United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-81-213 Oct. 1981
Project Summary
Feasibility of Commercialized
Water Treatment Techniques
for Concentrated Waste Spills
M. Ghassemi, K. Yu, and S. Quinlivan
The suitability and economics of
using commercial water treatment
techniques for onsite treatment of
concentrated wastes were evaluated.
The techniques included reverse
osmosis, ultrafiltration, ion exchange,
wet-air oxidation, high-purity oxygen-
activated sludge process, ultraviolet-
ozone oxidation, and coagulation/pre-
cipitation. Data from the published
literature and those obtained from
process suppliers provided the basis
for the evaluation.
When used alone, none of the pro-
cesses considered would be econo-
mically applicable to onsite mobile
unit treatment of the variety of
concentrated wastes encountered,
although reverse osmosis, ion ex-
change, and wet-air oxidation meet
many of the application requirements
and, hence, require less pretreatment,
or post-treatment. The estimated
capital costs for a unit suitable for
trailer mounting vary from as low as
$35,000 for a 227,000-L/day
(60,000-gpd) ultrafiltration unit to as
high as $1.25 to $1.5 million for a
54,000-L/day (14,400-gpd), two-
trailer, wet-air oxidation unit. For
short-term operation, the operating
cost of the mobile unit is determined
largely by nonprocess-specific costs
(e.g., transportation, labor, subsis-
tence, analytical support), which vary
from situation to situation.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, OH, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully
documented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction and Study
Objectives
In recent years, considerable efforts
have been directed by government and
the private industry toward developing
emergency response capabilities for the
treatment of waters containing high
concentrations of contaminants that are
encountered in hazardous material spill
situations and at uncontrolled waste
disposal sites. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Environ-
mental Emergency Response Unit
(EERU) is currently engaged in the
shakedown and field demonstration of a
number of EPA-developed wastewater
treatment equipment and techniques
for use in emergency situations. The
EERU's Mobile Flocculation-Sedimenta-
tion System and Mobile Physical-
Chemical Treatment Trailers have been
successfully used to facilitate cleanup
operations at several uncontrolled
waste disposal and hazardous materials
spill sites. A number of other systems,
including the Mobile Incineration System,
Mobile Independent Physical-Chemical
Wastewater Treatment System, Mobile
System for Detoxification/Regeneration
of Spent Activated Carbon, and Mobile
Reverse Osmosis Treatment System,
are also currently in various stages of
development and testing.
-------
In mobile unit applications involving
highly concentrated organic wastes
(TOC and COD levels exceeding 4,000 to
5,000 mg/L), the conventional physical-
chemical treatment systems employing
chemical coagulation/flocculation,
filtration, and activated carbon adsorp-
tion have to be very costly. Hence, a
need exists for the development of more
economical alternatives for onsite
treatment of concentrated wastes. The
study summarized here evaluates the
suitability and economics of several
commercially available water and
wastewater treatment processes for
use in mobile units for onsite treatment
of highly contaminated waters.
Processes Evaluated and
Evaluation Criteria
Seven processes were evaluated for
onsite treatment of concentrated wastes
in mobile units.* These processes,
which are briefly described in Table 1,
are: reverse osmosis (RO), ultrafiltration
(UF), ion exchange (IE), wet-air oxidation
(WAO), high-purity oxygen-activated
sludge process (HPOASP), UV-ozone
*To make the study more complete, gravity
separation, filtration, activated carbon adsorption,
and incineration (which have been used or are
under development for spill control applications)
were also briefly reviewed. These reviews,
however, are not included in this Project Summary.
oxidation (UV/03), and coagulation/
precipitation (CP).
The process evaluation has been
based on the published literature and
data obtained from process and equip-
ment suppliers. The study has generally
assumed the use of a single trailer or
227,000-L/day (60,000-gpd or 42-gpm)
hydraulic capacity and the use of a
process alone rather than in combina-
tion with other processes in a treatment
train. The process evaluation has been
in terms of general process capabilities
and limitations, suitability for the
removal of certain pollutant types
(TOC/COD, heavy metals, oily sub-
stances, etc.), and capital and operating
costs for a mobile unit handling a
hypothetical concentrated waste.
General Process Capabilities
and Limitations
Table 1 presents brief descriptions of
the processes reviewed and a general
and qualitative assessment of their
capabilities and limitations in terms of
commercial experience and applicability
to diverse waste types (including con-
centrated wastes). As noted in Table 1
'Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
(with the exception of UF and UV/03, for
which full-scale commercial application
experience is somewhat limited), the
processes considered are widely used
commercially in a range of applications
involving water and wastewater treat-
ment. Processes that are suitable and
have been used commercially for the
treatment of concentrated wastewaters
areRO, UF, IE, and WAO. The remaining
three processes are not suitable for
treatment of concentrated wastes be-
cause of the long detention time (reactor
size) required for HPOASP, the produc-
tion of a large volume of bulky sludge in
CP, and reduced efficiency and high
ozone requirement in UV/0.
Table 2 reviews the extent of previous
use in mobile units and the limitations
and desirable features for such a use for
each of the processes considered. RO,
IE, and HPOASP have been used in
mobile units of various designs for
wastewater treatability studies. A
2,300-L/hr (10-gpm) WAO mobile unit,
currently under design by Zimpro,* is
expected to be available for use in waste
treatability studies in 1981. UV/03 and
UF systems have not been used in
mobile units. CP has been used in
connection with physical/chemical
treatment in mobile units. |
RO and IE processes appear to meet"
many of the requirements for applica-
Table 1. Description of Processes Reviewed and Their General Capabilities and Limitations
Process
RO
Major
developers/suppliers Description
Aqua Media (Sunnyvale, CA) Use of high pressure to force
Limitations
Membrane fouling/ degrada-
Commercial experience
with full-scale units
More than 300 units in
Experience with and
applicability to
concentrated wastes
Industrial wastewaters
UF
IE
Dow (Walnut Creek, CA) solvent (for example, water)
Envirogenics (El Monte, CA) through a membrane permeable
Fluid Systems Div/UOP
(San Diego, CA)
Hydranautics (Santa
Barbara, CAI
Permutit (Paramus, NJ)
Polymetric (San Jose, CA)
to solvent but not the solute.
Several membrane types and
designs available
Abcor (Wilmington, MA)
Envirogenics (El Monte, CA)
Fluid Systems Div/UOP
(San Diego. CA)
Osmonics (Hopkins, MN)
Romicon (Woburn, MA)
Chemical Separation Corp.
(Oak Ridge. TN)
Crane Co. (King of
Prussia, PA)
Ecodyne (Union, NJ)
Illinois Water Treatment
(Rockford, IL)
Infilco (Richmond, VA)
Permutit (Paramus, NJ)
Pressure-driven membrane
separation process operating at
a lower pressure than RO and
suitable for separation/con-
centration of large molecular
weight substances. Several
membrane types and designs
available.
Replacement of toxic/undesir-
able ions in waste with harmless
ions "attached" to exchange
resins. "Sorptive" resins remove
organics via adsorption. Resins
employed in columnar beds and
regenerated with acid, alkali
or salt solutions. Sorptive
resins also eluted with
organic solvents.
tion by suspended solids,
biological growth, strong oxi-
dizers, very low/high pH, and
high concentration of speci-
fic substances (for example,
phenols, calcium, silica.
sulfate, aluminum). Reject
requires further treatment/
disposal
Membrane fouling/degrada-
tion similar to RO but to a
lesser extent. For wastes
containing high levels of
low molecular weight sub-
stances, effluent may
require additional treat-
ment. Rejects require
further treatment/disposal
Pretreatment for suspended
solids removal may be
necessary for longer service.
Very concentrated waste
may require frequent resin
regeneration. Residue
requires further treatment/
disposal.
operation demineralizing
brackish waters. Used for
treatment of industrial
wastewaters (for example.
plating rinses, cooling
tower blowdown, petroleum
stripping water) and in in-
dustrial applications (for
example, food processing)
Separation and concentra-
tion of macromolecules
from dilute industrial
process/waste streams.
Full scale units in
operation in food pro-
cessing, textile and
metal cutting industries.
Widely used for water
softening and boiler water
treatment. Used in industry
for material recovery
from and/or treatment of
wastewaters from electro-
plating industry and muni-
tions, fertilizers, dye-
stuff, pesticides, chlorine,
and resins production.
containing several
thousand ppm TDS, as
well as sea water
(3 5% TDS) successfully
treated.
Feed solid concentration
as high as 46,300
ppm handled. A latex
waste averaging 21.000 ppm
COD, 3.500 ppm oil and
grease and 1,600 ppm TSS
successfully treated in a
20.0OO gpd unit.
Commercially used for
phenol recovery from
concentrated (—20%)
brine and removal of
color and organics
from pulp mill effluents.
-------
Table 1. (Continued!
Process
Major
developers/suppliers
Description
Limitations
Commercial experience
with full-scale units
Experience with and
applicability to
concentrated wastes
WAO
Zimpro (Rothschild. Wl)
Aqueous phase oxidation of re-
duced inorganic and organic
substances with air at high
temperatures (ZOO to 320°C) and
pressures (150 to 4,000 psi).
Process specially suitable for
treatment of high strength or
toxic/refractory organic wastes.
HPOASP
UV/0,
CP
Westgate Research Corp.
fW. Los Angeles, CA)
Numerous
Requirements for skilled
operators (especially for
hazardous wastes/ and
special design and con-
struction materials.
Air Products and Chemicals
(Allentown. PA)
Union Carbide (Tonawanda,
NY)
High purity (90-100%v) oxygen Inapplicable to wastes high
is fed to a mixed covered in toxic, volatile, or re-
reactor in which microorganisms fractory substances or
having low or high pH. Long
detention time (large
reactor size) required for
concentrated wastes. Con-
siderable time required for
process start-up. Nutrient
addition and pH adjustment
may be necessary.
Use of UV and ozone to destroy/ New process, not suitable
in the wastewater convert
dissolved and oxidizable
organics to inorganic end pro-
ducts and to agglomerating and
settleable floes.
More than 150 units in
operation worldwide; about
90% handling municipal
sludges. Also used for
treatment of cyanide.
pulp and paper, photo-
graphic and glue manufac-
turing wastes.
Numerous full-scale units
in operation handling
municipal and industrial
wastewaters. Examples of
industrial applications
are treatment of brewery,
citrus and chemical plant
wastes.
Nearly all large
applications have been
for treatment of
sludges and concen-
trated organic wastes.
The most concentrated
chemical waste treated
without pretreatment
has a COD value of
1,000 to 3,000 ppm.
oxidize organics (including
refractory and toxic chemicals),
organometallic complexes and
reduced inorganics.
Addition of chemicals (alkali,
sutfide, and aluminum/ferric
salts) to precipitate dissolved
substances and to coagulate
suspended solids.
for wastes high in organics
or suspended solids, re-
quirement for on-site Oa
generation, and release of
some residual Oa to air.
Ineffective for removing a
spectrum of dissolved
organic and inorganic
substances. Optimum pH
and chemical dosage vary
with wastes. Large volume
of bulky sludge produced
with concentrated wastes.
Very limited. Two plants
reportedly in operation
handling photographic,
metal plating and cyanide
wastes at any Army ammuni-
tion plant and a tool
production plant.
Extensively used for
treatment of municipal/
industrial water supplies.
Widely used in conjunction
with other wastewater
treatment processes.
Not suitable for con-
centrated wastes.
Not suitable for con-
centrated wastes.
Table 2. Mobile Unit Experience and Process Features for Mobile Unit Application
Features for mobile unit use
Process Mobile unit experience
Desirable features
Limitations
RO Several 10,000 to 50,000
gpd trailer-mounted units
operated for obtaining
potable water from
brackish waters.
UF None. Skit mounted
units (5,000 to 10,000
gpd suitable for trailer
mounting available).
IE Trailer-mounted units
have been used in field
pilot plant studies in-
volving treatment of
biologically-treated
sewage and wastewaters
at a munitions plant
and a naval installation.
Compact and modular units, quick
startup and shutdown, conveniently
serviced, not requiring skilled
operators, operable with power
generated on-site with diesel
generator, small residue volume
(10 to 25 percent of influent
volume).
Same as RO.
Same as for RO plus ease of auto-
mation, applicable to a range of
waste types and concentrations
(including those having low or
high pH and oxidizing chemicals)
by proper selection of resin types
and system design/operation.
Volume of residue seldom exceeding
10 percent of influent.
See general limitations in
Table 1.
See general limitations in
Table 1.
See general limitations in
Table 1.
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
Process Mobile unit experience
Features for mobile unit use
Desirable features
Limitations
WAO None. A 0.1 gpm trailer-
mounted unit used at
process developer's site
for waste treatability
studies. A 10 gpm
2-trailer unit under
design.
HPOASP Process suppliers have
several mobile units
used for waste treata-
bility studies.
UV/03 None.
CP Used by EPA in conjunc-
tion with settling and
filtration and activated
carbon adsorption for
treatment of spills and
concentrated wastes from
uncontrolled chemical dump
sites.
Suitable for treatment of a range
of oxidizable wastes. No air
pollution problem. Innocuous
residue from most organic wastes.
Suitable for treatment of readily
biodegradable non-toxic wastes.
Compact and modular units, quick
startup/shutdown, conveniently
serviced, not requiring skilled
operators, operable with on-
site generated power from a die set
generator.
Wide variety of chemical feeding
and metering devices available
commercially.
General limitations in Table 1
plus size/weight limitations.
10 gpm is the largest unit
which can be trailer-mounted
(on 2 trailers). Supplemen-
tary heating necessary for
low-Btu wastes.
General limitations in Table 1
plus size/weight limitations
and slow startup. Based on a
maximum reactor size of 12,500
gal suitable for trailer
mounting and a detention time
of 48 hr (for a waste COD of
1,000 to 3,000 ppm), hydraulic
capacity would be 4 gpm.
See general limitations in
Table 1.
See general limitations in
Table 1.
bility to the treatment of concentrated
waste in a mobile unit. These processes
offer compact units that can be started
and shut down relatively quickly, can be
serviced conveniently, would not require
skilled operating field labor, can be
operated with electricity produced by
on-board generators, can handle a
spectrum of wastes including those
containing high concentrations of toxic
substances and refractory organics, and
can produce a relatively small volume of
waste residue requiring disposal. WAO,
which is particularly applicable to the
destruction of refractory and toxic
organics in concentrated wastes, has
the limitations of small capacity and the
requirement for skilled operators. UF
suffers from the limitation of inapplica-
bility to wastes containing low-molec-
ular-weight substances, whereas highly
concentrated, large-volume wastes
cannot be processed by UV/03, HPOASP,
and CP.
When used alone, none of the
processes considered would meet all
the requirements for use in mobile units
for treatment of concentrated wastes.
The applicability of these processes
would be enhanced (and the treatment
costs would be reduced), however, if
these processes were used in combina-
tion in a treatment train. The specific
process combinations that would be
applicable to the types of wastes en-
countered in spill situations and at
uncontrolled chemical dump sites re-
main to be evaluated.
Comparison of Processes for
Reducing Specific Pollutant
Categories
Table 3 summarizes and compares
the capabilities of the various processes
considered for the treatment of high-
strength wastes. For discussion pur-
poses, the following raw wastewater
gross characteristics/constituent levels
(which are typical of concentrated
wastes encountered in spill situations
and at uncontrolled hazardous waste
disposal sites) have been assumed:
TOC: 5,000 mg/L
COD: 8,000 mg/L
Low-molecular-weight
organic substances not
removable by activated
carbon: Present
Oily substances: 300 mg/L
SS: 1,000 mg/L
Heavy metals: 200 mg/L
pH: 4-5
Based on the performance data in Table
3, none of the processes considered
would be able to handle a waste stream
with the above characteristics without
some pretreatment. But, when properly
designed and operated, RO, IE, and
WAO should require less pretreatment
and post-treatment than other processes
considered. Pretreatment required with
RO and IE would be primarily for the
removal of suspended solids and can be
accomplished by chemical coagulation
and settling, or filtration, or both. WAO
is not expected to effect heavy met
removal. The present engineering an
-\W
stal
\
-------
Table 3. Comparison of Process Capabilities for Reduction of Indicated Constituents/Parameters
Proce
TOC/COD
Low molecular weight organics Oily substances
SS
Heavy metals
Reverse osmosis
Uftraftltration
Generally greater than 90%.
Greater than 90% for large
molecular weight organics
Varies with the species and
wastewater pH Removal
generally decreases with in-
crease in polarity and ten-
dency for hydrogen bonding
with membrane
Ineffective for removal of
low molecular weight
substances
Greater than 9O%
Greater than 90%
Pretreatment to lower SS
load necessary to prevent
membrane fouling and
maintain high flux.
Some pretreatment to lower
SS necessary to extend
membrane life and maintain
high flux
Greater than 90% removal of
ionic species, including
most heavy metals.
Ineffective, because of low
molecular size.
Ion exchange
Wet air oxidation
High purity
oxygen
activated
sluge
process
Ultraviolet-ozone
oxidation
Coagulation/
precipitation
Almost any degree of re-
moval can be obtained with
the use of sorptive resins.
proper design and operating
conditions {including pH
adjustments)
Greater than 90%, depending
on operating conditions
Little or no removal if
organics are toxic or re-
fractory or if waste con-
tains a high concentration
of toxic inorganics
Unless waste is diluted.
very long detention time
would be required to
achieve high removal
Percent destruction
limited by ozone supply
capacity
Ineffective for removal
of most organics; use of
high chemical doses pro-
duces large volume of
sludges which are
difficult to process and
dispose of
Can remove low molecular
weight organics, removal
efficiency dependent on
design and operating
conditions
Very high destruction
efficiency, achievable
by proper selection of
operating conditions.
Removal efficiency deter-
mined by biodegradability
and lack of toxicity, and
not molecular weight per
se
Molecular weight per se
not a factor in process
efficiency
Generally ineffective
Must be removed
to extend resin
life.
Very high destruc-
tion efficiency.
achievable by
proper selection
of operating con-
ditions.
Greater than 60%,
if other condi-
tions are proper
for biooxidation
Should be removed
to minimize inter-
ference with light
transmission
Can effect removal
of separable oils;
30-40% removal can
be expected under
proper pH and
dosage
Pretreatment to lower SS
necessary to prevent bed
clogging
Organic SS can be
destroyed
Prior settling and removal
of SS desirable to improve
process efficiency
Should be removed to mini-
mize interference with
light transmission.
When followed by settling/
filtration and under
proper pH and dose condi-
tions can effect more than
9O% removal.
Can remove all charged
species, including heavy
metals
Ineffective in removing in-
organics, can destroy heavy
metal-organic complexes so
that heavy metals can be
subsequently removed.
Heavy metals can exert
toxic effects
Does not remove heavy
metals; destroys metal-
organic complexes so that
heavy metals can be removed
subsequently.
Addition of hydroxide,
sulfide, phosphate, etc..
can effect near complete
removal of many heavy metal
cations
ysisdid not include comparative assess-
ment of various possible process
combinations to identify promising and
cost-effective treatment schemes in-
cluding the use of two or more trailers
housing different processes and process
combinations. For example, WAO may
be used to handle the smaller volumes
of more concentrated residues resulting
from the other processes and process
combinations.
Estimated Costs
Table 4 presents the estimated capital
costs for a unit suitable for installation
on a flat-bed trailer. The estimated costs
vary from as low as $35,000 for a
227,000-L/day UF unit to as high as
$1.25 to $1.5 million for a 54,000-
L/day, two-trailer WAO unit. As noted
in Table 4, there are differences in labor
type, materials, and fuel requirements
for the operation of various processes.
But in most, especially the short-dura-
tion, applications, these differences
should not have a significant impact on
the overall operating cost of the mobile
unit. The latter is determined largely by
nonprocess-specific costs such as the
fixed cost for transportation, startup,
and shutdown of the mobile unit; equip-
ment insurance; labor; subsistence; and
general analytical support. EPA's ex-
perience with the operation of the
Mobile Physical/Chemical Treatment
System indicates a nonprocess-specific
fixed cost of about $ 10,000, a cost for
one charge of carbon of $10,000 to
$12,000 per deployment, and an oper-
ating cost of $2,500 to $3,000 per day.
The full report was submitted in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2560
by TRW Environmental Engineering
Division, Redondo Beach, California
90278, under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Table 4. Estimated Capital Cost and Operating Fuel, Labor Category and Chemical Requirements
Process
Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Ion exchange
Capital
cost*,
$
75,000%
35,000
140,000
Energy requirement
L of fuel/1, 000 L
of waste
11
2
1
Labor category
requirement^
Semi-skilled; 4 to 12 hrs per
24 hr operation
Semi-skilled; 4 to 12 hrs per
24 hr operation
Skilled; 4 to 12 hrs per 24
hr operation
General chemicals and
materials requirement^
Acid or base for pH adjustment-
scale inhibitors and biocides
Acid or base for pH adjustment;
scale inhibitors and biocides
1 to 3 bed volumes of acid and
base (5 to 10 percent solution)
Wet air oxidation
High purity oxygen
activated sludge
process
Ultraviolet-ozone
oxidation
Coagulation/
precipitation
1.250,000 to 230 Highly skilled; 4 to 12 hrs
1,500,000 per 24 hr operation
200,000 1 Skilled; 1 full time operator
285,000 50 Semi-skilled; 2 to 6 hrs per
24 hr operation
— 1 Semi-skilled; 4 to 12 hrs per
24 hr operation
required for each regeneration;
organic solvents (for example,
methanol or acetone) may be
required for regeneration of
sorptive bed
Acid or base for pH adjustment;
nitrogen and phosphorus as sup-
plemental nutrients; high
purity oxygen
Replacement of UV lamps
Coagulant salts; acid or base
for pH adjustment
*Capital costs are for a 227,000 L/day single-trailer unit, except for wet air oxidation which has a capacity of only 54,000 L/day and
employs two trailers. To allow process versatility, the ion exchange system is designed with an excess capacity so that a
combination of resin types can be used.
•\The labor hour estimates are the minimum requirement for operation under "ordinary" conditions. For safety reasons, however,
a minimum of 2 persons would be required for field operation.
\The specific chemicals and quantities required would depend on the concentration of specific constituents in the waste; accurate
estimates cannot be made for the waste considered here since detailed composition were not assumed.
§The estimated costs provided by three process suppliers were $55,000, $75,000, and $120,000 to $180,000.
M. Ghassemi, K. Yu, and S. Quinlivan are with TRW Environmental Engineering
Division, Redondo Beach. CA 90278.
Frank Freestone is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Feasibility of Commercialized Water Treatment
Techniques for Concentrated Waste Spills," (Order No. PB 82-108 440; Cost:
$11.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cincinnati
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, NJ 08837
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
PS 0
U S FNViR PROTECTION
RtGIOiN. 5 LIBRARY
230 S AtAKHQRN STREET
CHICAGO IL 6060a
AGENCY
*•!! <; CnUFRNMFNT PRINTINT, n FFT f.E•:
------- |