&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
High Energy Electron Injection
(E-Beam) Technology for the
Ex-Situ Treatment of MtBE-
Contaminated Groundwater
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-02/066
September 2002
High Energy Electron Injection (E-Beam) Technology for the
Ex-Situ Treatment of MtBE-Contaminated Groundwater
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
By
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
San Diego, California 92101
EPA Contract No. 68-C-00-181
Task Order No. 15
Work Assignment Manager
Albert D. Venosa
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
/'Y~y Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free.
-------
NOTICE ;
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-C-00-181 to Tetra Tech EM Inc. It has been subjected to
the Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement
of recommendation for use. '
n
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center
for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development
to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This Innovative Technology Evaluation Report documents the results of a demonstration
of the high-energy electron injection (E-Beam) technology in application to groundwater
contaminated with methyl t-butyl ether (MtBE) and with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylenes (BTEX). The E-beam technology destroys organic contaminants in groundwater through
irradiation with a beam of high-energy electrons. The demonstration was conducted at the Naval
Base Ventura County (NBVC) in Port Hueneme, California. i
Results of two weeks of steady state operation at an E-beam dose of 1,200 kijiorads
(krads) indicated that MtBE and BTEX concentrations in the effluent were reduced by greater
than 99.9 percent from influent concentrations that averaged over 1,700 ug/L MtBE |and 2,800
ug/L BTEX. Further, the treatment goals for the demonstration, which were based on drinking
water regulatory criteria, were met for all contaminants except for /--butyl alcohol (tBA), a
degradation product of MtBE. Dose experiments indicated that tBA was not consistently reduced
to below the treatment goal of 12 ug/L although the results indicated that tBA by-product
formation decreased as dose increased. Thus, it is possible that, at increased energy input beyond
that tested in the demonstration, the E-Beam technology might have met the prescribed treatment
objectives for TBA. Acetone and formaldehyde were the two most prevalent organic by-products
that were formed by E-beam treatment, with mean effluent concentrations during the two-week
steady state testing of 160 and 125 ug/L, respectively. Bromate was not formed during E-beam
treatment. i
An economic analysis of the E-beam treatment system indicated that the primary costs
are for the E-beam equipment and for electrical energy. The estimated cost ranged from over $40
per 1000 gallons for a small-scale remedial application to about $1.00 per 1000 gallons for a
larger-scale drinking water application. '
IV
-------
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION »•• 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE ITER 1
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MTBE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1
1.3 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION 5
1.3.1 Principles of the E-Beam Technology 5
1.3.2 Description of E-Beam Process 6
1.4 KEY CONTACTS 9
2 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS 9
2.1 BACKGROUND * 10
2.2 DEMONSTRATION APPROACH: PHASE 1 13
2.2.1 Demonstration Objectives and Sampling Design 13
2.2.2 Technology Operations 14
2.2.3 Sampling and Analytical Procedures 14
2.3 DEMONSTRATION APPROACH: PHASE 2 15
2.4 RESULTS FORPHASE 1 16
2A.1 Trends in Results for CriticalVOCs 18
2.4.2 Statistical Analysis of Results 21
2.5 RESULTS FORPHASE 2 29
2.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS 33
3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 35
3.1 GENERAL ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS 35
3.1.1 Type and Scale of Application 35
3.1.2 Contaminant Types and Levels 36
3.1.3 Regulatory Criteria 36
3.1.4 Site-specific Features 36
3.1.5 General Assumptions 37
3.2 REMEDIAL APPLICATION AT 10 GPM 37
3.2.1 Site Preparation Costs 38
3.2.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 40
3.2.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs 40
3.2.4 Equipment Costs 41
3.2.5 Labor Costs 41
3.2.6 Supply Costs 41
3.2.7 Utility Costs 42
3.2.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 42
3.2.9 Residual Waste Shipping and Handling Costs. 42
3.2.10 Analytical Services Costs 42
3.2.11 Equipment Maintenance Costs 43
3.2.12 Site Demobilization Costs. 43
3.3 DRINKING WATER TREATMENT APPLICATION AT 10 MOD 43
4 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS 45
-------
4.1 : TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE VERSUS ARARS | 45
4.2 TECHNOLOGY OPERABILITY [ 47
4.3 KEY FEATURES OF THE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 48
4.4 APPLICABLE WASTES j 49
4.5 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT ] 49
4.6 MATERIALS HANDLING REQUIREMENTS ; 50
4.7 RANGE OF SUITABLE SITE CHARACTERISTICS ! '. 50
4.7.1 Site Support Requirements j 50
4.7:2 Utility Requirements i 57
4.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY ..............................I.. 51
4.9 POTENTIAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS !]!"!!""!!!!" 51
4.9.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 52
4.9.2 Clean Water Act I 52
4.9.3 Safe Drinking Water Act i 55
4.9.4 Clean Air Act. ! 53
4.9.5 Toxic Substances Control Act : 54
4.9.6 Mixed Waste Regulations '• 54
4.9.7 Occupational Safety and Health Act ' 54
4.10 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS j ; 55
4.10.1 State and Community Acceptance : 55
5 TECHNOLOGY STATUS j 55
6 REFERENCES 57
7 APPENDIX A: VENDOR'S CLAIMS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY 63
7.1 INTRODUCTION I 63
7.2 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION : 63
7.3 ADVANTAGES OF THE E-BEAM PROCESS ' ....' 63
7.4 HVEA TREATMENT SYSTEMS .• T.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'"'' 64
7.5 SYSTEM APPLICATIONS I""!"'"I^'^^^ 64
7.6 COST CONSIDERATIONS " 65
7.7 SUMMARY ."."."!.".".".".".7! 65
7.8 VENDOR'S COMMENTS TO THE ITER... ":' gg
7.8.1 TOC/DOCIssue , Z"':""^'"""'"'""'""""'"""""""'' 67
7.8.2 TOC/DOC Analytical Method Interferences i $7
7.8.3 Chemical Transformations During E-Beam Treatment. ! 68
7.8.4 Participate Losses.
7.8.5 Treatment Goals [
VI
-------
TABLES
2-1 Summary of Site Characterization Analytical Results for the Source Zone 11
2-2 Development of Treatment Goals for the MtBE Technology Demonstration Program
Based on Applicable Regulatory Criteria 12
2-3 Analytical Variables and Method Requirements 17
2-4 Mean, Upper 95% Confidence Level, and Removal Efficiency for MtBE, tBA, and
BTEX 22
2-5 Concentration of By-Products in Influent and Effluent Water 22
2-6 Concentration of General Chemistry Variables in Influent and Effluent Water 26
2-7 Summary of TTHM and HAA Results 29
3-1 Economic Analysis of the Remedial Application at 10 gpm 39
3 -2 Economic Analysis of the Drinking Water Treatment Application at 10 MOD 45
vn
-------
FIGURES
1-1 Site Locations at the NVBC ! 3
j
1-2 Source Zone Site Locations > 4
1-3 E-Beam Treatment System Schematic 8
i
2-1 MtBE and tBA Influent and Effluent Concentrations over the Phase I Demonstration
Period | 19
2-2 BTEX Influent and Effluent Concentrations over the Phase I Demonstration period 20
2-3 Mean Influent and 95% UCL Effluent Concentrations of MtBE and tBA, Respectively, in
the Phase I Portion of the Demonstration • 23
2-4 Mean Influent and 95% UCL Effluent Concentrations of BTEX in the Phase I Portion of
the Demonstration i 24
** i
2-5 Acetone, Formaldehyde, Glyoxal, and Bromate Influent and Effluent Concentrations
Over the Phase 1 Demonstration Period : < 25
i .
2-6 COD, TOC/DOC, and Bromide Ion Influent and Effluent Concentrations Over the Phase
I Demonstration Period 27
2-7 Concentrations of MtBE and tBA in Filtered and Unfiltered Groundwater as a Function
of Applied E-Beam Dose ; ; 31
2-8 Concentrations of BTEX in Filtered and Unfiltered Groundwater as a Function of
Applied E-Beam Dose > 32
Vlll
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACL Alternate concentration limits
AEA Atomic Energy Act
AL Action level
ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cl" Chloride ion
COi Carbon dioxide
COD Chemical oxygen command
CWA Clean Water Act
DBPR Disinfection By-product Rule
1,2-DCE 1,2-Dichloroethene
DHS Department of Health Services
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
DOE Department of Energy
e aq Aqueous electrons
E-Beam High energy electron injection
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
gpm Gallons per minute
HAA Haloacetic acid
HVEA High Voltage Environmental Applications, Inc.
H2 Hydrogen
HaOa Hydrogen peroxide
•H Hydrogen atom
HsO+ Hydronium ion
ICAL Initial calibration
ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
Krads Kilorads
kV Kilovolts
kW Kilowatts
kWh Kilowatt hours
LCS/LCSD Laboratory control samples and laboratory control sample duplicates
LDR Land Disposal Restriction
mA Milliamps
MCL/MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level and Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDL Method detection limit
jig/L Micrograms per liter
mg/L Milligrams per liter
mm Millimeters
MS/MSD Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
MtBE Methyl-t-butyl ether
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
IX
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
NBVC Naval Base Ventura County
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NEX Naval Exchange
NFESC Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
NOEL No observable effect level
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ,
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
•OH Hydroxyl radical
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE Tetrachloroethene
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
PPE Personal protection equipment
ppm Parts per million
PVC Polyyinyl chloride
QA Quality assurance
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QC Quality Control
QCC Quality Control Coordinator
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RRF Relative response factor
RPD Relative percent difference
RSD Relative standard deviation
RTD Resistance temperature device
SDS Simulated distribution system
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound
tBA t-Butyl alcohol
TCE Trichloroethene
TEP Technology evaluation plan
TOC Total organic carbon
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TTHM Total trihalomethanes
TSA Technical systems audit
UCL Upper confidence limit
UFC Uniform formation conditions '
VOA Volatile organic analysis
VOC Volatile organic compound
WQS Water quality standard
-------
-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • "
The high-energy electron injection (E-Beam) technology destroys organic contaminants
in groundwater through irradiation with a beam of high-energy electrons. The injection of
accelerated electrons into an aqueous solution results in the formation of three primary reactive
species: aqueous electrons (e- aq) arid hydrogen radicals (*H), which'are strong reducing species;
and hydroxyl radicals (*OH), which are strong oxidizing species. These reactive species can •
destroy most organic compounds to non-detectable concentrations. However, oxidation by-
products such as acetone, aldehydes, and glyoxals, may be formed in significant concentrations. '
The capabilities of the E-Beam technology for treating groundwater contaminated with
methyl f-butyl ether (MtBE) and with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) was
demonstrated by Haley and Aldrich in the summer and fall of 2001. The site that was selected for
the demonstration was the source zone of the Naval Exchange Gasoline Station site at the Naval
Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme, California. Treatment goals were established for the
demonstration based primarily on California maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for drinking
water.
The demonstration of the E-Beam technology was implemented in two phases, including
a two-week steady-state operation at an E-beam dose of 1,200 kilorads (krad) and a shorter series
of tests in which the E-Beam dose was varied from 800 to 1,600 krad. During the demonstration,
grab samples of the groundwater were collected before and after treatment at the E-Beam
influent and effluent sampling locations and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC),
aldehydes/glyoxals, bromate, and general water quality variables.
Results of the two-week steady-state operation indicated that MtBE and BTEX
concentrations in the effluent were reduced by greater than 99.9 percent from influent
concentrations that averaged over 1,700 ug/L MtBE and 2,800 ug/L BTEX. Further, the 95
percent upper confidence level for the mean effluent concentrations of MtBE, benzene, and
toluene were below the corresponding treatment goals of 5 ug/L, 1 ug/L, and 150 ug/L,
respectively; neither ethylbenzene nor xylenes were detected in the effluent. However, effluent
concentrations of ^-buryl alcohol (tBA), a degradation product of MtBE, were consistently
several times the treatment goal of 12 ug/L.
Results of the dose experiments indicated that a dose of 800 krads was not quite
sufficient to bring the concentration of MtBE to below the treatment goal of 5.0 ug/L, but higher
doses were effective in meeting this treatment goal. However, tBA was not consistently reduced
to below the treatment goal of 12 ug/L even at the highest dose (1,600 krads), although the
results from the dose-response experiment indicated that tBA by-product formation decreased as
dose increased. Thus, it is possible that, at increased energy input beyond that tested in the
demonstration, the E-Beam technology might have met the prescribed treatment objectives for
TBA.
A number of organic by-products were measured in effluent samples, including acetone,
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, glyoxal, and methyl glyoxal. Acetone and formaldehyde were the
two most prevalent organic by-products, with mean effluent concentrations during the two-week
steady-state testing of 160 and 125 ug/L, respectively. Bromate concentrations were near the
XI
-------
detection limit of 1 jig/L in both influent and effluent samples; therefore, bromate does not
appear to be a by-product of E-beam treatment. j
An economic analysis of the E-beam treatment system was conducted for two|
applications: a groundwater remedial application at a flow rate of 10 gallons per mintite, and a
larger-scale drinking water treatment application at a flow rate of 10 million gallons per day. The
primary costs in both applications were for the E-beam equipment and for electrical energy. For
the remedial application, the overall cost was estimated to be over $40 per 1000 gallons, while
for the larger-scale drinking water application the overall cost was estimated to be about $1.00
per 1000 gallons. The lower unit cost for the larger-scale drinking water application resulted
from economies of scale and the assumption that much lower influent concentrations1 of MtBE
would be treated in such an application. '•.
xu
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
The high energy electron injection (E-Beam) technology developed by High Voltage
Environmental Applications, Inc. (HVEA) was demonstrated by Haley and Aldrich, Inc. for the
treatment of groundwater contaminated with methyl r-butyl ether (MtBE) at the Naval Base
Ventura County (NBVC) in the summer and fall of 2001. This Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report (ITER) describes the results of that demonstration and provides other
pertinent technical and cost information for potential users of this technology. For additional
information about this technology, and the evaluation site, refer to key contacts listed at the end
of this section.
1.1 Purpose and Organization of the ITER
Information presented in the ITER is intended to assist decision-makers in evaluating
specific technologies for treatment of contaminated media. The ITER represents a critical step in
the development and commercialization of a treatment technology. The report discusses the
effectiveness and applicability of the technology and analyzes costs associated with its
application. The technology's effectiveness is evaluated based on data collected during the
demonstration. The applicability of the technology is discussed in terms of waste and site
characteristics that could affect technology performance, material handling requirements,
technology limitations, and other factors.
The purpose of this ITER is to present information that will assist decision-makers in
evaluating the E-Beam technology for application to a particular site cleanup and for the treated
water to be considered as a source of drinking water. This report provides background
information and introduces the E-Beam technology (Section 1.0), analyzes the technology's
applications (Section 2.0), analyzes the economics of using the E-Beam technology to treat
contaminated groundwater (Section 3.0), provides an overview and evaluation of the E-Beam
demonstration at the NBVC (Section 4.0), summarizes the technology's status (Section 5.0), and
presents a list of references used to prepare the ITER (Section 6.0). Vendor's claims for the E-
Beam technology are presented in Appendix A.
1.2 Description of the MtBE Demonstration Program
In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Navy entered
into a memorandum of understanding to conduct a multi-year program involving demonstration
and evaluation of several innovative technologies for treatment of MtBE in groundwater.
Technology vendors were identified through an open solicitation requesting proposals for
processes to treat MtBE. Vendors participating in the program were selected based on the results
of external and internal EPA/Navy peer reviews.
The site that was selected for the multiple-vendor MtBE demonstration program was the
source zone of the Naval Exchange (NEX) Gasoline Station site, located at the NBVC, Port
Hueneme, California. The NEX Gasoline Station site is typical of similar gasoline service station
sites throughout the country, where leaking gasoline storage tanks and product delivery lines
have contaminated surrounding groundwater with gasoline components and additives, including
MtBE. The MtBE plume that emanates from the NEX Gasoline Station at the NBVC site extends
-------
approximately 5,000 feet from the contamination source in a shallow perched aquiferl (SCS and
Landau Associates 1985). '
I
Three locations within the MtBE plume at the NEX Gasoline Station site were identified
as potential locations for technology demonstrations. These three locations are differentiated by
their distance from the source and are identified as follows: '
1. Source Zone: This zone is closest to the source, contains high concentrations of MtBE as
well as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and potentially Contains
free-phase gasoline. i
2. Middle Zone: This zone is the area mid-way down gradient along the MtBE phime
contains moderate concentrations of MtBE; no BTEX or free-phase gasoline is known to
be present. :
i
3. Wellhead Protection Zone: This zone is farthest down gradient along the plurne, and
contains MtBE at lower concentrations than the first two zones. i
Figure 1-1 indicates the extent of the MtBE plume at Port Hueneme as of August, 1999
and identifies the three zones within the plume; Figure 1-2 provides an expanded view of the
Source Zone, the location of the E-Beam technology demonstration. l
-------
:l lo.,?°n;
NEX
Gasoline
Station
Figure 1-1 Site Locations at NBVC
Port Hueneme
jyx rfj * f **' V '•Zx' . =
-------
23rd
NFESC/Equilon
/ASU In-Situ
Bioremediation
Figure 1-2 Source Zone Site
Locations
-------
1.3 Technology Description
This section describes the HVEA E-Beam technology that was operated by Haley and
Aldrich, Inc. arid demonstrated at the NBVC, Port Hueneme, California.
1.3.1 Principles of the E-Beam Technology
The E-Beam technology destroys organic contaminants in groundwater through
irradiation with a beam of high-energy electrons. The injection of accelerated electrons into an
aqueous solution results in the formation of reactive species described by equation 1 (Buxton et
al., 1988):
H20 -AM -» (2.7). OH, (0.6) H, (2.6) e'aq, (0.45) H2, (0.7) H2O2, (2.6) H3O+ [1]
The numbers in parentheses denote the yield (G-value) of each species per 100 eV
absorbed dose (energy). This can be thought of as an efficiency estimate, that is, the relative
concentration of a radical, excited species, or molecule per unit-absorbed energy.
During irradiation of water, three primary transient reactive species are formed: aqueous
electrons (e- aq) and hydrogen radicals (»H), which are strong reducing species; and hydroxyl
radicals (*OH), which are strong oxidizing species. These reactive species can destroy organic
compounds initially present in water at part-per-million (ppm) concentrations, in most cases, to
non-detectable concentrations. Because three reactive species are formed, there are multiple
mechanisms or chemical pathways for organic compound destruction. In this way, the E-Beam
technology differs from other technologies that involve free radical chemistry, which typically
rely on a single reactive species in the organic compound destruction mechanism, usually «OH.
The entire sequence of reactions between organic compounds and reactive species occurs in the
area where the E-Beam impacts the water and is completed in milliseconds. As high-energy
electrons impact flowing water, the electrons slow down, lose energy, and react with water to
produce the three reactive species responsible for organic compound destruction, as well as
hydrogen (Hi), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydronium ions (H}O+).
Equation 1 shows that the «OH and e~aq account for about 90 percent of the three primary
reactive species formed by the E-Beam. According to published results and computer models
provided by Haley and Aldrich that simulate radiation chemistry in water, some compounds are
preferentially destroyed by either «OH or e~aq. For example, chlorinated hydrocarbons such as
chloroform are dechlorinated by a reaction with e~aq that initiates a series of subsequent
reduction and oxidation reactions leading to hydrocarbon mineralization. Other organic
compounds undergo a variety of reactions, including addition, hydrogen abstraction, electron
transfer, and radical-radical combination. For example, the BTEX compounds are initially
destroyed primarily through »OH initiated reactions.
The E-Beam is produced using an electron accelerator. Within the electron accelerator, a
stream of electrons is emitted when an electric current (beam current) is passed through a
tungsten wire filament. The electron stream is accelerated by applying an electric field and is
focused into a beam using collimating plates. The applied voltage determines the energy (speed)
of the accelerated electrons, which affects the depth to which the E-Beam penetrates the water
-------
being treated. The number of electrons emitted per unit time is proportional to the beana current;
therefore, the E-Beam power is the product of the beam current and the accelerating voltage.
Dose is the amount of energy from the E-Beam that is absorbed by the irradiated water
per unit mass. Dose is expressed in kilorads (krads); a krad is defined as 105 ergs of absorbed
energy per gram of material. The dose depends on (1) the density and thickness of the water
stream; (2) E-Beam power, which is a function of current and accelerating voltage; arid (3) the
amount of time the water is exposed, to the E-Beam, which depends on the flow rate qf the water.
Dose is the principal operating parameter that affects the performance of the E-Beam |technology.
The E-Beam treatment technology does not generate residue, sludge, or spent media that
require further processing, handling, or disposal. Target organic compounds are eithef
mineralized or broken down into lower molecular weight compounds. It has been shojwn that the
E-Beam produces transient^ reactive species that react with contaminants to produce intermediate
chemical species that are ultimately oxidized to carbon dioxide (CCh), water, and salts. At low to
intermediate doses, however, incomplete oxidation may result in the formation of unwanted
chemical by-products such as low molecular weight aldehydes, organic acids, and semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOC)'. A number of reports have recently been published that detail this
chemistry (Cooper et al., 2000; 2001;Hardison et aL, 2002; Kim et'al., 2002; Mezyk et al., 2001;
O'Shea et al., 2001; 2002; Tornatore et al., 2000; Wu et al., 2002): !
i - -
Haley and Aldrich notes that these by-products may include formaldehyde, ac^taldehyde,
glyoxal, and formic acid. In a recent demonstration of the technology in application to
groundwater contaminated with trichloroethehe (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE), the vendor
claims that aldehydes were formed at concentrations that accounted for less than 1 percent of the
total organic carbon (TOG) content (Cooper et al., 1993). The vendor claims that at low doses
(50 krads), formic acid accounted for up to 10 percent of the TOG content; however, this
percentage decreased at higher doses (greater than 200 krads). According to the vendor, chloride
ion (Cl~) mass balances indicated that complete conversion of organic chlorine to Cl~ occurred
during treatment. Additional research'indicates that haloacetic acids, such as chloroacetic acid,
may be formed (Gehringer et al., 1988). i
• - , ' ' • . I
1.3.2 Description of E-Beam Process ,
A diagram of the E-beam system that was used for the demonstration is shown in Figure,
1-3. The E-beam system is housed in .an 8-foot by 48-foot trailer and is rated for a maximum
flow rate of ,40 gallons, per minute (gpm). The E-beam system is composed of the following
components: a strainer basket, an influent pump, the E-beam unit, a cooling air processor, a
blower, and a control console (not shown in Figure 1-3). These components are situated in three
separate rooms: the pump room, process room, and control room. The pump room contains all
ancillary equipment for both water and air handling; the radiation-shielded process room
contains the E-beam unit itself; and the control room contains the control console where system-
operating conditions are monitored and adjusted. . • .
For the demonstration, the influent pump transferred contaminated groundwater from the
five wells in the groundwater extraction zone to the E-beam unit. A strainer basket located -.
upstream from the influent pump removed particulate matter greater than 0.045 inch in size from
-------
the groundwater to prevent damage to the influent pump and other components of the treatment
system.
The E-beam unit is composed of the following components: an electron accelerator, a
scanner, a contact chamber, and lead shielding. The electron accelerator used for the
demonstration is capable of generating an accelerating voltage of 500 kilovolts (kV) and a beam
current of between 0 and 42 milliamps (mA). The accelerating voltage determines the E-beam
penetration depth. Based on the maximum accelerating voltage and beam current that the
electron accelerator can generate, the E-beam unit has a maximum power rating of 21 kW.
A scanner located beneath the electron accelerator uses magnetic coils to deflect the E-
beam, causing it to scan into a prescribed shape and penetrate the flowing water (the E-beam
scanner operation is similar to the vacuum tube in a television set). Contaminated groundwater is
pumped through the contact chamber, which is located beneath the scanner. The scanner is
operated in such a way that the E-beam contacts the entire surface of the water flowing through
the contact chamber.
Two titanium membranes/windows separate the scanner from the contact chamber. The
first (primary) window maintains a vacuum in the scanner and the second (secondary) titanium
window isolates cooling air from the contact chamber; as the E-beam passes through the primary
titanium window, a small amount of the E-beam's energy is absorbed by the window. This
energy absorption is manifested in the form of heat. Because of the E-beam's high energy and
operation in a confined space, at high power the titanium window may experience undesired
heating. Passing recireulating cooling air between the primary and secondary windows cools the
titanium window. Cooling air exiting from between the two windows flows through a cooling air
processor, which includes a water-jacketed air chiller, and is then returned to re-cool the primary
window by a blower.
Ozone, which is formed in the closed loop cooling air when it is exposed to the E-beam,
is destroyed by the high discharge temperature (around 300° F) of the blower, according to
Haley and Aldrich. Ozone is present in the cooling air return lines, which operate under a slight
vacuum, until passing through the blower. However, the ozone concentration in the cooling air
returndines is not routinely monitored because the cooling air system is a "closed loop" system,
and ultimately the ozone is destroyed as the cooling air is heated by the blower.
Incidental leakage from the cooling system or atmospheric air present in the confined
delivery system tends to create a buildup of ozone in the air space under the lead shielding. A
vent system and associated ozone destruction unit (not shown in Figure 1-3) was installed to vent
this ozone buildup, destroy it, and exhaust the heated air from the trailer. When the E-beam
system is operating, both the influent pump and the blower run continuously. If either water or
cooling airflow stops, the system automatically shuts down. Lead shielding surrounds the E-beam
unit to prevent incidental X-ray emissions. X-rays are formed when the E-beam contacts various internal
stainless steel surfaces. As an added safety measure, the process room is inaccessible and interlocked to
shut down in the event of entry during system operation.
Resistance temperature devices (RTD) are used to measure the temperature of
groundwater before and after treatment. The change in water temperature induced by application
-------
of the E-Beam is the method to determine the E-beam dose. The water temperature is Expected to
increase by about 1°C to 3°C during treatment, depending on the E-Beam dose. The RTDs have
a sensitivity of 0.1 °C. A relationship between dose and beam current has been established, and
the beam current is used for operational control of the system.
The contaminated groundwater flow rate is adjusted in the pump room, using the
system's positive displacement influent pump arid variable speed drive and is measured by a
flow meter. The rotameter-type flow meter installed in the trailer has a 0 to 20 gpm working range. The
cooling-air flow rate was determined by the manufacturer of the electron accelerator. !
Operationally, it is monitored by measuring the pressure drop across the contact chamber. The
pressure drop is displayed on the control panel. |
Influent and effluent water sampling ports are installed in the trailer-mounted IE-Beam
system for purposes of sampling untreated and treated water, as shown in Figure 1-3. The 500-
gallon influent storage tank was not used during :the demonstration except for start-up operations
and to check the flow meter for accuracy. !
HOT TO SCALE
JNE
COOt 9iS MR UNf.
FIGURE 1-3;
E-BEAU TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
-------
1.4 Key Contacts
Additional information about the E-Beam technology and the NBVC demonstration can
be obtained from the following sources:
Dr. Albert D. Venosa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7668
FAX: (513) 569-7585
Email: venosa.albert@epa.gov
Mr. Paul M. Tornatore, P.E.
Haley & Aldrich of New York
200 Town Centre Drive, Suite 2
Rochester, New York 14623-4264
Telephone: (585) 321-4220
Email: pmt@haleyaldrich.com
Mr. Ernie Lory
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
ESC 411
560 Center Drive
Port Hueneme, CA 93403
Telephone: (805) 982-1299
Email: elory@nfesc.navy.mil
2 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
This section presents the results of the demonstration of the E-Beam technology at the
NBVC in Port Hueneme, California and describes the effectiveness of the technology in treating
groundwater contaminated with MtBE and other gasoline components. The E-Beam technology
demonstration was conducted at the Source Zone within the MtBE plume at the NBVC during
the Summer and Fall of 2001.
The demonstration at the NBVC was guided by the technical representatives of a group
of stakeholders that included the following organizations:
• U.S. EPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
• U.S. Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC)
• U.S. EPA, Region 9
• California Department of Health Services (DHS)
Each of these stakeholders participated in conference calls and meetings at the site to
discuss the technical details of the demonstration and to ensure that the technical approach to the
demonstration adequately addressed elements of interest to potential users of the E-Beam
9
-------
technology. NFESC and NRMRL worked cooperatively to staff the field sampling crews and to
manage the evaluation. j
i
2.1 Background ;
To characterize the contaminated groundwater at the demonstration location within the
Source Zone, seven temporary wells were installed just east of Harris Street in the area of the
Extraction Zone. The wells, designated T-l through T-7, were installed in a line trending north to
south with well 1 being the farthest north and well 7 the farthest south. Subsequently, jto feed
contaminated groundwater to the treatment system, these temporary wells were replaced with a
series of five extraction wells, designated S-l through S-5, as shown in Figure 1-2. |
Hydrogeological modeling by NRMRL indicated that the maximum available [flow rate
from the five extraction wells would be 7 gpm. The E-Beam system was designed for \a
continuous flow rate of 40 gpm, and Haley and Aldrich indicated that flows lower than about 10
gpm result in some operational difficulties. Therefore, Haley and Aldrich made some
refinements to the E-Beam dosing chamber in order to accommodate lower flows and it was
planned that the demonstration would be conducted at the maximum available flow rate of 7
gpm. I
Groundwater at the Source Zone was known to be contaminated with gasoline!
components. The primary components of environmental concern included BTEX, MtBE, and
products of MtBE degradation, including primarily r-butyl alcohol (tBA). To confirm jthe
presence of these components and their approximate concentrations in the area, groundwater
samples were collected from the seven temporary wells (T-l through T-7) in September 2000
and then from the five extraction wells (S-l through S-5) in March 2001. The results 6f the
laboratory analysis of these groundwater samples are shown in Table 2-1 and confirmed the
presence of the expected gasoline components. . ! ,
[
In addition to the gasoline components identified above, the stakeholders identified a
number of potential by-products of chemical oxidation that may well be formed during treatment
of the groundwater using the E-Beam technology. Specifically, by-products from the oxidation
of MtBE and BTEX were expected to include acetone, aldehydes, and glyoxals. In addition,
bromate formation might result from oxidation of the bromide. Finally, the potential rfeuse of the
effluent as a drinking water supply resulted in the identification of several by-product^ of
subsequent chlorination treatment as constituents of interest. These constituents included total
trihalomethanes (TTHM), haloacetic acid (HAAs), and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDlylA).
The contaminants of interest identified above were therefore included on the list of
analytical variables to be determined in both influent and effluent samples during the \
demonstration to assess the effectiveness of E-Beam treatment. Based on a review of regulatory
criteria for these contaminants of interest and discussions among the stakeholders, effluent
treatment goals were established for selected contaminants of interest as listed in Tablb 2-2. The
treatment goals for MtBE, BTEX and tBA were identified as the lowest maximum contaminant
level (MCL) or action level (AL) promulgated by the State of California. For TTHMs and
HAAs, the treatment goal was based on the anticipated requirements of the Stage 2 Disinfection
By-product Rule (DBPR). These requirements have been proposed in a Notice of Agreement in
Principle dated December 20,2000 (65 FR 251, pages 83015-83024). The other regulatory
10
-------
criteria presented in Table 2-2 for critical and non-critical variables were used as advisory
information and not as a basis for setting the treatment goals for this demonstration.
Table 2-1. Summary
WeUISfo.,,. .,
of Site Characterization Analytical Results for the Source Zone
^Sample " MtBE," tBA, Benzene*/ f. Toluene, ,^Ethylbenzene, Xylenes,
ID" „ '"„
^Jig/L , „ ,>.ug/L.,, „.
Initial Characterization Sampling Event, September,
T-l
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
920
945
1,010
1,045
1,115
1,530
, 1,555
Additional Characterization
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
1,406
1,440
1,504
1,535
1,600
930
2,600
2,200
25 .
6
8
140
Sampling Event,
569
233
1,400
2,160
5,100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
March
59
17
197
270
510
^Ug#4
2000
400
840
730*
233*
22
4
5
13-14, 2001
118
0
623
1,030
3,170
Hg/B%f *"rV't "
660
1,100
590
110
110
17
26
<1
0
276
<1
802
"ug/L-- _^ ,-
280
460
280
<1.0
370*
12
31
7
0
1,230
470
1,740
•jlg^L Vv
1,100
1,600
950
530*
870*
44
86
1,130
3
1500
1500
4030
* estimated results
NA = not analyzed
11
-------
Table 2-2. Developmei
Program based on Api
Contaminant
;, i1 I - '
VOCs
DW Variables
(SDS Testing)
Aldehydes &
Glyoxals ;
Wet
Chemistry
MtBE*
tBA*
Acetone*
Benzene*
Toluene*
Ethylbenzene*
Xylenesc*
TTHMs
HAAs
NDMA
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Heptaldehyde
Glyoxal
Me-Glyoxal
Bromate
it of Treatment Goals for the MtBE Technology Demonstration
plicable Regulatory Criteria
CA Primary ;?i
MCLa, "•--'"
Pg/L
13
NA
NA
1
150
700
1,750
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; •--.€&;,',. "•-
*Y SeconiSf:,' ."
^MCL***.
vrVfcs/L ~ ".
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
vr"-,x'K ,«-sp«
?€XjM$r
•»•!•!•*•&;• a-"™!-;
-¥^' * : '•
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-. CATublic/.
^ ' Health
*,--. %•&*%< a
$-• 6'oai*, >
""'.VSfL .
13
. NA
NA
0.14"
150
300
1,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
'Stag-e^
DBPRii
-,- ^MjCLV
' ''. .re/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80
60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
Demonstration
^.Treadneirt »
, Goal," ' .
~ -,m/E, - -
5
1 12
; NA
1
; iso
! 700
i 1,750
80
60
0.02
1 NA
NA
i NA
! NA
- NA
; 10
Abbreviations:
CA: State of California
DBPR: Disinfection Byproduct Rule
DO: Dissolved Oxygen
DW: Drinking Water
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HAAs: Haloacetic Acids
MtBE: Methyl-t-Butyl Ether
NA: Not available
SDS: Simulated Distribution System
tBA: t-Butyl Alcohol
TBD: To be determined ;
TOC: Total organic carbon
TTHMs: Total trihalometKanes
VOCs: Volatile organic compounds
Notes: i
*: Critical contaminant associated with a primary demonstration objective i
a) Sources: California DHS Primary MCLs and Lead and Copper Action Levels (January 2001), Secondary MCLs (May 2000), Action Levels
(February 2001), Public Health Goals (January 2001) '
b) Draft or proposed values ;
c) Single isomer or sum of isomers
12
-------
The demonstration of the E-Beam technology was implemented in two phases. In the first
phase, the technology was evaluated during over a two-week period during July 2001 at
essentially steady-state operating conditions. For this main phase of the demonstration, a specific
set of objectives was formulated and a technology evaluation plan/quality assurance project plan
(TEP/QAPP) was written to guide the field sampling, laboratory analysis, and data evaluation
efforts. In the second phase, the E-Beam dose was varied in a series of short runs during one
week in November, 2001. The purpose of this second phase was to determine the optimum dose
for minimizing by-products while still maintaining adequate destruction of the primary
contaminants of interest (MtBE and BTEX).
2.2 Demonstration Approach: Phase I
The following sections describe the demonstration objectives and sampling design for
Phase 1 of the demonstration, the technology operations during this phase, and the sampling and
analytical procedures.
2.2.1 Demonstration Objectives and Sampling Design
One primary objective and six secondary objectives were identified for the main phase of
the demonstration. The primary objective and the measurement needed to fulfill this objective
were considered critical for the technology evaluation; secondary objectives were related to
additional information that was useful but not critical.
2.2.1.1 Primary Objective
The primary objective was to evaluate whether the E-Beam technology will reduce the
MtBE, tBA, and BTEX levels to less than the treatment goals established for the demonstration
program. To fulfill this primary objective, grab samples of influent and effluent groundwater
were collected three times each weekday for a 2-week period. Each of these samples was
analyzed for a list of VOCs that included MtBE, tBA, and BTEX.
2.2.1.2 Secondary Objectives
The secondary objectives for this demonstration were the following:
Monitor for formation of reaction by-products (i.e., acetone, aldehydes, and glyoxals).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Determine whether the effluent meets the TTHM and HAAs requirements of the Stage 2
DBPR when subjected to Uniform Formation Conditions (UFC).
Use a chloramine UFC test to assess potential for formation of NDMA.
Monitor certain water quality variables, including pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen
(DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and dissolved and total organic carbon
(DOC/TOC), as well as the flow rate.
Define operating costs (power/energy consumption, chemical costs) over a set period of
stable operation.
13
-------
6. Determine if the technology results in a significant increase in the bromate concentration
in the effluent as compared to the influent. !
To fulfill Secondary Objectives 1, 4, and 6, grab samples of the influent and effluent
groundwater were collected once each weekday and analyzed for the listed variables. JTo fulfill
Secondary Objectives 2 and 3, grab samples of the effluent were collected two times during the
demonstration and shipped to the NRMRL drinking water laboratory, where the samples were
subjected to chlorination according to Simulated Disinfection System (SDS) testing protocols.
2.2.2 Technology Operations
The pump and hosing that was already present in the pump room of the E-Beam process
trailer was used to extract groundwater from the five extraction wells into the E-Beam treatment
system. The flow from the wells was fed directly into the treatment system, bypassing the
influent tank, and the effluent was discharged to the NBVC sanitary sewer system under an
appropriate permit. To determine the hydraulic residence time of the treatment systenj, a tracer
study was conducted following startup of the E-Beam system but prior to initiation of the
treatment runs. Sodium chloride was added to the influent and the effluent was monitored with a
conductivity meter to determine the mean residence time. The test was repeated four times at the
planned flow rate of 7.0 gpm; the mean hydraulic residence time was calculated to be! 2 minutes
and 45 seconds. !
During Phase 1, the E-Beam system was operated at a power input corresponding to a
radiation dose of 1,200 krads, which Haley and Aldrich indicated would be adequate to destroy
MtBE at the concentrations historically observed at this location. The E-Beam treatment system
was operated only during the day, from approximately 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and was shut down at
night at the request of the NBVC for security and safety reasons. Each morning during the
demonstration period, the system was started up by the E-Beam operator and allowedjto run for
approximately 1 hour to ensure that the process was at a steady operational state before any
sampling was conducted.
2.2.3 Sampling and Analytical Procedures !
During the demonstration, grab samples of the groundwater were collected before and
after treatment at the E-Beam influent and effluent sampling locations. Sampling waslconducted
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. each day. Three grab samples were collected fpr volatile
organic compound (VOC) analysis at about 4-hour intervals on each of the 10 sampling days to
generate a total of 30 samples for VOCs. One grab sample was collected each sampling day for
analysis of aldehydes/glyoxals and general water quality characteristics to generate a total of 10
samples for each of these variables.
All samples were collected directly into sample jars from the valved taps in the E-Beam
system influent and effluent lines. Prior to sample collection, the valved water taps were purged
briefly to ensure that any stagnant water had been flushed out of the tap. A description of the
sample container and preservative utilized for each type of sample is provided in Table 2-3. Each
water sample for VOC analysis was collected in three 40-mL volatile organic analysis1 (VGA)
vials containing hydrochloric acid to acidify the sample to a pH < 2. The water sample was
gently introduced into the sample containers to reduce agitation and loss of volatile cdmpounds.
14
-------
Each vial was filled until a meniscus appeared over the top of the vial. The screw-top lid with the
septum (Teflon side toward the sample) was then tightened onto the vial. After the lid was
tightened, the vial was inverted and tapped to check for air bubbles. If any air bubbles were
present, the sample was recollected. For all other analytes, water was introduced directly into the
appropriate container, as listed in Table 2-3, and the lid was tightened immediately after filling.
Field duplicates and other quality control (QC) samples were collected immediately following
collection of the original sample. After collection, each water sample was stored on ice in a
cooler until readied for shipment to the analytical laboratory. All sample collection procedures
were in accordance with the reference method listed in Table 2-3.
To evaluate the potential formation of by-products after treatment with the electron beam
process, it was determined that the SDS testing protocol, which was established under the DBPR
and simulates the effects of chlorination under UFC,,would be used. A bulk 1-gallon effluent
water sample, before and after treatment, was collected two times during the demonstration and
sent to NRMRL for SDS testing and subsequent analysis of chlorination by-products.
Following sample collection, each sample was labeled with detailed information
regarding the location, date, and time of collection. Chain-of-custody procedures were followed
from sample collection through sample analysis.
Each effluent grab sample was taken approximately one hydraulic retention time
following the collection of the corresponding Influent sample to ensure that the same parcel of
water was being sampled before and after treatment. Since the flow rate was maintained at 7.0
gpm throughout the demonstration, effluent samples were taken about 2 minutes and 45 seconds
following collection of the influent sample during each sampling event.
Field variables that were measured on influent and effluent water included pH,
temperature, and DO. These measurements were taken using a Horiba U-22 water quality meter
on a separate grab sample in conjunction with each influent/effluent sampling event. Laboratory
measurements that were conducted are listed in Table 2-3. All laboratory measurements were conducted
in accordance with the EPA reference method.
2.3 DEMONSTRATION APPROACH: PHASE 2
During Phase 2, the E-Beam system was operated at three different power inputs,
corresponding to radiation doses of 800, 1,200, and 1,600 krads. The flow rate and other
operating conditions for Phase 2 were the same as for Phase 1. Because influent groundwater
was pumped directly from the extraction wells, and these wells had only recently been installed,
there was some concern that the influent groundwater might contain atypically high levels of
suspended matter. To assess whether this suspended matter might have any influence on the
performance of the treatment system, a replicate run was conducted at each of the three power
levels wherein a 1-micron cartridge filter was inserted into the influent line to filter out
suspended matter prior to treatment. The sampling and analytical procedures for Phase 2 of the
demonstration were identical to Phase 1.
15
-------
2.4 RESULTS FOR PHASE 1
All planned measurements were taken, and no outliers were identified. Thus, 1|00%
completeness was achieved for field variables. The results are summarized below: ;
• The flow rate ranged from 6.8 to 7.0 gpm, and averaged 6.97 gpm. \
• The pH averaged 6.80 in the influent and 7.01 in the effluent.
• The dissolved oxygen content of the groundwater increased from 5.70 mg/L Jin the
influent to 7.32 mg/L in the effluent. ;
• The temperature of the influent averaged 23.9° C; the effluent temperature ayeraged
about 26.2°C (2.3° C higher). I
16
-------
s^Tjible, 2-3". Analytical Variables and Method Requirements - "* - "» «? v« •>
•,-|,^»?%^
/Analytical Variable
'•*TI ," -A<3» -' **
Volatile organics
Aldehydes/Glyoxals
General Chemistry
Bulk SDS Test
Sample
Disinfection
Byproducts
(in SDS Effluent)
Target
Analytes
MtBE
tBA
BTEX
Acetone
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Methyl
glyoxal
Glyoxal
Heptaldehyde
TOC
DOC
COD
Bromide ion
Bromate ion
NA
TTHMs
HAAs
NDMA
Method _ ..
Reference
SW-846
5030B/8260B
MDOCDW 556
Mod.
MCAWW415.1
MCAWW 415.1
Mod.
MCAWW.410.4
MCAWW 300.0
MCAWW 3 17
SDS UFC Test
MDOCDW 551
MDOCDW
552.1
40 CFR 136,
Meth. 1625
Mod.
Container
3 x40mL
amber glass
vial
2x50mL
amber glass
1 x 250 amber
glass
.IxSOOmL
polyethylene
1 x 50 mL
amber glass
6 x 1 L amber
glass
2x60mL
amber glass
2x50mL
amber glass
2 x 1 L amber
glass
Holding
Time
1-4 days
(anal.)
7
days(ext)/
14 days
(anal)
28 days
Not'
specified
14 days
(ext)/
14 days
(anal)
14 days
(ext)/
7 days
(anal)
30 days
(ext/ anal)
Preservation
HC1 to pH<2
25 mg
CuSO4.5H20
HC1 to pH<2
H2SO4 to
pH<2
None
SmgEDA
None
lOmgNHjCl
20 mg
ascorbic acid
Analytical
Laboratory
ALSI
MW
ALSI
MW
EPA
NRMRL
MW
Abbreviations: ,
ALSI: Analytical Laboratory Services, Inc
Anal: Analysis
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand
CuSO4.5H2O: Copper sulfate pentahydrate
DOC: Dissolved Organic Carbon
EDA: Ethylane diamine
Ext.: extraction "
HAAs: Haloacetic acids
MCAWW: Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA 1998a)
MDOCODW: Methods for determination of organic compounds in drinking water
MW: Montgomery Watson Laboratories
NDMA: N-nitrosodimethylamine
NRMRL: National Risk Management Research Laboratory
SDS: Simulated Distribution System
SW-846: Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Wastes (EPA 1996)
TOC: Total organic carbon
TFE: tetrafluoroethene
TTHMs: total trihalomethanes
UFC: Uniform Formation Conditions
17
-------
The increase in effluent temperature was consistent with the process chemistryjfbr the E-
Beam technology, as discussed in Section 1.3.1. A 100% completeness was achieved for laboratory
variables with the exception of NDMA. Other analytical tests consumed the entire available SDS effluent
sample; therefore, insufficient sample was available to the laboratory for NDMA analysis, i
2.4.1 Trends in Results for Critical VOCs i
The laboratory analytical results for each critical VOC variable are plotted in Figure 2-1
and 2-2. In each of these plots, the date of sampling is shown on the x-axis, and the :
concentrations of the critical variables are shown on the y-axis.
Figure 2-1 shows the influent and effluent MtBE (upper panel) and tBA (lower( panel)
concentrations during the two-week demonstration period. Each day, 3 replicate samples were
collected, one in the morning, one around noon to mid-afternoon, and one in late afternoon. The
effluent samples were temporally related to the influent samples. Since the scale of the figure is
logarithmic, the increase in influent MtBE concentration from 1,400 to 2,000 over the time
period is not clearly noticeable. This increasing trend in influent MtBE concentration may have
resulted from the drawing in of higher concentration regions of the plume into the extraction
wells; Effluent MtBE concentrations were always less than the treatment goal of 5 |j,g/L
established at the beginning of the project (dotted horizontal line in the figure), and variability
was low.
The lower panel of Figure 2-1 summarizes the influent and effluent tBA concentrations.
The dotted horizontal line signifies the treatment goal of 12 ug/L, which was the compliance
target established in the project objectives. tBA was never in compliance with that treatment goal
for the duration of the demonstration period at the dose rate studied. The rate constant jfor the
reaction of hydroxyl radical with tBA is 6.0 x 108 M'V1, or about half that of MtBE. Therefore,
even though MtBE removal was consistently effective, tBA removal was consistently less so.
This is because of the competition for high energy electrons and oxidative radicals by {he other
organic constituents in the influent groundwater as well as the lower rate constant for 6xidation
of tBA as compared to other organic constituents. !
Figure 2-2 (a-d) summarizes the behavior of the BTEX compounds in the groundwater
during the 2-week demonstration period. Again, the dotted lines in the figure panels represent the
treatment goals for the respective compounds. Benzene and toluene were both consistently
reduced by 3 orders of magnitude to below their respective treatment goals. Ethylbenzene and
xylenes were already below their treatment goals in the influent, and they were reduced further to
below detection limits by exposure to the electron beam (the laboratory quantitation limit was
0.5 /^g/L for ethylbenzene and 1.5 //g/L for total xylenes).
18
-------
Figure 2-1. MtBE and tBA Influent and Effluent Concentrations over the Phase 1 Demonstration
Period
influent
o Effluent
D)
1Q
10
c
o
O
O
ffi 10°
10
10
o>
o
c
o
O
< 10°
10
-
r
;°°o
=•
b o o
i P i
o
o o
i i i
0 0
o
IT 1
O O O
1 1 1
00°
1 1 1
freatr
0 o o
1 1 1
0 o °
Treat
i i i
lentO
0 0
0
1 1 1
o °
o
ment
bjecth
1
0
0 °
1 1 1
o °
t
Dbjed
re = 5
0 °
o
1 1 1
0 ° 0
ive = '
ug/L
0 °
o
1 1 1
00°
2fj,g/L
j — i — 1_
o°0
1 1 1
00°
1 1 1
o°o
1 1 1
o
0 0
1 1 1
19
-------
Figure 2-2. BTEX Influent and Effluent Concentrations over the Phase 1 Demonstration Period
Influent
o Effluent
O)
0)
i
O)
0)
_3
,2
D)
=J.
oT
D)
tn
0)
CO
iu-
103
102
101
10°
104
103
102
101
10°
104
103
102
101
10°
104
103
102
101
10°
b o
-I I ?
r
r
r
*P99
1
=
r
r
poo
"l 1 1
I
» • •
r
r
boo
r
9??
O
6 ' ?
Freati
o o o
1 1 1
• ••
o o o
1 1 1
°°o
i i V
o
99 i
nent
o o o
1 1 1
• ••
freatr
o o o
Tr
0°
? 1 1
Trea
0°
9 i i
3bjec
o o o
%••
lent
o o o
1 1 1
eatiru
000
1 1 1
tmen
66^
tive =
o o o
1 1 1
0 • •
Dbjec
o o o
ntOI
io
o o
1 1 1
t
Obje
o
99 .
700
o o o
• • •
ive =
o o o
1 1
)jecti
©
0
i 9 i
ctive
o o
ii 9
igIL
o o o
• • •
1,75<
o o o
1 1 1
re = 1
7N-G--
" 0
1 1 1
= 150
o
0
I I ^
o o o
» *»
M9/L
0 0 O
H9/L
9?9
i^g/L
o o
I Jk I
o o o
1 1 1
0 • •
o o o
1 1 1
o
9 i 9
o o o
1 1 1
o o o
1 1 1
•"» «
o o o
1 1 1
r- r»
& £"
^ ^
W O"
oooooooooo
20
-------
2.4.2 Statistical Analysis of Results
In accordance with the TEP/QAPP, a preliminary statistical evaluation of the laboratory
analytical results for each measured target analyte was conducted. Descriptive summary statistics
were calculated for each contaminant of interest in the influent and effluent groundwater. To
calculate these statistics, non-detections were replaced with a simple substitution of one-half the
laboratory quantitation limit. Statistical plots were generated to graphically describe the
concentrations of these contaminants in the sample populations of influent and effluent water.
Normal probability plots depicting the data for MtBE, tBA, and BTEX showed a ,
reasonable fit to a theoretical normal distribution for most of these variables. Two contaminants
(ethylbenzene and xylenes) were not detected in any effluent samples, so statistical tests were not
applicable. For each of the other four variables, a normal distribution was assumed and the one-
sample, one-tailed t-distribution was used to calculate 95 percent confidence limits and to
perform statistical comparisons to the treatment goal.
The critical contaminants that were established to be tested for compliance with treatment
goals in the project objectives included MtBE, tBA, and BTEX. Table 2-4 lists the mean arid the
95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the mean influent and effluent concentrations of
these contaminants, as well as the overall removal efficiency. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 compare the
mean influent and daily UCL for the effluent concentrations of these contaminants to the
treatment goals. As shown in Figure 2-3, the daily effluent UCL for MtBE was consistently
below the 5-u.g/L treatment goal. However, for tBA, the daily effluent UCL was significantly
above the 12 jag/L treatment goal. In all cases except tBA and one point for benzene, the effluent
concentrations of these critical contaminants were in compliance with project objectives. As
stated in Section 2.4.1, the rate constant for reaction of hydroxyl radicals with tBA is about half
that for MtBE. Thus, the presence of other organic compounds in the groundwater competing for
the hydroxyl radicals and aqueous electrons would have a greater influence on tBA destruction
than MtBE.
Table 2-5 and Figure 2-5 present the performance of the electron beam in regards to its
effect on the measured oxidation by-products (acetone, formaldehyde, glyoxal, and bromate ion).
Table 2-5 lists the mean and the overall 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of the mean
influent and effluent concentrations of these contaminants. Figure 2-5 compares the daily
influent and effluent concentrations of these contaminants over the time period of Phase i of the
demonstration. All of the organic by-products increased substantially in concentration from the
influent to the effluent as a result of chemical oxidation reactions. Acetone and formaldehyde
were the two most prevalent organic by-products, which is consistent with results of previous
studies of chemical oxidation processes in similar applications. Bromate ion did not increase in
concentration from the influent to the effluent and was present only at concentrations near the
laboratory quantitation limit (1.0 ug/L) in both these streams.
21
-------
Table 2-4. Mean, 95 Percent UCL, and Removal Efficiency for MtBE, tBA, and BTEX
Compound
MtBE
tBA
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Influent', ' "^
Mean
Concentration,
Ug/L
1721
170
664
890
220
1090
Si-
1784.5
175.3
683.1
913.3
233.5
1123.7
iw> ^!&.;, mmmt *::^ -^
Concentration,
''' f tS/R- f'fe^^8^' ''
1.1
54.2
0.4
0.3
ND(0.5)
ND(1.5)
1
1.2
57.6
0.6
0.4
NA
NA
5§>- Removai' 5!' !
99.94%
68.14%
99.94%
99.97%
>99.77%
>99.86%
Where less than 20 percent non-detects were present in the sample population, the mean concentration and UCL ^vere
determined by setting non-detect results equal to one-half the laboratory quantitation limit.
NA = Not applicable; a UCL could not be calculated because most results were non-detects.
ND = Not detected in any of the effluent samples.
UCL — 95 percent upper confidence limit for the mean
Table 2-5. Concentrations of By-products in Influent and Effluent Water
Compound
Acetone
Acetaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Glyoxal
M-Glyoxal
Bromate
Influent''
Mean ~
Concentration',"
ug/L1 •'
6.9
1.1
6.8
1.7
1.2
1.3
/UCL, '-„"
;;., ^ 4,
8.8
1.3
7.3
2.0
1.5
1.6
, , "-,'<• ;--Mfl«ent , ' „, -r
^" x 'Mean '"-->•
'Concentration,
'^l(ug/L,;,
160
14.7
125.0
8.8
34.5
1.3
>-, "'trcL^ \
•;,~ m/i?- "' "
* >/{{ ! "* f "^
•1165.0
15.7
;136.0
1 10.5
; 37.4
! 1.6
Where non-detects were present in the sample population, the mean concentration and UCL were determined by setting non-
detect results equal to one-half the laboratory quantitation limit. ;
2 The UCL listed reflects a one-sided 95 percent probability upper limit for the population mean using a t-test. :
UCL — Upper confidence limit |
22
-------
Figure 2-3. Mean Influent and 95 Percent UCL Effluent Concentrations of MtBE and tBA in the
Phase I Portion of the Demonstration.
|4 pr
• Influent (mean of 3 reps) o Effluent (95% UCL)
10
2 -
c 101
o
o
S 10°
10-1
d 103
O)
c
o
- o
O
c
o
O
CD
io
o
Treatment Objective (5 ng/L)
° o ° o
o o o o
-I 1 I I I I I I
o o
Treatment Objective (12 ng/L)
J U
*••• t"»
23
-------
Figure 2-4. Mean Influent and 95 Percent UCL Effluent Concentrations of BTEX in the Phase I
Portion of the Demonstration. I
• Influent (mean of 3 reps) o Effluent (95% UCL)
"6)
oT
a-
c
0)
-J
"DJ
/*h
G)
C
0)
3
o
H
_J
WM
OJ
oT
1
c
0)
>•
UJ
_J
^)
=*
-
i"
™
1 °
,
l
§•
r
E
-
5-
: O
r
i
Y,,
f
Treatment Objective (1 ug/L)
o y
o o
I I I I I I I I
........
t
Treatment Objective (1 50 ug/L)
° °
O O o
I I A I I T I I
« • • • A • • • •
1
Treatment Objective (700 |xg/L)
o o o oo o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Treatment Objective (1,750 ug/L)
* • • • • • v •
o o oo o o o o
I I I I I I I I
jFffft/?f,f
o
I
«
0
I
«
o
I
£)
o
I
f
o o
O O O
24
-------
Figure 2-5. Acetone, Formaldehyde, Glyoxal, and Bromate Influent and Effluent Concentrations
in the Phase 1 Portion of the Demonstration (the square symbols in the bottom panel represent
the fact that the bromate concentrations in the influent and effluent were identical).
• Influent o Effluent
250 c
=J 200 t
O)
| 15015
I 100 E
o
< 50
208
of 150
•o
•§ 100
2
re
£ 50
o
u_
18
-j 10
? 8
4
2
- o
re
x
o
O
0
d 4
D)
c 3
5
o o
ts
2 1
CQ
- 0
o
o o
o
o o
o o o
o o
1 1
s
25
-------
Table 2-6 and Figure 2-6 show the effect of the electron beam on other measured water
quality variables (COD, TOC, DOC, and bromide ion). Table 2-6 lists the mean and the UCL for
influent and effluent concentrations of these analytical variables. Figure 2-6 compares the daily
influent and effluent concentrations of these variables over the time period of Phase 1 of the
demonstration. COD concentrations were nearly identical in the influent and effluent streams, but
both TOC and DOC increased significantly in concentration from the influent to the effluent.
Bromide ion concentration did not change in response to exposure to the E-Beam. ;
Table 2-6, Concentrations of General Water Quality Variables in Influent and Effluent
Water '•
Compound
TOC
DOC
COD
Bromide
Influent , > ^';
Mean\,
Concentration
mg/L1
5.4
5.0
27.4
0.9
'& UCE, -/
"'' mg/L1'2 •""
"^v. *1 ^
\ 5.5
; 5.2
30.6
0.9
^. :^Q J}ffh^n%^. ^^
,'^riVfe*ni^™r.
C|||enti?atioj|,,
^jhg/Ell^t'-
13.3
9.1
26.1
0.9
-^-, tK^I^"^
'•Skp1'2, :^«
H3.8
i
i 9.5
'28.6
i 1.0
detect results equal to one-half the laboratory quantitation limit.
2 The UCL listed reflects a one-sided 95 percent probability upper limit for the population mean using a t-test.
UCL = Upper confidence limit
_
26
-------
Figure 2-6. COD, TOC/DOC, and Bromide Ion Influent and Effluent Concentrations Over the
Phase 1 Demonstration Period.
-J
"TO
E
Q"
0
O
I
_J
E
o
o
Q
O
R
-1
"D)
E
if
jO
tty
mpm
E
o
i_
CD
4U
30
20
10
0
20
15
10
5
0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
~ 0O
0 • ° ° 0
o •
: 8 o
-
: • Influent GOD o Effluent COD
i i i i i i i i i i
~ • Influent TOC o Effluent TOC A Effluent DOC
o
o o o o o o o
- 0 0
-AAAAAAAA A
:••••••••••
" i i i i i i i i i i
-
:
'- o • o
: • • ••«••••
I O
-
-
'- • Influent Bromide Ion
~
r o Effluent Bromide Ion
~ i i i i i i i i i i
V^ %^. 4^. «^> «^_ *b^ *h^. ^.^ fc^. fc^_
o" ef «" «" cT C^ C^ O* o" o"
®^rS'^?>?^^^^t^
27
-------
2.4.3. Evaluation of Results Against the Objectives
This section assesses the results of Phase 1 of the E-Beam demonstration in relation to
the stated primary and secondary objectives. \
Primary Objective: Does the technology reduce the final levels of MtBE, tBA, and BTEX
to less than the treatment goals established for the demonstration program? The primary
objective was addressed by comparing the UCL for the effluent concentrations of MtBE, tBA,
and BTEX to the treatment goals. As described previously, the UCLs were calculated alt the 95%
confidence level for the means using the one-tailed t-distribution. The overall average UCL for
the mean concentrations of MtBE (1.2 ug/L), benzene (0.6 ug/L), and toluene (0.4 ug/L) in the
effluent were below the corresponding treatment goals of 5 ug/L, 1 ug/L, and 150 ug/li,
respectively. As a result, it was concluded that the primary objective was met for these;
compounds. The UCL for the mean concentration of ethylbenzene and of total xylenesjin the
effluent water could not be calculated because all concentrations for these contaminant's were
below the laboratory quantitation limit. However, the laboratory quantitation limit was' less than
the treatment goal for each variable; therefore, it was concluded that the primary objective was
met for these contaminants as well, hi fact, the influent concentrations were already less than, the
treatment goals. [
'. \
The UCL for the mean concentration of tBA in effluent water was 57.6 ug/L, v^hich was
well above the treatment goal of 12 ug/L. Because the treatment goal was not achieved for tBA,
the primary objective for tBA was not met.
Secondary Objective No. 1: Monitor for formation of undesirable reaction by-products,
such as acetone, aldehydes, and glvoxals. Other studies of the E-Beam technology and of
chemical oxidation processes suggest that partially oxidized organic compounds such as acetone,
aldehydes, and glyoxals may result from incomplete oxidation of VOCs and may remain in the
effluent from the process (EPA, 1997). This finding was confirmed in the results of the E-Beam
technology demonstration at the NBVC. As shown in Table 2-5, concentrations of acetone,
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, glyoxal, and methyl iglyoxal in effluent samples were many times
the concentrations measured hi influent samples, indicating that these compounds were formed
during the E-Beam treatment. i
There did not appear to be any trends in the concentrations of partially oxidized organic
by-products over the two-week demonstration period even though influent organic contaminant
concentrations did exhibit increasing trends as described previously. Thus, results indicate that
by-product formation was not directly related to influent organic contaminant concentrations.
i
Secondary Objective No. 2: Determine whether the effluent meets the TTHM and HAA
requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR when subjected to UFC. To compare the effluent |
concentrations with the TTHM and HAA requirements of the Stage 2 DBPR, two influent
samples and two effluent samples were subjected to SDS testing. These samples were |
chlorinated according to UFC protocols and analyzed for TTHM and HAAs. The analytical
results of these samples indicated that TTHM and HAAs were formed at levels exceeding the
Stage 2 DBPR criteria in both the influent and the effluent samples (see Table 2-7). However,
concentrations of TTHM and HAAs were significantly elevated in the effluent samples that were
28
-------
processed, indicating that the E-Beam treatment generated precursors to the formation of
TTHMs and HAAs.
One possible source of the TTHMs was the acetone produced from reaction of the
hydroxyl radical with MtBE. Hypothetically, assuming one mole of acetone gives rise to one
mole of chloroform (the iodoform reaction), then the mean 160 ug/L acetone (2.78 uM) (Table
2-5) would give rise to 321 j-ig/L of chloroform. Although this does not account for the total
increase in TTHM formation, it is one plausible pathway that could partially explain the increase
observed.
Secondary Objective No. 3: Use a chloramine UFC test to assess potential for formation
ofNDMA. As stated above, insufficient sample was available following SDS testing to complete
the NDMA analysis. Thus, no results were obtained for NDMA.
Secondary Objective No. 4: Monitor certain water quality variables, including pH,
temperature, DO, COD, and DOC and TOG, as well as the flow rate through the system. During
the treatment demonstration, the field team measured the flow, pH, temperature, and DO of
influent and effluent water at the sampling locations during each of the three daily sampling
events. The results of these measurements were summarized in Sections 2.4 and 2.4.2.
Table 2-7. Summary of TTHM and HAA Results
= . 'vslJi,^ CoJnpouM" "**"""
TTHM
HAAs
Influent Concentration,
,,%^}"" * ..M^k,,.' "„"'•< ,'-;;•»<
165.8
195.6
168.7
169.7
Effluent ConcentrMftn-p-;
*<;-/<( „ " pgflbf-^-- "•-,
841.4
631.9
682.6
628.3
T ;Sfage2J>BmM
-------
• The influent flow rate ranged from 6.8 to 7.3 gpm, and averaged 7.04 gpm, dijring the
two days of the Phase 2 testing 1
• The pH averaged 7.04 in the influent and 7.07 in the effluent. 1
i
• The dissolved oxygen content of the groundwater increased from 4.1 mg/L in |the
influent to 5.3 mg/L in the effluent. :
• The temperature of the influent averaged 22.0°C; the effluent temperature ave'raged
about 2.0°C higher at 24.0°C. |
• Turbidity averaged 1.03 NTU in the influent water. '•
I
Concentrations of MtBE and tBA in the effluent (both filtered and-unfiltered) declined
with increasing dose, as shown in Figure 2-7. A dose of 800 krads was not quite sufficient to
reduce the concentration of MtBE to below the treatment goal of 5.0 ug/L, but higher doses were
effective in meeting this treatment goal. tBA (unfiltered) was not consistently reduced {o below
the treatment goal of 12 ug/L even at the highest dose (1,600 krads). However, the trenji shown
in Figure 2-7 indicates that tBA could have been reduced to below the treatment goal of 12 ug/L
at a dose of about 2,000 krads. !
i
Results for BTEX compounds (Figure 2-8) consisted largely of non-detects even at the
lowest dose (800 krad). Therefore, there was no measurable difference in performance for BTEX
compounds in the power range tested.
30
-------
Figure 2-7. Concentrations of MtBE and tBA in Filtered and Unfiltered Groundwater as a
Function of Applied E-Beam Dose.
10
10
• Influent
I o Effluent
A Effluent
Filtered
LU
DO
10°
10-1
103
10
a.
m
-1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
I I I
0
4 Q 0 I 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i i i i i i i
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Dose, krad
31
-------
Figure 2-8.
Concentrations of BTEX in Filtered and Unfiltered Groundwater as a Function of
Applied E-Beam Dose.
_J
"B)
oT
c
0)
N
C
d>
ffl
_J
"B)
3
oT
c
o
3
O
t-v
_J
B)
3
oT
o>
N
c
fl>
5
III
111
1
•••1 :
"o>
3
-------
2.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
A data quality review was conducted by Tetra Tech to evaluate the field and laboratory
QC results, evaluate the implications of QC data on the overall data quality, document data use
limitations for data users, and remove unusable values from the demonstration data sets. The
results of this review were used to produce the final data sets to assess the treatment technology
and to draw conclusions. The QC data were evaluated with respect to the quality assurance (QA)
objectives defined in the project QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2001).
The analytical data for the groundwater samples collected during the E-Beam
demonstration were reviewed to ensure that they are scientifically valid, defensible, and
comparable. A data quality review was conducted using both field QC samples and laboratory
QC samples. The field QC samples included source water blanks, field blanks, trip blanks,
matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSD), and sample duplicates. Laboratory QC checks
included laboratory blanks, surrogate spikes, and laboratory control sample/laboratory control
sample duplicates (LCS/LCSD) (also known as blank spike/blank spike duplicates). Initial and
continuing calibration results were also reviewed to ensure the quality of the data and that proper
procedures were used. The review focused on assessing the precision, accuracy, completeness,
representativeness, and comparability of the data.
All critical variable data were reviewed and at least one sample from each phase of the
demonstration was fully validated (recalculated from the raw instrument data). In addition to the
above QC checks, reviews of sample chain of custody, holding times, and critical variable
identification and quantification were performed.
Overall, the data quality review assessed the critical variable data to be useable for the
purpose of evaluating the technology and the attainment of the primary objective for this
demonstration. In some instances, results for one or more QC variables were outside of control
limits; however, deviations were generally slight, and no broad qualifications of data or other
actions were required. A description of the more significant deviations from QC acceptance
criteria and the limited impact of these deviations are described below:
• Continuing calibration criteria (percent difference values, or %D) exceeded QAPP
criteria for tBA in a few instrument calibration checks during the Phase 2 sampling
event. These exceedances were slight, however, and no data were rejected due to
calibration problems.
• MtBE was detected at concentrations below 0.4 ug/L in all but one of the method
blanks associated with the Phase 2 sampling event. MtBE was detected at similar
concentrations in 4 of the 5 trip blanks from this event. Based on laboratory audit
findings, these detections are apparently due to the presence of MtBE in the well water
used to prepare the blanks. Thus, these blank results were assessed not to indicate a
potential high bias in low concentrations of MtBE measured in demonstration effluent
samples collected during the Phase 2 sampling event.
• Low concentrations of toluene and other BTEX compounds were detected on an
isolated basis in method blanks and trip blanks. As a result, a few low-level results
33
-------
reported in demonstration effluent samples at less than 5 times associated blank
detections were qualified as not detected in the final demonstration data set. :
• For the VOC analyses, MS and MSD percent recoveries were generally within the
acceptance criteria of 75 to 125% with only a few exceptions, and no data were
rendered unusable due to MS/MSD results. In some cases, the percent recoveries for
MtBE and other critical variables were above the QC limits in MS/MSDs performed on
influent water samples. However, these recoveries were affected by the high native
concentrations present in the influent. Therefore, data were not qualified based on the
high recoveries. Relative percent differences (RPDs) between the MS and MSD
samples were also generally within the acceptance limits. j
• For VOCs, LCS/LCSD percent recoveries and RPDs were generally within QAPP
acceptance limits. Recoveries of tBA were slightly high and erratic for the Phase 1
sampling event. These observations may indicate a slightly high bias and slightly
greater uncertainty associated with the tBA data than for the other critical VOCs.
Recoveries of the dio-tBA surrogate in the demonstration samples did not shdw similar
bias or imprecision, however. ; •
• Field duplicates were collected and analyzed at a frequency of 5% or more for the two
demonstration sampling events. For the Phase 1 event, field duplicate results juniformly
met QAPP precision criteria of ±25% RPD for the critical variables. For the Phase 2
sampling event, RPDs were greater than 25% for tBA in 2 sets of duplicate samples.
These samples required dilution due to the presence of other target analytes, however,
and the tBA concentrations were near the sample quantitation limits. Therefore, no
qualification was added to the data. [
Tetra Tech also conducted a cursory quality control review for the non-critical analytical
variables. This review was performed to confirm the overall usability of the data in the
evaluation, of the secondary objectives. Based on this review, the non-critical data were assessed
to be usable for their intended uses. ;
During the first demonstration sampling event, QA supervisory personnel conducted a
Technical Systems Audit (TSA) of field sample collection and handling procedures. QA
personnel also completed a TSA of the laboratory responsible for analyzing the critical VOC
variables (MtBE, tBA, and BTEX). The field TSA also resulted in clarifications and j
modifications to the sampling procedures established in the QAPP. These generally involved
minor changes to documentation practices, sampling schedules, sample containers, and sample
identification number formats. In addition, the field TSA increased the frequency of trip blank
collection from 5% of the treatment samples to 1 trip blank per cooler of VOC samples.
Requirements to collect field blanks and source water blanks were removed.
The laboratory audit noted only one finding. The finding concerned an initial calibration
(ICAL) for MtBE that failed to meet relative response factor (RRF) linearity criterion of
RSD<15%. The laboratory dropped the 1 ug/L calibration standard from the ICAL curve to meet
the relative standard deviation (RSD) criterion, which meant 5 ug/L was then the lowest
calibration standard. This was inconsistent with QAPP requirements, and furthermore was
technically unacceptable because 5 ug/L was the project treatment goal for MtBE, and !it was
desirable to accurately quantify MtBE below this level. The QAPP allows the laboratory to use a
34
-------
linearity criterion of r2 > 0.99 for the ICAL curve if the RSD criterion is not met. Therefore, as a
corrective action, the laboratory added the 1 ug/L standard back into the curve, determined that
the r2 > 0.99 were met, and re-quantified the affected samples.
3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This section presents cost estimates for using the E-Beam technology to treat
groundwater contaminated with MtBE. Cost data were obtained during the demonstration at the
NBVC, during the previous demonstration at the Savannah River Site, and from Haley and
Aldrich. For comparability, these costs have been placed in the 12 categories applicable to
typical cleanup activities at Superfund and RCRA sites (Evans 1990). Costs are considered to be
order-of-magnitude estimates with an expected accuracy of from 50% above to 30% below
actual costs. This section describes the applications selected for economic analysis, summarizes
the major issues involved and assumptions made in performing the economic analysis, lists the
costs associated with using the E-Beam technology in the selected applications, and then
develops at a cost per unit volume of water treated for each application.
Two applications were selected for the economic analysis. The first application assumes
the scenario of the demonstration at NBVC within the MTBE Source Zone, including the
contaminant levels in the groundwater at that location and the treatment goals that were
developed for the demonstration. This scenario is essentially a remedial application, since the
levels of MTBE in the influent were much higher (about 2,000 ug/L) than would likely be
treated for subsequent use as a drinking water source.
The second application is for a larger-scale utilization as part of a drinking water
treatment plant, in which the E-beam system would be used to treat the groundwater to remove
MtBE. The scale selected for this application is 10 MOD, which is intended to simulate a small
drinking water treatment plant. In this scenario, a lower influent concentration of MTBE (200
ug/L) was assumed and the California secondary MCL for MTBE (5 ug/L) was assumed to be
the applicable regulatory criterion for the treated water.
3.1 GENERAL ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS
Prior to presenting the cost estimates for each of the selected applications, it is important
to describe how costs associated with an E-beam application can vary based on numerous
factors, such as the type and scale of the application, contaminant types and levels, regulatory
criteria, and site-specific factors. A discussion of some of the primary factors that affect the cost
of an E-beam system is provided in Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4 below. A discussion of general
assumptions utilized in the subsequent cost analysis is then provided in Section 3.1.5.
3.1.1 Type and Scale of Application
The E-beam system can be used both as a drinking water treatment technology and as a
remedial technology. In a drinking water treatment application, the E-beam technology would
typically be applied to treat organic contaminants, such as MtBE, that are not typically removed
by conventional water treatment technologies. In a remedial application, the E-beam technology
may be used to clean up contaminated groundwater at a RCRA corrective action or Superfund
35
-------
site. Remedial applications will typically involve much higher costs per unit volume of water
treated for several reasons:
• Site preparation costs may be significant as utilities and other infrastructure may not be
immediately available at the site. ;
• Remedial applications are typically temporary installations and will therefore involve
substantial mobilization and demobilization costs.
i
• Installation of well fields may be needed to extract the contaminated groundwater.
• Treatment volumes and the time period required to achieve site closure may not be
certain. \
• Permitting and other regulatory-driven cdsts may be higher due to the complex nature of
site cleanups. i
The scale of the application is a primary factor that affects the unit cost per volume of
water treated for a technologically sophisticated system such as the E-beam. Larger scale
applications incorporate substantial equipment cost savings on a cost per unit volume of water
treated because the E-beam generator, equipment housings, control systems, and appurtenances
are only slightly more expensive for larger E-beam systems. Labor costs are also proportionately
lower due to the use of full-tune, dedicated staff for equipment operations and maintenance.
3.1.2 Contaminant Types and Levels :
As shown in the demonstration at NBVC and in previous demonstrations, some
contaminants are relatively easy to destroy even at low E-beam doses, whereas other ;
contaminants (such as tBA) are much more difficult to destroy, even at high doses. Further, the
required E-beam dose increases with increasing contaminant concentrations in the influent water.
Higher E-beam doses require larger scale E-beam generators and proportionately higher energy
consumption.
3.1.3 Regulatory Criteria \
Regulatory criteria for the treated water affect the same variables as contaminant types
and levels. More stringent regulatory criteria for the treated water can greatly increase the dose
required and the corresponding size of the E-beam system as well as the associated energy costs.
Regulatory criteria also affect permitting costs and effluent monitoring (analytical) cosits.
i
3.1.4 Site-specific Features : >
Site-specific features can affect the costs of using the E-Beam treatment system,
particularly in remedial applications. Site features affecting costs include groundwater recharge
rates, groundwater chemistry, site accessibility, availability of utilities, and geographic; location.
Groundwater recharge rates affect the time required for cleanup. Site accessibility, availability of
utilities, and site location and size all affect site preparation costs. j
36
-------
3.1.5 General Assumptions
Certain assumptions were made to simplify the cost estimating for situations that actually
would require complex engineering and financial considerations. The following general
assumptions were made for the cost analysis that is presented subsequently:
• Costs are rounded to the nearest $100 and to the nearest $0.01 per 1,000 gallons.
• Equipment costs for the E-beam system are for the entire system, including control
systems and appurtenances, and are as provided by Haley and Aldrich.
• Equipment costs are amortized linearly without interest over the period of projected
operation and up to the projected useful life of these systems (20 years); no salvage
value is assumed.
• An E-beam system will provide a dose of 1,000 krads to a 1.0-gpm stream at a 100 kW
power input; this assumes an electrical energy input to absorbed radiation conversion
efficiency of about 63%.
• The E-Beam equipment will be properly maintained and will continue to operate' at the
same efficiency for the assumed useful life of the equipment or for the duration of the
groundwater treatment project, if less than 20 years. \
• Operational labor costs $40 per hour, fully burdened (including office space, office
equipment and supplies, and fringe benefits).
• Annual equipment maintenance costs are about 5% of the capital equipment costs,
based on estimates provided by Haley and Aldrich.
« Electrical power costs $0.10 per kW-hr delivered to the site.
« The costs presented in the analysis below will need to be adjusted for applications
where other assumptions are appropriate and for the site-specific contaminants and
treatment goals of these applications.
3.2 REMEDIAL APPLICATION AT 10 GPM
The equipment and operational assumptions for the remedial application are listed below:
« A 21-kW E-beam system is used, similar to the existing trailer-mounted system, and is
operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year for 10 years to clean up
the contaminated groundwater.
• The treatment system operates at the full power of 21 kW (a voltage of 500 kV and a
beam current of 42 mA).
• The groundwater to be treated is identical to that observed during the demonstration
within the Source Zone at NBVC; thus, a dose of 2,000 krads is needed to destroy tBA
(the rate limiting contaminant) to below the treatment goal of 12 ug/L in the effluent.
• The E-beam system is operated at a flow of 10 gpm, which is the maximum flow to
achieve a dose of 2,000 krad at full power.
37
-------
• The treatment system operates automatically without the constant attention of |an
operator and will shut down in the event of system malfunction. •
• Modular components consisting of the equipment needed to meet treatment goals are
mobilized to the site and assembled by Haley and Aldrich. |
• The E-Beam system is mobilized to the site from within 1,000 miles of the sit^.
I
• Haley and Aldrich provides initial operator training and startup assistance to assure that
the E-beam system functions properly. i
• Air emissions monitoring is not necessary.
• A treatability study will be conducted by Haley and Aldrich to confirm dose j
requirements and other operational variables. !
Table 3-1 summarizes the estimated costs for this application, and the sections below
detail the basis for the cost calculations associated with each of the following 12 cost categories:
(1) site preparation, (2) permitting and regulatory, (3) mobilization and startup, (4) equipment,
(5) labor, (6) supplies, (7) utilities, (8) effluent treatment and disposal, (9) residual waste
shipping and handling, (10) analytical services, (11) equipment maintenance, and (12) site
demobilization. i
f
3.2.1 Site Preparation Costs i
j
Site preparation costs include administrative, treatment area preparation, treatability
study, and system design costs. For this application, site preparation administrative costs, such as
costs for legal searches, access rights, and site planning activities, are estimated to be $J35,000.
38
-------
Table 3-1. Economic Analysis of the Remedial Application at 10 gpm.
cost
kcost/l'.OQO-gallonst
Site Preparation
Administrative $ 35,000
Treatment Area Preparation $ 107,600
Treatability Study and System Design $ 33,000
Permitting and Regulatory
Mobilization and Startup
Transportation $ 10,000
Assembly and Shakedown $ 10,000
Equipment
Labor
Supplies
Disposable Personal Protective Equipment $ 600
Fiber Drums $ 100
Sampling Supplies $ 1,000
Utilities
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Residual Waste Shipping and Handling
Analytical Services
Equipment Maintenance
Site Demobilization
$ 175,600 $
$ 5,000
$ 20,000
$
$
$ 842,000 $
$ 20,800/yr $
$ 1,700 $
$ 35,800/yr $
NA $
$ 600/yr $
$ 7,200/yr $
$ 42,200/yr $
$ 15,000 $
Total Cost ($71000 gallons)
$
3.34
0.10
0.38
16.02
3.95
0.32
6.81
0.11
1.37
7.87
0.28
40.55
39
-------
Treatment area preparation includes constructing a shelter building and installing pumps,
valves, and piping from the extraction wells to the shelter building. The shelter building needs to
be constructed before mobilization of the E-Beam system. A 400-square-foot buildingls required
for the 21-kW system. Haley and Aldrich will provide the shelter building design specifications.
Construction costs are estimated to be about $110 per square foot, which covers installation of
radiation shielding materials. A natural gas heating and cooling unit and ductwork costs about
$20,000 installed. The total shelter building construction costs for the 21 -kW system are
estimated to be $64,000.
i
This analysis assumes that four extraction wells are installed on site and that they are
located 200 feet from the shelter building. Four 5-gpm, 0.5-horsepower, variable-speed pumps
are required to pump contaminated groundwater from wells at a total flow rate of 10 gpm. The
total well and pump costs, including all electrical equipment and installation, are $1 l,(pOO. Piping
and valve connection costs are about $40 per foot, which covers underground installation.
Therefore, the total piping costs are $32,000. The total treatment area preparation costs are
estimated to be $107,600. j
It is assumed that Haley and Aldrich will transport its mobile system to the site to
perform a treatability study and to test the equipment under site conditions. Six to eigh't samples
will be collected from the influent and effluent and will be analyzed off site for VOCs!. Haley and
Aldrich estimates the treatability study cost to be $18,000, including labor and equipment costs.
The treatability study includes determining appropriate E-Beam dose to achieve the treatment
goals and designing the configuration. The system design is estimated to cost $15,000; Total site
preparation costs are therefore estimated to be $175,600.
3.2.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Permitting and regulatory costs depend on whether treatment is performed at a' Superfund
or a RCRA corrective action site and on how treated effluent and any solid wastes are disposed
of. Superfund site remedial actions must be consistent with all applicable environmental laws,
ordinances, regulations, and statutes, including federal, state, and local standards and criteria.
Remediation at RCRA corrective action sites requires additional monitoring and record keeping,
which can increase the base regulatory costs. In general, applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) must be determined on a site-specific basis. Permitting and regulatory
costs in this analysis include permit fees for discharging treated water to a surface water body.
The cost of this permit would be based on regulatory agency requirements and treatment goals
for a particular site. The discharge permit is estimated to cost $5,000. \
3.2.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs
Mobilization and startup costs include the costs of transporting the E-Beam system to the
site, assembling the E-Beam system, and performing the initial shakedown of the treatment
system. Haley and Aldrich provides trained personnel to assemble and conduct preliminary tests
on the E-Beam system. Haley and Aldrich personnel are trained in hazardous waste site health
and safety procedures, so health and safety training costs are not included as a direct startup cost.
Initial operator training is needed to ensure safe, economical, and efficient operation ojf the
system. Haley and Aldrich provides initial operator training to its clients as part of providing the
E-Beam equipment. Transportation costs are siterspecific and vary depending on the location of
40
-------
the site in relation to the equipment. For this analysis, the E-Beam equipment is assumed to be
transported 1,000 miles. Haley and Aldrich retains the services of a cartage company to transport
all E-Beam treatment system equipment. Mobilization costs are about $10 per mile for a total
cost of $10,000. The costs of highway permits for overweight vehicles are included in this total
cost. Assembly costs include the costs of unloading equipment from the trailers, assembling the
E-Beam system, hooking up extraction well piping, and hooking up electrical lines. A two-
person crew will work three 8-hour days to unload and assemble the system and perform the
initial shakedown. The total startup costs are about $10,000, including labor and hookup costs.
Total mobilization and startup costs are therefore estimated to be $20,000.
3.2.4 Equipment Costs
Haley and Aldrich estimates that the capital equipment cost is $842,000 for a 21-kW
system.
3.2.5 Labor Costs
Once the system is functioning, it is assumed to operate continuously at the designed
flow rate except during routine maintenance. One operator trained by Haley and Aldrich
performs routine equipment monitoring and sampling activities. Under normal operating
conditions, an operator is required to monitor the system about once each week. This analysis
assumes that the work is conducted by a full-time employee of the site owner and is assigned to
be the primary operator to perform system monitoring and sampling duties. Further, it is assumed
that a second person, also employed by the site owner, will be trained to act as a backup to the
primary operator. Based on observations made at the NBVC demonstration, it is estimated that
operation of the system requires about 10 hours per week of a primary operator's time. Assuming
that the primary operator's burdened labor rate is $40 per hour, the total annual labor cost is
estimated to be $20,800.
3.2.6 Supply Costs
No chemicals or treatment additives are expected to be needed to treat the groundwater
using the E-Beam technology. Therefore, no direct supply costs are expected to be incurred.
Supplies that will be needed as part of the overall groundwater remediation project include Level
D, disposable personal protective equipment (PPE), PPE disposal drums, and sampling and field
analytical supplies. Disposable PPE typically consists of latex inner gloves, nitrile outer gloves,
radiation badges, and safety glasses. This PPE is needed during periodic sampling activities.
Disposable PPE for is assumed to cost about $600 per year for the primary operator. Used PPE is
assumed to be hazardous and needs to be disposed of in 24-gallon, fiber drums. One drum is
assumed to be filled every 2 months, and each drum costs about $12. The total annual drum costs
rounded to the nearest $ 100 are about $ 100.
Sampling supplies consist of sample bottles and containers, ice, labels, shipping
containers, and laboratory forms for off-site analyses. For routine monitoring, laboratory
glassware is also needed. The numbers and types of sampling supplies needed are based on the
analyses to be performed. Costs for laboratory analyses are presented in Section 3.2.10. The
sampling supply costs are estimated to be $ 1,000 per year. Total annual supply costs are
estimated to be $1,700.
41
-------
3.2.7 Utility Costs i
: I
!
Electricity is the only utility used by the E-Beam system. Electricity is used to run the E-
Beam treatment system, pumps, blower, and air chiller. This analysis assumes that electrical
power lines are available at the site. Electricity costs can vary considerably depending bn the
geographical location of the site and local utility rates. Also, the consumption of electricity varies
depending on the E-Beam system used, the total number of pumps and other electrical .equipment
operating, and the use of the air chiller. \
This analysis assumes a constant rate of electricity consumption based on the electrical
requirements of the E-Beam treatment system (21-kW). The pumps, blower, and air chiller are
assumed to draw an additional 20 kW. Therefore, the 21-kW unit operating for 1 hour Idraws
about 41 kW hours (kWh) of electricity. The total annual electrical energy consumption is
estimated to be about 358,176 kWh. Electricity is assumed to cost $0.10 per kWh, including
demand and usage charges. The total annual electricity costs are therefore estimated to'be about
$35,800. :
3.2.S Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs !
Depending on the treatment goals for a site, additional effluent treatment may be
required, and thus additional treatment or disposal costs may be incurred. Because of the
uncertainty associated with additional treatment or disposal costs, this analysis does not include
effluent treatment or disposal costs. The E-Beam system does not produce air emissions because
the water delivery and cooling air systems are enclosed. As a result, no cost for air emissions
treatment is incurred. It is assumed that the primary operator routinely conducts effluent
monitoring. The effluent can be discharged directly to a nearby surface water body, provided that
appropriate permits have been obtained (see Section 3.2.2). <
3.2.9 Residual Waste Shipping and Handling Costs
The only residuals produced during E-Beam system operation are fiber drums containing
used PPE and waste sampling and field analytical supplies, all of which are typically associated
with a groundwater project. This waste is assumed to be non-hazardous with associated disposal
at a non-hazardous waste landfill. This analysis assumes that about six drums of waste! are
disposed of annually. The cost of handling and transporting the drums and disposing of them at a
non-hazardous waste disposal facility is about $100 per drum. The total drum disposal1 costs are
therefore about $600 per year. I
Condensate is generated from the air chiller. This condensate can be treated byjthe E-
Beam system, but such treatment may require additional permits from regulatory authorities.
Because of the uncertainty associated with the need for additional permits, the costs for such
additional permits were not included in this analysis. ;
3.2.10 Analytical Services Costs
Required sampling frequencies are highly site specific and are based on treatment goals
and contaminant concentrations. Analytical costs associated with a groundwater treatment
project include the costs of laboratory analyses, data reduction, and QA/QC. This analysis
42
-------
assumes that one sample of untreated water, one sample of treated water, and associated QC
samples (trip blanks, field duplicates, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates) will be analyzed
for VOCs every month. Monthly analytical costs are estimated at $600. The total annual
analytical costs are therefore estimated to be $7,200.
3.2.11 Equipment Maintenance Costs
Haley and Aldrich estimates that annual equipment maintenance costs are about 5% of
the capital equipment costs. Therefore, the total annual equipment maintenance costs are about,
$42,200 for the 21 -kW system.
3.2.12 Site Demobilization Costs
Site demobilization includes treatment system shutdown, disassembly, and
decontamination; site cleanup and restoration; utility disconnection; and transportation of the E-
Beam equipment off site. A two-person crew will work about five 8-hour days to disassemble
and load the system. This analysis assumes that the equipment will be transported 1,000 miles
either for storage or to the next job site. Haley and Aldrich estimates that the total cost of
demobilization is about $15,000. This total includes all labor, material, and transportation costs.
3.3 DRINKING WATER TREATMENT APPLICATION AT 10 MGD
The equipment and operating parameter assumptions for the larger-scale drinking water
treatment application are based on a recent treatability study performed by Haley and Aldrich
using groundwater contaminated with MtBE from Santa Monica, California, as reported by
Haley and Aldrich (Nickelsen, 2002). Approximately 1,800 gallons of groundwater from Santa
Monica was transported in a clean tanker truck and treated in the 21-kW trailer-mounted E-beam
system that was still on site at NVBC. Due to low native concentrations of MtBE in the Santa
Monica groundwater, the water was spiked with 200 ug/L MtBE in one experiment intended to
simulate a drinking water supply recently contaminated with MtBE. In this experiment, a dose of
167 krads (the lowest dose tested) was sufficient to remove MtBE to well below the treatment
goal of 5 ug/L without increasing the concentration of TBA to above 12'u.g/L. This scenario was
assumed as the basis for the economic analysis below.
The equipment and operational assumptions for the drinking water treatment application
are listed below:
o The treatment system processes 10 MGD and is operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year for 20 years (the useful life of the equipment).
« A dose of 167 krads is required, which can be provided using with twelve 100-kW E-
beam systems for a flow of 10 MGD.
« Modular components consisting of the equipment needed to meet treatment goals are
mobilized to the site and assembled by Haley and Aldrich.
» Haley and Aldrich provides initial operator training and startup assistance to ensure that
the E-beam system functions properly.
43
-------
• A treatability study is conducted by Haley and Aldrich to confirm dose requirements
and other operational variables. ;
• Air emissions monitoring is not necessary. \
Table 3-2 summarizes the estimated costs for this application. The assumptions
associated with Hie cost analysis, which emphasizes the differences from the remedial |
application, are summarized below: ;
• The capital equipment cost of each 100-kW E-beam system is $ 1.5 million, fully
installed. j
i
• The following site preparation costs are estimated as percentages of the capital
equipment cost: administration, 1%; site preparation, 3%; and system design;(including
the treatability study), 6%.
• Two full-time operators are required to ensure proper functioning of the treatment
system. :
• Permitting and regulatory costs are $50,000. i
• Shakedown and start-up costs are $700,000. i
• Supply and residual waste handling costs are eight times that of the remedial [scenario
(proportional to operating labor hours).
: ^ 1
• Electrical energy demand for the treatment system includes 1,200 kW for the| beams
themselves and 600 kW for the associated blowers, pumps, and appurtenances.
• Laboratory analysis support requirements assume that one sample of untreatqd water,
one sample of treated water, and associated QC samples will be analyzed for'VOCs
every day at a cost of $600 per day. j
• Equipment transportation costs are included in the installed equipment cost item and
there is no demobilization cost. , i
44
-------
Table 3-2. Economic Analysis of the Drinking Water Treatment Application at 10 MGD.
•'.^^14^^,^;^:"' , , ^jtrE^f-7 ' "' w-"-"" '^^•'?-
Site Preparation
,,^r*IIWIw^.E-Beam System
(jjQrtei
Q'DV^'-^'1 "**
"HC" " '"" ':?I?K/ ' ' ' '.. MjStaP''5" '%i:« ':'*%Pi;
,diCCQSts).3f, ;.GQSteliS4~; ''" '-"'
$ 1,720;000
=003^
$
.bOO.gallons":"
0.02
Administrative $ 180,000
Treatment Area Preparation $ 540,000
Treatability Study and System Design $ 1
Permitting and Regulatory
Mobilization and Startup
Transportation NA
,080,000
$ 50,000
$ 700,000
$
$
0.00
0.01
Shakedown and Startup $ 700,000
Equipment
Labor
Supplies
Disposable Personal Protective Equipment $
Fiber Drums $
Sampling Supplies $
Utilities
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Residual Waste Shipping and Handling
Analytical Services
Equipment Maintenance
Site Demobilization NA
$ 18,000,000
$ 163,200/yr
$ 13,600
4,800
800
8,000
$ 1,576,800/yr
NA
$ 4,800/yr
$ 219,000/yr
$ 900,000/yr
Total Cost ($/1 000 gallons)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.25
0.04
0.00
0.43
-
0.00
0.06
0.25
1.06
NA = Not applicable.
4 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
This section of the report describes the general applicability of the E-Beam technology,
operated by Haley and Aldrich, for treating contaminated groundwater at hazardous waste and
petroleum release sites. The analysis is based primarily on the demonstration results at the
NBVC; however, the demonstration results are supplemented by data from other applications of
the E-Beam technology, including a study conducted in Germany with the E-Beam system and a
demonstration conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site in Aiken, South
Carolina under the EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration
program (EPA 1997). Vendor's claims regarding the effectiveness and applicability of the E-
Beam technology are included in Appendix A.
This section also discusses the following topics regarding the applicability of the E-Beam
technology: technology performance versus ARARs, technology operability, key features of the
treatment technology, applicable wastes, availability and transportability of equipment, material
handling requirements, range of suitable site characteristics, limitations of the technology, and
potential regulatory requirements.
4.1 TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE VERSUS ARARS
The technology's ability to comply with existing federal, state, or local ARARs (for
example, MCLs) should be determined on a site-specific basis, as is the case with all innovative
45
-------
technologies. The discussion below focuses on the demonstration at the NBVC for MtBE-
contaminated ground-water. i j -
For the demonstration at the NBVC, ARARs were identified and established by
consensus among the stakeholders for the technology demonstration. ARARs included! EPA and
California Primary and Secondary MCLs as well as California Action Levels and Public Health
Goals for drinking water. The contaminants initially present in the groundwater were ojf primary
concern; these included MtBE and BTEX. Partially oxidized organics from MtBE degradation
(tBA, acetone, aldehydes, glyoxals) were also of concern. In addition, several drinking iwater
variables were identified as applicable if the effluent was to be used as a drinking water supply.
These drinking water variables included bromate^ a by-product of chemical oxidation, and
potential by-products of subsequent chlorination, including total f THM and HAA. For the by-
products of subsequent chlorination, the applicable criteria are described in the proposed Stage 2
DBPR. These requirements have been proposed in a Notice of Agreement in Principle dated'
December 20,2000 (65 FR 251, pages 83015-83024). j
In the demonstration at the NBVC, the E-Beam technology met the treatment goals for
the primary contaminants of concern. However, reaction by-products from MtBE, BTEX and
other constituents of gasoline (tBA, acetone, aldehydes, and glyoxals) remained in the Affluent
and were higher in concentration than some potentially applicable ARARs. Also, the technology
did not meet the drinking water requirements relating to TTHMs and HAAs in SDS testing of the
effluent. In the Phase 2 studies where a dose response was developed, it is likely that, if a slightly
higher dose had been chosen (about 2,000 krads), tBA would have been below the action level.
Because the other reaction by-products (acetone, aldehydes, and glyoxals) were not determined,
it is not clear whether they would have met the target treatment concentrations. ;
The results of the previous demonstration of the E-Beam system at the Savannah River
Site provided information with respect to chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in groundwater.
During the demonstration, the E-Beam system treated about 70,000 gallons of groundwater
contaminated with VOCs, including TCE and PCE, which were present at concentrations of
about 27,000 and 11,000 |j,g/L, respectively. The groundwater also contained low levels (40
^g/L) of cis-l,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE). Other commonly encountered groundwater!
contaminants, including BTEX and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, were spiked into the influent
during part of the demonstration at levels of 500 to 1,000 ug/L. The E-Beam system achieved the
effluent target levels for 1,2-DCE, carbon tetrachloride, and BTEX; however, effluent ijarget
levels were not achieved for TCE, PCE, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, and !
chloroform. The results from bioassay tests indicate that treatment by the E-Beam technology
increased groundwater toxicity to fathead minnows but not to water fleas. '
In summary, the E-Beam technology has been shown to be capable of destroying many
commonly encountered organic contaminants in groundwater to below applicable drinking water
regulatory criteria in California. For hydrocarbons^ including BTEX and MtBE, effluent
compliance with these criteria appears to be well within the capabilities of the technology. At
high concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons, problems may be encountered if MClls are
established as the effluent requirements. Additionally, partially oxidized organic compounds and
other chemical oxidation by-products may be of concern to ARAR compliance at specific sites,
depending on the application and the planned disposal or reuse of the effluent from the E-Beam
46
-------
system. Future ARARs relating to these types of contaminants are being contemplated and may
take the form of either chemical specific or bioassay requirements.
The following were identified as additional potential technology performance issues with
respect to ARARs:
• The technology's ability to meet any future chemical-specific ARARs for by-products
should be considered because of the potential for formation of partially oxidized
organic compounds during treatment. Properly designed pilot testing will define
variables to be considered.
• The technology's ability to meet any state or local requirements such as passing
bioassay tests should be considered because of the potential for treatment by-product
formation. Properly designed pilot testing will define variables and alternatives for
meeting all of the local, state and federal requirements.
• States require notification and registration for system operation
• Design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the system must comply with
general radiation exposure regulations, Over 500 accelerators exist in the US, and all of
the States have regulations in place that specify operation. Examples of applications are
medical device sterilization and, more recently, food irradiation facilities.
4.2 TECHNOLOGY OPERABILITY
Operating variables are those variables that can be varied during the treatment process to
achieve desired removal efficiencies and treatment goals. The principal factor affecting E-Beam
system performance is the E-Beam dose. The dose can be varied, within the equipment limits of
each accelerator, by varying the beam current (in the demonstration system it was variable from
0-42 mA) and water flow rate (in the demonstration system it was variable from 5-40 gpm).
Therefore^ dose depends on E-Beam power and water flow rate.
In a typical continuous flow treatment system, the absorbed dose can be determined by
measuring the temperature difference of the water stream before and after irradiation. The
relationship is derived for pure water by the following relationships:
1 rad = 100 erg g'1 (or 1 Mrad = 1.0 x 108 erg g"1)
substituting in,
1 erg = 2.39 x!0'8cal
then,
1 Mrad = 2.39 cal g'1
converting to °C,
= 2.39°C=10kGy
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
47
-------
or,
°T = 0.418 Mrad or 4.18 kGy °C
1-1
[6] |
The relationship between dose and temperature is one way to estimate relative (energy
consumed for the treatment of a compound(s). It provides an estimate of the temperature increase
in the treated solution, and this can then be related to energy (and cost) for the treatment. As the
beam current passes through a tungsten wire filament within the electron accelerator, a stream of
electrons is emitted that comprises the E-Beam. The number of electrons emitted per unit time is
proportional to the beam current. Therefore, for a given flow rate, dose is increased by increasing
the beam current, which increases the number of electrons impacting the liquid and, ;
consequently, the number of reactive species formed. The electron accelerator in the E-Beam
system used for the demonstration is capable of generating a maximum beam current of about 42
mA. The beam current is adjusted and monitored at the control panel in the E-Beam trailer
control room.
i - i
Flow rate through the treatment system determines the length of time the water is
exposed to the E-Beam. In general, increasing the exposure time (decreasing the flow jrate)
improves treatment efficiency by increasing the number of reactive species formed as more high-
speed electrons impact a discrete volume of water. If treatment goals are not met, increasing the
beam current or adjusting the influent delivery system can improve treatment efficiency. The
flow rate provided by the influent pump is monitored and adjusted in the E-Beam trailer purnp
room. |
The voltage applied to the E-Beam affects the depth to which the E-Beam penkrates the
water being treated. At a given E-Beam penetration depth, the portion of flowing water directly
irradiated by the beam depends on the thickness of the flowing water. Adjusting the influent
delivery system for the E-Beam unit can control the thickness of the flowing water. The internal
components of the delivery system and its dimensions are proprietary information. \
4.3 KEY FEATURES OF THE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Common methods for treating groundwater contaminated with organic compounds
include air stripping, steam stripping, carbon adsorption, biological treatment, and chemical
oxidation. As regulatory requirements for secondary wastes and treatment by-products become
more stringent and more expensive to comply with, technologies involving free radical chemistry
offer a major advantage over other treatment techniques: these technologies destroy
contaminants rather than transfer them to another medium, such as activated carbon or the
ambient air. Technologies involving free radical chemistry offer faster reaction rates than other
technologies, such as some biological treatment processes. According to the published literature
(Buxton et al., 1988), the entire sequence of reactions between organic compounds and reactive
species occurs hi me area where the E-Beam impacts the water and is completed in milliseconds.
The E-Beam technology generates strong reducing species (e~aq and »H) and strong
oxidizing species («OH) simultaneously and in approximately equal concentrations. Because
three reactive species are formed, multiple mechanisms or chemical pathways for organic
compound destruction are provided. In this way, the E-Beam technology differs from other
48
-------
technologies that involve free radical chemistry. Such technologies typically rely on a single
organic compound destruction mechanism, usually one involving »OH.
The E-Beam system does not generate residue, sludge, or spent media that require further
processing, handling, or disposal. Most of the target organic compounds are either mineralized or
broken down into low molecular weight compounds. Radicals generated by the E-beam react
with contaminants to produce intermediate species that are ultimately oxidized to COa, water,
and salts. However, incomplete oxidation results in formation of low molecular weight
aldehydes, glyoxals, organic acids, and SVOCs, one of which is tBA. If the MtBE concentration
in the water being treated is high enough, then tBA production from MtBE oxidation by E-beam
might render the effluent non-compliant with tBA objectives.
4.4 APPLICABLE WASTES
Based on the NBVC and Savannah River Site demonstration results, as well as results
from other case studies and published accounts of studies conducted at up to 120 gpm, the E-
Beam technology may be used to treat various VOCs and SVOCs in liquids, including
groundwater (with solids content of up to 5 %), wastewater, biosolids, drinking water, and
landfill leachate. Where stringent effluent requirements apply, the technology appears to be
particularly applicable to the treatment of contaminated groundwater and wastewater containing
petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the technology can achieve substantial reductions in the
concentrations of other organic compounds. The following is a partial listing of various solutions
with one or more organic contaminants:
1. General organic compounds (Kurucz et al., 1991 a; 1991 b)
2. BTEX (Nickelsen et al., 1992; 1994; Zele et al., 1998
3. THMs, dichloromethane, and carbon tetrachloride (Mak et al., 1996; 1997)
4. Phenol (Lin et al., 1995)
5. Naphthalene ( Cooper et al., 2002)
6. Alternative Fuel Oxygenates (Mezyk et al., 2001)
7. Chemical Warfare Agent-Simulants (Nickelsen et al., 1998)
4.5 AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPORTABILITY OF EQUIPMENT
Haley and Aldrich provides the complete E-Beam treatment'system configured for site-
specific conditions. All E-Beam treatment equipment is leased to the client. As a result, all
depreciation and salvage value is incurred by Haley and Aldrich, which is reflected in the price
for leasing the equipment. At the end of a treatment project, Haley and Aldrich decontaminates
and demobilizes its treatment equipment. Haley and Aldrich assumes that this equipment will
operate for the duration of the groundwater remediation project and will still function after the
remediation is complete as a result of routine maintenance and modifications.
Currently, only one mobile treatment system has been constructed and is available
through Haley and Aldrich for.application to site-specific requirements. However, for larger
remediation projects, it is more cost effective to construct a fixed treatment system at the site.
49
-------
4.6 MATERIALS HANDLING REQUIREMENTS
Other than the spent filter media when pretreatment processing is used in the influent
delivery system, the E-Beam system does not generate treatment residuals, such as sludge, that
requires further processing, handling, or disposal. The E-Beam unit and the other components of
the system produce no air emissions that require specific controls. Pretreatment processing
typically involves cartridge or sand filters to remove suspended solids. Spent filter media or
oilier residuals from these systems should be dewatered, containerized, and analyzed t'o
determine whether they should be disposed of as hazardous or non-hazardous waste. :
i ;
Treated water may be disposed of either on or off site, depending on site-specific
requirements and limitations. Examples of on-site disposal options for treated water include
groundwater recharge or temporary on-site storage for sanitary use. Examples of off-site disposal
options include discharge into surface water bodies, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers. Bioassay
tests may be required in addition to routine chemical and physical analyses before thejtreated
water is disposed of.
4.7 RANGE OF SUITABLE SITE CHARACTERISTICS
In addition to feed waste characteristics and effluent discharge requirements, sjte
characteristics and support requirements are important when considering the E-Beam '•
technology. Site-specific factors can impact the application of the E-Beam technology, and these
factors should be considered before selecting the technology for remediation of a specific site.
Site-specific factors addressed in this section include site support requirements and utility
requirements.
According to Haley and Aldrich, both transportable and permanently installed IE-Beam
systems are available (see Section 5, Technology Status, and Appendix A, Vendor's Claims for
the Technology). The support requirements for these systems are likely to vary. This section
presents support requirements based on the information collected for the trailer-mounted system
used during the demonstration. i
4.7.1 Site Support Requirements
The site must be accessible for a tractor-trailer truck .with an 8-foot by 48-foot! trailer
weighing about 35 tons. An area of 8 feet by 48 feet must be available for the trailer that houses
the E-Beam system, and additional space must be available to allow personnel to move freely
around the outside of the trailer. The area containing the E-Beam trailer should be paVed or
covered with compacted soil or gravel to prevent the trailer from sinking into soft ground. The
trailer is equipped with a 500-gallon influent holding tank and an effluent holding tank with a
capacity of about 100 gallons, but space outside the trailer may be required for additional
influent and effluent holding tanks if more holding capacity is needed. An additional area may be
required for an office or laboratory building or trailer. During the demonstration, an area of about
100 feet by 200 feet was used for the E-Beam trailer, an outdoor staging area, and miscellaneous
equipment. : i
The E-Beam trailer is equipped with influent and effluent ports on the exterior trailer
wall. The influent port is plumbed to an influent pump in the pump room that is rated for a
50
-------
maximum flow rate of 40 gpm, and the effluent port is plumbed from the effluent holding tank.
Plumbing must be provided to the influent port from the ground-water well or other feed waste
source and from the effluent port to the discharge point.
4.7.2 Utility Requirements
The E-Beam system may be operated using 480-volt, 3-phase electrical service. The E-
Beam trailer is also equipped with a diesel-powered generator that allows the system to be
operated without an external electrical source. Additional electrical service may be needed to
operate groundwater extraction well pumps, light office and laboratory buildings, and on-site
office and laboratory equipment, as applicable. Haley and Aldrich maintains and services its E-
Beam systems; therefore, no inventory of spare parts is required.
4.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
Three limiting factors have been identified based on the operation of the Haley and
Aldrich demonstration unit: limited operating flow rates, by-product formation, and operational
problems associated with suspended solids in the influent. System operation is limited by the
minimum and maximum flow rates.at which a single unit can be operated. If treatment goals are
not met while the system operates at the minimum flow rate and at maximum beam current, the
dose cannot be further increased to improve system performance. Such a case would require
operating additional E-Beam units in series, obtaining a larger E-Beam unit, or adding
pretreatment or post-treatment, any of which would increase space requirements and costs.
According to Haley and Aldrich, the demonstration unit was configured for a maximum flow
rate of 40 gpm. Treatment at a higher flow rate would require modifying the influent delivery
system for the unit, operating additional units in parallel, or obtaining a larger unit rated for a
greater maximum flow rate; the latter two options would increase space requirements and costs.
Based on research studies performed by Haley and Aldrich and demonstration results, toxic by-
products are formed when water containing VOCs is treated by the E-Beam system. If by-
products are a concern at a particular site, the E-Beam system would need to be operated in such
a way that by-product formation would be reduced to acceptable levels. A third limiting factor
involves the presence of suspended solids in the influent. Fine suspended solids not captured by
the strainer basket might clog the influent delivery system for the E-Beam unit.
4.9 POTENTIAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
This section discusses regulatory requirements pertinent to use of the E-Beam technology
at Superfund and RCRA corrective action sites. The regulations applicable to implementation of
this technology depend on site-specific remediation logistics and the type of contaminated liquid
being treated; therefore, this section presents a general overview of the types of federal
regulations that may apply under various conditions. State requirements should also be
considered; because these requirements vary from state to state, they are not presented in detail
in this section.
Depending on the characteristics of the liquid to be treated, pretreatment or post-
treatment may be required for the successful operation of the E-Beam system. For example,
solids may need to be filtered before treatment; a strainer basket was used to remove particulates
larger than 0.045 inch during the demonstration. Each pretreatment or post-treatment process
51
-------
might involve additional regulatory requirements that would need to be determined in'advance.
No direct air emissions or residuals (such as sludge) are generated by the E-beam treatment
process. Condensate is generated from the cooling air when it enters the air chiller, but Haley and
Aldrich states that this liquid can be recirculated through the system. Therefore, only regulations
addressing contaminated liquid storage, treatment, and discharge; potential fugitive air
emissions; and additional considerations are discussed below.
4.9.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act I
RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, tegulaites
management and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes. EPA and RCRA-aUthorized
states (listed hi 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 272) implement and enforce RCRA
and state regulations. Some of the RCRA requirements under 40 CFR Part 264 generally apply at
Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites that
contain RCRA hazardous waste because remedial actions generally involve treatment storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste. !
According to Haley and Aldrich, the E-Beam system can treat liquid contaminated with
most organic compounds, including solvents, pesticides, PAHs, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Contaminated liquid treated by the system may be classified as a RCRA hazardous waste or may
be sufficiently similar to a RCRA hazardous waste that RCRA regulations will be applicable
requirements. !
4.9.2 Clean Water Act j
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological quality of navigable surface waters by establishing federal, state, and local
discharge standards. If treated liquid is discharged to surface water bodies or publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), CWA regulations apply. On-site discharges to surface water bodies
must meet substantive National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements
but do not require an NPDES permit. A direct discharge of (CERCLA) wastewater would qualify
as "onsite" if the receiving water body is in the area of contamination or in close proximity to the
site, and if the discharge is necessary to implement the response action. Off-site discharges to a
surface water body require a NPDES permit and, must meet NPDES permit limits. Discharge to a
POTW is considered to be an off-site activity, even if an on-site sewer is used. Therefore,
compliance with substantive and administrative requirements of the National Pretreatment
Program is required in such a case. General pretreatment regulations are included in 40 (CFR)
Part 403. ; i
Any applicable local or state requirements, such as local or state pretreatment I
requirements or water quality standards (WQS), must also be identified and satisfied. |State WQS
are designed to protect existing and attainable surface water uses (for example, recreation and
public water supply). WQS include surface water use classifications and numerical or| narrative
standards (including effluent toxicity standards, chemical-specific requirements, and bioassay
requirements to demonstrate no observable effect level [NOEL] from a discharge) (EPA, 1988a).
These standards should be reviewed on a state- and location-specific basis before discharges are
made to surface water bodies. •
52
-------
4.9.3 Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1986, required EPA to establish
regulations to protect human health from contaminants in drinking water. EPA has developed the
following programs to achieve this objective: (1) a drinking water standards program, (2) an
underground injection control program, and (3) sole-source aquifer and well-head protection
programs.
SDWA primary (or health-based) and secondary (or aesthetic) MCLs generally apply as
clean-up standards for water that is, or may be, used as drinking water. In some cases, such as
when multiple contaminants are present, more stringent maximum contaminant level goals
(MCLG) may be appropriate. In other cases, alternate concentration limits (ACL) based on site-
specific conditions may be applied. CERCLA and RCRA standards and guidance should be used
in establishing ACLs (EPA 1987a). During the SITE demonstrations, Haley and Aldrich
treatment system performance was tested for compliance with SDWA MCLs for several critical
VOCs.
The underground injection control program regulates water discharge through injection
wells. Injection wells are categorized as Classes I through V, depending on their construction and
use. Reinjection of treated water involves Class IV (reinjection) or Class V (recharge) wells and
should meet SDWA requirements for well construction, operation, and closure. If the
groundwater treated is a RCRA hazardous waste, the treated groundwater must meet RCRA
Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards (40 CFR Part 268) before reinjection.
The sole-source aquifer and wellhead protection programs are designed to protect
specific drinking water supply sources. If such a source is to be remediated using the E-Beam
system, appropriate program officials should be notified, and any potential regulatory
requirements should be identified. State groundwater anti-degradation requirements and WQS
may also apply.
4.9.4 Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, regulates stationary and mobile sources
of air emissions. CAA regulations are generally implemented through combined federal, state,
and local programs. The CAA includes chemical-specific standards for major stationary sources
that would not be applicable but could be relevant and appropriate for E-Beam system use. For
example, the E-Beam system would usually not be a major source as defined by the CAA, but it
could emit ozone, which is a criteria pollutant under the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Therefore, the E-Beam system may need to be controlled to ensure that air
quality is not impacted. This would be particularly pertinent in localities that are "non-
attainment" areas for ozone . The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) could also be relevant and appropriate if regulated hazardous air pollutants are
emitted and if the treatment process is considered sufficiently similar to one regulated under
these standards. In addition, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) could be relevant and
appropriate if the pollutant emitted and the E-Beam system are sufficiently similar to a pollutant
and source category regulated by an NSPS. Finally, state and local air programs have been
delegated significant air quality regulatory responsibilities, and some have developed programs
53
-------
to regulate toxic air pollutants (EPA 1989). Therefore, state air programs should be consulted
regarding E-Beam treatment technology installation and use. |
4.9.5 Toxic Substances Control Act I
Testing, pre-manufacture notification, and record-keeping requirements for toxic
substances are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA also! includes
storage requirements for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (see 40 CFR §761.65). TheJE-Beam
system may be used to treat liquid contaminated with PCBs, and TSCA requirements would
apply to pretreatment storage of PCB-contaminated liquid. ;
4.9.6 Mixed Waste Regulations :
As defined by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and RCRA, mixed waste contains both.
radioactive and hazardous components. Such waste is subject to the requirements of both acts.
However, when application of both AEA and RCRA regulations results in a situation {that is
inconsistent with the AEA (for example, an increased likelihood of radioactive exposure), AEA
requirements supersede RCRA requirements (EPA 1988a). Use of the Haley and Aldrich E-
Beam system at sites with radioactive contamination might involve treatment or generation of
mixed waste. !
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), in conjunction with the
NRC, has issued several directives to assist in identification, treatment, and disposal of low-level
radioactive, mixed waste. Various OSWER directives include guidance on defining, identifying,
and disposing of commercial, mixed, low-level radioactive and hazardous waste (EPA 1987b). If
the Haley and Aldrich system is used to treat low-level mixed waste, these directives should be
considered. If high-level mixed waste or transuranic mixed waste is treated, internal DOE orders
should be considered when developing a protective remedy (DOE 1988). The SDWAIand CWA
also contain standards for maximum allowable radioactivity levels in water supplies.
4.9.7 Occupational Safety and Health Act j |
OSHA regulations in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926 are designed to protect! worker
health and safety. Both Superfund and RCRA corrective actions must meet OSHA requirements,
particularly §1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. Part 1926,
Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, applies to any on-site construction activities. For
example, electric utility hookups for the Haley and Aldrich E-Beam system must comply with
Part 1926, Subpart K, Electrical. Product chemicals, such as sulfuric acid and sodium ;hydroxide,
if used with the E-Beam system, must be managed in accordance with OSHA requirements (for
example, Part 1926, Subpart D, Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, and Subpart
H, Materials Handling, Storage, and Disposal). Any more stringent state or local requirements
must also be met. In addition, health and safety plans for site remediation should address
chemicals of concern and include monitoring practices to ensure that worker health arid safety
are maintained. : :
54
-------
4.10 Additional Considerations
The Haley and Aldich system generates a high-energy stream of electrons (ionizing
radiation). These electrons are primarily directed to a contaminated liquid stream. However,
some other radiation (x-ray) is generated when stray electrons hit metal components of the
system. Therefore, regulations covering radiation-generating equipment could be considered
ARARs. At the Savannah River Site, DOE regulations for radiation-generating equipment were
applied. However, the Haley and Aldrich system is totally enclosed, and with adequate lead
shielding of the E-Beam trailer, radiation monitoring did not reveal any OSHA compliance
problems. Most equipment of this nature is regulated at a state level (for .example, X-ray and
other medical and laboratory equipment). Relevant standards for protection against radiation are
included in the NRC regulations of 10 CFR Part 20. These standards are designed to limit
radiation hazards caused by NRC-licensed activities. The regulations apply to all NRC licensees
regardless of the type or quantity of radioactive material possessed or the type of operations
conducted. These: regulations require that (1) levels of radiation and dose be "as low as is
reasonably achievable," and (2) radiation exposure limits for worker and public protection in 10
CFR Part 20 be met. Additional state-specific requirements should also be considered.
4.10.1 State and Community Acceptance
Because few applications of the E-Beam technology have been attempted beyond the
bench or pilot scale, limited information is available to assess state and community acceptance of
the technology. During the SITE demonstrations at the NBVC and the Savannah River Site,
more than 100 people from regulatory agencies, nearby universities, and the local community
attended Visitors' Day to observe demonstration activities and ask questions pertaining to the
technology. The visitors expressed no concerns regarding operation of the E-Beam system.
5 TECHNOLOGY STATUS
According to Haley and Aldrich, E-Beam treatment systems can be manufactured as
trailer-mounted systems, transportable systems, and permanent facilities. Trailer-mounted
systems are finished semi-trailers with permanently mounted treatment system components. The
existing trailer-mounted system is 48 feet long by 8 feet wide and includes an E-Beam unit with
a power rating (accelerating voltage multiplied by beam current) of 21 kW. Trailer-mounted
systems are best suited for small-scale, short-term site cleanups and can be used for performing
pilot-scale treatability studies.
Skid-mounted, transportable systems can be manufactured and transported to sites on
flatbed trucks, where they are off-loaded onto a concrete pad with temporary utility connections
and support facilities. These systems can be mobilized and demobilized within a few days. The
power rating of transportable systems ranges from 25 to 75 kW. These systems are best suited
for medium-scale site cleanups that may last for a few years. Once remediation of a particular
site is completed, the transportable system can be moved to another site requiring remediation.
Permanent facilities generally involve high-powered E-Beam systems requiring heavy
radiation shielding. These systems are best suited for large-scale remediation projects that
require many years of cleanup and for treatment of drinking water or industrial/municipal
waste water on a continuous basis. One large-scale treatment system has been constructed in
55
-------
Miami, Florida for the treatment of drinking water. This system incorporates an 80-kW beam and
has a nominal flow capacity of 120 gpm. ;
All Haley and Aldrich E-Beam treatment systems are modular in design. Eacli system
includes an electron source, a reaction chamber, water handling equipment, and control
components. If the effluent from the E-Beam system does not meet treatment objectives after
being treated once, it can be recycled as many times as required until the treatment objectives are
met. Haley and Aldrich can also provide treatment trains with multiple modules for treatment of
highly contaminated waste streams or large volumes of wastewater. Haley and Aldrich E-Beam
treatment systems can be fully automated. This allows remote operation of a system via a
computer and telephone line. All operating variables can be continuously monitored by the
control console computer to ensure that all system components are operating within acceptable
limits. '
I
Haley and Aldrich uses the following three-phase approach in implementing its E-Beam
technology for a particular treatment application. During Phase 1, a bench-scale treatability study
is performed using a small quantity (2gallons) of wastewater. During bench-scale testing, a 60Co
source is used to generate an E-Beam. The purpose of this phase is to determine the effectiveness
of the E-Beam process in removing the contaminants of interest and to develop a preliminary
cost estimate for full-scale application of the Haley and Aldrich system. During Phase 2, a pilot-
scale treatability study is conducted on site using Haley and Aldrich's trailer-mounted system.
The results of this study are used to (1) size a full-scale system that can meet treatment goals and
(2) estimate the capital and O&M costs for full-scale system operation. During Phase|3, Haley
and Aldrich designs and configures the full-scale system. '
56
-------
6 REFERENCES
American Water Works Association (AWWA). 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition. American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation.
Boltz, David F., and James A. Howell. 1979. Colorimetric Determination of Nonmetals. John
Wiley & Sons. New York.
Buxton, G., et al., 1988. "Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons,
Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (DOH/DO -) in Aqueous Solution." Journal of
Physical and Chemical Reference Data. Volume 17. Pages 513to886.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1992. Title 40. Part 136.
Cooper, W.J., D.E. Meacham, M.G. Nickelsen, K. Lin, D.B. Ford, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D. Waite.
1993. "The Removal of Tri-(TCE) and Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from Aqueous
Solution Using High Energy Electrons." Journal of the Air Waste Management
Association. Volume 43. Pages 1358-1366.
Cooper, W.J., E. Cadavid, M.G. Nickelsen, K. Lin, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D. Waite. 1993.
"Removing THMs From Drinking Water Using High-Energy Electron-Beam
Irradiation." Journal of the American Water Works Association. Volume 85 (September).
Pages 106-112.
Cooper, W.J., K.L. Sawal, R.A. Slifker, M.G. Nickelsen, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D. Waite. 1995,
"Precursor Removal from Natural Waters Using an Innovative Treatment Process."
Disinfection By-Products in Water Treatment: The Chemistry of Their Formation and
Control. R.A. Minear and G.L. Amy, Editors.
Cooper, W.J., M.G. Nickelsen, D.E. Meacham, T.D. Waite, and C.N. Kurucz. 1992. "High
Energy Electron Beam Irradiation: An Advanced Oxidation Process for the Treatment of
Aqueous Based Organic Hazardous Wastes." Water Pollution Research Journal of
Canada. Volume 27. Pages 69-95.
Cooper, W.J., G. Leslie, P.M. Tornatore, W.Hardison and P.A. Hajali. 2000. MtBE and Priority
Contaminant Treatment with High Energy Electron Beam Injection. In Chemical
Oxidation and Reactive Barriers, Eds., G.B. Wickramanayake, A.R. Gavaskar and
A..S.C. Chen. 2(6): 209-216 (Battelle Press).
Cooper, W.J., T. Tobien, S.P. Mezyk, J.W. Adams, M.G. Nickelsen, K.E. O'Shea, G. Inclan,
P.M. Tornatore, P. Hajali and D.J. Weidman. 2001. The Electron Beam Process For The
Destruction of MtBE. In Oxygenates in Gasoline: Environmental Aspects. Eds. A. F.
57
-------
Diaz and D. Drogos, ACS Symposium Series 799, American Chemical Society,,
Washington, DC. P. 153-164. |
Cooper, W.J., M.G. Nickelsen, R.V. Green and S.P. Mezyk. 2002. The removal of naphthalene
from aqueous solutions using high energy electron beam irradiation. Rad. Phys. Chem.
(in press). '
' i
Evans, G. 1990. "Estimating Innovative Treatment Technology Costs for the SITE Program."
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. Volume 40, No. 7. Jujfy.
!
Farooq, S., C.N. Kurucz, T.D. Waite, and WJ. Cooper. 1993. "Disinfection of Wastewaters:
High Energy Electron vs Gamma Irradiation." Water Research. Volume 27. Pages 1177-
1184. S
Gehringer, P., and otherset al.,. 1988. "Decomposition of Trichloroethylene and !
Tetrachloroethylene in Drinking Water by a Combined Radiation/Ozone
Treatment."Water Research. Volume 22; Page 645.
I I
Hardison, D.R., WJ. Cooper, S.P. Mezyk and D.M. Bartels. 2002. The Free Radical Chemistry
of t-Butyl Formate: Rate Constants for Hydroxyl Radical, Hydrated Electron and
Hydrogen Atom Reaction in Aqueous Solution. Rad. Phys. Chem. (hi press). '
Kim, D.K., K.E. O'Shea and WJ. Cooper. 2002. The Degradation of MtBE and Related
Gasoline Oxygenates in Aqueous Media iby Ultrasound Irradiation. ASCE - Journal of
Environ. Engineer. 128: 806-812. '
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, WJ. Cooper, and M.G. Nickelsen. 199la. "Full-Scale Electron Beam
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes—Effectiveness and Costs." Proceedings of the 45th
Annual Purdue University Industrial WaSte Conference. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Pages
539-545. ! ;
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, WJ. Cooper and M.G. Nickelsen. 1991b. High-Energy Electron
Beam Irradiation of Water, Wastewater and Sludge, in Advances in Nuclear Science and
Technology, Volume 22, J. Lewins and M. Becker, Eds., Plenum Press, N.Y.jpp 1-43.
i
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, WJ. Cooper, and M.G. Nickelsen. 1995a. "Empirical Empirical
Models for Estimating the Destruction of Toxic Organic Compounds Utilizing Electron
Beam irradiation at Full Scale." Radiation Physics and Chemistry. Volume 45 Pages
805-816. i
58
-------
Kurucz, C.N., T.D. Waite, and W.J. Cooper. 1995. "The The Miami Electron Beam Research
Facility: A Large Scale Wastewater Treatment Application." Radiation Physics and
Chemistry. Volume 45. Pages 299-308.
Lin, K., W.J. Cooper, M.G. Nickelsen, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D. Waite. 1995 (in press). "The The
Removal of Aqueous Solutions of Phenol at Full Scale Using High Energy Electron
Beam Irradiation." Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 46: 1307-1316.
Mak, F.T., W.J. Cooper, C.N. Kurucz, M.G. Nickelsen, and T.D. Waite. 1995. "Removal of
Chloroform from Drinking Water Using High Energy Electron Beam Irradiation."
Disinfection By-Products in Water Treatment: The Chemistry of Their Formation and
Control. R.A. Minear and G.L. Amy, Editors, pp. 131-150.
Mak, F.T., S. Zele, W.J. Cooper C.N. Kurucz, T.D. Waite and M.G. Nickelsen. 1997. Kinetic
Modeling of Carbon Tetrachloride, Chloroform, and Methylene Chloride Removal from
Aqueous Solution using the Electron Beam Process. Water Research 31: 219-228.
Mezyk, S.P., W.J. Cooper, D.M. Bartels, K.E. O'Shea and T. Wu. 2001. Radiation Chemistry of
Alternative Fuel Oxygenates: Substituted Ethers. J. Phys. Chem. Part A 105: 3521-3526.
Nickelsen, M.G., W.J. Cooper, K. Lin, C.N. Kurucz, and T.D. Waite. 1994. "High Energy
Electron Beam Generation of Oxidants for the Treatment of Benzene and Toluene in the
Presence of Radical Scavengers." Water Research. Volume 28. Pages 1227-1237.
Nickelsen, M.G., W.J. Cooper, T.D. Waite, and C.N. Kurucz. 1992. "Removal of Benzene and
Selected Alkyl-Substituted Benzenes from Aqueous Solution Utilizing Continuous High-
Energy Electron Irradiation." Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 26. Pages
144 to 152.
Nickelsen, M.G., D.C. Kajdi, W.J. Cooper, C.N. Kurucz, T.D. Waite, F. Gensel, H. Lorenzl, and
U. Sparka. 1998. Field Application of a Mobile 20-kW Electron Beam Treatment System
on Contaminated Groundwater and Industrial Wastes. In Environmental Applications of
Ionizing Radiation, W.J. Cooper, R.D. Curry and K.E. O'Shea, Eds., John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. N.Y. 451-466.
Nickelsen, M..G., W.J. Cooper, K.E. O'Shea, M. Aguilar, D.V. Kalen, C.N. Kurucz and T.D.
Waite. 1998. The Elimination of Methane Phosphonic Acid, Dimethy Ester (DMMP)
from Aqueous Solutions Using 60Co-y and Electron Beam Induced Radiolysis: A Model
Compound for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the E-Beam Process in the Destruction of
Organophosphorus Chemical Warfare Agents. J. Adv. Oxid.. Technol.3:43-54.
Nicklesen, M.G. 2002. Personal Communication to Greg Swanson, TetraTech. September 12.
59
-------
O'Shea, K.E., D.K. Kim, T. Wu, W.J. Cooper and S.P. Mezyk. 2002. Degradation of
MtBE/BTEX Mixtures by Gamma Radiolysis: A Kinetic Modeling Study. R#d. Phys.
Chem. (In press). ]
i
i
O'Shea, K.E., T. Wu and W.J. Cooper. 2001..TiO2 Photocatalysis of Gasoline Oxygenates,
Kinetic Parameters and Effects of Catalyst Types and Loading on the Degradation of
Methyl t-Butyl Ether. 2001. In Oxygenates in Gasoline: Environmental Aspects. Eds.
A.F. Diaz and D. Drogos. ACS Symposium Series 799, American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC. p. 165-176. !
Siddiqui M., G.L. Amy, W.J. Cooper, C.N. Kurucz, T.D. Waite and M.G. Nickelsen. 1996a.
Bromate Removal by High Energy Electron Beam Process (HEEB). J. AmerJ Water
Works Assoc. 88(10): 90-101. ;
t
Siddiqui M., G.L. Amy, W.J. Cooper. 1996b. Bromate Ion Removal by Electric-Arc iDischarge
and High Energy Electron Beam Processes, in Water Disinfection and Natural Organic
Matter, R.A. Minear and G.L. Amy, Eds, American Chemical Society, Sympbsium Series
649, Washington, D.C. 366 -382.
Stearns, Conrad, Schmidt (SCS) and Landau Associates. 1985. Initial Assessment Study of
Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California. j
Summers, et al., 1996. Journal of the American Water Works Association. Volume 88. No 6.
Page 80. '
Tornatore, P.M., S.T. Powers, W.J. Cooper and E.G. Isacoff. 2000. Emerging Treatments for
MtBE Synthetic Adsorbents and High Energy Electron Injection. In Chemical Oxidation
and Reactive Barriers, Eds., G.B. Wickramanayake, A.R. Gavaskar and A..S.C. Chen.
2(7): 57-64 (Battelle Press). ; I
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988. Radioactive Waste Management Order. D^)E Order
5820.2A. September. j •
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987a. Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL)
Guidance. Part 1: ACL Policy and Information Requirements. EPA/530/SW-J87/017.
i - i
EPA. 1987b. Joint EPA-Nuclear Regulatory Agency Guidance on Mixed Low-Level Radioactive
and Hazardous Waste. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Directives 9480.00-14 (June 29), 9432.00-2 (January 8), and 9487.00-8. August.
EPA. 1988a. Protocol for a Chemical Treatment Demonstration Plan. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. April. I
60
-------
EPA. 1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Laws: Interim Final. OSWER.
EPA/540/G-89/006. August.
EPA. 1989. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Part II. Clean Air Act and Other
Environmental Statutes and State Requirements. OSWER. EPA/540/G-89/006. August.
EPA. 1992. Electron Beam Treatment for Removal of Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene
from Streams and Sludge. Emerging Technology Bulletin. EPA/540/F-92/009. October.
EPA. 1993. Electron Beam Treatment for the Removal of Benzene and Toluene from Aqueous
Streams and Sludge. Emerging Technology Bulletin. EPA/540/F-93/502. April.
EPA. 1995. Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA
600/4-88/039. With Supplements II (1992) and III (1995).
EPA. 1996. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, Laboratory
Manual, Volumes 1A through 1C, and Field Manual, Volume 2. SW-846, Third Edition
and Update IE, EPA document control no. 955-001-00000-1 Office of Solid Waste.
September.
EPA. 1997. High Voltage Electron Beam Technology. Innovative Technology Evaluation
Report. EPA7540/R-96/504. April.
EPA. 1998a. Methods for the Chemical Analyses of Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020 and
Subsequent EPA-600/4 Technical Editions. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Waite, T.D., W.J. Cooper, C.N. Kurucz, R. Narbaitz, and J.H. Greenfield. 1992. "Full Scale
Treatments of Wastewater Effluent with High Energy Electrons." Chemistry for
Protection of the Environment 1989. Elsevier, New York. Pages 563-571.
Wang, T., T.D. Waite, C.N. Kurucz, and W.J. Cooper. 1994. Oxidant Reduction and
Biodegradability Improvement of Paper Mill Effluent by Irradiation." Water Research.
Volume 28. Pages 23 7-241.
Wu, T., V. Cruz, S.P. Mezyk, W.J. Cooper and K.E. O'Shea. 2002. Gamma Radiolysis of Methyl
t-Butyl Ether (MtBE). A Study of Hydroxyl Radical Mediated Reaction Pathways. Rad.
Phys. Chem. (In press).
Zele, S. M.G. Nickelsen, W.J. Cooper, C.N. Kurucz and T.D. Waite. 1998. Modeling Kinetics of
Benzene, Phenol and Toluene Irradiation in Water using the High Energy Electron-Beam
61
-------
Process. In Environmental Applications of Ionizing Radiation, W.J. Cooper, R.D. Curry
and K.E. O'Shea, Eds., John Wiley and Sons, Inc. N.Y. 395-415.
_
62
-------
7 APPENDIX A: VENDOR'S CLAIMS FOR THE TECHNOLOGY
Hazardous waste treatment and disposal options have traditionally been influenced by
regulatory, economic, technical, and public opinion factors. Thus, innovative technologies for
remediation of contaminated sites are continually being considered as treatment options.
Additionally, from an economic standpoint, the treatment costs of conventional technologies
continue to increase, and from an environmental impact standpoint, treatment technologies are
being sought that destroy contaminants without creating additional disposal problems.
7.1 Introduction
The E-beam technology has the capability of treating complex mixtures of hazardous
waste. The technology draws on the expertise developed from fourteen years and over $8 million
worth of research. The result has been the development of a line of hazardous waste treatment
systems based on the innovative E-beam technology, which can treat any water, wastewater, or
sediment matrix containing toxic organic chemicals and hazardous biological organisms.
7.2 Technology Description
HVEA's E-beam treatment systems use insulated core transformer (ICT) electron
accelerators developed by High Voltage Engineering, Inc. In this type of accelerator, the high
voltage is produced by a three-phase transformer with multiple secondary windings that are
energized by insulated core segments in an iron core. The resulting voltage and current are
transferred to an accelerator tube and tungsten wire filament, respectively. The electrons emitted
by the tungsten filament are then accelerated by means of voltage differential. Once the
accelerated electrons pass through the accelerator tube, they are deflected magnetically (scanned)
so as to sweep a larger irradiation field. The scanned E-beam then impacts a flowing stream or
slurry, producing highly reactive species capable of destroying toxic microorganisms and organic
compounds in aqueous solution. The reactive species formed are -OH, e"aq, and H-. The reactions
occur at diffusion-limited rates, and the treatment is complete in milliseconds. When the organic
compounds are completely destroyed, GOi, H2O, and salt are formed as a result.
7.3 Advantages of the E-Beam Process
The HVEA E-beam process has a number of advantages that make it uniquely suitable
for use as a treatment process for hazardous microorganisms and organic chemicals. These
advantages are described below.
• The process is broadly applicable for the destruction of biological moieties and organic
chemicals because strongly reducing reactive species (e-aq and H-) and strongly
oxidizing reactive species (-OH) are formed at the same time and in approximately the
same concentrations in solution. Furthermore, the E-beam system is the only treatment
technology in which H- is produced.
• Reactions with the E-beam-induced reactive species are very rapid, occurring in
milliseconds. This has allowed HVEA to design a flow-through system with good
process flexibility at full scale; this system can accommodate flow rates that vary over
time. Full-scale systems are modular in design, thereby allowing for decreased
operational cost if the quality of the waste improves over time.
63
-------
• The process can completely mineralize organic contaminants.
• Formation of the reactive species is pH-independent in the range 3 to 11. Therefore,
any differences in pH that exist over time do not adversely affect treatment efficiency.
• The process can effectively treat aqueous streams and slurried soils, sediments, and
sludges.
• The process is temperature-independent within normal water temperature ranges. The
E-beam system is usually housed in a building, and except for the control room, no
temperature conditioning is required. Also, variations in water temperature have no
practical effect on the treatment efficiency of the process.
• The process produces no organic sludge. The target contaminants are either mineralized
or broken down into low molecular weight organic compounds. The process has not
been thought to result hi removal of heavy metals, but recent studies indicate there may
be specific applications. i ;
i i
• The process produces no air emissions. Because this is a water-based technology, no
oxides of nitrogen or sulfur are produced. The influent delivery system is closed, and
therefore there is no external release of toxic organic compounds.
• For all these reasons, the E-beam process can be used efficiently and effectively as a
pretreatment process for biological remediation. The E-beam process can "break apart"
complex organic compounds, making them amenable for microbiological degradation.
7.4 HVEA Treatment Systems ;
HVEA E-beam treatment systems are modular in design. Each system includes an
electron source, a reaction chamber, water handling equipment, and control components. This
allows for great flexibility hi handling contaminated waste streams of differing composition. For
example, if a particular waste stream will not meet waste treatment objectives in a single pass
using one module, a system can be built to recycle the waste stream as many times as required
for complete remediation. Also, single-pass treatment trains with multiple modules can be built
to remediate highly contaminated waste streams (ppm to 1% solutions) and to accommodate high
flow rates (over 250 gpm). Table A-l summarizes some of the capabilities of HVEA's treatment
systems. I
7.5 System Applications i
HVEA's E-beam systems are ideally suited for treatment of complex mixtures of
industrial and hazardous wastes dissolved or suspended in aqueous media. A partial list of
contaminants and pollutants that can be treated using HVEA systems is presented in Table A-2.
The general ranges of contaminants in aqueous matrices that can be successfully treated by
HVEA's systems are presented below. !
• Volatile organics at part per billion levels to 1 % NAPLs. i
• Semi-volatile organics at part per billion to 1,000-ppm levels. i
• Total solids at up to 5% by weight. j
Waste streams that can be treated by HVEA's E-beam technology include the following:
64
-------
7.6
Landfill leachates.
Contaminated groundwater.
Contaminated soil.
Industrial wastewaters from chemical, petrochemical, agricultural, metal finishing,
automobile, wood finishing, paint, and pulp and paper plants.
Drinking water sources.
Cost Considerations
The cost of treatment using an HVEA E-beam system depends on many factors such as
the initial concentrations of organic contaminants, treatment objectives, the dose required to
obtain the desired destruction, the volume of waste to be treated, the size of the treatment
facility, the length of treatment, and the manner in which capital recovery is handled. The cost of
treatment using HVEA systems in various industrial waste and groundwater applications has
ranged from $2.00 per 1,000 gallons to $0.50 per gallon. These costs may decrease as a result of
economies of scale when more treatment systems are produced in the future. To reduce the
required capital investment, HVEA offers turnkey lease options that, for a monthly fee, include
equipment, maintenance, and technical services. The minimum lease period is usually 5 years
renewable annually, but purchase options are also available. HVEA's leasing arrangements allow
for flexibility in responding to changing regulations and changing water quality over the life of a
remediation project.
7.7 Summary
HVEA's E-beam system offers an innovative, cost-effective, and flexible technology for
treatment of contaminated municipal, industrial and hazardous waters. The technology can treat
waters with varying contaminant and feed compositions. The HVEA E-beam treatment system
produces a high-quality effluent, destroys complex mixtures of biological and organic pollutants,
and can handle waste streams containing solids. This technology has been well demonstrated and
is now commercially available for the treatment of a variety of contaminated waters.
65
-------
Table A-l. Capabilities of HVEA's E-Beam Treatment Systems
Specific Capabilities
Demonstrated Results
Comparison to Conventional
"Technology.
High RE for complex mixtures or
pollutants
Process can accommodate suspended
materials present at concentrations up to
5%
Significant flexibility to handle changes in
feed flow rate and composition
Minimal post-treatment needed
Routinely reduces organic pollutant
concentrations by 99%; pollutant specific
Presence of suspended Kaolin clay has
no effect on removal efficiency
Process is not sensitive to changes in
feed pH, temperature, and solids content
(up to 5%)
E-beam process results in destruction of
organic contaminants, which are usually
mineralized to CO 2, H zO, and inorganic
salts
Biological treatment has high Res for
biodegradable compounds only;
pollutants such as PCBs are not removed
Ultraviolet treatment is limited to solutions
that are transparent to the ultraviolet
source j
Most treatment systems cannot handle
changes in feed composition and still
produce a high-quality effluent
Activated carbon and air stripping transfer
the contaminants to other media, usually
carbon, which have to undergo secondary
treatment as hazardous waste
Table A-2. Contaminants and Pollutants Treatable by HVEA's E-Beain Treatment
Systems and Other General Uses of the Systems I
Organic Contaminants
Biological Contaminants
lithjsr
Aroclors
MtBE
BTEX
Chemical warfare agents
Explosives and energetics
Halogenated volatiles
Halogenated semi-volatiles
Non-halogenated volatiles
Non-halogenated semi-volatiles
Organic cyanides
Organic pesticides and herbicides
Phenol and phenolics
PAH
Solvents
Biological warfare agents
Giardia
Cryptosporidlum parvum
Fecal and total coliforms
Klebsiella tem'gena
PRD1 & MS2 bacteriophages
Coliphage '
Color removal
Odor control
Bacterial disinfection !
Disinfection byproduct removal
TOG reduction j
COD and BOD reductiop
Air or vapor stream remediation
7.8 Vendor's comments to the ITER ;
In response to EPA's comments reflecting E-Beam system performance at the Savannah
River Site, it should be noted that the SITE demonstration was conducted before HVEA, Inc. had
had an opportunity to optimize their delivery system. The mobile electron beam system
fabrication was only completed one week prior! to the demonstration and had never been run on
any natural water prior to the study. Furthermore, the experimental design for the demonstration
that was conducted as Part of the SITE Technology Demonstration, at the Savannah'River Site,
was written six months before the mobile system had been completed. However, because of the
rigid nature of the program and timing constraints placed on the demonstration by the Savannah
River Site, HVEA, Inc. was unable to adjust the plan to allow for optimization of th
-------
7.8.1 TOC/DOC Issue
In the demonstration at the NBVC, analytical results indicate that both TOC and DOC
concentrations increased significantly from the influent to the effluent. Previous studies with the
E-Beam technology have demonstrated a decrease in the TOC concentration as a result of E-
Beam treatment. It is believed that the results observed during these pilot tests are artifacts of the
analytical methodology utilized.
7.8.2 TOC/DOC Analytical Method Interferences.
Premise: The influent TOC concentration has been underestimated as a result of the
analytical method employed. Based on communications with TetraTech, the analytical laboratory
used Standard Method 5310B for the analysis of TOC and a modified Method 5310B for the
analysis of DOC. According to the method description known interferences are the following:
"Removal of carbonate and bicarbonate by acidification and purging with purified gas results in
the loss of volatile organic substances. The volatiles also can be lost during sample blending,
particularly if the temperature is allowed to rise. Another important loss can occur if large
carbon-containing particles fail to enter the needle used for injection..."
Preliminary E-Beam treatment studies conducted by Haley & Aldrich on Port Hueneme
groundwater indicated that the groundwater, in addition to MTBE and BTEX, is contaminated
with an uncharacterized hydrocarbon fraction. It is assumed that this fraction is comprised of
volatile alkane components of gasoline. Based on the chromatograms and resulting calculation
sheets, it appears as though the concentration of unknown hydrocarbons is conservatively twice
the concentration of the aromatic compounds (BTEX). Based on this estimate and the E-Beam
results from the November 2001 tests on Port Hueneme groundwater, an estimate for the TOC
concentration can be calculated.
67
-------
Table 7-1. Estimated TOC Concentration from the Known Contaminant Concentrations.
Analyte
MTBE
TEA
TBF
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Acetone
Unknown Hydrocarbons"
TOC
Measured Con,cn.a
mgLT1
1.560
0.133
-
0.666 ;
0.812 1
0.204
0.926 !
-
5.216
5.1
% Carbon'^
' ° ^
68.12
64.81
69.72
92.25
91.25
90.50
90.50
62.04
85.00
-
Calculated TO
-------
7.8.4 Particulate Losses.
Large carbon-containing participates may result in underestimating the TOC
concentration by preventing entrance into the needle used for injection. During E-Beam
treatment these large-carbon containing particulates may be broken down into smaller
components and/or the carbon containing organics would be desorbed from the particulate
matter. Either situation could result in an apparent increase in the effluent TOC concentration.
7.8.5 Treatment Goals
At the outset of the solicitation for this project there were three groundwaters that were
considered for treatment. These three locations were differentiated by their distance from the
source and were identified as follows:
1. Source Zone: This zone is closest to the source, contains high concentrations of MTBE as
well as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and potentially contains
free-phase gasoline.
2. Middle Zone: This zone is the area mid-way downgradient along the MTBE plume
contains moderate concentrations of MTBE; no BTEX or free-phase gasoline is known to
be present.
3. Wellhead Protection Zone: This zone is farthest down gradient along the plume and
contains MTBE at lower concentrations than the first two zones.
The original proposal that was accepted for this demonstration was to address the
treatment from the Wellhead Protection Zone and was to be treated for drinking water. Prior to
the demonstration it was ascertained that the Source Zone was the only area from which
adequate water flow could be obtained; however, the treatment goals were not adjusted to take
into account the increase in contamination in the ground water.
During the demonstration at the NBVC, the E-Beam technology met the treatment goals
based on MCLs for the primary contaminants of concern. However, reaction by-products from
MtBE, BTEX and other constituents of gasoline remained in the effluent and were higher in
concentration than some potentially applicable ARARs.
Groundwater obtained from the Source Zone would never by utilized as a drinking water
source, especially with only one unit process. If groundwater had been extracted from the Middle
Zone or Wellhead Protection Zone, where MTBE was the only contaminant of interest, the
treatment chemistry would have been different and it is our belief that the analytical results
would have shown the E-Beam's effectiveness in meeting all MCLs for both the primary
contaminants of concern and their reaction by-products.
69
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/R-02/066
September 2002
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner. !
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HEREtH;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARL
IPOSTAGE&FEESPAIDI
: EPA
' PERMIT No. G-35
------- |