbon
replacement process takes about three days.
No major operational difficulties have been observed with the air
stripping system. Some plugging and fouling has occurred because of deposits
from iron bacteria, but this has been controlled through occasional recycling
of chlorine through the tower. Fouling is indicated by an increase in
pressure drop across the column. Neither of these problems, however,
caused the system to shut down. The cold weather can cause operating problems
in the tower. Water splashing from inside the column freezes on the air
6-10
-------
Contaminated
Ground Water-
From Blocking
Wells
Wet
Weii Pumps
Contaminated
Air
Air Discharge
Through Stack
Effluent
Water to
River
Figure 6 - 3. Air Stripping System with Non-Regenerable Carbon at
Verona Well Field
-------
intake port and can partially clog it. This reduces the air flow and
increases the pressure drop across the column. The chlorination recycle pipe
became disconnected at the top of the column and it is suspected that this was
caused by the cold weather.
6.3.3 Performance Data for the Air Stripper and GAG System
The air stripper has been removing nearly 100 percent of the volatile
organics in the influent water. Typically, the influent contains approxi-
mately 50 ppb VO, while the effluent concentration is reduced to
non-detectable amounts of VO.
Limited testing has been done on the effectiveness of the GAC units for
controlling air emissions. Grab air sampling was conducted twice. Results of
one of these efforts indicated a VO removal of approximately 74 percent.
Additional sampling will be performed after the current GAC beds have
adsorbed an estimated half of capacity. The sampling will both reveal when
breakthrough occurs and allow the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to compare actual carbon adsorption with the theoretical relationships
supplied by the vendor.
6.3.4 Cost Data
The air stripping system was purchased by the U. S. EPA with "Superfund"
money. Operation and maintenance for the first year was also paid by the U.S.
EPA. After that operational responsibility was transferred to the Michigan
DNR.
The air stripping system at Verona Well Field was built anticipating a
five year lifetime. Because of additional contamination discovered near the
well field, more than five years will be required to complete the clean up.
As other contamination sites are discovered in the Battle Creek area, water
from the sites will be pumped to the air stripper at Verona Well Field for
treatment.
6-12
-------
6.4 REFERENCES
1. Trip Report. R. H. Howie and M. A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
6 ,p. Report of March 12, 1987 visit to site A.
2. Trip Report. R. H. Howie and M. A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
5 p. Report of March 12, 1987 visit to site B.
3. Trip Report. R. H. Howie and M. A. Vancil, Radian Corporation, to file.
6 p. Report of March 11, 1987 visit to Verona Well Field.
6-13
-------
7.0 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AIR IMPACTS FOR CONTROLS
The air emission controls discussed in Sections 4 and 5 are demonstrated
technologies for the reduction of organic emissions from air strippers.
However, these control techniques can result in the generation of other
pollutants. This section provides a discussion of both the positive and
negative air emission impacts resulting from each of three control techniques:
granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, thermal incineration, and
catalytic incineration. The air impacts of each control are evaluated for
three actual air strippers currently controlled by carbon adsorption. These
three air strippers are Site A, Site B, and Verona Well Field discussed in
Section 5. Sufficient data are not available for the Plainfield Site to
include it in the evaluation of air impacts.
Although carbon adsorption control greatly reduces the organic emissions
from air stripping, the overall control scheme results in increased emissions
of combustion pollutants. Fuel combustion is required for the generation of
steam for carbon regeneration and to preheat inlet air to the carbon adsorber.
As discussed in Section 4, preheating is required to lower the relative
humidity of the air stream. This may be accomplished by an electric heater, a
steam heat exchanger, or an indirect fired heater. Regardless of the method
for heating the inlet air some form of fuel combustion is required. The
pollutant emissions resulting from fuel combustion include SOX, NOX, and
particulate matter. The quantity of these combustion pollutants resulting
from steam generation or indirect heating was estimated using AP-42 emission
factors for combustion of natural gas. Similarly, combustion emissions
resulting from electricity generation were estimated based on emission factors
2
for combustion of coal to produce electricity. The emission factors used are
presented in Table 7-1.
Both thermal incineration and catalytic incineration result in emissions
of NO and particulate matter. Emission factors for generation of these
pollutants were not available for incinerators. Therefore, available emission
factors for similar combustion devices were used. The combustion emissions
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUEL COMBUSTION
SO,
Source (Ib/MBtu)
Steam Generation
(Natural gas for Site A)a
(Fuel mixture for Verona Well
Field)0
Gas Fired Preheater3
Electricity Generation0
(coal fired)
Thermal Incineration*
Catalytic Incineration
0
0.810
0
1.64
0
Oa
NO
(Ib/MBtu)
0.134
0.210
0.134
1.27
0.134
O.ld
PM
(Ib/MBtu)
0.003
0.058
0.003
0.205
0.003
0.003a
^Reference 1.
Fuel mixture for off-site steam generation not specified. Estimated average
fuel mixture for steam boilers as 55% natural gas, 30% residual oil,
15% distillate oil (Source: Draft Background Information Document for
Industrial Boilers, U. S. EPA).
^Reference £.
Reference 3.
7-2
-------
resulting from thermal incineration were estimated using emission factor
provided in AP-42 for natural gas-fired boilers. Particulate emissions from
catalytic incinerators were also estimated based on the emission factor for
natural gas-fired boilers. The NOX emissions from catalytic incinerators were
estimated based on an emission factor for natural gas-fired process heaters to
reflect the lower operating temperature of catalytic incinerators. These
emission factors are also presented in Table 7-1.
The positive and negative air impacts estimated for Site A, Site B, and
Verona Well Field are presented in Figures 7-1 through 7-3. The volatile
organic removals for carbon adsorption are based on reported efficiencies at
the specific sites with the exception of Site B. A removal efficiency of 70
percent was estimated for this facility based on information obtained for this
site. The assumed efficiencies for thermal and catalytic incineration were 98
percent and 95 percent, respectively. Fuel combustion requirements for
generation of steam and electricity were estimated based on site specific
data. The estimated steam electricity and combustion fuel requirements
estimated for each facility are provided in Table 7-2.
As shown in Figures 7-1 through 7-3, combustion pollutants generated as a
result of the different control technologies can be significant. The most
noticable generation of combustion pollutants are the estimated NO emissions
A
resulting from thermal incineration.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-2. ESTIMATED UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH SITE
Control /Utility
GAC
Steam (lb/yr)a a
Electricity (kW)a
Natural Gas (scfm)
Thermal Incineration
Natural Gas (scfm)
Catalytic Incineration
Natural Gas (scfm)
Site A
608,000
59.4
245
134
Site B
8,630
20.3
62.0
22.0
Verona Well
Field
19,000
37.0
169
92.0
aUtility demand is not continuous. More is needed when the carbon is
regenerated. Uses reported as continuous.
7-4
-------
I
en
12 -
11 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
^ 4 -
a
L.? 3H
X 2 2 -
01 3 ^
*S 1 -
fc o-
-1 -
-2 -
-3 -
-4 -
— o —
-6 -
_7
-8 -
1 tt27]
J20C
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
//
/ /
/ /
f /
/ /
/ /
' S
/ /
/ /
\\
\\
\ \
\ \
\ \
s \J
\ \
\ s-
\, \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ N
\\
sV
\ >
\\
\\
H3925
I
'///,
y/fa
Y'J//,
/ / ^
///,
SsS
'////
'//,
f /
/
v'/
,
[
r?
&
000
^ '~\y/A y • /
Z^3 GAC
5J^I INCIN
""_/ 7'7\
^^Z\ CAT. INCIN.
-230-575 -342
-2300
VO REM.
S \
\\
V >
\ \
\N
\ \
X-.
s
\ \
\\
\\
\\
7"/~7~/ " CTS=F»=»=«
% ~7 -1 66-90
/s/'1/
y/A
-3217
i | -p . . .. . ^ 1
VO EM. S02 EM. NOx?S. PM EM.
Figure 7-1. Organic Removal and Estimated Emissions for Control Devices at Site A.
-------
0.5 -
0.4 -1
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
-
-0.1 -
~ -0-2-
o
. ~° -0.3 -
u c w.*»
x n
\ » -0.4 J
0» 3
•* O « e
£ -0.5 -
~ -0.6 -
-0.7 -
-0.8 -
-0.9 -
—1 ~
-1.1 -
-1.2 -
308
*7~,
'//
//
*31-
\ \
[\\
418
y//,
W
'//I,
%
/z
-9 -22
-132
//
%
//
/ ;
f •'
s y
/ /
0 0
' /
*X.1t
— 33l
-431
IZZ)
-1.3 -1
V
Pv~
LX
V/
•en
.^l
Th
GAC
CAT. INCIN.
n REM. VO EM. S02 EM.
\\
VN
\\
*^ ^
^L ^V
\ >
V \
/\
\x
. \
^
\\
k \
\ \
\\
s \ i
\ \
v \
\ N.
\N
Y//1 Y-^Jr^1 ,,
i --27-15
m
y/7/
/•''//
' y/}
'///.
/'//
'///
-526
i
-1284
NOx EM. PM EM.
Figure 7-2. Organic Removal and Estimated Emissions for Control Devices at Site B.
-------
0>
O
1
1 -
2 -
3 —
4 -
5 -
C —
102 135 131 Q Q
r -f \ ^\ ^Y-ff-^\
-36 -3 -7 -10 _12t
IZZI GAC
[53 |NCIN
&7Z\ CAT. INCIN.
S
P
\N
\N
\\
\\
^
N >
^
\ ^
\ N
S ' / ' ' ' / Tt
^
^
/// A
//
'////
'/4s
2210
-5445
VQ REM.
1
MO EM.
r
S02 EM.
NOx EM.
PM EM.
Figure 7-3. Organic Removal and Estimated Emissions for Control Devices at
Verona Well Field.
-------
7.1 REFERENCES
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors. Research Triangle Park, N. C. Publication No. AP-42
September 1985.
2. 40 CFR 60, Subpart D.
3. Shareef, S.A., C.L. Jamgochian, and I.E. Keller. (Radian Corporation).
Fired Heaters: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions and Controls. (Prepared for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). Research Triangle Park, N. C.
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3994. September 30, 1985. 143 p.
7-8
-------
APPENDIX A
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. EPA Telephone Contacts
Contact
Affiliation
Telephone No.
Topics of
Conversation
REGION 1
Dave Cochrane
Steve Farrick
Ivan Rios
Ted Landry
Chet Janowski
Tony DePalma
Ron Jennings
Chuck Larson
REGION 2
Ed Als
Bob Wing
Walter Andrews
Pam Tames
John Frisco
REGION 3
Jeff Pike
Gerallyne Val
Walter Graham
Harry Harbold
Dan Donnelly
Joseph Protowski
Thomas Voltaggio
REGION 4
Jim Orban
Ken Or!off
Mike Leonard
Michelle Glenn
Al Smith
NPDES Permits
Superfund Project Mgr.
Superfund Project Mgr.
Acting Section Chief,
NPDES
Superfund Project Mgr.
Dept. Head, Permits
Technical Assistance
Section
Ground Water Branch
Chief
Superfund Project Mgr.
Superfund Project Mgr.
Water Supply Branch
Chief
Superfund Project Mgr.
Superfund Branch Chf.
Tyson's Dump Project
Mgr.
Superfund Project Mgr.
Superfund Section Chf.
(617) 565-3505
(617) 565-3683
(617) 565-3681
(617) 565-3508
(617)
(617)
(617)
565-3652
565-3493
565-3617
identification of air stripper
one air stripper in MA
one air stripper in MA
identification of air stripper
one air stripper in NH
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
(617) 565-3586 identification of air stripper
(212) 264-0522 one air stripper in NY
(212) 264-8670 identification of air stripper
(212) 264-1800 one air stripper in NY
(212) 264-2646 one air stripper in NY
(212) 264-1872 identification of air stripper
(215) 597-8886 one air stripper in PA
Central Regional Lab
Water Supply Branch
Chf.
Superfund Branch Chief (215)
(215) 597-8186 one air stripper in PA
(215) 597-8177 identification of air stripper
(215) 597-0910 identification of air stripper
(301) 224-2740 identification of air stripper
(215) 597-8227 identification of air stripper
597-8132 identification of air stripper
(404) 347-2643
(404) 347-3781
Superfund Project Mgr.
Groundwater Branch
Off.
Groundwater Branch (404) 347-2913
Superfund Project Mgr. (404) 347-2643
Superfund Branch Chief (404) 347-4097
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l. EPA Telephone Contacts (continued)
Contact
Affiliation
Telephone No.
Topics of
Conversation
REGION 5
Joan Calabres Superfund Project Mgr.
Cindy Nolan Superfund Project Mgr.
Greg Van de Laan Site Management
Section
RCRA/SF Section Chief
Drinking Water/Ground- (312) 353-2650
water Protection
Branch Chief
Ken Westlake
Joseph Harrison
(312) 886-0622
(312) 886-0400
(312) 886-6217
(312) 886-7580
REGION 6
Don Williams
Steve Gilrein
Tom Love
REGION 7
Pat Costello
Stan Calow
Alice Fuerst
Chet McLaughlin
Robert Morby
REGION 8
Richard Long
Don Schosky
Vera Moritz
Liz Evans
REGION 9
James Thompson
Neil Ziemba
Patty Cleary
Dan Opal ski
Nick Morgan
Clair Tiedeman
Steve Johnson
Betsy Curnow
Glenn Kistner
Ken Greenburg
Leo Levinson
Superfund Project Mgr.
Superfund Project Mgr.
Water Supply Branch
(214) 767-9713
(214) 767-2737
(214) 767-9932
Groundwater Branch (913) 236-2815
Drinking Water Branch (913) 236-2815
Superfund Project Mgr. (913) 236-2856
RCRA Branch (913) 236-2852
Superfund Branch Chief (913) 236-2855
Groundwater Branch Chf.(303) 293-1542
Hazardous Waste Mgmt. (303) 293-1642
Superfund Project Mgr. (303) 293-1640
Superfund Project Mgr. (303) 293-1533
Groundwater Branch Chf.(415) 974-8267
Superfund Branch (415) 974-7174
Project Manager (415) 974-8015
Project Manager (415) 974-7552
Superfund Branch (415) 974-8603
Project Manager (415) 974-7032
Project Manager (415) 974-7232
Project Manager (415) 974-8364
Project Manager (415) 974-7199
Section Chief, Permits (415) 974-9748
Project Manager (415) 974-7101
one air stripper in WI
one air stripper in IN
three air stippers in region
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
one air stripper in MO
one air stripper in IA
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
one air stripper in Co
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
contacts for 11 air strippers
one air stripper in CA
one air stripper in AZ
one air stripper in CA
one air stripper in AZ
one air stripper in CA
two air strippers in CA
one air stripper in CA
identification of air stripper
one air stripper in CA
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l. EPA Telephone Contacts (continued)
Contact
Affiliation
Telephone No.
Topics of
Conversation
REGION 10
Lee Woodruff
Carol Thompson
Phil Wong
OTHER EPA
Mike Cummins
Ben Lykins
Walter Feige
Dick Miltner
Drinking Water Branch (206) 442-4092
Superfund Project Mgr. (206) 442-2709
Superfund Project Mgr. (206) 442-7216
identification of air stripper
one air stripper in WA
one air stripper in WA
ODW Technical Support (513) 569-7979 identification of air stripper
Division
ODW, Municipal Environ-(513) 569-7403 identification of air stripper
mental Research Lab
ODW, Municipal Environ-(513) 569-7496 one air stripper in NY
mental Research Lab
ODW, Municipal Environ-(513) 569-7403 one air stripper in CA
mental Research Lab
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2. STATE TELEPHONE CONTACTS
Contact
ALABAMA
Joe Power
Affiliation
Drinking Water
Telephone No.
(205) 271-7773
Topics of
Conversation
identification of air stripper
Office
ARIZONA
Larry Crisafully
Carroll Dekle Air Quality
Dave Shelgren Air Quality
Dick Lemon
CALIFORNIA
Pima County APCD
(602) 258-6381
(602) 257-2282
(602) 257-2301
(602) 792-8686
Cliff Sharp
Jan Meyer
Dept. Health Services
Toxic Substance
Control
Regional Water Quality
San Fransisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
San Fransisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
San Fransisco Bay
Toxic Substances
Control
Central Valley
Scott Hubenberger Water Quality Control
San Diego
Permits Chief, Bay
Area AQMD
Engineer, Bay Area
AQMD
Senior Engineer,
Sacramento Toxic
Substances Control
South Coast Toxic
Substances Control
South Coast AQMD
Sacramento AQMD
CA Dept. of Health
Tom Berkins
Johnson Lam
Bob Marek
John Marshak
John Swanson
Sandra Lopez
Bill Ryan
Nestor Acedera
George Rutt
Eric She!ton
Carol Nejih
(916)
(916)
(415)
(415)
(415)
(916)
(619)
(415)
(415)
(916)
323-6111
324-3781
464-1255
464-1287
464-0884
361-5724
265-5114
771-6000
771-6000
739-3996
data on three air strippers
identification of air stripper
air emission regulations
air emission regulations
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
data on one air stripper
data on one air stripper
data on five air strippers
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
air emission regulations
air emission regulations
data on three air strippers
(213) 620-2824 identification of air stripper
(818) 572-6209 identification of air stripper
(916) 366-2107 data on one air stripper
(213) 620-2824 data on one air stripper
CONNECTICUT
Elsie Patton Groundwater Office (203) 566-7295 identification of air stripper
A-5
-------
TABLE A-2. STATE TELEPHONE CONTACTS
Contact
Affiliation
Telephone No.
Topics of
Conversation
FLORIDA
Jeffrey Watts
Bill Darling
Mike Webb
Lew Devi Ion
Stephanie Brooks
Don Harris
Russ Walker
GEORGIA
Wright Addison
IDAHO
Dick Rogers
ILLINOIS
Mangu Bator
IOWA
Dennis Alt
KANSAS
Carl Mueldener
Jim Power
Dept. of
mental
Dept. of
mental
Dept. of
mental
Dept. of
mental
Dept. of
mental
Dept. of
mental
Dept. of
mental
Environ-
Reg.
Environ-
Reg.
Environ-
Resources
Environ-
Resources
Environ-
Resources
Environ-
Resources
Environ-
Resources
Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Environmental
Protection Agency
Environmental Protect.
Division
Drinking Water/
Groundwater
Drinking Water/
Groundwater
(904) 488-3601 data on two air strippers
(305) 894-7555 data on one air stripper
(904) 487-1762 identification of air stripper
(305) 964-9668 identification of air
(305) 964-9668 data on one air stripper
(904) 487-2776 data on one air stripper
(904) 487-2776 data on one air stripper
(404) 656-5660 identification of air stripper
(208) 334-5867 Identification of air stripper
(217) 782-7326 data on three air strippers
(515) 281-8998 identification of air stripper
(913) 862-9360 identification of air stripper
(913) 862-9360 data on two air strippers
A-6
-------
TABLE A-2. STATE TELEPHONE CONTACTS
Contact
Affiliation
Telephone No.
Topics of
Conversation
MAINE
George Seel
MASSACHUSETTS
Gene Knight
MICHIGAN
Pat McKay
Jack Larson
Dick Vandebunt
Gene Hall
MINNESOTA
Lou Chamberlain
MISSISSIPPI
Lee Jones
NEBRASKA
Richard Schlenker
Mike Steffensmeier
NEW JERSEY
Paul Schorr
Bureau of Oil and
Hazardous Waste
Dept. of Environ-
mental Quality
Dept. of Natural
Resources
Dept. of Natural
Resources,
Jackson District
Dept. of Natural
Resources,
Planewell District
Dept. of Natural
Resources,
Jackson District
Pollution Control
Agency
Drinking Water
Dept.of Environ-
mental Control
Dept.of Environ-
mental Control
Bureau of Safe
Drinking Water
(207) 289-2651 identification of air stripper
(617) 327-2658 air emission regulations
(517) 335-3388
(517) 788-9598
data on one air stripper
data on three air strippers
(616) 685-6851 data on one air stripper
(517) 788-9598 data on one air stripper
(612) 296-7371 data on five air strippers
(601) 354-6616 identification of air stripper
(402) 471-4217
(402) 471-2186
data on two air strippers
identification of air stripper
(609) 292-5550 data on five air strippers
A-7
-------
TABLE A-2. STATE TELEPHONE CONTACTS
Contact
Affiliation
Telephone No.
Topics of
Conversation
NEW YORK
Jim Covey
Warren Longacker
Don Spencer
NORTH CAROLINA
Wally Venrick
Tom Earington
OREGON
Dave Lei and
PENNSYLVANIA
Doug Lester
SOUTH CAROLINA
Max Vatavia
TENNESSEE
Jim Hanes
WASHINGTON
Harry Watters
WISCONSIN
Lee Boushon
Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Air Toxics
Drinking Water
NRCD Permits
Drinking Water
Pennsylvania Air
Quality
Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Air Permitting
Groundwater
(518) 474-5456 identification of air stripper
(518) 474-5285 data on four air strippers
(518) 457-7454 air emission regulations
(919) 733-2321 identification of air stripper
(919) 733-2314 identification of air stripper
(503) 229-5784 identification of air stripper
(717) 787-9702 air emission regulations
(803) 734-5342 identification of air stripper
(615) 741-6636 identification of air stripper
(206) 344-7334 data on two air strippers
(608) 266-0857 data on five air strippers
A-8
-------
TABLE A-3. FACILITY TELEPHONE CONTACTS
Contact
Joe Gehin
Thomas Yohe
Facility
City of Wausau, WI
Philadelphia Sub.
1.1,4. r_
Telephone No.
(715) 845-5279
(215) 525-1400
Topics Discussed
air stripper at WI site
air strippers at PA sites
Dennis Ellison
Ron McKinnon
Gary Mean
Elayne Hays
Larry Dayian
Mike Gingrass
Glenn Dirks
Mike O'Brien
Mr. Kaiser
Earl Kennett
Mrs. Hicks
Mario lerardi
Mike Everhardt
Harry Kunkel
Chet Miller
City of Tacoma, WA
City of Rockaway, NH
City of Denver, CO
Hillsborough County,
Acton Water Dist, MA
AMD,. Inc.
Varian Associates
Cooper Industries
U. S. Aviex
Sundstrand
Organics LaGrange
Labs
Civilian Engr.,
McClellan AFB
Boeing
Chem-Dyne
General Electric
(206) 593-8214
(201) 627-7200
(303) 295-1451
(813) 272-6674
(617) 263-9107
(408) 749-4225
(408) 986-9888
(713) 739-5618
(616) 683-6767
(616) 782-2141
(312) 764-6700
data on air stripper in WA
air stripper at NJ site
air stripper at CO site
air stripper at FL site
air stripper at MA site
air stripper at CA site
air stripper at CA site
air stripper at MI site
air stripper at MI site
air stripper at MI site
air stripper at MI site
(916) 643-1250 air stripper at CA site
(316) 526-2121
(513) 867-8789
(316) 442-3600
air stripper at KS site
air stripper at OH site
air stripper at KS site
A-9
-------
TABLE A-4. EQUIPMENT VENDOR TELEPHONE CONTACTS
Contact
Company
Telephone No.
Topics Discussed
Randy Bailey
Matt Sutton
Mark Ross Trane
Elliot Werk
Jerry Hitchinghara
Tony Joering
Dick Selznick
Jeff Swett
Andy Zienkiewicz
Dan Pel ton
Bill Alcorn
Bob Kenson
Kate Jones
Paul Miller
Bob Yarrington
Mark Stenzel
Ed Dowd
Rusty Kroll
Ed McCall
Buddy Rose
Mr. Bush
Craig Anderson
Vic Mendoza
R. E. Wright & Assoc.
Enviro-Chera
Groundwater Tech.
Thermal
Groundwater Technology
Duall
PSE Env. Serv.
Baron Blakeslee
H.C.T. Co.
Hydro Group
New England Pollution
Control
Chem Met Corp.
AMCEC Corp.
Met-Pro Corp.
Johnson-Matthey
Groundwater Tech.
Englehard
Croll-Reynolds
MOCO
Calgon Corp.
ARI
McGill, Inc.
HIRT Air Pollution
Control
General Industries
Groundwater Tech
Bay West
National Air Oil
Burner Co.
800-238-3320
(919) 469-8490
(415) 671-2387
(215) 828-5400
(617) 769-7606
(517) 725-8184
(215) 337-3060
(201) 233-5629
(415) 934-8221
(201) 563-1400
(203) 853-1990
(216) 569-3245
(312) 954-1545
(215) 723-6751
(215) 341-8500
(215) 388-1466
(201) 964-2729
(201) 232-2400
(313) 728-6800
(412) 787-6700
(312) 359-7810
(918) 445-2431
(213) 728-9164
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
catalytic incinerators
thermal incinerator
data on one air stripper
identification of air stripper
data on one air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
identification of air stripper
data on one air stripper
catalytic incinerators
thermal incinerators
catalytic incinerators
catalytic incinerators
catalytic incinerators
catalytic incinerator
identification of air stripper
thermal incinerators
activated carbon use
catalytic incinerator
thermal incinerators
thermal incinerators
(919) 735-8115 identification of air stripper
(602) 966-0808 data on one air stripper
(612) 488-1008 identification of air stripper
(215) 743-5300 thermal incinerators
A-10
-------
TABLE A-5. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TELEPHONE CONTACTS
Contact
Julie Rutheford
Jeff Sutherland
Eric Strang
Bob Rosain
Bob Schilling
Greg Mclntyre
Bob Stevens
Don Gallo
Dick Powell
Bill Byers
John Dyksen
Jun Yashitani
Enos Stover
Janet Mahanah
Jim Hussey
Steve Sontag
Wayne Weber
Carl Johnson
Company
EDI
EDI
EDI
CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill
CH2M Hill
Malcolm Pirnie
Camp, Dresser
& McKee
.Private Consultant
U.S. Army Toxics and
Hazardous Material
Agency
Dames & Moore
Metcalf & Eddy
Metcalf & Eddy
Johnson Associates
Telephone No.
(616) 942-9600
(616) 942-9600
(616) 942-9600
(206) 453-5000
(206) 453-5000
(904) 377-2442
(404) 523-0300
(414) 272-2426
(813) 888-6777
(503) 752-4271
(201) 845-0400
(312) 786-1313
(405) 624-9458
(301) 671-2054
s
(602) 371-1110
(415) 964-7100
(617) 246-5200
(802) 229-5976
Topics Discussed
one air stripper in MI
one air stripper in MI
two air strippers in MI
one air stripper in WA
three air strippers in WA,HI
one air stripper in FL
one air stripper in FL
one air stripper in OH
one air stripper in FL
one air stripper in MI
data on 26 air strippers
one air stripper in IN
two air strippers
air emissions control report
one air stripper in AZ
one air stripper in CA
information on sites with
incineration
one air stripper in VT
A-ll
-------
|1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-87-017
[4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
2.
Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources - Air
Emissions and Controls
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS ~
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standandards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
nf « /ORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
4. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
Air stripping towers are being used to remove low concentrations of organic
contaminants from water. This report describes the technology and methods
used to control air pollution resulting from this procedure. The cost of the
contro s is presented along with other positive and negative impacts of the
UCwl iMU I
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cos AT I Field/Group
Air Pollution
Pollution Control
Volatile Organic Compounds
Air Toxics
Water Pollution
Groundwater
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimi ted
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
J25_
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |