o-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Center for Environmental
Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology Transfer
CERI-90-16 April 1990
Physical/Chemical
Treatment of Hazardous
Wastes
Speaker Slide Copies and
Supporting Information
-------
CERI-90-16
April 1990
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Speaker Slide Copies and Supporting Information
April 1990
Prepared by
PEER Consultants, P.C.
Dayton, Ohio
for
Center For Environmental Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strives to provide accurate, complete,
and useful information. However, neither EPA nor any person contributing to the
preparation of this document makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the usefulness of effectiveness of any information, method, or process disclosed in this
material. Nor does EPA assume any liability for the use of, or for damages arising from
the use of, any information, methods, or process disclosed in this document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1
Process-Based Treatment Decision Making 1-1
Abstract 1-2
Slides 1-5
Section 2
Treatabmty Studies and Data Quality Objectives 2-1
Abstract 2-2
Slides 2-8
Section 3
Material Handling Including Debris Separation and Decontamination . . 3-1
Abstract 3-2
Slides 3-9
Section 4
Separation of Inorganic Contaminants from Soils and Sludges 4-1
Abstract 4-2
Slides 4-4
Section 5
Separation and Treatment of Inorganics 1n Aqueous Matrices 5-1
Abstract 5-2
Slides 5-6
Section 6
Separation of Organic Contaminants from Soils and Sludges 6-1
Abstract 6-2
Slides 6-5
Section 7
Separation and Treatment of Organlcs 1n Liquids 7-1
Abstract 7-2
Slides 7-6
Section 8
Collection and Treatment of Gases 8-1
Abstract 8-2
Slides .8-5
Section 9
Databases Supporting Technology Selections 9-1
Abstract 9-2
Slides 9-4
in
-------
PROCESS-BASED
TREATMENT
DECISION MAKING
Abstract 1-2
Slides 1-5
1-1
-------
PROCESS-BASED TREATMENT DECISION MAKING
Bill Schmidt
Bureau of Mines
Washington, D.C. 20241
Physical and chemical technologies are generally not stand-alone treatment
techniques. In most cases, Physical/Chemical technology must be used in combination
with other techniques to form a treatment train. The main function of the physical
treatment technologies and most chemical treatment technologies is to separate the
hazardous constituents from the media in which they are found. This is beneficial as
Physical/Chemical technologies can provide methods for meeting the goals of the
"Hierachy of Waste Management."
The hierachy establishes the order of preferred waste management activities:
1st Waste minimization/reduction
2nd Recovery, reuse, recycle
3rd Treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility and volume
4th Storage.
For most Superfund Sites and many RCRA sites, the opportunity for waste minimization
is limited to minimizing the residuals produced by recovery or treatment techniques.
The opportunity for reuse and recovery of wastes has heretofore been somewhat
limited, primarily because of the waste mixtures typically found at these sites. Thus
the focus of remediation has been primarily placed on treatment.
This seminar is intended to show how physical and chemical technologies can be
used to effect separation as part of a process-based treatment approach. It further
intends to focus on techniques which can be used to permit the recovery and reuse of
materials. As part of this process-based approach, all media and emissions and
discharges must be considered. As noted previously, physical and chemical process are
frequently used with other technologies such as other chemical processes, biological and
thermal processes, as well as immobilization processes.
The process-based approach proceeds from the assumption that any inorganic
contaminant can be removed from its host environment—the question is how to do it.
While there are no hard and fast rules on how to do it, there are certain general
principles that have been learned from the past Superfund investigations and from
analogous activities such as the exploration of mineral sites. These include:
A. Proper assessment of site conditions. As a general statement, Superfund site
investigations provide far less data on the nature of the site necessary for the
assessment of treatment of the wastes than do investigations of mineral
properties for a similar purpose. Within this area of concern are a number of
related issues, for example:
1. The importance of representative samples. Superfund sites can be quite
small and the variability of the contamination can be of major
importance in the design of the system.
2. Other quantitative and qualitative factors. Examples of these include
such things as appropriate identification of organic contaminants and
speciation of metals, availability of water/power, discharge limitations,
noise constraints, etc.
1-2
-------
B. Establishment of objectives. The nature of the process approach demands
more attention to objective setting than does the technology-based
approach—in fact objectives are essential. These include such things as:
1. cost—cost determination/refinement should start at day one. There
needs to be at least some sort of comparative cost target identified;
2. time—because of the small size of most Superfund sites, capital costs
dominate particularly when mobile treatments are not utilized and
"ASAP" yields unreasonable costs,
3. performance objectives—cleanup standards plus things like discharge
limitations,
4. prior- and subsequent-sytem requirements—is the inorganic contaminant
part of an organic/inorganic contaminant problem, hardware issues, etc.
C. Experience-based assessment of alternatives. The process-based approach is
not a "check the box" solution to the problem. This approach benefits from
the ability of experts to make intelligent deductions and start the search in
the most favorable areas.
D. Treatability studies. Studies specifically tailored to the problem and done
specifically to improve the decision-making process. These are discussed in
detail in the next section.
E. Assessment of trade-offs. Things like time versus cost or treatment versus
other options.
F. Decision making. Decisions made using a rational and common set of
parameters.
G. Pilot tests. These should be carefully structured to address the uncertainties
in areas of technical concern. This is an activity that needs to be carefully
thought out mindful of the pitfalls that can occur when proceeding from
pilot-scale to full-scale. Specifically, these pitfalls include such issues of
scale—some things scale and some things do not and batch vs. continuous
modeling—major surprises can result in the transition from batch to
continuous.
H. Site remediation. The final stage in the process of site cleanup.
In contrast, the "technology-based" approach proceeds from a different
assumption—not how to do it but rather "can be used?" A Priori identification of
"applicable" technologies to be assessed presents a number of substantive problems.
For one thing it tends to mask the question of objectives—especially if the objectives
are believed to be generally understood but are, in fact, not well defined. This leads to
a second problem. "Go/No-Go" assessments will almost certainly produce "no-go"
answers unless the technology being assessed was applied to essentially identical site
conditions—an unlikely set of circumstances at best. Sooner than one would expect,
one arrives at the time for decision making. In the technology-based approach, this is
the point at which objectives tend to receive belated attention.
1-3
-------
If pilot scale operations are conducted, they too generally suffer from late attention to
objectives. It is almost certain that the remediation of the site will not be done
employing the best technology.
A number of case examples will be cited. The first involves the design of a mineral
processing flow sheet by way of analogy. The second involves the design of the United
Scrap Lead Superfund site treatment process. The third involves the design of the
treatment process for a creosote site in California.
1-4
-------
PROCESS-BASED APPROACH
Key Questions
• Can hazardous material be separated
to permit recovery, reuse, or recycling?
• Can volume of waste to be treated
be reduced?
• Can residuals produced be recovered.
reused, or recycled?
• Can volume of residuals to be
disposed be minimized?
Physical & Chemical techniques are typically
separation technologies and cannot stand
alone. Thus they must be used as part
of a process.
Hence, a process-based approach.
HIERARCHY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT
• Waste minimization/reduction
• 3-R's
- recovery
- reuse
- recycle
• Treatment
- reduce mobility, toxicity. and volume
• Storage
1-5
-------
PROCESS-BASED APPROACH
Assess conditions
Establish objectives
Experience-based assessment
of alternatives
Treatability studies
Assessment of trade-offs
Decision making
Pilot tests
Site remediation
ASSESS CONDITIONS
• Importance of representative
samples
• Other quantitative and
qualitative factors
ESTABLISH OBJECTIVES
• Cost
• Time
• Performance
• Prior- and subsequent-system
requirements
• Availability of technology
1-6
-------
DEFINE SITE CONDITIONS
Soil
• Site-specific meteorological
conditions
• Liquid and gas soil pathways
DETERMINE SOIL PROPERTIES
• Soil chemistry
• Soil structure and
physical attributes
DEFINE SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Water
• Climatic conditions
• Geographic conditions
• Surface water category
• Hydrogeologic setting
1-7
-------
THREE BASIC QUESTIONS CONCERNING
CONTAMINANT MOVEMENT,
CONTAINMENT AND RECOVERY.
• What is the contaminant?
• Where is the contaminant?
• How extensive is the contamination?
SOME ITEMS TO CONSIDER DURING
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
CHARACTERIZATION...
• Physical description
• Chemical class
• Metals speciation
• Solubility
• Flash point
• Vapor pressure
• Viscosity
• Density
CHARACTERIZATION
Soil
• Soil stratigraphy
• Soil hydrology
• Surface topography
• Engineered features
1-8
-------
DEFINE SITE CONDITIONS
Groundwater
• Subsurface conditions
• Aquifer properties
• Geochemical environment
• Hydrogeologic setting
IDENTIFY POLLUTANT
MIGRATION PATHWAYS
Groundwater
• Regional flow
• Site-specific hydrology
• Seasonal trends
DEFINE SITE CONDITIONS
Air
• Climate
• Site-specific
meteorological conditions
• Site topography
• Physical features
1-9
-------
SAMPLING AND DIAGNOSTIC
TOOLS FOR SITE AND
CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION
• Preliminary site investigation
• Detailed site investigation
EXAMPLES OF
SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
Preliminary Site Investigation
• Soil gas monitoring
• Geophysical surveys
• Surface water sampling
• Limited groundwater sampling
SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL TESTING METHODS
• Ground-penetrating
• Electromagnetic conductivity
• Galvanic electrical resistivity
• Seismic methods
• Gravity
• Magnetometer
• Metal detector
• Downhole methods
i ~"\
*<*"')
1-10
-------
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Preliminary Site Investigation
• Typically non-specific
• Examples
- TOG
- TOH
- specific conductance
- OVA measurements
SITE-SPECIFIC SAMPLING
Detailed Site Investigation
• Monitoring well networks
• Aquifer tests
• Time series sampling
• Soil and waste characterization
EXPERIENCE BASED
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Detailed Site Investigation
• Not a "check the box" solution
• Start the search with the most
favorable technologies
• Need for intelligent deductions
1-11
-------
TREATABILITY STUDIES
Detailed Site Investigation
• Specifically tailored to problem
to improve the decision making process
• Discussed in detail in next session
ASSESSMENT OF TRADE-OFFS
• Time vs. Cost
• Treatment vs. Other options
PILOT TESTS
Issues of scale
Batch vs. continuous
1-12
-------
SITE REMEDIATION
Implementation of the selected remedy
TECHNOLOGY-BASED APPROACH
• A priori identification of
"applicable" technologies
• Go/no-go assessment
• Decision making
• Pilot operations
• Remediation
COPPER RECOVERY BY FLOTATION
1-13
-------
DESIGN OF
UNITED SCRAP LEAD
TREATMENT PROCESS
USL SOIL TREATMENT
CONCEPTUAL FLOWSHEET
errsm
MR.
ante*
1-14
-------
TREAT ABILITY STUDIES
AND DATA
QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Abstract 2-2
Slides 2-8
2-1
-------
TREATABILITY STUDIES AND DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Jonathan Herrmann
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. EPA
Cincinnati, OH
DEFINING TREATABILITY STUDIES
Treatability studies are laboratory or field tests designed to provide critical data
needed to evaluate and, ultimately, to implement one or more treatment technologies.
These studies generally involve characterizing untreated waste and evaluating the
performance of the technology under different operating conditions. These results may
be qualitative or quantitative, depending on the level of treatability tests. Factors
that influence the type or level of testing needs include: phase of the project [e.g.,
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) or remedial design/remedial action
(RD/RA)], technology-specific factors, and site-specific factors.
• Treatability studies conducted during the RI/FS to support remedy selection
are generally used to determine whether the technology can achieve the
anticipated Record of Decision (ROD) goals and to provide information to
support the nine evaluation criteria to the extent possible.
• Treatability studies to support remedy implementation during RD are
generally used to verify that the technology can achieve the ROD goals,
optimize design and operating conditions necessary to ensure performance, and
improve cost estimates.
LEVEL OF TREATABILITY STUDIES
Treatability studies should be performed in a systematic fashion to ensure that the
data generated can support the remedy evaluation and implementation process. A
well-designed treatability study can significantly reduce the overall uncertainty
associated with the decision, but cannot guarantee that the chosen alternative will be
completely, successful. Care must be exercised to ensure that the treatability study is
representative of the treatment as it will be employed (e.g., sample is representative of
waste to be treated) to minimize the uncertainty in the decision. The method presented
below provides a resource-effective means for evaluating one or more technologies.
There are three levels of tiers of treatability studies: laboratory screening,
bench-scale testing, and pilot-scale testing. Some or all of the levels may be needed on
a case-by-case basis. The need for and the level of treatability testing required are
management decisions in which the time and cost necessary to perform the testing are
balanced against the risks inherent in the decision (e.g., selection of a treatment
alternative). These decisions are based on the quantity and quality of data available
and on other decision factors (e.g., State and Community acceptance of the remedy,
new site data). The flow diagram for the tiered approach in Figure 1 traces the
stepwise review of study data and the decision points and factors to be considered.
2-2
-------
Rgure i. Row diagram of the tiered approach.
Laboratory screening is the first level of testing. It is used to establish the
validity of a technology to treat a waste. These studies are generally low cost
(e.g., $10K-50K) and usually require hours to days to complete. They yield
data that can be used as indicators of a technology's potential to meet
performance goals and can identify operating standards for investigation
during bench- or pilot-scale testing. They generate little, if any, design or
cost data and generally are not used as the sole basis for selection of a remedy.
Bench-scale testing is the second level of testing. It is used to identify the
technology's performance on a waste-specific basis for an operable unit.
These studies generally are of moderate cost (e.g., $50K-250K) and may
require days to weeks to complete. They yield data that verify that the
technology can meet expected cleanup goals and can provide information in
support of the detailed analysis of the alternative (i.e., the nine evaluation
criteria).
Pilot-scale testing is the third level of testing. It is used to provide
quantitative performance, cost, and design information for remediating an
operable unit. This level of testing also can produce data required to optimize
performance. These studies are of moderate to high cost (e.g., $250K-1,OOOK)
and may require weeks to months to complete. They yield data that verify
performance to a higher degree than the bench-scale and provide detailed
design information. They are most often performed during the remedy
implementation phase of a site cleanup, although this level may be appropriate
to support the remedy evaluation of innovative technologies.
2-3
-------
Technologies generally are evaluated first at the laboratory screening level and
progress through the bench-scale to the pilot-scale testing level. A technology may
enter, however, at whatever level is appropriate based on available data on the
technology and site-specific factors. For example, a technology that has been studied
extensively may not warrant laboratory screening to determine whether it has the
potential to work. Rather, it may go directly to bench-scale testing to verify that
performance standards can be met.
DETERMINING THE NEED FOR TREATABILITY STUDIES
Treatability studies for remedy evaluation and implementation represent good
engineering practice. The determination of the need for and the appropriate level of a
treatability study(ies) required is dependent on site-specific factors, the literature
information available on the technology, and technical expert judgement. The latter
two elements—the literature search and expert consultation—are critical factors in
determining if adequate data are available or whether a treatability study is needed to
provide those data. Figure 2 provides a decision tree for treatability studies in the
RI/FS. Additional studies may not be needed if previous studies or actual
implementation have encompassed essentially identical site conditions. The data and
information on which this decision is based should be documented. Given the lack of
full-scale experience with innovative technologies, pilot-scale testing will generally be
necessary in support of remedy selection and implementation.
EVALUATE EXISTING
SITE DATA
IDENTIFY APPLICABLE
TECHNOLOGIES
SEARCH LITERATURE
TO DETERMINE
DATA NEEDS
DATA
ADEQUATE TO
SCREEN OR EVALUATE
ALTERNATIVES?
CONDUCT
TREATABUTY STUDY
DETAILED ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVES
MANAGEMENT DEOSION FACTORS: I
StUondConvnunSyAccaplanc
RPCoaddMrtkMit
SCntOUW COftCttMflRS
Figure 2. Decision tree showing when treatability studies are needed
to support the evaluation and selection of an alternative.
2-4
-------
SUPERFUND PROCESS - TIMING OF TREATABILITY STUDIES
Treatability studies should be planned and implemented as soon as it is evident that
insufficient information is available in the literature to support the decision necessary
for remedy selection or implementation. Treatability testing of technologies may begin
during the scoping phase, the initial phases of site characterization and technology
screening, and continue through the RI/FS and into the RD/RA to support remedy
implementation. Additional treatability studies of alternative technologies or
treatment trains also may be needed later in the RI/FS process as other promising
remedial alternatives are identified.
For many site types, initial data are available to identify potentially applicable
technologies early during the scoping phase of the RI/FS for all or parts of the site. In
those cases, the literature search, the planning, and the implementation of the
treatability study can proceed. The planning of the studies should coincide with the
scoping of the RI/FS to the extent practicable to ensure that data are gathered during
the RI to support the technologies and associated treatability studies.
Similarly, treatability studies to support the remedy implementation also should be
conducted as early in the RD as appropriate. As with the RI/FS treatability study,
additional technology-specific site characterization data may be needed to aid in the
design and implementation of the study.
TREATABILITY STUDY GOALS
Each level of treatability study requires appropriate performance goals. These
goals should be specified before the test is conducted. The goals may need to be
reassessed to determine appropriateness following testing performance as a result of
new information (e.g., ARARs), treatment train considerations or other factors.
Pre-ROD treatability study goals will usually be based on the anticipated performance
standards to be established in the ROD. This is because cleanup criteria are not
finalized until the ROD is signed due to continuing analyses and ARARs
determinations. The treatability goals should consider the following factors
independently or in combination:
• Levels that are protective of human health and the environment (e.g., contact,
ingestion, leaching) if treated waste is left unmanaged or is managed;
• Levels that are in compliance with ARARs, including the land disposal
restrictions;
• Levels that ensure a reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume;
• Levels acceptable for delisting of the waste; and
• Levels set by the State or Regional for another site with contaminated media
with similar characteristics and contaminants.
2-5
-------
Further, the program has as the treatment goal and expectatipn that treatment
technologies and/or treatment trains generally achieve a 90 percent or greater
reduction in the concentration or mobility of individual contaminants of concern. This
goal complements the site-specific risk-based goals. There will be situations where
reductions outside this range that achieve health-based or other site-specific
remediation goals, may be appropriate. Treatment technologies should be designed and
operated such that they achieve reductions beyond the target level indicated to ensure
that the stated goals are achieved consistently.
Laboratory screening of treatability study goals allows for a go/no-go decision.
For example, the goal may be a 50 percent reduction in mobility which would indicate
the potential to achieve greater reduction (e.g., 90 percent) through additional
refinement of the study. The achievement of this goal might indicate the advisability
of expending additional resources on a bench-scale test to obtain a more definitive
evaluation of the technology. Bench- and pilot-scale testing goals are those needed to
select and/or implement the technology. For example, the bench-scale testing goal for
solidification/stabilization could be to achieve a 90 percent or greater reduction in
mobility of the principal constituents. In addition, the goals for the bench- or
pilot-scale studies also may involve multiple waste treatment levels—the performance
of which dictates the ultimate disposition of the waste (i.e., clean closure or landfill
closure).
Post-ROD treatability study goals should reflect those performance standards
specified in the ROD. They should also be achieved in the most resource-efficient
manner.
CERCLIS
Treatability studies are coded in CERCLIS under the event code "TS" that provides
for separate event coding for each treatability study for a given site. This allows for
multiple treatability studies with separate funding (e.g., Federal-, State-, or
Responsible Party-lead treatability studies).
PERFORMANCE OF TREATABILITY STUDIES
Fund-lead treatability studies generally will be conducted through the REM or
ARCS contractors or their sub-contractors or contractors working for States. A list of
vendors that have expressed interest in performing treatability studies has been
complied in the Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors." A preliminary draft copy is
scheduled for distribution in January 1990. Companies on this list should be notified of
requests for proposals (RFPs) for treatability studies in accordance with the Federal
Acquisition Regulations.
Enforcement-lead treatability studies generally will be accomplished through the
RP contractor. There may be exceptions to this where the complexity of the site
requires alternative options (e.g., State- or Federal-lead treatability studies for all or
part of a site). The planning and performance of the study should be directed by the
Region to ensure that the study results in the type and quality of data needed to support
the decision.
It may be advisable to have indepedent reviews of the treatability study performed
particularly when innovative technologies are being considered.
2-6
-------
TREATABILITY STUDY PROTOCOLS
Treatability studies need to be carefully planned to ensure that sufficient data of
known, documented, and appropriate quality are generated to support the decision. The
site-specific treatability study protocol is outlined in the Work Plan and the Sampling
and Analysis Plan. These plans should, among other things, clearly describe: the
experimental design, the treatability study goals, the Quality Assurance Project Plan,
data management and interpretation, and reporting.
The treatability study work assignment is to require that the treatability study be
developed in accordance with Agency guidance, factoring in literature, site-specific
information, and expert consultation. The "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA" provides a general approach for treatability studies and provides a
protocol for the preparation of the Work Assignment, Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis
Plan, Health and Safety Plan, and the Community Relations Plan. The Agency also is
developing a number of technology-specific treatability guidances which should be
followed; the first of these on soil washing is scheduled to be issued in the second
quarter of FY 1990. For more information on these documents, and other sources of
treatability study information, contact Dave Smith at FTS/684-7957 or com.
(513) 569-7957. Site-specific technical assistance is available to regional personnel by
contacting Dave Smith at the aforementioned telephone numbers.
TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT
The Agency has initiated an effort to ensure the consistency of treatability study
reports and to provide a central repository of treatability studies to facilitate
information dissemination. The "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under
CERCLA" contains a standard report format that is to be followed for all treatability
study reports. All work assignments and consent decrees are to contain a statement
requiring that documents be developed in accordance with Agency policy.
Further, all Funding-lead and enforcement-lead over-sight treatability work
assignments are to include a provision requiring that a camera-ready master copy of
the treatability study report be sent to the following address:
Attn: KenDostal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Treatability Data Base
ORD/RREL
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Information contained in these reports will be available through the Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC). For more information on ATTIC
please call FTS 382-5747 or com. 202/382-5747. (See Section 9 for more information
on databases).
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Literature information and consultation with experts are critical factors in
determining the need for and ensuring the usefulness of treatability studies. A
reference list of sources on treatability studies is provided in the "Guide for Conducting
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA.
2-7
-------
ORGANIZATION OF
PRESENTATION
Overview of treatability studies
Protocol for conducting treatability
studies
Sources of treatability information
REQUIREMENT FOR ACTION
"To evaluate the application of treatment technologies
to particular sites, it is essential to conduct
laboratory or pilot-scale tests on actual wastes from
the site, including, if needed and feasible, tests of
actual operating units prior to remedy selection.
These 'treatability tests' are not currently being
performed at many sites to the necessary extent, or
their quality is not adequate to support reliable
decisions."
From: A Management review of the Superfund
Program. U.S. EPA. 1989.
OVERVEW OF
TREATABHJTY STUDES
2-8
-------
TREATABILITY STUDIES
The testing of a remedial alternative
in the laboratory or field to obtain
data necessary for a detailed evaluation
of its feasibility
REMEDY SELECTION CRITERIA
• Overall protection of Human Health
and the Environment (HHE)
• Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
• Implementability
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
REMEDY SELECTION CRITERIA
(continued)
• Short-term effectiveness
• Cost
• Long-term effectiveness
• State acceptance
• Community acceptance
2-9
-------
TIERS OF TREAT ABILITY TESTING
• Laboratory screening
• Bench-scale testing
• Pilot-scale testing
The Role of Treatabffity Studies
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) '
Identification
of Alternatives
Site
Characterization
and Technology
Screening
Record of Remedial Design/
• Decision •<- Remedial Action -
(ROD) (RD/RA)
Remedy
Selection
Evaluation
of Alternatives
Laboratory Screening to
Validate Technology
Implementation
of Remedy
Bench-Seal* Testing to
Develop Performance Data
Pilot-Scale Testing to
Develop Performance,
Cost, and Design Data
I
2-10
-------
WHEN TREATABIUTY STUDIES ARE NEEDED
Evaluate Existing
Sit* Data
Identify Applicable
Technologies
Search Literature
to Determine
Data Needs
Data
Adequate to
Screen or Evaluate
Alternatives?
Conduct
Treatabllity Study
Detailed Analysis
of Alternatives
Management
Decision Factors
-State and community
acceptance
-RP considerations
-Schedule constraints
-Additional site or
technology data
LABORATORY SCREEMNQ
Jar Tests or Beaker Studies
Performed in the Laboratory
• Relatively low costs
• Short time to perform
• Low levels of quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QCJ
• Qualitative performance data
• No design or cost information
2-11
-------
Bench-Top Studies Performed
in Laboratory or Field
• Moderate costs
• Moderate amounts of time to perform
* Moderate to high levels of QA/QC
• Quantitative performance data
• Some design and cost information
PLOT-SCALE TESTING
Plot-Plant Studies
Performed in the Field
High costs
Long amounts of time to perform
Moderate to high levels of QA/QC
Quantitative performance data
Detailed design, cost and
optimization information
MANAGEMENT DECISION FACTORS
• State and community acceptance
• Responsible party considerations
• Schedule constraints
• Additional site or technology data
2-12
-------
kHONS
SPECIAL
• Unit operations for
innovative technologies
• Treatment trains
• In-situ treatment technolgies
TREAT ABILITY STUDIES
• Aid in the selection of
the remedy
• Aid in the implementation
of the selected remedy
PROTOCOL FOR CONDUCTING
TREATABUJTY STUDIES
2-13
-------
PROTOCOL
• Establishing data quality objectives
• Selecting a contracting mechanism
• Issuing the work plan
• Preparing the work plan
• Preparing the sampling and
analysis plan
PROTOCOL
(continued)
• Preparing the health and safety plan
• Conducting community relations
activities
• Complying with regulatory requirements
* Executing the study
• Analyzing and interpreting the data
• Reporting the results
DATA QUALITY
OBJECTIVES
2-14
-------
DATA OUAUTY
A measure or description of
the types and amounts of error
associated with a data set
DQOs
Are qualitative and quantitative
statements of the data quality
needed to support decisions
for regulatory actions
PURPOSE OF DQOs
• Establish an appropriate level of
control over errors
(that are controllable)
• Obtain sufficient information to
describe all known sources of error
(to the extent possible)
2-15
-------
(L
4
-o
DATA SET QUALITY
CHARACTERISTICS
• Precision (P)
• Accuracy (A)
• Representativeness (R)
• Completeness (C)
• Comparability
DQO DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
• Stage 1 Decision maker input
• Stage 2 Problem clarification
• Stage 3 Alternatives development
and approach selection
• Stage 3+ Data collection detailed
design
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LEVELS
Level I
• Field screening or portable instruments
• Usually not compound-specific
• Not quantifiable
• Indication of contamination presence
• Few QA/QC requirements
2-16
-------
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LEVELS
Level 0
• Portable instruments or mobile laboratory
• Organics by GC
• Inorganics by AA. ICP. or XRF
• Detection levels vary from ppm to ppb
• Tentative identification of compounds
• Limited mostly to volatile organics & metals
• Moderate QA/QC
* Data typically in concentration ranges
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LEVELS
Level ID
• Organics/inorganics in off site laboratory
• May use CLP procedures
• May use CLP laboratory
- • Tentative compound identification
in some cases
• Detection limits similar to CLP
• Rigorous QA/QC
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LEVELS
Level IV
• HSL organics/inorganics by GC/MS. AA.
ICP, HPLC
• Low ppb detection limits
• Tentative ID of non-HSL parameters
• Validation may take several weeks
• Goal is data of known quality
• Rigorous QA/QC
2-17
-------
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LEVELS
Level V
• Analysis by nonstandard methods
• May require method development/modification
• Method specific detection limits
* Probably require special lead time
• Method-specific data quality
SELECTMG A CONTRACTWG
REM and ARCS contracts
Technical assistance and
support contracts
Request for proposals
THE WORK ASSIGNMENT
(By EPA)
• Background
• Test objectives
• Approach
• Reporting requirements
-Deliverables
-Monthly reports
• Schedule
• Level of effort
2-18
-------
PREPARING THE WORK PLAN
(By Contractor)
• Project description
• Remedial technology description
• Test objectives
• Experimental design and procedures
• Equipment and materials
• Sampling and analysis
• Data management
• Data analysis and interpretation
PREPARING THE WORK PLAN
(By Contractor)
• Health and safety
• Residuals management
• Community relations
• Reports
• Schedule
• Management and staffing
• Budget
PREPARING THE SAMPLING
AND ANALYSIS PLAN
Reid sampling plan
Quality assurance project plan
2-19
-------
PREPARING THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY PLAN
• Hazard analysis
• Employee training
• Personal protective equipment
• Medical surveillance
• Personnel and environmental monitoring
PREPARMG THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY PLAN
(continued)
• Site control measures
• Decontamination procedures
• Emergency response plan
• Confined-space entry procedures
• Spill containment program
CONDUCING COMMUNITY RELATIONS
ACTIVITIES
• Overview community relations plan
• Capsule site description
• Community background
• Community relations program highlights
• Community relations activities & timing
• Contact list of key community leaders
• Suggested locations meetings & information
2-20
-------
COMPLYING WITH
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
• Volume of waste to be tested
* Availability mobile lab or treatment
• Site accessibility and restrictions
• Availability of onsite utilities
• Mobilization/demobilization & per diem costs
• Duration of tests
• State and community acceptance
Introduction
• Site description and history
• Waste stream matrices and pollutants
• Remedial technology treatment process
and operating features
• Previous treatability studies at site
• Conclusions and recommendations
Treatabffity Study Approach
• Test objectives and rationale
• Experimental design and procedures
• Equipment and materials
• Sampling and analysis
-Waste stream
-Treatment process
• Data management
• Deviations from the work plan
2-21
-------
REPORTING Tffi RESULTS
Results and Discussion
• Data analysis and interpretation
-Waste stream characteristics
-Treatability study data
-Comparison to test objectives
• Residuals management
* Quality assuance/quality control
• Costs/schedule for performing
the treatability study
* Key contacts
OF TREATABILITY
INFORMATION
• Reports, documents, guidance
• Electronic data bases
• EPA personnel
2-22
-------
MATERIALS HANDLING
INCLUDING DEBRIS
SEPARATION AND
DECONTAMINATION
Abstract 3-2
Slides 3-9
3-1
-------
MATERIALS HANDLING, DEBRIS SEPARATION AND DECONTAMINATION
Richard P. Traver James H. Nash
Chapman, Inc. Chapman, Inc.
Freehold, New Jersey Freehold, New Jersey
Recent figures on the number of hazardous waste sites in the United States
indicate that there are approximately 22,000-24,000 uncontrolled/CERCLA sites, 3,000
RCRA-permitted treatment/storage/disposal sites, another 10,000 locations where
hazardous wastes are currently generated but not treated, stored, or disposed, and 2 to
5 million underground storage tanks of which it is estimated that 25 percent are leaking.
The policy of the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),
which is responsible for implementing the 1984 Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment
(HSWA) requirements, is to discourage the excavation and reburial "disposal" philosophy
for CERCLA waste and debris. Instead, OSWER encourages the use of on-site
technologies to eliminate or reduce the hazardous character of the waste materials,
since on-site treatment achieves more positive control than containment. In the
future, off-site disposal to engineered and protected landfills will only be allowed when
no destruction technology is available, or for "pretreated" soil and debris materials
complying Best Demonstrated Available Treatment (BOAT) levels, as promulgated
under the impending 1988 Land Ban legislation.
, This body of legislation has created a pressing need for more economical and
effective technologies to detoxify material at existing hazardous waste sites. As
landfills continue to close, disposal becomes more expensive and as hazardous waste
transportation is more stringently regulated, on-site waste destruction or volumetric
reduction technologies is becoming far more desirable, providing that technologically
feasible, environmentally safe, and economically viable treatment systems can be
developed.
In order to destroy or reduce the hazardous character of any contaminated
material, any treatment technology selected must receive a "feedstock" having a
predetermined range of physical/chemical characteristics in order to assure reliable
treatment efficiencies and cost-effectiveness. The types of contaminated materials
identified and discussed in Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) reports are
primarily soils, sludges, and liquids. The debris component was previously an issue in
remediation if the contaminated matrix consisted primarily of a mixture of materials
fl.e., building demolition debris or sanitary landfill wastes, such as household trash and
garbage). On a Superfund site, such materials may be small in volume but may be the
cause of all of the process upsets to a treatment system. Current practice involves the
time-consuming task of individual decisions regarding the separation of potentially
damaging materials. The land disposal rules enacted in November 1988, addresses the
disposition of feedstock and site debris, as well as contaminated soil, under the Land
Ban legislation.
TYPES OF MATERIALS
In order to identify likely feedstock handling problems as applied to feedstock
preparation systems, a statistical sample of the 888 NPL sites was studied. This sample
was surveyed for the types and sizes of solids contamination, the presence of sludges,
the presence of free liquids, and the presence of sediments. The results of this survey
3-2
-------
are summarized in Figure 1, (see page 3-9) which shows the frequency of occurrence of
these classes of materials. This sample is representative of NPL wastes sites.
However, these NPL sites are significantly biased in their emphasis on the liquid phase,
which is a significant criterion for inclusion on the NPL list. The results shown in
Figure 1 should not be considered representative of the total national population of
waste sites. Analysis of these sites indicates that groundwater and/or surface water
contamination was present at almost all sites.
The most important site variable affecting handling of materials of the type found
on Superfund sites appears to be moisture content, which drastically affects the gross
physical properties of the waste. The moisture content of raw municipal waste varies
considerably from the sludge effluent of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
to relatively dry household garbage. The moisture content of the NPL site waste
materials likewise varied from free liquids in ponds, as found at the Saco Tannery Waste
Pits site, to the dry paniculate dusts of the Iron Bound Area dioxin sites.
The four most common material types found at Superfund sites were soils, sludges,
municipal solid waste, and free liquids. Soil contamination was the result of both
placement of the contaminant directly on the soil and the placement of soil material
over a contaminated site, as would occur in the closing of a lagoon. Sludges of both
industrial and municipal origin were co-deposited with soil material in many cases. In
addition, sludges were often found to be applied to municipal solid wastes. The
defluidization of the sludges led to contamination of other materials. Due to this
mixing of contaminated and noncontaminated materials, contaminated material types
found at NPL sites cover a wide range of sizes and concentrations of contaminants.
SUPERFUND SITE DEBRIS
Debris is commonly defined as out-of-specification material which cannot be
handled by a given treatment system and may, in fact, damage the processing
equipment. Debris defined in this sense (i.e., on the basis of treatability) does not
necessarily imply a separation based on level of contamination. For instance, oversized
debris may or may not require remedial treatment by alternate technologies or special
pretreatment.
Specific items of solid debris and contaminated materials found at Superfund sites
vary considerably in nature, but most can be grouped into the following nine general
categories:
• Cloth.
• Glass.
3-3
-------
Metals (ferrous/nonferrous).
Paper.
Plastic.
Rubber.
Wood.
Construction/demolition materials (e.g., concrete, brick, asphalt).
Electronic/electrical devices.
In addition to the wide range of debris types, the quantity of debris at sites also
varies considerably. It was "unofficially" estimated in the above survey that debris at
site varies on a volumetric basis from less than 1 percent to greater than 80 percent.
The larger volume occurs at sites where demolition debris or sanitary landfill wastes
have been disposed along with hazardous materials.
A preliminary assessment of each of the six mobile on-site treatment technologies
was conducted to determine the maximum size of debris and material that could be
subjected to the treatment process. An examination of the six mobile treatment
technologies discussed herein indicated that all could generally accept 1-in. and smaller
materials. There is, however, considerable variation in the acceptable range of feed
material sizes for each specific technology. For instance, within the category of
incineration, fluidized-bed incineration requires that the feed particle size be
approximately the same as the bed particle size for optimum performance, while rotary
kilns may, in principle, accept material sizes up to the kiln's diameter. Since the feed
size for a given on-site treatment unit must be tailored to provide the requisite particle
diameter, debris is a relative term.
TABLE 1. DEBRIS SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR MOBILE ON-SITE TREATMENT
Maximum debris size Technology
1-2 1n. Biological Degradation
l/2-1n. Chemical Treatment (K-PEG)
effective 6 1n. Incineration
l/4-1n. Low-Temperature Desorptlon
2 In. Physical Treatment (Soil Hashing)
l/4-1n. Sol1d1f1cation/Stabilization
Debris larger than the maximum allowable size must be segregated from the
feedstock material and handled separately. This oversized material must then either be
treated independently or reduced in size in order to meet the feedstock specifications
of the on-site treatment equipment. A common problem encountered at NPL sites is
the determination of representative average contamination levels on large debris, such
as stone, wood pallets, automobiles, and buildings.
A common operational problem in on-site remedial actions is material management
to produce a uniform feedstock from nonhomogeneous site materials. The preliminary
information collected on debris indicates that current handling procedures at hazardous
waste sites range from "elaborate separation and recycling" to "no separation."
Following site remediation, processed material and debris is either (1) sent for ultimate
disposal in a secure landfill; (2) decontaminated to levels allowing disposal in a
municipal landfill; (3) used as material for construction foundation bedding; (4) recycled
as a recoverable resource; or (5) "delisting" on-site to a nonhazardous status.
3-4
-------
Historically, the selection of material-handling practices has been determined by
the following factors:
Technology feedstock requirement.
Type of contamination.
Type of debris (size, shape, phase, form, Btu and recycling value).
Quality of debris (percentage by volume or weight).
"Clean-up" standards or target levels. (Federal, state, local, private).
Potential for decontamination of the debris.
Once contaminated debris has been separated from the hazardous waste material
undergoing treatment, it must either be disposed in a secure landfill, stored for future
approved treatment (i.e., dioxin-contaminated material), or decontaminated. The
determination that debris is contaminated is generally an assumption that is made with
little or no analytical testing. In some instances, monitoring devices, such as an
HNU/Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) or a Geiger counter are utilized to determine if a
particular material is contaminated with volatile organic compounds or is radioactive.
Decontamination of debris is possible for contaminants that can be recovered by
aqueous washing, either through solution or physical separation. Soluble contaminants
can be washed, rinsed, or otherwise surface cleaned or removed when associated
contaminated soil is cleaned off. Insoluble and inorganic (heavy metal) contaminated
fine soil material can sometimes be successfully separated from debris by high-pressure
washing or vibratory separation, allowing the oversized material to be disposed of
safely. Some contaminants, such as dioxin, are not generally considered to be
candidates for decontamination. These compounds are sent to interim storage to await
either incineration or alternate approved treatment. Impervious debris, such as steel,
brass, and copper, are generally surface decontaminated and recycled, when possible.
Due to its type, form, or surface area, most debris cannot be subjected to current or
proposed testing procedures (EP-TOX [Extraction Procedure Toxicity Testing], TWA
[Total Waste Analysis], and TCLP [Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure]) to
determine if it is hazardous. Such determinations are generally made by consensus
among the participating regulatory parties at the Regional, state, and local levels.
Debris that is determined to be nonhazardous can be disposed of as industrial or
municipal waste in a sanitary landfill. Debris that is deemed hazardous by the
regulatory parties involved must then be incinerated, decontaminated, or otherwise
disposed of in a secure landfill.
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS
This investigation found that the costs of pretreatment of hazardous material were
several times the cost of treating similar, uncontaminated materials. These cost
differences were principally due to differences in material handling procedures, safety
requirements, dust and vapor control, and process equipment used and, to a lesser
extent, differences in the properties of the material being processed.
Materials processed at hazardous waste sites are in many respects similar to those
from nonhazardous sites. Differences are principally the variability of material sizes
encountered. In most instances, there is no change in gross physical properties due to a
change in the concentration of a specific compound significantly affecting the
operation of feedstock preparation equipment. The gumbo sediments in a creosote-
3-5
-------
contaminated bayou can be as effectively processed as the naturally organic-rich
sediment occurring in an adjacent bayou. Differences, such as increased adhesion due
to oil and grease in sand, can normally be tolerated by process equipment. In practice,
differences occur, principally as a result of operational changes caused by the presence
of hazardous material.
Material processing in its simplest form requires (1) excavation; (2) movement to
the treatment process; and (3) movement from the treatment process to disposal or
further treatment. Each of these operations must be modified to accommodate the
presence of hazardous material.
When working with nonhazardous materials, equipment operators were less
constrained by material placement, permitting faster excavation with the same
equipment. Nonhazardous materials are generally excavated using larger equipment
that discharges materials in a less controlled fashion. These observations hold true
within specific layers and at specific depths of excavation.
Dust, vapor, and airborne emission control has been virtually nonexistent at
nonhazardous material sites. Health and safety concerns related to the contaminants'
toxicity also led to the adoption of slow and careful excavation practices at hazardous
material sites. In general, health and safety concerns required continuous, careful
documentation of the procedures, quantities, and disposition of materials throughout
the on-site treatment process at hazardous material sites, thereby increasing costs
greatly.
«
There are many types of site remediation activities related to excavation that
result in fugitive dust and vapor emissions. Every unit process that is applied to the
contaminated materials on a removal/remediation site may be a potential source of
these emissions. These activities include:
Soil, sludge, or sediment excavation
Sludge/sediment dredging
Soil, sludge, or sediment loading
On-site/off-site transport
On-site staging/stockpiling
General site vehicular traffic
Inactive face of an excavation
Long-term stockpiling/storage on-site
Processing of soil for on-site treatment
Intrusive site/remedial investigation or design phase sampling activities.
Unit operations that may require dust and vapor controls are discussed in the
following subsections.
Soil. Sludge, or Sediment Excavation
Soil, sludge, or sediment is typically excavated using heavy equipment such as:
• Backhoe
• Front-end loader
• Bulldozer
• Crane with dragline or clamshell.
3-6
-------
Dust and vapor emission points include:
• Equipment tracks/tires
• Newly exposed excavation face
• Newly excavated soil equipment bucket.
The selection of excavating equipment and the choice of operational technique
clearly affect the fugitive emission generation source points, the rates of emissions,
and the surface areas that might have to be controlled by suppression technologies.
At times, it may be necessary to stockpile contaminated soil on site for extended
periods of time. An uncovered soil stockpile represents a potential dust and vapor
emission source due to the action of wind and diffusion of vapors to the surface of the
stockpile. The emission rate is likely to be initially higher than that for the original
in-place soils because it has been recently disturbed and is likely to be more loosely
compacted.
While this operation is not directly associated with excavation, greater emphasis is
now being placed on on-site treatment. Many on-site treatment technologies, such as
rotary kiln incineration, require some preliminary treatment and handling steps before
treatment. These operations may include:
Soil screening
Rock crushing
Conveyor belts
Feed/storage hoppers
Shredding.
In the planning stage, it is important to be aware that unit operations unrelated to
excavation are also sources of potential dust and vapor emissions.
Table 2, shown on page 3-27, presents examples of practical decontamination-
methods for debris and structural materials.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR DEBRIS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashley, K.C., "PCB Decontamination of Fire Fighter Turnout Gear" (Pre-Publication
Report), prepared for the International ASTM Symposium on the Performance of
Protective Clothing, prepared by Quadrex HPS, Inc., Gainsville, FL, July 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Interim Report - Investigation of Feedstock
Preparation and Handling for Mobile On-Site Treatment Technologies," prepared by
Roy F. Weston, Leonardo, NJ, U.S. EPA Contract Number 68-03-3450, December 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HWERL, "Predicting the Effectiveness of
Chemical-Protective Clothing: Model and Test Method Development,"
EPA/600/S2-86/055, Cincinnati, OH.
3-7
-------
Cullinane, J., "Evaluating the Use of Freon 113th for Decontaminating Protective
Garmets," prepared for Mary Stinson, U.S. EPA WERL, Cincinnati, OH, June 1984.
Ehntholt, D., and D. Cerundolo, "Evaluation of Decontamination Agents and Methods
for Removing Contaminants from Protective Clothing - Phase I Report," prepared for
Michael D. Royer, U.S. EPA, HWERL, Edison, N.J., prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
Cambridge, MA, EPA Contract Number 68-03-3293, undated,.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guide for Decontaminating Buildings,
Structures and Equipment at Superfund Sites," EPA/600/2-85/104, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EERL, "Project Summary - Development and
Assessment of Methods for Estimating Protective Clothing Performance,"
EPA/600/S2-87/104, January 1988.
Mathamel, M., CIH, "An Industrial Hygiene Program for Hazardous Waste Treatment
Plant," Superfund '88 - Proceedings of the 9th National Conference, prepared by CDM
Federal Programs Corporation, Fairfax, VA, undated.
Offutt, C., "The Impact of Land Disposal Restrictions on Superfund Response Actions,"
Superfund '88 - Proceedings of the 9th National Conference, prepared by U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, undated.
Stinson, M., "Decontamination Techniques for Mobile Response Equipment Used at
Waste Sites," PB85-247-021, prepared for the 14th Annual Research Symposium on
Land Disposal, Remedial Action, Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Waste, July
1988, U.S. EPA, HWERL, undated.
Taylor, M, Ph.D. and N. Barkley, "Decontamination of Structures and Debris at
Superfund Sites," Superfund '88 - Proceedings of the 9th National Conference, prepared
by PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, OH and U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH, undated.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HWERL, 'Transportable Dust and Vapor
Suppression Technologies for Excavating Contaminated Soils, Sludges, and Sediments,"
DRAFT Report, EPA Contract Number 68-03-3450, May 1988.
3-8
-------
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
Debris separation and segregation
Debris decontamination
Feedstock preparation
MATERIALS HANDLING/SEPARATION
Debris and trash may be typically a
small component of the material
requiring treatment on-site._
...but this small component may
cause the majority of the process
operation problems and "upsets"
Classification of Superfund sites
70
GO
50
40
30
20
10
0
Legend
Uq-Uquld
Gw-Gnundwater
Sw-Surface water
Lag-Lagoons
Sand-Sand
Sol-Sol
8ed-8edbnent
BUg-Bufldnos
Tanks-Large storage tanks
LJq Gw Sw Lag Sand Soil Sed Msw Bldg Tanks
Material-type
3-9
-------
Size/Moisture Continuum of
NPL Site Materials
Phases
GENERAL PROCESS SCHEME
GENERAL PROCESS SCHEME
Son pretreatment
•Dry screening to remove large objects
-Metal removal
-Crushing to size material
-Wet screening to separate sized material
Mixing and extraction
-Transfer contaminants to extraction fluid
-Detach fine particles from coarse particles
(1 of 4)
3-10
-------
GENERAL PROCESS SCHEME
• Separation of coarse soil
-Separate cleaned coarser soil from
extraction fluid and fine soil particles
(fine sand, silt, and clay)
• Soil posttreatment
-Rinsing to remove contaminants
-Dewatering
(2 01 4)
GENERAL PROCESS SCHEME
Separation of fine particles
-Separate fine particles from extraction
fluid and finer particles that can't
be cleaned or easily separated
Fine particles posttreatment
-Secondary extraction
-Rinsing to remove contaminants
-Dewatering
(3 of 4)
GENERAL PROCESS SCHEME
• Treatment of extraction fluid
-Remove contaminants
-Discharge fraction/recycle remainder
-Add chemicals
(4 of 4)
3-11
-------
SIZE REDUCTION EQUIPMENT
• Primary crushers
-jaw crushers
-gyratory crushers
• Secondary crushers
-hammer mills
-roll crushers
-cone crushers
SCREENING EQUIPMENT
Solid-Solid; Liquid-Solid Separation
• Grizzly (coarse particles)
• Sieve bend
• Trommel (revolving screen)
• Vibrating
• Shaking
• Rotary
CLASSIFICATION EQUIPMENT
Size Separation via Settling Rate
• Sedimentation tank
• Lamella thickener
• Elutriator (upflow classifier)
• Inclined spiral classifier
• Hydrocyclone
• Centrifuge
3-12
-------
GRAVITY CONCENTRATION
EQUIPMENT
Separation via Density
• Shaking table
• Dense medium cyclone
FLOTATION
Separation via Surface Properties
• Solid-solid separation
• Solid-liquid separation
• Liquid-liquid separation
DEWATERING
Solid - Liquid Separation
• Thickening (40-60% solids)
• Filtration (75-90% solids)
• Centrifugation (75-90% solids)
3-13
-------
MIXING AND EXTRACTION DEVICES
Vigorous Action to Separate Contaminants
and Soil Particles From Each Other
• Impellers
-Propellers
-Turbine
• Water knife (60 psig)
• High pressure jet pipe
(5000 psig water)
* Low frequency vibration unit
TREATMENT OF EXTRACTION FLUID
• Metal precipitation
• Concentration/separation
of contaminants
-Coagulation
-Flocculation
-Thickening
-De watering
• Polishing for discharge
-Ion exchange
-Activated carbon
-Microfiltration
Remove
j—1*_
oeons
I
Feedstock
preparation
^^
Treatment
technology
Decontaminate
3-14
-------
DEBRIS IDENTIFICATION
Cloth
- Rags
- Tarps
- Mattresses
Glass
- Bottles
- (white, brown, green,
clear, blue)
Windows
Ferrous Metals
- Cast Iron
- Tin cans
- Slag
Nonferrous Metals
- Stainless steel
- Aluminum
- Brass
- Copper
- Slag
Metal Objects
- Autos/vehicles
- 55-gallon drums/containers
- Refrigerators
- Tanks/gas cylinders
- Pipes
- Nails
- Nuts and bolts
- Hire and cable
- Railroad rails
- Structural steel
Paper
- Books
- Magazines
- Newspaper
- Cardboard
- Packing
Plastic
- Buckets
- Pesticide containers
- Six-pack retainer rings
- Thin plastic sheets
- Plastic bags
- Battery cases
Rubber
- Tires
- Hoses
- Insulation
- Battery cases
Hood
- Stumps and leaves
- Furni ture
- Pallets
- Plywood
- Railroad ties
Electroni c/Electri cal
- Televisions
- Transformers
- Capacitors
- Radios
Construction Debris
- Bricks
- Concrete blocks
- Asphalt
- Stones and rocks
- Reinforced concrete pipe
- Hood
- Steel beams
- Asbestos insulation and roofing/siding shingles
- Fiberglass insulation
- Fiberglass tanks
3-15
-------
DEBRIS COMPONENTS AND
CHARACTERISTICS
Component
Characteristic
Brick and rock
Concrete
Glass
Metals
Plastic
Porous non-destructible
Porous non-destructible
Non-porous non-destructible
Non-porous non-destructible
Non-porous non-destructible
Porous destructible
(i of 2> Non-porous destructible
DEBRIS COMPONENTS AND
CHARACTERISTICS
Component
Characteristic
Rubber
Wood
Cloth
Paper
Porous destructible
Non-porous destructible
Porous destructible
Porous destructible
Porous destructible
Equipment and structures Porous destructible
and non-destructible
Non-porous destructible
and non-destructible
<2o<2>
INVENTORY OF
CONTAMINANT GROUPS
• Volatile organics
• Base neutrals (PAHs)
• Acid extractables (e.g. polar organics)
• Pesticides & chlorinated aromatics
• PCBs. dioxins and furans
*
• Nitrated-compounds
• Metals
• Cyanide
3-16
-------
CONTROLLING FACTORS
IN FEEDSTOCK PREPARATION
AND DEBRIS HANDLING
• Feedstock size requirements of
ultimate treatment technology
• Type of contaminant present
• Type of dominant matrix
• Type of debris (e.g. size, shape,
phase, form, BTU, recycling value)
(1 of 2)
CONTROLLING FACTORS
• Quantity of debris (percentage by
volume or weight)
• "Clean-up" standards or target levels
(federal, state, local, private)
• Potential for decontamination of
the debris
<2 of 2)
REMOVAL
TECHNIQUES
Excavation
Dredging
3-17
-------
WHY SEPARATION
• Reduce volume to be treated
• Reduce volume to be disposed
ADSORPTION
SORBATE
SORBENT
ABSORPTION
SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
Use for Extracting and Concentrating
Contaminants in Preparation for Treatment
or Disposal
3-18
-------
Hyp«r
CIH..Ibu>
RWVM Otmtit || |
| UcnFttratton |
UttraFItraton |
| VferaflngScrMn | Vtnitq 8cr««n |" Qitaly
I
| CMbikJOHSaMO |
J State s!»v* 1
BwKIrizzV
1 RmoMnoFIUrSerMn |fWvoMno8cre«n,Tro(nTMl,8on |
|0«~U«Iun.8**»r |
Macromolecutes
Colloids
-10
LOG 10 of Sire In Meter*
Frequency of occurence/slze relationship (or processing equipment.
-------
SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
Screen
Trommel
Grizzly
Vibratory screen
Cyclone
Jig
Classifier
Table
(1 013)
SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
• Oil-water separator
• Soil sifter
• Trash screen
• Trash centrifuge
• Clarifier
• Air stripping
(2 el 3)
SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
• Separation nozzle
• Particle filtration
• Micro- & ultrafiltration
• Ion exchange
• Reverse osmosis
• Electrodialysis (30f3>
3-20
-------
Temporary sheet-pile;
remove after pipeline construction
Diversion
channel;
excavate, place
corrugated metal
pipe or similar
conduit
:-^ Flow ^
Upstream cofferdam
Sediment
dewatertng
and excavatio
Downstream cofferdam
Temporary
sheet-pile
Riprap for
outlet protection
Streamflow Diversion for Sediment Excavation Using Two Cofferdams
and Diversion Channel
3-21
-------
EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL DREDGING EQUIPMENT.
<«WfljW
Open and Closed Positions of the Watertight Bucket
OMCoonolCMdglng
Section and Schematic of Cleanup Dredge Head
3-22
-------
Water
Jetting
Line
8
"Discharge
Hose
-Air Hose
Negative
Pressure
Relief Valve
Control Handles
Riser Tube
•Air Supply
Line
Jetting
Itozzle
•»—Hsnovable
Suction Foot
Support Line
to Air Bag
Suction Pipe
Vibrator Uhit
Diver-Operated Hand-Held Dredges
ScufCK AfcnM MMno. OM
Hopper Oradg*
CONCEPT OF DREDGED SOLJDS SEPARATION
1st STAGE REMOVAL 2nd STAGE REMOVAL
Slurry from
^
ydraulle dr«d0«
R«mov«
friction
Fin* fraction
«tdw*t«r
Romovo
flno
fraction
Ultraflno f rmtfc
•nd watw
to troctnwnt
coar«*
fraction
flno
fraction
3-23
-------
CONCEPT OF DREDGED SOLDS SEPARATION
BY ORGANIC MATTER AND PARTICLE SIZE
Drodgod SodimonU
f
Organic friction
Inorganic fraction
I
f
Fin* Inorganic
fraction
Coart* Inorganic
fraction
Hgh l»v»l
tr*atm*nt/dl»po«al
Lew Uvol
tr*atmont/dl»poaal
Airlift Dredge
Dusted PCP
Container
Grid System
Schematic of Sediment Removal Operation
Hopper
[
Carbon-Act
1 «
Barge
Treatment
4
— >v
Oontanlnated Water
Flat Deck Barge
H~H~~fe
JLFLF
ivated System
Hopper Barge
Clean Hater Recovery
~~^ -^ \lfatn»r Tasfcrf 1
to «^V"^«' wltfi Ke Content of
0.3 ppb
Sumca: Thocnwn, 1982
Schematic of Supernatant Water Treatment System
3-24
-------
Stagnation Zea»
RIvwFtow
MtoiwW
.*•*••* IRWoaWiWf Column
'.'.I? /
Control of Resuspended Material Using a Pneumatic Barrier
INVENTORY
OF DEBRIS
DECONTAMINATION METHODS
Chemical Extraction
• Dechlorination
• RadKleen
• Solvent washing
• Vapor phase solvent extraction
• Acid etching
• Bleaching
INVENTORY
OF DEBRIS
DECONTAMINATION METHODS
Physical Removal
• Low temperature thermal desorption
• Dusting/vacuuming/wiping
• Gritblasting
• Hydroblasting/waterwashing
• Steam cleaning
• Drilling and spalling
3-25
-------
INVENTORY
OF DEBRIS
DECONTAMINATION METHODS
Passive Treatment
• Microbial degradation
• Photochemical degradation
INVENTORY
OF DEBRIS
DECONTAMINATION METHODS
Destruction
• Incineration
• Flaming
• Ultraviolet flash blasting
INVENTORY
OF DEBRIS
DECONTAMINATION METHODS
Sealing / Solidification
• Encapsulation /solidification
• Painting/coating
• K-20 sealant
3-26
-------
DECONTAMINATION OF
BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT
AND SOME DEBRIS
EXAMPLES OF PRACTICAL DECONTAMINATION METHODS FOR VARIOUS COKTAWtttHTS AND STRUCTURAL MATERIALS*
RaTeTTal
Contaminant
Brick
Concrete
Slut
Metal
Mastic
Wood
EqulpwnU
auxiliary
structure*
*'"'"
Heavy Mtals and
cyanide
Low-level
radiation
Organic solvents
Pesticides
PCBi
1.3.4.5.4
2,3.4.4.7,8.9.13
9,13,15
2,3.4.5,0.7,9.11.
12,13,15,19.20.21
2,3.4.6,7,8.9.11,
2.3.4,5.4,7.8.9.
12,13,14,15,19
2.3.4.6.7.8.9.11.
12,13,14.17
2,3,4.6.7,8.9.11
12,13.14.20.21
2.3.4.5.6.7,8,9.
11,12.13,14,16.19.
20,21
2.3,4.5.6.7.8,9.
20:2l' ' ' '
1.3.S.6
2.3.6.7,8.9.
10.13,18
2,3.6.7,8.9.
10.13,15.18
2.3.5.4.7,9.10.
19.20.21
2,3,6,7.8.9.10,
11.12.13.14.17.18
2.3.5.6.7.8.9.
10.12,13.14.15.
18.19
2,3,6,7,8.9,10,
11,12,13.14,17,18
2.3,6,7,8.9.10,
ll.12.li.14.18.
20.21
2,3,5.4,7,8,9,
ii.il 12.13 ji.
16.18.19.20.21
2,3.5.4.7.8.9,16.
li.12l3.14 18.
19.20.21
1,3.4.5.4
' 2,3.4.4.9. t3
2.3,4.4.9,13
12313'l462o'2l'
#&-*•*•
2,3,4,5,4,12,13,
14.15
lift?;6'"
litter-"'
«ft«*B'
fW.fi!1*
1.3.4.5,6
4.M,«.7.8.
9»13
2,3.4.6.7,8 "••
9,13.15
2.1.4.5.6.9.11.
12.13.14.20I21
2.3.4.4.J.8.9.
11,12,13.14.17
2.3,4.5.4.7.8.9.
12.13,14.15
2,3,4,6,7.8.9,
11.12.13.14.17
li.uIii.M, '
16,20.21
2,J.4.S.4.»,8.
9.11,12,13,14,
20,21
1.3.4.5,4
2.3.4,4,9,13
2,3,4.4,9.13
^rfjfta-
^3.4.6.9.11.12.
i.M.S.4.9,.2.
2.3.4.6.9.11.12.
13.14
wag*™
2,3.4.5.4,9.11,
li.i3.14.20.21
2.3.4.5.4.9.11.
li.13.14,20.21
1.3,4.5.4
2^.4.6.7,9.
U.4.4.,.9
2.3.4,5,4,9.
19>>.21
2.3,4,4,7,9,
li.izlii.U
2,3,4.5.4.7.
9,12,13.14.
15.19
2.3,4.6.7,9,
11.12.13.14
2,3,4,6,7.9,
Jo'li' ' '
2.3,4.S,4.y,
0 11 19 It U
lilii'iolii14'
2,3.4,5.4.7.9.
Il.l2.li.14
19.20.21
1.3.4.5.6
i.^4.4.7.8.
9:13,15* '
fi^'i^iMo*
li!A5i!f
4. oismantUng 9. Painting/coating. 14. Vapor-phase solvent extraction 19. K-20 sealant
S. Ousting/vacuuming 10. Scarification ••» IS. Acid etching 20. Mlcroblol degradation
. 21. Photochemical degradation
* Refer to Individual Method descriptions to determine whether an Indicated technique has actually been used to treat a particular
contaminant/structural material combination, or whether the Method 1s viewed as potentially applicable.
* Applicable only to liquids.
Some contaminant residues (e.g.. asbestos, explosives, toxic residues) My have to be neutralized, stabilized, or removed prior to demolition ti
. prevent explosions or emissions.
• Applicable only to partlculates and solids.
* Not recommended for removing highly toxic residues or highly sensitive explosives, unless partlculates can be controlled.
Applicable only to concrete.
3-27
-------
SUMMARY OF NON-ABRASIVE PHYSICAL CLEANING METHODS FOR
REMOVAL OF SURFACE CONTAMINATION
REMOVAL OF
BASEHETAL
AREA OF
APPLICATION
QUANTITY OF
WASTE PRODUCED
WORKER
EXPOSURE
OVERALL
COST
COMMENTS
HIGH
PRESSURE
UATER
200-700 atm)
Negligible
UterMl/
External
Moderate -
Urge
Moderate
Moderate
Nay Mt re-
•ove tightly
adhering
surface ftlM
ULTRA
HIGH
WATER
(1.000-4.000
atari
Slight
Internal/
External
Moderate -
Urge
Moderate
Moderate-
High
Removes
.!£&
contaminants.
HIGH
PRESSURE
FREON
None
RcMvable
Parts
Small
Low
Nigh
Effectively
cleans
cloth.
rubber » MM
plastic.
ULTRASONIC
Hone
Immersion of
Removable
Parts
Small
Low
LOW-
Moderate
»ery
effective
for cleaning
small parts.
VACUUM
None
External
Small
Low
Low
Removes
weekly
adhered .wet
or dry con-
taminants
SMKMY OF AMASIVE HETNOOS F« SfMOVAL OF
SURFACE CONTM4IMTION
REMOVAL OF
•ASEMOM.
AREA OF
AnucxnoK
QMnTITrOF
HASIt PMOUCtD
(yy^fcH
QPOSHIE
OYOtALL
COST
cotcns
HEOMUCAL
HETHdOS
(pigs)
Slight
Internal
Moderate
Lou
low
Flexible and
compressible
Cleans-small
diameter
pipes.
KCNAMCAL
HEIHOOS
(brashes)
Negligible
Internal/
External
fedtccte
Hoderate
Low
Wide range
of brash
size! and
bristle
stiffness.
MtASIVE
OJEAnms
(wat)
CM be
cararally
conuimtd
Internal/
External
Urge
Hoderate
Hoderate
ftamoves
tightly
adhering
material.
Naalr
•ollntlon.
AMASIVE
CLEARING
(dry)
dfibleof
se«ere
abrasion
Internal/
External
Urge
Ugh
Moderate
Oust may be
explosive.
KY ICE
MASTING
Negligible
External
Snail
(federate
Hoderate
Osef >1 for
removing
smearable
contam-
inants.
3-28
-------
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL DEGRADATION METHODS
FM REMOVAL OF SURFACE CONTAMINATION
REMOVAL OF
BASE METAL
AREA OF
APPLICATION
QUANTITY OF
OF WASTE PRODUCED
ARKER
EXPOSURE
OVERALL
COSTS
COMMENTS
HIGH INTENSITY
LIGHT
None
Extern*!
SMll
Lew
Low-Moderate
Host effective
oa flat sur-
faces
UV LIGHT
CLEANING
None
Extenul
Sm»ll
Low
Lo«-Hoderate
Gross CM»
tnriiiatloa
•ust be n-
•oved ffnt
form to be
effective
LECTRO
POLISHING
Can b« carefully
controlled
Extenul/
Internal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate-Will
OmtMlnitfl
object east be
1«««rt»il 1« a
llo^U -ut*
SUMHMir OF SOLUelLIZATlW METHODS FOR
<£MWAL OF SWFACC OMTAMNATION
REMOVAL
OF IASE METAL
AREA OF
AffLICWIOII
QUANTITY OF
WSTE PROMKEI
VMKER
EXPOSURE
OVERALL COSTS
COMMENTS
FOAHS. GELS.
AM PASTES
ROM.S11gkt
Intecwl/
Extenul
S«1I
Foaw low Gels
(Pastes:
Moderate
Hooertte-Nlo*
Gels and itastes
cannot ve easily
applied to tke in-
side Of SMll
dianeter pipes
OETEUENTS. AQUEOUS
SWfACTANTS
Hone
Internal/
External
Large
Moderate
Moderate
Fonulatlons nay be
tailored to specific
contMlnants
ORGANIC
SOLVCNTS
Mone-Sltykt
Internal/
Extenul
MMerate
MMerate
Hoderate-
Nl«n
Hiy be flan-
nable. and/or
dMu^e non-
•ctal S«TT
faces.
L1.it«
cffect1«enni
en vertical
surfaces
3-29
-------
DEBRIS HANDLING AT SUPERFUND SITES
1.
2.
3.
EPA Major
Site Name Contact Reaion Contaminant
Kane & Lombard Charles Kufs III Organics,
Metal s
Ambler Asbestos Frank Finger III Asbestos,
CaC03
Myers Property Victor Velez II Organics,
Metals
Recommended
Clean-Up
Alternative
Incineration
Soil Washing
Containment
In-situ Vitrification
(ISV)
ISV
Containment
Cappi ng
Off-site
Land Disposal
Solidification/Stabi-
lization
Biological Degradation
Soil Washing
Off-site Land Disposal
(untreated waste)
Debri s
Tvoes
Concrete
Rocks
Metals
None
Reported
Pebbles
Boulders
Wood
Bolts
Debris
Handlina
Presorting
and
Shredding
4. Fried Industries Victor Velez II Organics
5. Roebling Steel George Anastos II Metals,
Organics,
Asbestos
Biological Degrada-
tion
Low Temperature
Thermal Stripping
Incineration
Soil Washing
FS Not Done; RI in
Progress
Partial Emergency
Removal Action
Drums
Tires
Shredded Rubber
Shredded Plastic
Concrete
6. Morgantown Ralph Shapot III
7. Southern MO Jay Motwani III
8. Cryochem R. Purcell III
9. Shaffer — III
10. Montgomery T. Massey III
Bros.
11. Bridgeport Oil D. Lynch II
12. Swissvale J. Downey III
Organics,
Metals
Organics,
Dioxins
Organics
PCBs
Organics
Oil
Water
Dioxins,
PCBs
Capping
Incineration
Biological Degradation
Incineration
Soil Washing
ISV Activated
Work Plan Stage
Methanol Extraction
Off-site Disposal
Incinerate Lagoon
Contents
Off-site Disposal
in Secure Landfill
and Recycling
Baghouse Dust
Buildings and
Metals
Wire, Cables
Tires
Refrigerators
Wood
Concrete
Cloth
Railroad Ties
Rails, Wood
Concrete, Rock
No Debris
Tires
Large Stones
Drums
Residential
Trash
Wood, Drums
Tanks
Buildings
Buildings
Metals
Drums
Separation
Vibratory
Screen-
Set Aside
Off-site
Disposal
Clean Tanks
Dioxins to
Secure Land-
fill; Steel
Decontaminated
and Recycled to
Steel Mill
Continued
3-30
-------
DEBRIS HANDLING AT SUPERFUND SITES (CONTINUED)
Site Name
13. Allied-Hopkins
14. Baird & McGuire
15. Metaltec/
Aerosystem, NJ
16. Syncon
17. Delaware City
18. Drake Chemical
19. Coleman Evans
20. Hollingsworth
21. MowGray
Engineering
22. Sapp Battery
23. LaSalle
Electrical
24. Metanora
Landfill
25. Geneva
Industries
26. United
Creosotlng
27. Denver/ROBCO
EPA
Contact Reaion
Ms. Sanderson
M. Rusin
E. Finnerty
G. Chodwick
T. Legel
C. Teepen
E. Zimmerman
J. Trudeau
E. Moore
B. Cattiche
J. Tanaka
D. Williams
D. Williams
J. Brink
V
I
II
II
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
VI
VI
VIII
Major
Contaminant
Toxaphene.
DDT
Xylene
Cresote,
Dioxlns
TCE
Pesticides
PCBs,
Metals
PVC, TCE
Organlcs
and Inor-
ganics
PCP
TCE. Metals
PCBs
Lead,
Cadmium
PCBs
VOCs,
Metals
VOCs.
PCBs
PAHs
PCPs.
PAHs
Radiation
Recommended
Cl ean-llp
Alternative
Incineration
Off-Site Disposal
Incineration
Off-site Disposal
Heat Treatment.
Rotary Dryer
Off-site
Disposal
On-site Capping
Off-site Disposal
Reuse of Recoverable
Product
Off-Site Disposal
Incineration
Vacuum Extraction
Solidification
Solidification
Incineration
Incineration
Off-Site Disposal
On-Going
Investigation
Off-Site Disposal
Wood
Debris
Tvoes
Railroads Ties
Rails
Concrete Pad
Blocks
Tanks
Wood Buildings
Masonry
No Debris
Large Stones
Buildings
Tanks
Piping,
Heat-Coils
No Debris
Furniture
Piping
Miscellaneous
None
None
Battery Cases
Roots .
Sticks, Stones
Tanks
Prefabricated
Buildings
Cracking Tower
Houses
Miscellaneous
Masonry
Debris
Handling
Rails Decon-
taminated for
Re-Use
Railroad Ties
Concrete to
Secure Landfill
Metal -Recycled
Wood-Shredded
and Incinerated
Masonry-Off-Site
Disposal
Screening of
Stones/Rocks
Buildings and
Tanks-Decontam-
i'nated for
Future Use
Piping, etc,
-Off -site Disposal
Reuse of
Recoverable
Product
Off-Site
Disposal
Separation
with Shredding
and Recycling
of Metals
Crushing
Screening
Off-SUe
Di sposal
Clean
Wipe Samples
Recycle
Separation
of Materials
3-31
-------
Contaminated
material
requiring
treatment
in a reactor
^^
Remove
debris
MATERIALS HANDLING/SEPARATION
Feedstock Preparation is...
• The physical screening and sizing
of contaminated soil and debris for
subsequent "ultimate" treatment
technologies
• The "leveling" of contaminant
concentrations in the waste feed to
allow for smoother unit process
operations and minimize system
upsets
Elemental Units bi
Feedstock Processing
3-32
-------
SIZE LIMITATIONS OF
ULTIMATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Technology Maximum Debris Size
Incineration 6" (effective)
Low temperature desorption 1/4"
Chemical dechlorination 1/2"
Solidification/ stabilization 1 /4"
Soils 'washing 2"
Biological degradation 1/2"
Material Excavation
StocfcpQo Excflvfltton
and Transport
PitnwyVbrakxy
Screen
Undented Feed
CofecttonBin
SCTBW Conv0yor
Cotedlon
Ovarsfaad Material
CdecUon
Ffight
Conveyor
Traugh
Obchaiae
Disposal
Fead-
ChannbeOVapor
Emissions Trap
Screw Conveyor ki
Stripping Un»
LT3 FMdslock preparation process flow dUgnm.
(Vfesbon, 1988)
FEEDSTOCK PREPARATION
Physical pre-processing of over-sized
material conditioning
-crushing
-shredding
-screening
-jigging
-separation
-dewatering. etc.
Chemical preconditioning, such as
neutralization, oxidation/reduction, etc
3-33
-------
SCREENING
Function: Separate oversized or
incompatible waste
• Equipment
-rotary screens
-vibrating screens
-stationary screens
ASSESSMENT OF FEEDSTOCK PREPARATION
TECHNOLOGIES
Status Function Application Cost
low
Crushing/ commercial size high
grinding reduction
Screening/ commercial separate high
separation oversized
materials
Magnetic commercial presort
ferrous
metals
only
low
low
Hntion by O«p Ctnmfc*! Mixing MMlrad
3-34
-------
fexaunq biKiioii ftod
-f ?-«
I ! C
I] t t I
• c « *
Continuous Mixing Methods of Grouting
Son* G""«"i
On* liiiJun uo.^~
Pressure Injection Method of Grouting
HYORAUUC CRANE
BARGE FILM SUPPLY
FRONT-ANO
REAR-SCANNING
TV POOS
FILM ROLL
DANGER ROLL
FOOT ROLL
MC« MwM I97B
Deck Arrangement for Barge-Mounted Apparatus
for Preform Rim Overlay System
3-35
-------
SEPARATION
OF INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
FROM SOILS AND SLUDGES
Abstract 4-2
Slides 4-4
4-1
-------
SEPARATION OF INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FROM SOIL AND DEBRIS
Bill Schmidt
Bureau of Mines
Washington, D.C. 20241
Superfund site inorganic contamination treatment is a special case of mineral
production in which the value of the removed contaminant is generally measured in
terms of factors other than market value of the metal extracted. The technology issues
are essentially identical to those of mineral processing and are based on the fact that,
with the proper choice of technique, any inorganic material can be separated from its
host environment.
There are a number of general considerations that need to be considered by the
decision maker faced with the problem. For example, SARA speaks to "...reduction in
the toxicity, mobility, or volume..11—is volume reduction a goal or means to an end?
Physical separation (benef iciation) of the material can meet the third part directly and
contribute to the attainment of the first two SARA objectives. Another is comminution
or size reduction. Crushing/grinding can often prove beneficial for Superfund
treatment problems. Examples are provided of both typical minerals industry reasons
for comminution as well as Superfund applications.
There are a number of subsets of the separation problem. One involves the
separation of metals or compounds with physical properties different than the host
matrix. The basic rule of thumb is that, if you can see the offending material, you can
physically separate it. There are a number of techniques that might be employed. For
example:
A. Size separation
B. Gravity separation
1. Heavy media
2. Spiral Concentrators
3. Tabling
4. Jigging
5. Air/water classification
6. Other
C. Magnetic separation
1. Conventional
2. High gradient
D. Electrostatic
E. Flotation
1. Chemically enhanced
a. Standard Flotation Cells
b. Column Flotation
c. Air-Sparged Hydrocyclone
2. REDOX
F. Other
1. Color
2. Shape
4-2
-------
Another class of problem involves separation of metals or compounds with physical
properties similar to the host matrix. There are a number of options here including:
A. Leaching (Corrosion)
1. Water
2. Acid/Base
3. Other
- Microbes
B. Thermal
(Many tend to think of thermal techniques as contaminant "destruction"
rather than the tool for altering the form of the compound that it really
is. In the case of metals, which cannot be destroyed, one can increase or
decrease the oxidation state, change the form of the compounds,
selectively separate one metal (or form of metal) from another, etc.)
1. Incineration
2. Pyrolysis
3. Other
C. Recovery of the Inorganic Contaminant
1. Precipitation
2. Electrowinning
3. Solvent Extraction
4. Ion Exchange
5. Reverse Osmosis
6. Other
- Microbes
- Other Novel
In assessing the options, one must also be mindful of other considerations. For example,
what are the true objectives of treatment operation? Are there combinations of
technologies that ought to be considered? In mineral processing practice, rarely are the
unit operations described above employed singly—but rather, almost always in
combinations. Are there multiple contaminants? If so, one needs to be mindful of the
need to investigate the fate of all of the contaminants of concern. Are there organics
and organometallics? There is also the need to give careful consideration to process
residuals and byproducts e.g., off gasses, leachates and solid residuals.
4-3
-------
BUREAU PERSPECTIVE
• Superfund inorganic contamination treatment
is a special case of mineral production
• Any inorganic material can be
separated from its host environment
THE INORGANIC TREATMENT PROBLEM
OF COMMON INTEREST
PERCENT METAL REMOVAL
PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS
• Are results typical or best results?
• What size soil fractions were cleaned?
• How reproducible are results?
• Will results meet site-specific
U.S. regulatory standards?
4-4
-------
A RECOMMENDED APPROACH
• Thoroughly characterize sites and define
potential remediation problems
• Develop remediation procedures based
on site data and laboratory data
• Prove procedures in tests
• Remediate sites
VOLUME
REDUCTION
Goal or means to an end?
SARA - "..reduction in the toxicity,
mobility, or volume.."
Effect of Increase In Slurry Concentration
On Volume of Slurry
w a> •>«>«> *o n « to
SUJRHV CONCENTRATION. «* pet
4-5
-------
SEPARATION
• Meets volume reduction goals directly
• Indirectly contributes to attainment
of toxicity and mobility goals
COMMINUTION
Crushing/grinding is often beneficial
for Superfund treatment problems
TRADEOFFS
Grade vs. Yield
• Separation is relatively inexpensive
• Practical limitations
4-6
-------
CONCEPT OF GRADE vs. YIELD
FOR HYPOTHETICAL LEAD RECOVERY PROCESS
YIELD
A
rr
1
(pet)
METALS OR COMPOUNDS
WITH PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
DIFFERENT THAN
THE HOST MATRIX
4-7
-------
"If you can see
the offending material,
you can physically
separate it"
SIZE SEPARATION
• Screens, vibrating screens, etc.
• Application to oversize,
non-contaminating materials
GRAVITY SEPARATION
• Heavy media
• Spiral concentrators
• Tabling
• Jigging
• Air/water classification
• Other
4-8
-------
MAGNETIC
SEPARATION
Conventional
High gradient
ELECTROSTATIC
SEPARATION
FLOTATION
Chemically enhanced
REDOX
4-9
-------
CHEMICALLY ENHANCED
FLOTATION
Chemically "waterproofs" the material
of interest which causes air bubbles
to adhere and float it to the surface
of the liquid
REDOX
Sometimes the surface properties of
the mineral of interest can be controlled,
e.g.. by controlling oxygen-exposure
during the grinding of sulfide ores
4-10
-------
40
-.07 -fl.« -O.S -0.4
-0.1 -0.1
toltan KB
ISO
OTHER SEPARATION
CRITERIA
• Color
• Shape
METALS OR COMPOUNDS
WITH PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
SIMILAR TO
THE HOST MATRIX
4-11
-------
LEACHING
(Corrosion)
• Water
• Acid/base
• Other
-Microbes
THERMAL
TECHNIQUES
Altering the Form of
the Compound
• Increase/decrease oxidation state
• Change form of compounds
• Selectively separate one metal from
another
THERMAL
PROCESSES
• Incineration
• Pyrolysis
• Other
4-12
-------
INCINERATION
Gas«ou* product*
A«, Cd, «»m« Pb, Hg
H..1
Solid ««h
B«. Ag. Pb. Cr, Zn
NEUTRAL PYROLYSIS
Decomposition g»oi
Hg, Cd, Ai, Zn
Solid ch.r
Ao, Pb.Cr. B«,Zn
o m.UI H WHU oonUIn* r.duet.nu
REDUCTION PYROLYSIS
Exoo» reducing g«t««
R.dueUnt
Carbon, on, cod
HMt
Solid roilduo
Ag, Pb, Cr, B.
4-13
-------
REDUCTION SMELTING
Reduction g»«<
HO, Cd.Ai, Zn
Liquid ills
Ba.Cr
A8.Pb.Cj1
'Chromium win dUtrltauU b«tw««n m«UI «nd >!• g
OXIDATION SMELTING
Combustion ga>«*
Cd./U.Hg.Pb1
Fkix«i
1lf t«mp«r«tur« to Mitftetefitty M«k (1400-HOO C) Pb win voutuiz* u PbO
VAPOR PRESSURES FOR
SELECTED METALS
Metals 100 mm Ha VP. 760 mm Ha V.P.
Ag 1865°C
Cd 611
Hg 261
Pb 1421
Cr 2139
AS 518
Ba 1301
Zn 736
2212"C
765
357
1744
2482
760
1638
907
4-14
-------
VAPOR PRESSURES FOR
SELECTED OXIDES
Oxides 100 mm Hg V.P. 760 mm Hg V.P.
CdO
As2O3
PbO
1341°C
332
1265
1559°C
457
1472
RECOVERY OF THE
INORGANIC CONTAMINANT
Precipitation
Electrowinning
Solvent Extraction
ton Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Other
-Microbes
-Other novel
0
1
1
K
\
©
4-15
-------
MECHANISMS OF BIOLOGICAL REMOVAL
OF METALS FROM SOLUTION
EXTRA-CELLULAR
nrnMaOMOMnooucra
INTRA-CEUULAR
WDWCB1.VMU
TEST RESULTS: RELATtONSlOP BETWEEN ACID
CONCENTRATION AND LEAD COMPOUND SOLUBILITY
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Objectives of treatment operation
Combinations of technologies
Multiple contaminants
Organics and organometallics
Process residuals/byproducts
4-16
-------
OBJECTIVES OF
TREATMENT OPERATION
Desired product
Other constraints
-time
-noise
-cost
COMBINATIONS OF
TECHNOLOGIES
In mineral processing practice, rarely
are unit operations employed singly
COPPER RECOVERY BY FLOTATION
4-17
-------
MULTIPLE CONTAMINANTS
Need to be mindful of the need to
investigate the fate of all of the
contaminants of concern
ORGANICS AND
ORGANOMETALLICS
• In general, outside realm of minerals
industry experience
• Certain relationships can be postulated
-effect of thermal treatment on mixed
contaminant wastes
-effect of air-sparging on volatile organics
• More research needed
PROCESS
RESIDUALS / BYPRODUCTS
• Off gases
• Neutralization
• Flushing
• Dewatering/reconstruction
4-18
-------
'ARATION AND
TREATMENT OF INORGANICS
IN AQUEOUS MATRICES
Abstract 5-2
Slides 5-6
5-1
-------
SEPARATION AND TREATMENT OF
INORGANICS IN AQUEOUS MATRICES
Michael A. Crawford
Environmental Engineering & Remediation, Inc.
Somerville, Massachusetts
INTRODUCTION
The improper disposal of partially treated and untreated hazardous wastes often
poses problems as these hazardous materials slowly migrate from their disposal areas
and contaminate soil, groundwater and surface waters. Similarly, these discharges to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) may impact the efficacy of the treatment
process, pass through the treatment plant untreated, or partition to and contaminate
the sludge if present at significant concentrations. One class of hazardous materials
that must be addressed is inorganics in an aqueous matrix. Potential avenues for
avoiding these problems include pretreatment of the wastes to render them less toxic or
more amenable to subsequent treatment processes, treatment of the liquid waste
(primarily focused at the separation of solids from the liquid), and reclamation of the
hazardous constituents.
PRETREATMENT
Pretreatment of inorganic waste streams may typically include neutralization,
oxidation or reduction, and solids/liquid separation. These physical-chemical unit
processes by themselves or in conjunction with one another are often required prior to
implementing subsequent treatment or reclamation processes.
Neutralization involves combining either an acid or a base with a hazardous waste
stream to adjust the liquid pH to acceptable levels. Neutralization may be required as
a pretreatment or post-treatment process. Lime, calcium hydroxide, caustic, soda ash,
and ammonium hydroxide are common bases; sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and nitric
acid are common acids used for neutralization. Acid-base reactions are among the
most prevalent of the chemical processes used in water and wastewater treatment. It
is fortunate that commercially available acids and bases are relatively low in cost. The
availability of "waste chemicals" for providing neutralization should not be overlooked.
For example, pickle liquor from the steel industry is useful both for its acid value and
for its iron content useful as a coagulant; and also sludge from lime-soda water
softening is a good source of alkali for neutralization of acid wastes.
Chemical reduction involves the transfer of electrons from one compound to
another, and is used to either render compounds nontoxic, or transform it to a form
which can be removed by subsequent chemical or physical unit treatment processes. It
is best applied to liquid wastes free of organic compounds. It is widely used in industry
to control hexavalent chromium wastes, and to remove and/or recover mercury from
mercury cells in chlor-alkali manufacturing. Chemical reduction is also a common
hazardous waste technology for reducing complexed or chelated metals, such as copper
and nickel, found in aqueous metal plating wastes. Precipitation of recovered metals is
required after reduction, if not already accomplished. Filtration often follows.
5-2
-------
Chemical oxidation, the antithesis of reduction, is also a viable treatment
alternative for certain inorganic waste streams. This process is particularly applicable
for the destruction of cyanide and for changing the oxidation state of certain metals
such as arsenic in order to permit the removal by subsequent unit sedimentation or
filtration processes.
Solids/liquid separation in water and wastewater treatment includes the processes
for removal of suspended solids from water by sedimentation, dissolved air flotation,
centrifugation, screening and filtration. Selection of the specific process or combined
processes for removal of suspended solids from water depending on the character of the
solids, their concentration, and the required filtrate clarity. For example, large or
dense particles could probably be removed by simple screening or sedimentation. In
contrast, fine solids may require both sedimentation and filtration, usually aided by
chemical treatment.
TREATMENT
Treatment processes for removing inorganics from an aqueous environment include
coagulation/flocculation, precipitation, media filtration processes, and adsorption.
The processes of coagulation and flocculation are employed to separate suspended
solids from water whenever their natural subsidence rates are too slow to provide
effective clarification. Particles in suspension within an aqueous matrix are stabilized
by negative electric charges on its surface, causing it to repel neighboring particles,
just as magnetic poles repel each other. Since this prevents these charged particles
from colliding to form larger "floes," they do not settle very rapidly. Coagulation is the
destabilization of these colloids by neutralizing the forces that keep them apart. This
is generally accomplished by adding chemical coagulants such as aluminum salts, iron
salts, or polyelectrolytes and applying mixing energy. The floe-building step is termed
flocculation. Precipitation, clarification, sludge thickening and dewatering depend upon
correct application of the theories of coagulation and flocculation for their success.
Chemical precipitation is a physical-chemical process in which a dissolved
contaminant is transformed into an insoluble solid, facilitating its subsequent removal
from the liquid phase by sedimentation or filtration. The process usually involves
adjustment of pH in order to shift the chemical equilibrium to a point that no longer
favors solubility, addition of the chemical precipitant, and finally flocculation in which
the precipitated particles agglommerate into larger particles. Usually, metals are
precipitated from solution as either their hydroxides, sulfides, or carbonates. The
solubilities of the specific metal(s) requiring treatment and the clean-up standards
required will typically dictate the precipitation process to be employed. For instance,
metal sulfides are generally much less soluble than hydroxides, thus better removal
efficiencies are achievable.
Solids separation by means of media filtration encompasses pressure filters, belt
filter presses, plate and frame filters, vacuum filters, ultrafiltration and reverse
osmosis.
5-3
-------
Adsorption is the physical adhesion of molecules or colloids to the surface of a
solid; an adsorbent such as granular activated carbon, without chemical reaction. The
process is particularly applicable for organics and to a lesser extent inorganics. In some
respects, adsorption is similar to coagulation and flocculation. One distinction is that
adsorption generally uses an adsorbent solid processed especially for water treatment;
whereas in coagulation and flocculation, the adsorbent is produced in situ by the
reaction of a chemical, such as alum, with water.
RECOVERY PROCESSES
Several reclamation processes have been demonstrated effective and are in
common use within the hazardous waste industry.
Ion exchange is a process which reversibly exchanges ions in solution with ions
retained on a reactive solid material called ion resin. A typical ion exchange system
has a fixed bed of ion exchange resin, where the resin has either the ability to exchange
positively charged ions (cation exchange) or negatively charged ions (anion exchange).
Depending on the charge of the resin, anions or cations will be held by electrostatic
forces to the charged sites. Generally, divalent and trivalent ions have a higher affinity
for ion exchange than monovalent ions. Thus, toxic metal cations such as divalent
cadmium and nickel, and anions like divalent chromate and selenate are
ef f eciently-removed by ion exchange.
Reverse osmosis (RO), or "membrane chemical filtration," is a pressure driven
membrane separation process. There is no destruction of the chemicals in the process;
they are merely concentrated making reclamation possible. The feed is separated under
pressure into a purified "permeate" stream and a concentrate stream by selective
passage of water through the microscopic pores of the semipermeable membrane. RO
is a low energy process. There is no phase change required for separation of the
dissolved materials and therefore no latent heat of vaporization, fusion, or sublimation
is required to effect separation. RO requires only pressure energy which is normally
supplied through a pump run by a simple electric motor. RO systems have been
implemented for reclaiming nickel, chromium and aluminum.
For a limited number of applications, acid regeneration techniques may be worthy
of consideration. These techniques have been employed in the iron and steel industry
for the past twenty years and include evaporation, crystallization, roasting and solvent
extraction. The purpose of acid regeneration is to concentrate the acid (i.e., hydro-
chloric, sulfuric, nitric or hydrofluoric), and remove any impurities to permit its reuse.
Recently, a new process has been developed for this purpose. The Acid Purification
Unit (APU) uses synthetic resins to adsorb strong acids from solutions and reject metal
salts of these acids. This system can be scaled for small volume applications. A major
drawback of acid regeneration systems is that they cannot separate mixed acids and can
be somewhat expensive to construct and operate. However, commercial acid
regeneration facilities do exist and should be considered if a large volume of acidic
waste requires treatment.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles," EPA/540/5-89/013, November 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Environmental Pollution Control
Alternatives: Economics of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for the Electroplating
Industry," EPA 625/5-79-016, June 1979.
5-4
-------
Nalco Water Handbook, Second Edition. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1988.
Versar, Inc. "Technical Assessment of Treatment Alternatives for Wastes Containing
Metals and/or Cyanides," EPA Contract No. 68-03-3149, October 1984.
Alliance Technologies Corporation. "Treatment Technologies for Corrosive-Containing
Wastes," EPA Contract No. 68-02-3997, October 1986.
Camp Dresser & McKee. "Technical Assessment of Treatment Alternatives for Wastes
Containing Corrosives," Contract No. 68-01-6403, September 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "A Compendium of Technologies Used in the
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes, EPA/625/8-87/014," September 1987.
Weber, W. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1972.
Eckenfelder, W. W. Principles of Water Quality Management. CBI Publishing Company,
Boston, Massachusetts, 1980.
Cheremisinoff, N. P., and D. S. Azbel. Liquid Filtration. Ann Arbor Science Publishing
Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1983.
5-5
-------
CHARACTERIZING
THE WASTE STREAM
"Having a Sense
of Where You Are"
SOLIDS CONTENT
• Suspended or dissolved
• Volatile or fixed
• Settleable
• Temperature
• pH
• Turbidity
• Conductivity
• Oxidation-reduction potential
5-6
-------
IMPORTANT SITE CHARACTERISTICS
• Permeability
• Other inorganics (iron, magnesium)
* Organics present
- chelating properties
- by-products of incomplete oxidation
- chemical demand
• rate of reaction or reagent requiremnts
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Site characterization
- above ground
- in-situ
Life cycle design
- staged process
- equipment design
SPECIFIC METALS
• Species
• Analytical Method (DL)
• Which metals?
5-7
-------
SPECIATION
Occurrence in natural
setting
Common Rare
• Arsenic species As*3 As*5 As0 As"3
• Chromium species Cr*3 Cr*6 Cr*2
• Selenium species Se*4 Se*6 Se"2
FIELD/LABORATORY
TESTMG
• Titration curves
• Jar testing
• Filtration studies
• Isotherm studies
APPLYING
TO MORGAMCS
THE AQUEOUS PHASE
5-8
-------
NEUTRALIZATION
Function: Render acid or caustic waste
non-corrosive by pH adjustment.
TYPICAL NEUTRALIZING AGENTS
H2SO4
HCI
HN03
Ca(OH)2. CaO
NaOH
NaHC03
N32CO3
Mg(OH)2
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
Function.- Remove dissolved metals from
aqueous waste and chemical
conversion to insoluble form
Combination of coagulation,
flocculation, sedimentation
and filtration processes
5-9
-------
CHEMICAL
PRECPTTATION
Removal of heavy metals
primarily as hydroxides,
sulfides, and carbonates
(Cr*3. As*5. H#. Se+4)
DOWN
Shidg*
0 1 2345 6 78 9 10 It 12 13 14
RoccuWor-
CMfler
5-10
-------
COMPARISON OF PRECIPITATION REAGENTS
L1«e
Caustic and Carbonates
Sulfides
SodliM borohydrlde
least expensive, generates highest sludge
volume
nore expensive than line, generates smaller
amount of sludge, applicable for netals where
their MinlBtm solubility within a pH range Is
not sufficient to Meet clean up criteria
effective treatment for solutions with lower
•etal concentrations
expensive reagent, produces snail sludge
volutes which can be reclaimed
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
Limitations
• Mixed metals - optimum pH
• Chelating/complexing agents
CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
Residuals
• Metal sludge
• Treated effluent
- elevated pH
- excess sulfide
5-11
-------
OXIDATION/REDUCTION
FOR INORGANICS
Increase the oxidation state
of a substance by the
removal of electrons or
the addition of oxygen
OXIDATION/REDUCTION
FOR INORGANICS
Reduction:
Decrease the oxidation state
by transferring reactive electron
from reducing agent to the
contaminant
APPLICATION
Oxidation
• CN Bearing Wastes
• Arsenic
5-12
-------
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
Technology Status
• Widely used for ON oxidation
• Gaining acceptance for aqueous
treatment of trace organics
• Limited application for
in-situ treatment
• Function-.
-reduce oxidation state of metal
-render non-toxic/facilitate precipitation
• Applicability:
-Cr(VI)
-mercury
-organic lead compounds
-chelated metals
-reducing agents
NaHSQs. Fe(ll). NaBH4
APPUCATION
Reduction
• Cr+6
•Se+6
* Certain Chelated Wastes
5-13
-------
SAMPLE CHEMICAL REDUCTION
Urn*
Stutry Hopper
Chrome Reduction
Chrome
Effluent
Hydroxide
Sludge
CHEMICAL REDUCTION
Limitations
• Reducing agents are non-selective
• Quantity of residuals generated in
subsequent processes is of concern
• Violent reactions are possible
• Air emissions
• Potential odors
• Difficult to apply to slurries.
tars or sludges
Generic Metals Precipitation
sssss
5-14
-------
SOUDS/UOWD
SEPARATION
Removal of suspended solids
from water by sedimentation.
straining, flotation, and
filtration
Approximate operating regions of solids/
liquids separation devices in treating water
| Str«ln«r«, «l«v»», »cr««n«
| Fabric «nd y«rnwound »IUr»
Gravity ••diminution and flotation
Cyclon«« and centrifugal cUan«r« |
I C»ntrHua««
Granular m«dla and ««pturn Hlt«r j
Mtmbran* filter*
I
0.1
I
10
Microns
I
100
1000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
Partlcl* tlz«, mm
0.1
5-15
-------
REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
Setting Pond
Inlet Liquid
Overflow Discharge Weir
Accumulated Settled Particles
Periodically Removed by MachMcal Shovel
Sedimentation Basin
Inlet Zone
Inlet liquid
Seated Particles Collected
and Periodically Removed
Circular Cterifier
Baffles to Maintain
"Quiescent Conditions
Outlet Zone
Outlet Liquid
Belt-Type Solids CoHection Mechanism
Inlet Liquid
Circular Baffle
Annular Overflow War
Settling Zone
Revolving CoBection
Settled PWtides I CoBecwd and Periodically Removed
[ Sludge Orawoff
5-16
-------
AIR/SOLIDS MIX -^
RECYCLE ft
JL
AIR
TANK Lf^-T-J
fl
w-i H
£3 T
•
*
-B
1 r
FEED
SOURCE' PEABODY-WELLES,
ROSCOE.IL.
' ' \ LI
; ':
i • ,
• ,
,i
QD
^
*.
«
*
•
*
* *
^s^^^l
*L— ^ LIQUID
~^ LIGHT
SOLIDS
t»
^- HEAVY
L PRESSURIZED (^}L!S?ci
AIR BUBBLES (SLUDGE)
RECYCLE FLOW DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
SYSTEM
FACTORS IMPACTING
SEDIMENTATION/FLOTATION
• Particle size
• Particle shape
• Density
• Liquid medium particle is
settling through
• Water temperature
CENTRFUGAT1ON
Components of a fluid are
separated based on their
relative density by rapidly
rotating the fluid within
a vessel
5-17
-------
CENTRIFUGAT1ON
• Dense particles are deposited
furthest from axis of rotation
• Centripetal forces are
thousands of times stronger
than gravitational
BASKET CENTRIFUGE
Feed]
a
Basket Wall
/Filter Paper
(Used With
Perforated Wall)
Solids
Cake
Cake Buildup
Revolving
Basket
PRINCIPLE: MEDIA FILTRATION
Function: Separation, Recovery,
Volume Reduction, Pretreatment
• Processes
-pressure filtration
-belt filter press
-plate & frame filter press
-vacuum filtration
-ultrafiltration
-reverse osmosis
-dialysis
5-18
-------
AIR CYLINDER
FILTER CAKE
USED TYVEK®MEDIA-
FILTRATE CHAMBER
AIR BAGS
WASTE FEED CHAMBER
-------
ULTRAFHTRAT1ON
(continued)
• Requires pretreatment to remove
suspended solids and free oil
• Commonly used to remove
emulsified oils, metals, and
proteins
REJECT
OUTLET
( Hyper flUrdUon)
• High pressure (150-400 psi)
membrane separation process
• Driving force is pressure
differential across membrane
• Commercial units historically used
for recovering Ni plating baths
• Process is applicable for
dissolved heavy metals and
certain dissolved organics
PROCESS
MLET
MCKFLUSH
MLET
CAPILLARY UF MODULE
5-20
-------
REVERSE OSMOSIS
(continued)
• Can remove even low molecular
weight ionic species
• Rejection is most often a function
of the semipermeable membrane
• Limitation - influents containing
film formers
• Pretreatment should include removal
of oxidizing materials, particulates,
oils, grease and other film formers
FEED SIDE
SPACER
ROLL TO
ASSEMBLE
PERMEATE
OUT
PERMEATE SIDE BACKING
MATERIAL WITH MEMBRANE
ON EACH SIDE
PERFORATED PERMEATE
COLLECTION TUBE
:ED FLOW
PERMEATE FLOW
(AFTER PASSING
THROUGH MEMBRANE)
UNRAVELLED MEMBRANE
PRODUCT SIDE BACKING
MATERIAL
SPACER
'ERMEATE TUBE
MEMBRANE
GLUE LINE
DETAIL OF MEMBRANE SANDWICH
DETAILS OF SPIRAL WOUND MODULE
5-21
-------
DIFFERENCES BETHEEN REVERSE OSMOSIS AND ULTRAFILTRATION
Item
Reverse Osmosis
Ultraflltratlon
Size of solute retained
Osmotic pressures of feed
solutions
Operating pressures
Nature of nenbrane retention
Chemical nature of membrane
Molecular weights generally
less than 500
High salt retention
Important, can range to over
1000 pslg
Greater than 400 pslg, up to
2000 pslg
Diffusive transport barrier;
possibly molecular screening
Important In affecting trans-
port properties
Typical membrane flux levels 2 to 5 gal/day-ft*
Molecular weights generally
over 1000
Nil salt retention
Negligible
10 to 100 pslg
Molecular screening
Unimportant In affecting transport
properties so long as proper pore
size and pore distribution are
obtained
20 to 200 gal/day-ft*
Source EPA 1978
Relative Performance Criteria of
RO Membrane Material
Operating Temp., F
pH Range
Salt Rejection
Organics Rejection
Biological Stability
Chlorine Stability
Water Flux Rate
Spiral Wound Config.
Hollow-Fine-Fiber Config.
CA
33-104
4-7
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Yes
Yes
PA
TFC
33-95
2-12
Good
Better
Good
Poor
Better
No
Yes
33-115
2-12
Better
Better
Good
Poor
Better
Yes
No
5-22
-------
I C*THOOE(->
BRT~
s»
CONCENTRATE
THE ED PROCESS
PRINCIPLE:
ADSORPTION/ION EXCHANGE
Function: Separation, Recovery,
Volume Reduction/Concentration,
Pretreatment
• Processes
-carbon adsorption
-resin adsorption
-ion exchange
ION EXCHANGE
Definition: Process that removes
heavy metals from wastewater by
using synthetic resins that
exchange a less harmful ion for
a heavy metal ion in solution
5-23
-------
ADVANTAGES
Reversible
Can treat to very low levels
Recent development of chelating
resins
Can treat metal-chelated wastes
DISADVANTAGES
• Cost
• Concentrate requires disposal
• Limitations for wastes with
IDS > 1000 ppm or
TS > 50 mg/l
• Non-selective
ION EXCHANGE
Waste Containing
Compound MX
Removal
M**+H2R*-MR+2H*
Regeneration
MR+2H+—H2R+M"1"1"
•.9. m.2*
04*
Acid
Regenerant
Caustic
Regenerant
Cation
Exchanger
1
•.9. CK>4'
Anion
Exchanger
Removal
X* +R(OH)2—RX+20H'
Regeneration
RX+2OH-*-R{OH)2+X"
Delonlzed
Effluent
•*-Spent Regenerant
5-24
-------
ELECTROLYTIC PROCESSES
• Cathodes and anodes are immersed
in tank with waste, and a DC field
is imposed on the system
• Used to plate out dissolved
metals, oxidize cyanide, or
reduce chromium for wastewaters
ELECTROLYTIC PROCESSES
(continued)
• Particularly applicable for
high CN (approximately 10%)
waste
• Limitations are the form of
the waste, non-selective nature
of process, and long process
time
ACID REGENERATION
Concentrates hydrochloric, sulfuric,
nitric, and hydrofluoric acids
to permit reuse
5-25
-------
APU OPERATING CYCLE
Upstroke
Metallic Hit byproduct (watt*)
W«Ur
rt»*volr
t
Downstroke
Sp*nt «eld
W»Ur
r>«»volr
-
Puriffed
•eld product
Add
r«Mvoir
CONSTRAINTS
• Mixed acids cannot be separated
• Organic contamination may not be
removed from acid fraction
• Expensive processes
- consider off site existing facilities
OTHER METHODS FOR MORGAUC
CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
• Adsorption on biomass
• Assimilation by plants
- constructed wetlands
- sphagnum moss for acid mine drainage
5-26
-------
WASTE EXCHANGE
• State and area programs where waste
generators can make their waste streams
available for sale to reclaimers and
other processors
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
Separation Recovery Treatment
Neutralization
Precipitation
Lime
Carbonate
Sulfides
Na borohydride
Oxidation/reduction
Sedimentation
Centrifugation
Flotation
Media Filtration
Pressure filtration
Vacuum filtration
Belt filter press
Plate & frame
filter press
Ultrafiltration
Reverse osmosis
Dialysis
Electrolysis
Acid regeneration
Ion exchange
Adsorption
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5-27
-------
U.S. Waste Exchanges
CALIFORNIA WASTE EXCHANGE
Robert McCorraick
Department of Health Services
Toxic Substances Control Division
714 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 324-1807
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL
WASTE EXCHANGE
William Stough
470 Market St., S.W.
Suite 100A
Grand Rapids, NO 49503
(616)451-8992
INDIANA WASTE EXCHANGE
Shelley Whitcomb
Environmental Quality Control
1220 Waterway Boulevard
P.O. Box 1220
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(317) 634-2142
INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL EXCHANGE
SERVICE
Margo Siekerka
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-0450
INDUSTRIAL WASTE INFORMATION EXCHANGE
William E. Payne
New Jersey Chamber of Commerce
5 Commerce Street
Newark, NJ 07102
(201) 623-7070
MONTANA INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE
Don Ingles
Montana Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 1730
Helena, MT 59624
(406) 442-2405
NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE
Lewis M. Cutler
90 Presidential Plaza
Suite 122
Syracuse, NY 13202
(315) 422-6572
SOUTHEAST WASTE EXCHANGE
Mary McDaniel
Urban Institute
UNCC Station
Charlotte, NC 28223
(704) 547-2307
INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS RECYCLING
PROGRAM
Marion Mudar
New York State Environmental
Facilities Corporation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 457-4138
SOUTHERN WASTE INFORMATION EXCHANGE
RoyHerndon
P.O. Box 6487
Florida State University
Institute of Science & Public Affairs
Tallahassee, FL 32313
(904) 644-5516
5-28
-------
SEPARATION OF ORGANIC
CONTAMINANTS FROM
SOILS AND SLUDGES
Abstract 6-1
Slides 6-5
&-1
-------
SEPARARATION OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
FROM SOILS AND SLUDGES
Richard P. Traver, P.E. James H. Nash
Chapman, Inc. Chapman, Inc.
Freehold, New Jersey Freehold, New Jersey
Selection of remedial actions involves several risk management decisions.
Uncertainties with respect to performance, reliability, and cost of treatment
alternatives underscore the need for well-planned, well-conducted, and
well-documented treatability studies. Treatability studies provide valuable
site-specific data necessary to support Superfund remedial actions. They serve two
primary purposes: (1) to aid in the selection of the remedy, and (2) to aid in the
implementation of the selected remedy. Treatability studies conducted during the
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) phase indicate whether a given
technology can meet the expected cleanup goals for the site, whereas treatability
studies conducted during the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) phase establish
the design and operating parameters of optimization of technology performance.
Although the purpose and scope differ, they complement one another (i.e., information
obtained in support of remedy selection may also be used to support the remedy design).
Based on the EPA's research program on Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) a total of 466 different chemical contaminants were identified at 888 Superfund
Sites (see Table 1, on page 6-8). Organics and VOC's lead all categories of
contaminants as summarized in Table 2, on page 6-8.
The treatment of organic contaminants in soils, sludges and sediments can be
accomplished by physical separation/volume reduction of contaminated and clean
paniculate fractions. Soils washing is a physical/chemical separation technology
whereby excavated contaminated soil is first mixed with aqueous based wash fluid(s)
and then separated from them. Research has found that a large percentage of soil
contamination is usually associated with or bound to very small (silt and clay) soil
particles. Therefore, a physical separation of the large soil particles (sand and gravel)
from the silt and clay and humic material can effectively concentrate the contaminants
largely in the silt and clay and humic fraction of the soil mass. Thus, for those soils
with a large fraction of sand and gravel (40%), soils washing technology will
significantly reduce the volume of contaminated soil which will require subsequent
treatment.
In the soils washing process, contaminants may become solubilized or highly
contaminated fines may become suspended in the wash fluid and are separated from the
clean coarse soil fraction. Chemical agents such as surfactants, extractants, or
chelants can be added to the washwater to increase the efficiency of contaminant
removal. Acidic or alkaline solutions may be added to mobilize, neutralize, or destroy
the contaminants, thereby increasing the efficiency of contaminant removal (see
Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents: A State-of-the-Art Review,
EPA/600/2-89/034, 1989). The use of solvent extraction technologies has been making
significant progress in the areas of waste site remediation.
6-2
-------
Solvent extraction techniques being demonstrated under the SITE program are
shown in Table 3 on page 6-32.
The application of in-situ treatment technologies has many advantages if site
conditions are favorable for this remedial application. General in-situ technologies can
be categorized into the following categories:
Soils Flushing
Solidification/Stabilization
- Degradation
Control of Volatile Materials
Chemical and Physical Separation Technologies
REFERENCES
Everson, Francine, Overview of Soil Washing Technologies for Site Remediation. June
1989, EPA, Edison, New Jersey.
A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods, EPA/540/P-87/001, December
1987.
Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites - A Methods Manual: Volume II Available
Sampling Methods, Second Edition, EPA/600/4-84/076, 1984.
Cleaning Excavated Soil Using Extraction Agents: State-of-the-Art Review,
Raghavan, R., D.H. Dietz E. Coles, Enviresponse, Inc., EPA/600/2-89/034 Livingston,
New Jersey.
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Development Processes,
EPA/540/G-87/003, March 1987.
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Example Scenario RI/FS
Activities at a Site with Contaminated Soils and Groundwater, EPA/540/G-87/004,
March 1987.
Development and Use of EPA's Synthetic Soil Matrix (SSM/SARM). U.S. EPA Release
Control Branch, February 1989.
Guidelines for the Use of Chemicals in Removing Hazardous Substances Discharges,
EPA/600/2-81/205, September 1981.
Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards, Volume 1: Soils and Solid
Media, EPA/730/2089/042, February 1989.
Mobile System for Extracting Spilled Hazardous Material from Excavated Soils,
EPA/600/2-83/100.
Sediment Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide, EPA/600/4-85/048, July 1985.
Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide, EPA/600/4-84/043, May 1984.
Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of Radiologically Contaminated Superfund
Sites, EPA/1540/2-88/002, August 1988.
6-3
-------
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges,
EPA/540/2-88/004, September 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Systems to Accelerate In Situ Stabilization of
Waste Deposits, EPA/540/2-86/002, Cincinnati, Ohio 1986.
Murdoch, L., B. Patterson, G. Losonsky, and W. Harrar. 1988. Innovative Technologies
of Delivery or Recovery: A Review of Current Research and a Strategy for Maximizing
Future Investigations. Report for Contract No. 68-03-3379. U.S. EPA Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Review of In-Place Treatment Technologies for
Contaminated Surface Soils - Volume 2: Background Information for In-Situ
Treatment, EPA-540/2-84-003b, Cincinnati, Ohio 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Review of In-Place Treatment Technologies for
Contaminated Surface Soils - Volume 1: Technical Evaluation, EPA-540/2-84-003a,
Cincinnati, Ohio 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook: Remedial Action at Waste Disposal
Sites (Revised), Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH and
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., EPA/625/6-85/006,
1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., EPA/540/G-89-004,1988.
6-4
-------
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
• Gaining a perspective of the problem
• Fundamental unit operations
• Processes requiring excavation
• In-situ processes
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF U.S. HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
CERCLA 22.000 Total (971 ON NPL)
RCRA 3.000 TSDs (Active in 1985)
25.000 Total
GENERATORS 10.000 Without TSDs
RCRA SITES (14.098 GENERATORS IN 1981}
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
JL
10 n
12
10
13
23 J
9 "S
5
2
14
_! J
68*
32*
100
NOTE: Generators Resurveyed in 1987 by RTI. - Data Not Yet Available
Types of Generators (1981)
Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34) 19*
Chemical & Allied Products (SIC 28) 17*
Electrical Equipment (SIC 36) 11*
Other Metal-Related Products (SIC 33. 35. 37) 16*
All Other
100*
Source: EPA 530/SW-84-OOS. April 1984.Established statistics for
RCRA TSO'S and generators as of 1981
6-5
-------
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ACTIVE RCRA FACILITIES (TSDs)
Total No. Active
RCRA TSOs
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total No. Landfills
Total Volume of Waste
Handled (KMT)
1981
4818
X Change
-38*
-51*
43*
Observations: • Host Sites East of Mississippi
• Nearly 2,000 Sites Have Closed or Dropped Out (Some
May be SF Sites Now)
• Half the Landfills No Longer Operate
• Waste Volumes Same or Slightly Increased Overall
SUPERFUNO SITES
Total
NPL
Rods
Listed
1982-85
1986
1987
1988
123
84
75
155.
437
22.000 - 24.000
1175 (11/88)*
437 Total
(EST.)
EPA - OSWER
NPL SITES BY LOCATION
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(Source:
NO.
60-\
176
135 L
116 f
234 I
54^
46 f
40 L
74 f
_3£ J
971 Us
Inside EPA Superfund
74* East of
Mississippi
126* Vest of
Mississippi
of 8/88)
Report 8/3/88)
ROD SUPERFUND SITES MEDIA AFFECTED
Groundwater
Soil
Sediments/
Stream Beds
Sludge
No. Reoo
Estimated Percent
190 (virtually all) 100*
147
46
12
75*
25*
5*
Source: EPA Hazardous Site Control Division 8/31/87
6-6
-------
EXAMPLES OF LAND USES POTENTIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH TOXIC/HAZARDOUS WASTE
Agri cul tural Operati ons
Agricultural Spraying Service Companies - Lawn Firms, Pest Control
Ai rports
Asphalt Plants
Auto Repair
Battery Companies
Bottling Companies
Cement Processing Operations
Chemical Companies
Dry Cleaners
Fence Companies
Firing Ranges/Test Sites
Gas Stations/Tank Farms/Heating Oil Businesses
Highway Spill Sites
Hospitals
Incinerator Sites
Industrial Parks
Junk Yards/Scrap Yards
Labor.Camps—State Highway Department Operations
Landfills
Metal Fabricators
Mining Sites—Sand and Gravel Pits
Ordnance Operations
Paint Stores, Warehouses, etc.
Penitentiaries
Plastics Companies
Plating Operations
Processing Plants/Heavy Industrial Sites
Railroad ROW. Maintenance Yards, and Other Related Uses (derailment sites)
Recycling Companies
Refining Operations
Rendering Companies
Research Laboratories
Semiconductor/Computer High Technology Plants
Sewage Treatment Plants
Surplus Military Property
Tanneries
Tire and Rubber Plants
Trucking Terminals
Utility Companies—power plants, electrical equipment storage yards, etc.
Waste Lagoons
Welding Products Companies
Wood Processing and Preserving Operations
(Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CERCLIS Data Base)
6-7
-------
466 SUBSTANCES FOUND AT 888 PROPOSED
AND FINAL NPL SITES. OCT 1986
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
25
26
CHEMICAL
T H chl oroethyl ene
Lead
Toluene
Chromium
Benzene
Chl orofonn
PCBs
1 . 1 , 1 -TH chl oroe thane
Perch! oroethyl ene
Zinc
Cadmium
Arsenic
Phenol
Xylene
Ethyl benzene
Copper
1 ,2-Oi chl oroethyl ene
Methyl ene Chloride
1 , 1 -Oi chl oroe thane
1 . 1 -Oi chl oroethyl ene
Mercury
Cyanide
Vinyl Chloride
Nickel
1 ,2-Oi chl oroethane
Chlorobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Pentachl orophenol
OCCURENCE
-------
TYPICAL SUPERFUND SOIL AND SLUDGE CONTAMINATION LEVELS
FOR SELECTED CONTAMINANTS
VOLATILES
Ethyl benzene
Xyl ene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Perch! oroethyl ene
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
SEHIVOLATILES
Anthracene
PCP
Bis(2-Ethy1hexy1)phtha1ate
INORGANICS
Pb
Zn
Cd
As
Cu
Cr
Ni
AVERAGE
PPM
3,200
8,400
580
540
6,800
360
120
4.800
700
1.900
3.100
5.000
180
90
2,100
370
200
MAXIMUM
PPM
53,000
150,000
6,700
9.200
55,000
3.900
1,100
100,000
7,200
22,000
61 .000
67.000
3.000
950
52.000
.3.000
1.900
Source of Information: CH2M Hill ROD Database
1987-88 CERCLA SOIL STUDY
REVIEWED116 RODS - FOUND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS IN 95
CATEGORIZED OCCURRENCE OF SITE SOILS AS FOLLOWS: (EX-3)
66% UNCONSOUDATED (TELL, ALLUVIUM)
20% SEDIMENTS (POND, STREAM, MARCH)
10% MANMADE (FILL)
5% SOnVWASTEMKTURES.(SOn/OIL; SOIL/SLUDGE)
DISTRIBUTION OF RODS OVER SUBCATEGORIES (EX-4)
- 17% ALLUVIUM
~ 15% SANDY SOIL
~ 15% FINE GRAIN/CLAY
-12% STREAM/CREEK
-11% GLACIAL TILL
- 30% OTHER
6-9
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF CERCLA
SOIL SUBCATEGORIES
• With Contamination
B No Contamination
B No Description
DISTRIBUTION OF CERCLA
SOIL SUBCATEGORIES
Number of Occurrences
20
Glacial Afcjvtm Sandy Clays Pond Stream Marsh
• Unconsofldated Softs B Sediments
DISTRIBUTION OF CERCLA
SOIL SUBCATEGORIES
Number ol Occurrences
8
Fa Tafflngs LaitdfiB Drams Sludge Creosote Waste Ol
Man-made Deposits B Sol/Waste Mixtures
6-10
-------
TARGET CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SSM, MG/KG
T
Analvte
Volatlles
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Xylene
Semlvolatiles
Anthracene
Bls(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Inorganics
Arsenic (as As203)
Cadmium (as 3CdSO4 . 8H20)
Chromium (as Cr(N03)3 . .9H20)
Copper (as CuS04 . 5H20)
Lead(asPbS04.T>bO)
Nickel (as Ni(N03)2 , 6H20)
Zinc (as 2nO)
SSM-1
(High organic,
low metal)
6,800
400
600
3,200
1,000
600
8,200
6,500
2/500
1,000
10
20
30
190
280
20
450
SSM-II
(Low organic,
low metal)
680
40
60
320
1.00
60
.820
650
250
100
10
20
30
130
280
20
450
SSM-III
(Low organic,
hlah metal)
680
40
6.0
320
1:00
6.0
820
650
250
100
500
1,000
1,500
9,500
14,000
1,000
22,500
SSM-IV
(High organic,
hiah metal)
6,6.00
400
600
3,200
1 ,00'0
60'0
B , 2'0:0
6,50.0
2,500
.1,000
5.00
1,000
1,500
5,500
14,000
1,000
22,500
— f\ ^ ii nt-
I* \J
-} — '
\ ^
r ^
f
r
6
"if
f Q
J) r
vi"^-
V ~~~
\ T
u
rf
'j
>=>
^
j
i
X
T
c
CA
-------
PHYSICAL TREATMENT
Separation by:
• Gravity
• Phase changes
• Dissolution
• Adsorptivity/ionic characteristics
PHYSICAL TREATMENT
DATA NEEDS
Data Need
Purpose
Absolute density
Bulk density
Grain size
distribution
Friability
Solubility
(in water, oils, etc.)
Density separation
Storage volume
required
Size modification/
separation
Size reduction
Dissolution
GRAVITY SEPARATION
• Sedimentation
• Centrifugation
• Flocculation
• Oil/water separation
• Dissolved air flotation
• Heavy media separation
6-12
-------
DISSOLUTION
• Soils washing/flushing
• Chelation
• Liquid/liquid extraction
• Supercritical solvent extraction
SOIL WASHING FLUIDS
• Water only
• Water plus additives
•acids (e.g.. sulfuric acid)
-bases (e.g., sodium hydroxide)
-oxidants (e.g.. hydrogen peroxide)
-reductants (e.g.. sodium bisulfite)
-surfactants (e.g.. Tween)
-chelates (e.g. EDTA)
• Organic solvents
-alcohols (e.g. isopropanol)
-alkanes (e.g. hexane)
-halogenated alkanes (e.g. Freon)
SUSCEPTIBILITY
TO SQLUBIUZATION
Chemical Class
Alkanes
Alcohols
Aromatics
Phenols
Halogenated
Aromatics
OF ORGANICS
BY SURFACTANTS
Example
Pentane
Octane
Octanol
Benzene
Butylbenzene
Naphthalene
Dimethylphenol
Bromobenzene
Dichlorobenzene
6-13
-------
SOIL WASHING SYSTEM
(Conceptual process flow diagram)
SECONDARY
SEPARATION
L J
WASTE
[REATMENT
eMTMMATB
.
-------
LAKEHURST, NJ NAVAL AIR
ENGINEERING CENTER
Heavy Oil Contamination
Total Sample
> 2 mm
2 mm to 0.06
< 0.06 mm
O&G
ing/ kg
36.000
60
mm 400
240.000
Size
, % of
sample
100
6
80
15
Contaminant
% of
Total
100.0
0.1
0.8
99.1
•RED HOPPER
rSWaWW AU
\ •"" /-MUM SCREEN /•
\ / ff T^
MPtfT
US
MMISWEH1
tllot »»U l«*lnj p
6-15
-------
Lakehurst. NAEC Soil
Description
Washing Data
• ••••••••i
Quantity. Rate
SO -100 pound*/hr
38,000 mg/kg
376mg/kg
1-2 gal/mln
(4.6 nt*r*/pound of soil)
4.7
2.07%
16.6%
47%
30%
20 mg/UUr
89%
1. Son Food Rate
Initial oil & great*
0.26-2-mm oil * great*
2. Wash WaUr Rat*
3.WathWat*rpH
4. Wash Wat*r Total Solid*
8. Sludge, t*ttl*d total tofldt
6. Bolt Flltor Pros* Cako total aofldc
7. Bolt Flltor Pro** Cako Ath eontont
8. BoK Flltor Proa* *u*pondod *oHd*
9. Percent Removal Efficiency
™"
r*N s
1
••
•M*
•0
•0
Proposed soil washing procedure
USEPA SYNTHETIC SOIL MATRIX
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION (USDA)
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Total
V. Coarse
Coarse
Medium
Fine
USDA(X)
--
60.0
16.0
8.8
11.7
23.5
19.0
21.0
USCS(X)
58.0
15.2
26.8
6-16
-------
SoD washing effectiveness (greater than 2»mm site fraction), overall percentage reduction by contaminant group.*
soaioJgh
organic*, low metals)
'Water Surfactant
Volatile
Semivolatiles
Inorganics
>99.9
9&9
923
>99.8
>99.8
9L6
Soil II (low organics. low metals)
Water Surfactant Cheiant
99.9
93J
>96.7
99.9
9&5
95.7
' Total waste analysis.
Soil washing effectiveness (250>pm to 2-mm size fraction),
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Metals
Water
99.8
56.2
81.6
Son i
Surfactant
99.8
65.6
80.7
Water
>99.9
52.7
>82.7
SoilD
Surfactant
>99^
47.3
91.6
>99^
90.1
95.9
Soiiin
(low organics,
high metals)
Water
>99.9
>94.8
98.0
Cheiant
99.9
96.4
98.4
(hisrh
Water
>99^
97^
97.1
Soil IV
orpnics, high
Surfactant
99.9
>98^
98.4
metals)
Cheiant
>99.9
97.8
98.1
overall percentage reduction by contaminant group.*
Cheiant
>99.9
67^
85.1
1 Total waste analysis.
Soil washing effectiveness (less than 250*pm size fraction), overall
Volatiles
Semi volatile*
Metals
Water
66.2
59.7
0
Soil I
Surfactant
88.0
43.2
0
Water
>99.8
0
0
Soil II
Surfactant
>99.4
0
0
Cheiant
99.6
0
21 J9
Soil
Water
>99.3
0
96.4
ni
Cheiant
99.0
0
98.4
percentage reduction
So?)
Water
86.7
0
0
r,i
Cheiant
>93.2
6
78.2
Water
>99.7
0
90.7
Soil IV
Surfactant
>99.7
29.4
91.8
Cheiant
>99.7
32.3
90.3
by contaminant group.*
Water
>69.6
0
0
Soil IV
Surfactant
95.0
0
7.3
C'helant
81.8
0
82J2
* Total waste analysis.
-------
Washwater to Soil Ratio Effect on Percent TPH Removal
I TO
- N
* M
40
M
• N0.10SUW
• Na.OOStow
Typt «f MM) Wed DUi.l
Wuk TmptraUn • 77-44 F
CoaucCnmt-Wnki.
1 *
SSM ItaM Rrile
Rinsewater to Washwater Ratio Effect on Percent BTEX Removal
taUi-xn
-7M4 r
Temperature Effect on Percent BTEX Removal
IN
100
00'
M-
• Mo. 10 Mm
• Me.*0*)M>
Hg*0u
•ol t WHkMUr -
ao 4o «o *• 10* iso 140 100 100 too
T«ap*nUm
-------
Contact Time Effect on Percent TPH Removal
105
100
« 10
IS 20 31
Contact llm (min.)
• N0.10SI.W
0 No-MSIm
« No.140Stov*
iyp» of SSI* Hgh
I WMtnmtar . 1.1
t WUhmtw - an
WMk Ttnptatan - 7744 P
30 as
Dose / Response Values for Diesel Fuel
• IPHCoaemtraUoa
0 10000 20000 10000 40000 80000
Dose / Response Values for Gasoline
2000-
1000-
0 20000 40000 60000 00000 100000
Gasoline (mg/kg)
6-19
-------
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON! SOIL WASHING APPLICATIONS
SITE
Grove City,
OH, LUST -
Gas
Grove City,
OH, LUST -
Gas
Mahwah, NJ,
LUST - Gas
Mahwah, NJ,
LUST - Gas
i
o Princeton, NJ
LUST - No.2
Oil
Princeton, NJ
LUST - No.2
Oil
Holmdale, NJ
LUST - No.1
Kerosene
Holmdale, NJ
LUST - No.1
Kerosene
Valdez, AL
Beach Material
INITIALCONC.
(mg/kg)
243.1 BTEX
243.1 BTEX
23.8 BTEX
23.8 BTEX
1375 TPH
1375 TPH
215 TPH
215 TPH
14,410 TPH
FINAL CONC.
10-MESH 60-MESH
196.8 124.6
81.3 122.1
0.6 4.7
19.9 2.5
320 300
250 1880
<30 98
<20 <20
470 14,800
140-MESH
123.3
N/A
20.5
N/A
240
N/A
110
65
N/A
PERCENT
10-MESH
19
67
97
16
77
82
86
91
97
REMOVAL
60-MESH
49
50
80
89
78
0
54
91
0
EFFICIENCIES
140-MESH
49
-
14
-
83
-
49
70
--
-------
PROCESSES REQUIRING
EXCAVATION / DREDGING
BASIC EXTRACTION
SLUDGE TREATMENT
(BEST)
Resources Conservation Company
Bellevue, Washington
APPROPRIATE WASTES
• Oily sludges
•High water-content organic
wastes
6-21
-------
TECHNOLOGY
• Treats oily sludge with
triethylamine (TEA) solvent
• Separates oil from water & solids
• Produces incinerable oil
• Discharge water to POTWs
• Dry, pathogen-free solids
BASIC COMPONENTS
• Centrifuge
• Dryer
• Decanter
• Solvent still
• Water still
ADVANTAGES
Produces dry solids
Recovers oil or high-boiling
chemicals
Water discharge is disposable
6-22
-------
LIMITATIONS
• Process limited to low-solids,
oily sludge
• Hazardous components not destroyed
• Complex process
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
WITH LIQUIFIED GAS
C.F. Systems Corporation
Waltham, Massachusetts
TECHNOLOGY
As a liquid approaches its critical
point, it:
Behaves like a liquid solvent
dissolving large amounts of organic
substances
Behaves like a gas allowing
high rates of extraction
6-23
-------
MAIN COMPONENTS
OF SYSTEM
• Extractor
-aqueous solutions (trays)
-solids and sludges (mixer)
• Separator
ADVANTAGES
• Waste minimization by volume
reduction process
• Low operating cost
• Totally enclosed system
LIMITATIONS
• Highly water soluble, highly polar
organics
• Very low concentration organics
• Heavy metals
6-24
-------
APPROPRIATE WASTES
• Waste streams containing 10-25 %
organics
• Aqueous waste streams are treated
in the aqueous process unit
• Pumpable waste streams are treated
in the solids/sludge unit
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS
Extraction/separation of organics
from waste water
Extraction/separation of organics
from pit sludges
Separation/recycling of valuable oils
Incinerator pretreatment process
CF SYSTEMS CORPORATION
(Solvent Extraction)
Solids or liquids
Compressor
Clean
Sediments
Organics
6-25
-------
PIT CLEAN-UP UNIT
Oxnpranor
BIOTROL SOIL TREATMENT
SYSTEM (BSTS)
BASIC COMPONENTS
• Soils washing equipment
• Biological water treatment system
• Slurry bioreactor
6-26
-------
ADVANTAGES
• Low cost
• Volume reduction
• Return to excavation
• Soluble organics are destroyed
• Process water treated and recycled
• Fine particle sludge is treated
•Process is flexible
LIMITATIONS
• Debris removal required
• Metals removal
• Not demonstrated on a commercial
scale
APPROPRIATE WASTES
• Soils from wood-treatment sites
• Petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated
soils
• Pesticides contaminated soil
6-27
-------
BIOTROL SOIL TREATMENT SYSTEM
(BSTS)
CONTAMINANTS
• Oil
• Creosote
• Pentachlorophenol
• Polynuclear aromatics
CONTAMINATED SOIL
CONTAMINATED WATER
/WATER TREATMENT
/BIOLOGICAL
/ PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL
SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
*-\
^
OVERSIZE U
_ \ \
$ \
ASIZE REDUCTION^
\) a )
REUSE
INCINERATION
PHYSICAL TREATMENT
(SOIL WASHING)
GRAVITY
SEPARATOR
ORGANICS
OPTIONS
SCRUBBING
RESIDUALS
MANAGEMENT
RECYCLE
CONCENTRATED ORGANIC
CONTAMINATION
INORGANIC FINES
INORGANICS (ROCKS,METALS)
OPTIONS
INCINERATION
CLEAN SOIL
PROCESS DIAGRAM FOR SOIL
WASHING SYSTEM
6-28
-------
PILOT SOIL WASHING EQUIPMENT
• 42' semi-trailer
• Soil feed rate up to 500 pounds
per hour (dry weight)
• Soils initially screened and
classified
• Countercurrent soil washing
using water
PILOT SOIL WASHING EQUIPMENT
(Continued)
• Contaminated water treated with
aerobic biological treatment system
• Decontaminated water recycled to
unit
• Sands and clays separated and
treated
• Large debris treated separately
SITE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
• Silty, fine to medium grained sands
with intermediate and laterally
discontinuous silt and sand lenses
6-29
-------
PENTACHLOROPHENOL SOIL
WASHING RESULTS
(All concentrations are in ppm)
tt of Dry Feed Influent Treated Percent
Sol Tests (bs/hr) Cone. Cone. Reduction
81 4 282 1.498 80 >94
(+/-77) C+/-558) (+/-37)
«2 5 420 160 10 >93
(+/-4S) (+/-26) (+/-5)
«3 5 443 215 24 >88
(+/-51) (+/-11) (+/-4)
ESTIMATED TREATMENT COSTS
• $100 per cubic yard
• Final cost depends upon:
-volume of soil to be treated
-specific contaminants present
-composition of soils
-required effluent concentrations
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
• Supplies/reagents
• Energy
• Operating personnel
• Disposal of end-products
6-30
-------
ECONOMICS
Capital equipment
Design/engineering
Installation expenses
Operational expenses
PRETREATMENT FACTORS
• Nonaqueous phase neat material removal
- specific gravity <1
- specific gravity >1
• pH
• Nutrients
• Toxicity
- organic
- inorganic
• Nuisance substances
- iron
- suspended solids
POST TREATMENT FACTORS
• Solids removal and disposal
• Effluent organics
- persistent compounds
- metabolic by-products
• Air emissions
6-31
-------
OTHER SOIL. SEDIMENT AND
TECHNOLOGIES UNDER
SLUDGE EXTRACTIVE TREATMENT
U.S. EPA SITE PROGRAM
Technology
Developer
Chemical Oxidation/
Cyanide Destruction
Liquid/Solid Contact
Digestion
Soil Hashing, Catalytic/
Ozone Oxidation
Low Energy Solvent
Extraction
Soil Mashing
Vapor Extraction System
XTRAX" Low-Temperature
Thermal Desorptlon
Carver-Greenfield Process for
Extraction of Oily Haste
Contained Recovery of Oily
Hastes (CROW
Exxon Chemicals, Inc.
HoTec. Inc.
Ozonlcs Recycling Corporation
Envlro-Sclences. Inc.
Maroon Environmental Services, Inc.
(formerly Envtrlte Field Services.
Inc.)
American Toxic Disposal. Inc.
Chemical Haste Management. Inc.
Dehydro-Tech Corporation
Hestern Research Institute
IN-SITU
PROCESSES
IN-SITU
VOLATILIZATION
Terra Vac, Inc.
Dorado, Puerto Rico
6-32
-------
TECHNOLOGY
• Highly volatile organics vacuumed from
soil interstices from bore hole
• Recovered gas passed through activated
carbon filters
ADVANTAGES
Simple process
Readily available equipment
Not depth-limited
LIMITATIONS
Only for highly-volatile organics
Dense soils (clays) significantly slow
diffusion
Spent carbon canisters must be
processed
6-33
-------
APPROPRIATE WASTES
Organics that are volatile at
ambient temperatures
BASIC COMPONENTS
• Production well
• Monitoring wells
• High-vacuum pumps
• Carbon bed filters
In-Sttu Vacuum Extraction
Terra Vac. Inc.
Secondary
ACCMM
CMton
dnMar
T»* , I
Tuck
Pump
Sod
Pump
Vapor
Liquid
Separator
AcCMMd
CMbon
"-Wete
Schematic dtegram of «qo«pmeot layout.
6-34
-------
SOLUTION MINING
Function: To inject or apply a flushing
solution in order to displace a
substance and allow the collection
of the contaminated leachate.
SOLUTION MINING
Applicability
• Heavy metals
• Hydrophilic organics
• Hydrophobia organics
• Sandy soils with < 10% clay
• Soils with < 5% TOG
TYPICAL EXTRACTION AGENTS
• Water
• Acids - HCI, H 2SO4, HNO3, Acetic acid
Dihydrogen phosphate
• Bases-Na2CO3. NaOH
• Surface active agents
• Complexing agents-citric acid, EDTA
• Organic solvents
-Water soluble
(e.g., acetone, ethanol. IP A)
-Water insoluble
(e.g., hexane)
• Combination of above
6-35
-------
SOLUTION MINING
Design Considerations
• Pollutant and concentration
• Organic content of soil
• Soil acidity (or alkalinity)
• Soil permeability
SOLUTION MINING
Design Considerations
(Continued)
• Properties of extracting solvent
• Proper design of injection and
withdrawal wells
• Pretreatment (e.g., oxidation)
• Results of shaker tests and
column testing programs
SOLUTION MINING
Limitations
• Permeability of soil
• High organic content in soil
• Preslfiit of interfering cations
• Unfavorable coefficient for extraction
6-36
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF
SOLUTION THROUGH DITCHES
TO TREATMENT
TO TREATMENT
CLAY OR BEDROCK
IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING
* Toxic Treatment (USA) Inc. "The Detoxifier"
• Drilling Tower
• Vapor Collection Shroud
• "Closed Loop" Treatment System
• 30 Square Foot Treatment Block. To 30 Feet Deep
• Tractor Mounted Drilling Tower And Separate
Process Train (161 x 48')
IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING
• Requires Flat (4 Degree Slope ), Graded Site
• No Subsurface Debris, Concrete. Etc.
9 Can Inject Solids. Liquids. Slurries. Gas
Claimed Applicable To In-Situ
• Air/Steam Stripping
• Chemical Treatment (Neutralization.
Oxidation)
- Solidification/Stabilization
6-37
-------
IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING
• On-Going Treatment By "The Detoxifier" At
San Pedro Terminal Site (Los Angeles)
• 8000 Cubic Yards (1.2 Acres, Up to 6 Feet
.Deep) Of Soil Contaminated With Chlorinated
And Non- Chlorinated Volatiles
• Treatment Targets-. <100 ppm Total HC
<5 ppm Benzene
IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING
"The Detoxifier" Treatment Of
4700 Cubic Yards Of Unsaturated Soil
Contaminated With Gasoline/Diesel
• Steam And Potassium Permanganate Oxidation
Of Highly Contaminated Soil
• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ppm)
Initial Final
Low 1,000 100-250
Mean 2.200 190
Max. 36.000 2.200
IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING
(Continued:)
• Average Processing Rate (In-Ground Only)
15 Cubic Yards/Hour
• Problems
- Breakthrough Of Hydrocarbons Stripped
From Most Contaminated Soil
(GAC Overload) Reinjected Into Soil
- Couldn't Strip Less Volatile Diesel
Fuel Components
6-38
-------
ON-SITE AND IN-SITU THERMAL
TREATMENT METHODS
• Reduce Toxicity And Volume
• Conventional And Innovative
Technologies
• All (Except Circulating Bed) Require
Offgas Controls
• Wastes Handled: Most Organics &
Organic-Contaminated Soils
IN-SITU THERMAL STRIPPING USING
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) HEATING
• Developed To Enhance Oil Recovery From
Tar Sands
• Electromagnetic (RF) Energy Absorption
Heats Soils To 220 To 400 Degrees Celsius
• Electrodes On Surface Or In Boreholes •
Depends On required Penetration Depth And
Temperature
• Soil/Ground Water Leads To Vaporization Or
Steam Stripping/Steam Distillation Ol
Volatile Organics
• Heating May Be Used To Accelerate In-Situ
Chemical Decontamination Processes 1 Meter,
Temperature >130 Degrees Celsius
Power Generation
- 1 MW For 10.000 SQ. FT By 8 FT Deep
Treatment Zone
6-39
-------
IN-SITU RF HEATING
• Maximum Penentration Depth 20 Ft - Limited By
- Power Requirements
- Heat Dissipation
- Ability Of Voiatiles To Escape
• Will Work Best In Damp Permeable Soils
• Estimated Cost $50/Ton (Not Including
Disposal Of Recovered Waste)
• Pilot Scale Testing (S'xS'xa1) At Volk Air
National Guard Base. Wisconsin. In 1987-88
IN-SITU RF HEATING SYSTEM
(Continued:)
• Off-Gas Containment
- Vapor Collection Hood
• Gas/Condensate Treatment
- Condenser
- Redistillation Unit (?)
- Carbon Adsorption (Air And Liquid Phase)
- Afterburner (?)
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
Technology
Sol washing
BEST
CF. Systems
Biotrol
Terra Vac
Solution mining
Steam stripping
RF heating
Separation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recovery
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Treatment
X
X
X
6-40
-------
SEPARATION AND TREATMENT
OF ORGAN1CS IN LIQUIDS
Abstract 7-2
Slides 7-6
7-1
-------
SEPARATION AND TREATMENT OF
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN LIQUIDS
Michael A. Crawford
Environmental Engineering & Remediation, Inc.
Somerville, Massachusetts
INTRODUCTION
In assessing management options for liquid waste streams contaminated with
organics, the treatment process selected should have as its goal the reduction of
hazardous volume, and if possible, the elimination of the hazardous properties of the
material. A number of separate, yet interdependent steps are necessary in the
formulation and selection of remedial alternative technologies. Two of the first steps in
accomplishing this goal are a characterization of the waste stream, followed by the
definition of the clean-up goals. The challenge then becomes the selection of applicable
unit technologies to treat these wastes in a cost-effective manner, while ensuring
regulatory compliance. Recognizing the wide variety of hazardous waste remediation
scenarios, treatment options for managing liquid wastes contaminated with organics can
be categorized as pretreatment, treatment, or reclamation.
PRETREATMENT
Most liquid organic waste streams require some sort of pretreatment before they are
introduced to the final or primary treatment process. Generally, some sort of phase
separation may be required to remove solid materials (that can adversely affect process
efficiency) or remove the organic contaminants from the liquid phase. Frequently, phase
separation permits a significant volume reduction, particularly if the hazardous
component is present to a significant extent in only one of the phases. Furthermore, by
concentrating the hazardous portion of the stream, sequential processing steps may be
accomplished more readily. Phase separation processes usually are mechanical,
inexpensive and simple, and can be applied to a broad spectrum of wastes and wastes
components.
The basic concept of separation processes is to get the solid phases or water to
separate from the organic phase, through the use of gravitational, centrifugal, or
hydrostatic forces. Emulsions are generally very difficult to separate. Heating, cooling,
change of pH, salting out, centrifugation, API separators, and other techniques may all be
tried, but there is no accurate way to predict its separation without treatability testing.
In addition to phase separation and/or modification of the waste properties through
mixing or heating, some sort of treatment may be required to separate components.
Component separation can be achieved physically by, for example, distillation of volatiles
or use of solvent extraction processes, or chemically by neutralization, oxidation, -or
precipitation. Pretreatment options are numerous and must be tailored to both the waste
stream and the process used for final treatment.
TREATMENT
Treatment of organic contaminants in a liquid phase is probably the most common
.management scenario confronting the hazardous waste profession. The reason is due to
the fact that dilute aqueous streams with low concentrations of organics are neither
amenable to recovery nor cost effective to treat by means of thermal destruction.
7-2
-------
Furthermore, effluent limitations or clean-up objectives often approach detection limits,
a situation where pretreatment by itself will not suffice. In assessing treatment options
for a particular organic wastewater, the possibility of combining unit technologies must
be completely evaluated both from a technical effectiveness and cost-analysis
perspective. The physical/chemical processes most applicable for treating dilute organic
waste streams are air stripping, stream stripping, liquid/liquid extraction, supercritical
solvent extraction, adsorption (carbon and resin), chemical oxidation and dehalogenation.
Solvents may be removed from the solution by applying air or steam to the mixture.
The organic solvent is driven to the vapor phase, depending primarily on the volatility of
the compound and the temperature. It can then be condensed for reuse, combusted,
adsorbed onto carbon for subsequent disposal. These technologies usually become less
efficient as the concentration of solvent is reduced.
Liquid/liquid extraction (solvent extraction) is widely used in the chemical process
industry but has not yet been extensively employed for treatment of hazardous wastes. It
may possibly be utilized advantageously to separate components that can not be separated
by processes based on differential volatilization. Extraction processes are applicable to
both aqueous and organic matrices, although partition coefficients are greatest for
aqueous/organic combinations.
Adsorption is highly applicable to most high weight molecular organics. Granular
activated carbon (GAC) or various resins are used as the material in this treatment
process. Constituents are adsorbed onto the surface via physical and chemical forces.
The adsorption forces are comparatively weak and therefore the reverse process,
desportion, is also possible. This reversible process allows the adsorbing surface to be
regenerated. Adsorption is not generally used in the treatment of nonaqueous process
streams. This is because the less polar the solvent stream, the less likely it will be that
constituents are removed from a relatively nonpolar solvent to a nonpolar adsorption
surface.
Chemical oxidation is a process which oxidizes ions or compounds to render them
nonhazardous or to make them more amenable to subsequent removal or destruction
processes. Species are oxidized by the addition of a chemical oxidizing agent which is
itself reduced. Chemical oxidation is most useful as a polishing step for dilute, relatively
clean aqueous wastes. Chemicals oxidants are relatively nonselective and may oxidize
other compounds present prior to oxidizing the contaminants of concern. As a result, this
process has limited application to wastewaters with large amounts of oxidizable
components. Chemical oxidation processes include oxidation with hydrogen peroxide,
potassium peroxide, or sodium hypochlorite; ozonation; alkaline chlorination, electrolytic
oxidation, or a combination of these processes.
Dehalogenation processes use chemical reagents to remove halogens from
halogenated molecules, to break apart chlorinated molecules, or to change the molecular
structure of the molecule. Metallic sodium is typically the reagent used to strip the
halogen away from the constituents to form a sodium salt. The majority of the
dehalogenation research has been aimed at the detoxification of PCBs. This process is
applicable to many other halogenated organic molecules such as chlorinated pesticides and
dioxin compounds.
7-3
-------
RECLAMATION
To some extent, most organics are considered soluble in water. When this solubility
is exceeded, the excess organics can be recovered by simple settling and decanting of the
insoluble fractions. Organics reclamation, particularly for solvents, may be considered a
viable treatment alternative when the waste stream under examination contains
significant quantities of recoverable materials. The three most commonly employed
reclamation technologies for organics are steam distillation, separators, and fractionation
columns.
Steam distillation is a process in which separation of two materials is achieved using
their differences in boiling point. Steam passing through a coil volatilizes the "lighter"
organic component, which then rises through the top of the vessel and is condensed in a
phase separator. The two most common distillation systems are the steam-coil and the
steam-stripper still.
The two types of separators used to recycle spent organics are scraped-surface
separators and thin-film separators. The scraped surface separator is well suited for
solvent streams with a high concentration of suspended solids and sludges, and can be
effective in separating spent solvent by density. A power-driven shaft with attached
paddles revolves inside a vertical vessel. This mechanism causes the incoming organic
stream to be agitated. The heavy solid materials fall to the bottom of the vessel while
the lighter materials are vaporized and drawn out of the top of the vessel. Heating is
achieved by any number of methods, with stream being the most prevalent. The thin-film
separator works on the same principal, however, the vertical slots are modified to spread
a thin film of liquid material against the vessel wall where it is exposed to heat. The
thin-film separator is best suited for reclaiming low-boiling-point solvents and is not
applicable to spent solvent streams containing suspended solids or dissolved resinous
material.
Fractional processes commonly employed for reclaiming spent solvents are
bubble-tray columns and packed columns. Fractionation by bubble-tray columns normally
requires several pretreatment steps in order to avoid solid material carry over and
subsequent build-up on the trays which reduces the overall process efficiency. Settling
tanks and thin-film separators are often employed to provide the pretreatment and ensure
a near-pure liquid feed stream to the fractionation column. The packed-column
fractionation system differs from the bubble-tray in that the column is packed with rings
to create a maze for the passage of liquids and vapors, thus increasing the surface contact
area and residence time.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program: Technology Profiles," EPA/540/5-89/013, November 1989.
Alliance Technologies Corporation, "Treatment Technologies for Halogenated Organic
Containing Wastes," EPA Contract No. 68-02-3997, October 1986.
7-4
-------
References (cont.)
Engineering Science, "Supplemental Report on the Technical Assessment of Treatment
Alternatives for Waste Solvents," EPA Contract No. 68-03-3149, September 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "A Compendium of Technologies Used in the
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes," EPA/625/8-87/014, September 1987.
Abushamian, R. and W.E. McGovern, "Organic Waste Reduction Using Critical Fluid
Extraction," Presented at Hazardous Technology International Conference, August 1987.
Nyer, E.K., "Groundwater Treatment Technology," Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York, 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Design Scale-up Suitability for Air Stripping
Columns," EPA/600/2-86/009, January 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic
Organics," EPA-600/8-80-023, April 1980.
Eckenfelder, W.W., "Application of Adsorption to Wastewater Treatment," Enviro Press,
Inc. Nashville, TN, 1981.
Sontheimer, H., J.C. Crittenden, R.S. Summers, Activated Carbon for Water Treatment,
AWWA Research Foundation, 1988.
Weber, W., Physiocheraical Processes for Water Quality Control, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1972.
Water Pollution Control Federation MOP FD-11, "Removal of Hazardous Wastes in
Wastewater Facilities - Halogenated Organics," 1986.
Clark, R.M., B.W. Lykins, "Granular Activated Carbon Design, Operation and Costs,"
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 1989.
American Society of Civil Engineers, American Water Works Associations, "Water
Treatment Plant Design," McGraw Hill Publishing, New York, 1990.
7-5
-------
CHARACTERIZING THE WASTE STREAM
• Organic content parameters: COD, BOD.
TOC, TOX
• Solids content: TS, TSS, TDS, TVS
• Specific organic compounds: which
fractions, DL, analytical method
• In-situ parameters: temperature. pH,
ORP. conductivity
• Other: viscosity
PLOT STUDES
• Air stripping
• Adsorption isotherm studies
• Oxidation evaluations
• Evaluate impacts of metals,
other pollutants
ft-fT
«*M*EU»C*tK)«8 MfllINO PMT-WAU TRCATMUTY STUDY
7-6
-------
KXXJ-]
Hun I V«t«r Ratio It 1 Kit
SI t.« a* TOil 2(0 2.9 «.00»
• I t.i a* tooii no 5 0.0068
• 3 >.2 om «7il 990 6.7 0.0052
«5il 990 9.0 o.ood
14
I tO I
IM tlO
LOCATION IB FMN Toror MenM irtrn
TCE CONCENTRATION PROFILES FOR RUNS 1THROUGH 4
APPLYING THE PROCESS TO
ORGANJCS IN AN AQUEOUS MATRIX
i
p
Of
Ctwraetorlzo tho
wmto •troam
1
|
•(Ubllsh cbomleal
roportto* of driving
gaple oontamlnajite
1
^ C...K
"^ do««
cbj.e
1
AMOS* vtabMty of unit toehnoloalo*
from • mochantetlc porcpoetlvo
|
ilteh
-OP
Uvoc
Formutato oyttoni «n«rn»Uv«« |
t
TroaUbOtty *tu
-------
CONCENl
•.
CARBON ADSORPTION
AIR STRIPPING
DISTILLATION
DRYING
REUSE "AS-IS*
WCINERATION
WET-AIR |OR| CHEMICAL
OXIDATION
•••• ECOM
ORGANIC LIQUIDS
HATION RANGE OF APPLICABILITY
ItKCENT SOLVENT
(t 1.11 l.tt W.«t »»••» IM
$pff.
*J77f/
|
|
a
•
|
•••••
H
••••
H
••••
B
1MICAU.Y LESS DESIRABLE
•t
OH/WATER SEPARATION
Quiescent gravity separation of two
(or more) immiscible liquids having
sufficiently different densities
(such as oil and water)
Extensively used as a pretreatment
step to subsequent unit processes
• Depends on waste temperature, pH,
flow rate
• Emulsion breaking with acids, metal
salts, etc., may be necessary
• Centrifugation of skimmed oil may
be appropriate
7-8
-------
inLvorr wo*
«ri OU/HMU fepmcn
AIR STRIPPING
Process of mixing air and contaminated
water together to facilitate the removal
of volatile contaminants from water
AIR STRIPPING
• Several tower configurations - most common
is counter-current packed tower
• Treatment efficiency: Henry's coefficient,
A:W ratio, KLa, temperature, pressure.
surface area
• Objective: maximize air/water surface
area contact
7-9
-------
AIR STRIPPING
• Steady state process, i.e. %
removal is independent of
influent concentration
• Packed towers are susceptible
to fouling and plugging
• Contaminated air stream may
require treatment
AJRSTfOPfWG COLUMN— RMG4WCKMGTYPE
feed
Perforated Tray
Air
MLOT-SCAUE AIR STRIPPING TOWER
7-10
-------
AIR STRIPPING APPLICATION
• Henry's coefficient values above
20 atmospheres
• Volatiles that are not soluble in water
• Pollutant concentrations <10-100 ppm
• No suspended solids, low hardness.
low iron (<1.0 ppm)
• Warmer ambient environments assist process
STEAM STOPPING PROCESS
Continuous fractional separation process
carried out in a packed or tray tower
Residuals are contaminated steam, which is
normally run through a condenser for recovering
product, and stripped effluent
STEAM STRIPPING COLUMN-
PERFORATED TRAY TYPE
UqoJd
Feed
Steam
Heat
Stripped
Effluent
7-11
-------
STEAM STRIPPING APPLICATION
• Chlorinated hydrocarbons
• Aromatics such as xylene
• Ketones such as acetone or MEK
• Alcohols such as methanol
• High boiling chlorinated aromatics
such as pentachlorophenol
• Treats less volatile more soluble
compounds than air stripping
• Can handle pollutant concentrations
from <100ppb to >10X
UQUD/UQUD EXTRACTION
Separation of two intimately mixed or mutually
soluble liquids by introduction of a third
liquid which is a solvent for one (solute) and
insoluble and immiscible with the second liquid
Solvent/solute stream (extract) is subsequently
separated by distillation or chemical means
UQUID/UQUID EXTRACTION
Appfcation
Normally requires subsequent treatment
for raffinate
Used in various industries to remove organic
contaminates from aqueous wastes
-petroleum refining
•organic chemicals
•pulp and paper
•iron and steel
7-12
-------
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
FEED.
SOLVENT-
-EXTRACT
-RAFFMATE
MOER SETTLER
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Residuals
• Raffinate
treated effluent
contaminated with solvent
• Extract
CONTINUOUS FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION
Distillation
Column
Perforated Tray Type
Distillation Plate
Accumulator
Distillate
Rebofler
Ste&m
Condensate
Still Bottoms
(Residue)
7-13
-------
SUPERCRITICAL SOLVENT EXTRACTION
Separation noi a destruction process
Critical temperature and pressure are used
to enhance solvent properties of a fluid
CO2 or propane used as liquified gas
for extracting contaminants
APPLICATION OF SUPERCRITICAL
SOLVENT EXTRACTION
carbon telracMeride
chloroform
benzene
mptittaJene
phenol
vinyl acetate
PC8a
butyric add
djcMoroettwne
heptane
xytcnc
methyl acetate
acetone
butanol
propanol
CF SYSTEMS CORPORATION
(Solvent Extraction)
Ctoin Organic!
S«
-------
ADSORPTION PROCESSES
Separation technology used to remove
dissolved organics and certain inorganics
from a single-phase fluid stream
PRINCIPLE: ADSORPTION
Function: Separation, Recovery,
Volume Reduction/Concentration,
Pretreatment
• Processes
-carbon adsorption
-resin adsorption
GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
• Unsteady state process (all or nothing)
• Carbon can be regenerated
• Applicable for mixed organics from aqueous
• Best suited for removing organics with:
-High molecular weights
-low water solubilities
-low polarity
-low degree of ionization
• TOC as high as 10,000 ppm treated
7-15
-------
GAG LIMITATIONS
• Not effective for highly polar or
soluble organics (i.e., alcohols & ketones)
• Not suited for oil and grease
• TSS should be < 10mg/l
• Effectiveness sensitive to proper installation,
operation, and maintenance of system
• Operational costs
GAG PILOT TESTING
• Laboratory isotherm data
• Pilot column testing
• Accelerated column testing (ACT)
RESM ADSORPTION
Adsorption and recovery of an organic
substance from an aqueous waste by
means of a synthetic resin fixed bed
Differs from GAC in that attraction between
solute molecules and resin is less than GAC,
thus promoting easier regeneration and recovery
7-16
-------
RESIN ADSORPTION
• Requires low suspended solids (<10mg/l)
• pH dependent
• Strong oxidants cannot be present
• Process used more as a polishing step
• Very applicable for phenol removal
• Applicable for explosive materials
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
Function: Increase the oxidation state of a
substance by the removal off electrons
or the addition of oxygen.
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
Applicability
• ON bearing wastes
• Non-chlorinated pesticides
• Pretreatment for certain refractory
organics
• Polishing step to oxidize
trace organics
7-17
-------
TYPICAL OXIDATION PROCESSES
• Oxidation by hydrogen peroxide
• Oxidation by potassium permanganate
• Ozonation
* Ozonation in conjunction
with UV radiation
• Alkaline chlorination
• Oxidation by NaOd
• Electrolytic oxidation
• Supercritical water oxidation
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
Design Considerations
• pH conditions
• Adequate mixing
• Heat of reaction
• Materials of construction
• Oxidation reduction potential
• Composition of by-products
CHEMICAL OXIDATION
Limitations
• Non-selective process
• Certain transition metals
(e.g., soluble iron)
• Slurries, tars, sludges
• Potential toxic by-products
• Long process time
for certain applications
7-18
-------
ULTROX UV/O3 PROCESS
• Alternative to carbon adsorption
• No residues generated
• Especially suited for chlorinated hydrocarbons
• Can treat organics from ppm range
to less than detectable limits
• System is portable
TiraMORQM
Isometric View of Ultxox System
7-19
-------
DEHALOGENATION
Function: Break apart or rearrange the
structure of chlorinated molecules
to form less hazardous compounds
DEHALOGENATION
Applicability
• PCBs
• Dioxins
• Other chlorinated hydrocarbons
(solvents and pesticides)
TYPICAL DEHALOGENATION
PROCESSES
• Alkali metals
• Metallic sodium and potassium in
conjunction with proprietary
reagents
7-20
-------
SODIUM - BASED PROCESSES
• Suitable for oils
containing <1000 ppm PCS
• Water sensitive
• Expensive
• Transformer decontamination
WASTE EXCHANGES
State and area programs where waste
generators can make their waste streams
available for sale to reclaimers and
other processes
Privately owned companies who blend
organics wastes for resale as fuels
See inorganic section for waste
exchange list
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
Granular
activated carbon
Resin
adsorption
Oxidation
UY/Ozonation
Dehalogenation
Separation Recovery Treatment
X
X X
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
Pretreat- Separation Recovery
ment
X
X
X
Oil/water
separation
Air stripping
Steam stripping
Liquid /liquid
extraction
X
X
Supercritical
solvent extraction
7-21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
COLLECTION
AND TREATMENT
OF GASES
Abstract 8-2
Slides 8-5
8-1
-------
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF GASES
Edward G. Soboslay
UEC Environmental Systems, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Air pollution problems at RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) and at uncontrolled hazardous waste (CERCLA) sites may be the
result of area fugitive emissions, process point source emissions and process fugitive
emission. These emissions can be sources of both inorganic and organic hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs).
Contaminated fugitive dusts from wind erosion, vehicular traffic, heavy equipment
activity and material handling operations from processes such as incineration can be
controlled by preventive techniques including wet suppression, stabilization, speed
reduction, surface cleaning, wind breakers and good operating practices.
Control of organic vapor emissions from non-point sources such as landfills, spills
and surface impoundment can be controlled by several means including pretreatment
design and operating practices, in-situ controls and and posttreatment techniques. Gas
control technologies at hazardous waste landfills include the use of multimedia caps and
either active or passive gas collection systems. Active systems use gas vents and wells
with vacuum pumps to collect the landfill gas for treatment. A passive system uses
vapor barriers and collection systems that operate on diffusion and natural pressure.
The vapor released from spills of volatile chemicals can be most effectively controlled
by aqueous foam blankets, covers or mats. Available gas control options to reduce the
rate of emissions from surface impoundments include complete enclosure, floating solid
objects, shape modification, aerodynamic modification and floating oil layers and
surfactants.
Control of organic vapor emission from equipment leaks such as pumps, valves and
pressure relief valves can be accomplished by installing specific types of equipment
that minimize leak and by implementing a leak detection and repair program. Closed
vent systems can be installed to collect organic vapors for treatment by flaring,
incineration, or vapor recovery.
Process point sources are generally controlled by add-on control devices for both
particulate and organic vapor emissions. Selection of applicable control techniques for
point source emissions is made on the basis of gas stream specific characteristics and
desired control efficiency. Control devices which are applicable to paniculate emission
steming from point sources are cyclones, fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, wet
scrubbers and entrainment separators. Their applicability depends on the physical,
chemical and electrical properties of the airborne paniculate material.
Add-on type control technologies for the control of organic vapor emissions are
adsorption, condensation, adsorption, flaring and incineration. Adsorption, condensation
and adsorption are recovery technologies which are selected based on their removal
efficiencies which in turn depend on the physical and chemical characteristics of the
organic vapor. Flaring and incineration are combustion type technologies which are
capable of high removal efficiencies for most types of organic vapors. Absorbers are
generally impractical when used alone in organic vapor control applications because
they cannot achieve low outlet concentrations required. Therefore, absorbers generally
8-2
-------
are used with other control technologies such as incineration. Condensers used alone
can control emission streams containing high VOC concentrations (> 5,000 ppmv) with a
removal efficiency ranging from 50 to 90 percent. Removal efficiency above
90 percent are achievable if low temperature coolants are used. Frequently, condensers
are use used as the preliminary technology prior to incinerators, adsorbers or
absorbers. Carbon adsorbers can achieve removal efficiencies of 95-99 percent with a
maximum inlet VOC concentration of 10,000 ppmv. Stream-assisted flares can achieve
98 percent destruction efficiency when controlling emission streams with heat contents
greater than 300 BTU/scf.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Transportable Dust and Vapor Suppression
Technologies for Excavating Contaminated Soils, Sludges and Sediments,11 Office of
Research and Development, Interim Report. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3450, Cincinnati,
OH, September 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Investigation of Feedstock Preparation and
Handling for Mobile On-Site Treatment Technologies,11 Office of Research and
Development, Draft Final Report. EPA Contract No, 68-03-3450, Cincinnati, OH,
August, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites,"
Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/6-85/006, October,
198S.
Cooper, C.D. and Alley, F.C., "Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach," PWS
Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "In-Situ Methods to Control Emissions from
Surface Impoundments and Landfills," Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH, October, 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Corrective Action: Technologies and
Applications," Cincinnati, OH, EPA/625/4-89/020, September, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Facilities," Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Draft, Research
Triangle Park, NC, February, 1986.
Theodore, L. and Buonscore, "Air Pollution Control Equipment," Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982.
Freeman, Harry M. (ed), "Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1989.
Cheremisihoff, P.N., "Fine Particulate Control In Air Pollution," Pudvan Publishing
Company, Northbrook, IL, 1988.
8-3
-------
Bethea, R.M., "Air Pollution Control Technology," Van Nostrand and Reinhold Company,
New York, NY, 1978.
Purcell, R.Y. and Sharalf, G.S., "Handbook of Control Technologies for Hazardous Air
Pollutants," Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York, NY, 1988.
Klumpp, T.F., et al., "Removal and Treatment of Dissolved and Floating Organic
Compounds in a Contaminated Groundwater," In: 50th Annual Meeting International
Water Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, October 23,1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Evaluation of Emission Controls for Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities," Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, November, 1984.
Eklund, B. and Summerhays, "Procedures for Estimating Emissions From The Cleanup of
Superfund Sites," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, January, 1990.
8-4
-------
EMISSION SOURCES
• Area fugitive sources
• Process fugitive sources
• Process point sources
AREA FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
• Participates
• Organics
CONTAMINATED FUGITIVE DUSTS
• Wind erosion of wastes and
contaminated soils
• Vehicular traffic
-unpaved roads
• Heavy equipment activity
-handling, excavating, loading
• Incineration of wastes during
remediation
8-5
-------
What degree of control required?
High
Low to moderate
Ye*
Can a« operation* be
performed/controlled
by technologic*?
Consider: Air-supported
enclosures, or
self-supported
enclosures
Consider: Vacuum truck*,
covers, mats, and membrane*
Are operation* improved
by wet weather?
Con*ider: Scheduling
Are contaminants
compatible with
technologies?
Consider:
- water
- water additives
- Inorganics
- organlcs
- foams
Can control of some/key
operations provide
overall control?
Yes
Consider: Vacuum trucks,
covers, mats, and membranes
FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION SOURCES AND
APPLICABLE CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Source
Unpaved roads
Construction activities
Dust from paved roads
Off-road vehicles
Overburden removal/
storage
Reclamation efforts
Inactive tailings piles
Disturbed soil surfaces
Agricultural tiffing
Wet
sup-
pression
X
X
X
Stabili-
zation
X
X
X
X
Speed
reduc-
tion
X
X
Surface
cleaning/
trans-
portation
con-
trols
X
X
Wind-
breaks
X
X
X
Good
oper-
ating
prac-
tices
X
X
X
X
8-6
-------
CLASSIFICATION OF TESTED
CHEMICAL SUPPRESSANTS
Dust suppressant category Trade name
Salts
Lignosulfonates
Surfactants
Petroleum-based
Mixtures
Peladow LiquiDow
Dustgard
Lignosite Trex
Biocat
Petro Tac Coherex
Arco 2200 Arco 2400
Generic 2 (QS)
Arcote 220/Flambinder
Soil Sement
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
FOR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Emission Points Control Procedure Efficiency
Handling
Dumping
Wind Erosion
Grading
Keep material wet 100X
Cover or enclose hauling No estimate
Minimize free fad ol material No estimate
Spray bar at dump area SOX
Minimize free fad of material No estimate
Semi-enclose bin No estimate
Cover with dirt or stable
material 100Z
CnemtcaHy stabilize 602
Revegetafe 29Z-100Z
Rapidly reclaim newly
fitted areas No estimate
Water SOX
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
FOR OPEN STORAGE PILES
EnHMton Points
Control Procedure
Efficiency
Loading onto Enclosure 70-99X
Pies Chemical wetting agents or
foam 80-901
Adjustable chutes T5Z
Movement of Enclosure S3-991
We Chemical wetting agents 90 Z
Watering SOX
Traveling booms to distrbute
material No estimate
Wind Erosion Enclosure 95-931
Wind screens Very low
Chemical wetting agents or foam 90Z
Screening of material prior to
storage; fines to processing No estimate
loadout Water spraying 90 Z
Gravity feed onto conveyor 60 Z
Stacker/reclaimer 25-801
8-7
-------
Control Technology Applications for
Roads
Emission Points
Control Procedure
Efficiency
Paved Streets Street cleaning No estimate
Housecleaning programs to
reduce deposition of material
on streets No estimate
Vacuum street sweeping
(daily) (2) 25% (17)
Speed reduction' Variable
Unpaved
Roads
Road
Shoulders
Paving
Chemical .stabilization
Watering
Speed reduction
Stabilization
85%
50%
50%
Variable
80%
What degree of control required?
High
ORGANIC VAPOR
NON-POINT SOURCES
• Landfills
• Spills
• Surface impoundments
Consider: Alr-tupporUd
enclosures, or
solf-supportod
enclosures
Low
Based on specific sltel
T
Consider:
- Inorganics
- water
- water additives
- covers, mats and
membranes
Moderate
Are operations Improved
by wet weather?
Consider: Scheduling
J_
Can control of some/key
operations provide
overall control?
Consider: Vacuum trucks
Are contaminants compatible with technologies?
Consider: Organic*, foam, acid gas neutralization additives
8-8
-------
TYPES OF CONTAMINANTS AND MODES OF TRANSPORT (U.S. EPA, SEPTEMBER 1988)
Contaminant/Type
Mode of Transport
(Vapor or Dust)
Migration Concerns
Landfill Gases
Methane
Hydrogen sulfide
Inorganic Acid Vapors
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen chloride
Sulfuric acid
Volatile Organic Compounds
A variety of chlorinated
and nonchlorinated
organic compounds
ranging in volatility
from methylene chloride
to chlorobenzene.
Senivolatile Organic Compounds
A variety of chlorinated
and nonchlorinated
organic compounds
ranging from dichlorobenzene
to pyrene.
Pol ychl ori nated bi phenyl s
Dioxins. Furans
Vapor Difficult to contain, highly mobile,
ignitable at high concentrations, toxic
at high to moderate concentrations,
malodorous at low concentrations.
Vapor Difficult to contain, highly mobile,
corrosive, toxic at high to low
concentrations, malodorous at low
concentrations.
Vapor Typically contained in soil moisture or
adsorbed onto soil organic fraction and
is readily stripped from the soil when
in contact with fresh air not already
saturated with organics. A wide range
of toxicity, carcinogenicity, and odor
characteristics.
Vapor and Dust Typically adsorbed onto soil organic
fraction or present in separate liquid
or solid phase. Transport to vapor
phase generally lower. Transport via
dust possible. A wide range of
toxicity, carcinogenicity. and odor
characteristics.
Dust
(to a lesser
extent vapor)
Dust
Pesticides (Organic)
2.4-0
2.5-TP silver
Lindane
Pentachlorophenol
(total Dusts
Lead/lead oxides
Dissolved/Adsorbed Metals
Chromium
Cadmium
Metal Vapors
Mercury
Radiation
Dust (to a
lesser extent
vapor)
Dust (to a
lesser extent
vapor)
Dust
Vapor
Typically adsorbed onto soil organic
fraction. Relatively low volatility
results in lower vapor phase transport
rate. Transport via dust possible.
A highly regulated carcinogen.
Typically adsorbed onto soil organic
wastes. Low volatility limits vapor
phase transport.
Transport possible via dust. Highly
regulated, highly toxic classes of
organic compounds.
Typically adsorbed onto soil organic
fraction or associated with organic
wastes. Low volatility resulting in
lower vapor phase transport. Transport
via dust possible. Typically
environmentally persistent with a range
of toxicity and carcinogenicity
characteristics. Typically low
solubility results in little chemical
binding to soil. Physically mixed with
soil and/or battery casings. Transport
via dust possible.
Typically low to moderate solubility
results in some migration at relatively
low concentration and adsorption onto
soils. Transport via dust possible, but
metal fraction is low. Persistent and
toxic.
Mercury volatile in metallic form.
Transport via vapor. Toxic.
Dust and Vapor May be present in gas (e.g., radon) or
solid form. 'Exposure to radioactive
dusts, particularly hazardous due to
release of alpha particles and other
ionizing radiation.
8-9
-------
COST AND EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS DUST SUPPRESSION
FORMULATIONS ON A 50-FT X 50-FT EXPOSED TEST AREAa
Material
Cost/Acre
Dollarsb
1642
2661
5481
70
548
309
1009
959
906
77
Type of Application
Formulation Concentration0
Latex acrylic copolymer
Carboxylated styrene-
butadiene copolymer
Nonwoven geotextile
Lignosulfonate
Vinyl acetate resin
Synthetic resin
Latex
Petroleum resin
Straw mulch with
emulsified asphalt
Vegetable gum
3X
20%
8 oz/yd2
in
10X
3X
7.2X
25X
NA
0.3X
Application
Rate
1.0 gal /yd2
0.6 gal/yd2
12-ft roll
0.5 gal /yd2
0.2 gal /yd2
0.3 gal /yd2
0.5 gal/yd2
0.5 gal/yd2
NA
1.4 gal /yd2
Effectiveness d
@ 15 days (
0
Not given
44X
8X
0
0
15X
0
0
36X
» 30 days
0
5X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4X
Adapted from Rosbury (June 1985).
Material costs updated to August 1988 dollars by Chemical Week (CW) price service index
of industrial chemical prices. Actual increases for specific chemicals may vary.
c Percent formulation in water.
Percent effectiveness - 1 -
controlled ppm
uncontrolled ppm
x 100.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMMARY OF DUST AND VAPOR SUPPRESSANT PRODUCTS
Product Type Typical Material
Cost ($/Acre)»
Calcium lignosulfonates
Calcium chloride
Sodium silicate
Vinyl acetate resins
Acrylic emulsions
Ammonium lignosulfonates
Asphalt emulsion
Soil enzyme
Wood fibers with plastic netting
Pol yure thane-Pol yurea Foam
Sodium bentonite clay
Sodium bentonite and geotextile
fabric
67
230
340
480
840
620
1,180
1.400
1.700
8.400
16.500
26.10G
Form
Organic binder
Inorganic binder
Inorganic binder
Water additive
Water additive
Organic binder
Organic binder
In-Situ injectable
Covers, mats, membranes
Foam
Covers, mats, membranes
Covers, mats, membranes
* Costs updated to August 1988 dollars by vendor information.
8-10
-------
GAS CONTROLS FOR
LANDFILLS
• Capping
• Active gas collection
• Passive gas collection
CROSS-SECTION ILLUSTRATING A
MULTIMEDIA CAP DESIGN
2% miniinum stope =y
Manuring
J®
Waste
PwkMUrsuitao*
fl«sootoelioo
Gacdraction
-o
""
O...
.
e
•Interior
underground
oAsconcbon
L=a
Bower
fcKffitf
Active gas collection system at a closed
landfill site.
8-11
-------
—*• Areatobe
protected
®
Drainage
around la
landM
«
, M»<. J
Gas extraction well
Paved drainage Monitoring probe
crossing* required (space @ 100 ft ±O.C.)
4hPVC.vantpiM*
(«paee@SOft±O.C.)
Dnhage
Monitoring
probe
4 in PVC perforated oofectoT*
fgontg
Low oreundMator table, bedrock. Me.
For sppucstions
venting of gases to
•kno^nere is aooeptaUe.
' Coteckx can be used to
convey gases to a treat-
ment syslem.
Passive gas collection using a permeable trench
(a) Plan view; (b) section A-A
8-12
-------
SPILL VAPOR CONTROL
• Foams
• Spill cooling
• Immiscible liquid covers
• Direct neutralization
GAS CONTROL FROM SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS
• Enclosure
• Floating solid objects
• Shape modification
• Aerodynamic modification
• Floating oil layer
and surfactants
ENCLOSURES
• Air-supported structure
• Vapor collected and treated
• Susceptible to wind damage
• Vapors may be harmful to
cover materials
• Control effectiveness about 100%
8-13
-------
To treatment
Cover Lagoon
FLOATING SOLID OBJECTS
• Synthetic membrane covers
• Rafts
• Hollow plastic spheres
SYNTHETIC MEMBRANE COVERS
* Feasible if oxygen transfer not needed
• Outgassing of volatiles not expected
• Liner material permeable to some vapors
• Damage caused by weathering or waste contact
• Effectiveness can approach 100%
8-14
-------
RAFTS
• Restrict the surface area exposed
to air
• Reduces oxygen absorption
• Short life - damage due to
contact with waste
• Effectiveness about 90%
FLOATING HOLLOW SPHERES
• Made from polypropylene with projections
to prevent rotation
• Spheres restrict oxygen absorption
• Reduces emissions
• Effectiveness - 80 to 90%
• May be blown away in high winds
Floating objects
\
Liquid
Floating Objects
to reduce evaporation
8-15
-------
SHAPE MODIFICATION
• Berm height - reduces wind emissions
• Liquid depth - greater depth and less
surface area reduces emissions
• Length, width and orientation
normal wind direction to narrow
width produces least emissions
AERODYNAMICS MODIFICATION
• Wind barriers effective in reducing
emissions under wind-enhanced conditions
• Porous wind fence material for dust
control superior to solid fences
• Wind fences achieve emission
reduction of up to 80%
• Oxygen absorption similarly affected
Wind direction
Wind fences
Surface Impoundments
Aerodynamic Modifications
8-16
-------
AERODYNAMIC MODIFICATION
(Continued)
• 4 to 10 feet high
• Reduction of wind velocity
expected for distance of 1 to 5
fence height downstream
• Composed of polyester or other
high strength material
FLOATING OIL LAYERS
AND SURFACTANTS
• Immiscible liquid floating on surface
found effective in reducing air
emissions about 90% under little
wind conditions
• Under windy conditions, covering
blown aside, emission reduction of
50 to 80% expected
PROCESS FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
8-17
-------
VOC EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Control technique
Percent efficiency
TSHO application
Enclosure
Vapor absorption
Vapor condensation
Carbon adsorption
Flares
Refrigeration
npor rtcovtry
Vapor balancing syxtea
SubMrged loading
90*
CO (surface condenser)
99 (two-state condenser)
90*
(nonregenerable)
95*
(regenerable)
93r97
98
90-98
99
65
Internal floating roof tank 90-95
(« function of
High-pressure tank
Leak detection and repair*
Spill response
33 (valves)
44
-------
PROCESS POINT
SOURCES
Particulates
Organics
PARTICULATE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
FOR CONTAINED EMISSIONS
• Cyclones
• Filters
• Electrostatic preclpltators
• Wet scrubbers
• Entralnment separators
DATA NEEDS FOR PARTICULATE
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Emission Stream Properties
HAP content
Particulate content
Moisture content
Sulfur trioxide content
Flow rate
Temperature
Particle mean diameter
Drift velocity
8-19
-------
Typical Particulate Size
Substance Normal
Maximum Size,
nicrons
Water vapor mists
Pulverized coal
Dust
Foundry shakeout dust
Cement dust
Fly Ash
Plant pollens
Fog (nature)
Plant spores
Bacteria
Insecticide dust
Paint pigment spray
Snog
Tobacco smoke
Oil smoke
Zinc oxide fume
Coal smoke
Viruses
500
250
200
200
150
110
60
40
30
15
10
4
2
1
1
0.3
0.2
0.05
Hormal
Minimum Size,
microns
40
25
20
1
10
3
2O
1.5
10
1
0.4
0.1
0.001
0.01
O.03
0.01
0.01
O.O03
DATA NEEDS FOR INORGANIC
VAPOR EMISSION CONTROL
SYSTEMS
Emission Stream Properties HAP Properties
HAP content
Moisture content
Halogen/metal content
Flow rate
Temperature
Pressure
Molecular weight
Vapor pressure
Solubility
Adsorptive properties
8-20
-------
Cyclones
CYCLONE COLLECTORS
Advantages
• Low cost of construction
• Relatively simple equipment with
few maintenance problems
• Relatively low operating pressure
drops in the range of approximately
2 to 6 in. water column
• Temperature and pressure limitations
imposed only by the materials used
• Dry collection and disposal
• Relatively small space requirements
8-21
-------
CYCLONE COLLECTORS
Disadvantages
• Relatively low overall participate
collection efficiencies, especially
on participates below 10 microns in size
• Inability to handle tacky materials
itic diagram of « pulse-j«< UA^M
Blowpipe
Deny tit
BAGHOUSE
Advantages
Very efficient at removing fine participate
matter from a gaseous stream; control
efficiency can exceed 99% for most
applications
Lower pressure drop than venturi scrubber
when controlling fine particulates;
i.e. 2" to 6" water compared with
greater than 40" water
(1 of 2)
8-22
-------
BAGHOUSE
Advantages
• Can collect electrically resistive
particles
• With mechanical shaking or reverse
air cleaning, control efficiency is generally
independent of inlet loading
• Simple to operate
(2 of 2)
BAGHOUSE
Disadvantages
• Cannot control high temperature
stream (>550 F) without a precooler
• Cannot effectively control stream
with high moisture content
Highly erosive particles can damage
(10,2,
BAGHOUSE
Disadvantages
• Mechanical collectors generally required
upstream if significant amounts of
large particulates (> 20 urn) are present
• Needs special or selected fabrics to
control corrosive streams
• Least efficient with particles between
0.1 urn to 0.3 urn diameter
(2 of 2)
8-23
-------
eacHMec atcfmf
Si'
Electrostatic precipitator
-usauiiee
H
HI
B
•occnmoe +
ta
Sequence of events to an electrostatic prcclpltoter.
I. G«ntro1l«g a »trong tlcclrlcal fltltf b«tw»«n • I tetrad* t.
2.Pa»»lng »o*p*«d*d partlcl** to t* celt*ct«4 tkr«agk tlw
fltld «h«re«poB th«y ort •Itctrlcally charged by «tan»
•f IcelxotlCB.
3. Charged portlct** «r« tktn traupert«< to a coOtctlug
•arfec*, by HMM of tfc« fore* ««»rt«d on thtm by 1h«
•Uetrfe field.
4. Cltetrleelly charged particle* precipitated oa colectlng
•urface ore neotratlzed A remand fey obakbg the
cellectlag electrode.
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR (ESP)
Advantages
• Can control very small <<0.1 micron)
particles
• Efficiency up to 99+%
• Low operating costs with very
low pressure drop (0.5" water)
• Can collect corrosive or tar mists
• Power requirements for continuous
operation are low
• Wet ESPs can collect gaseous pollutants
8-24
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS (ESP)
Disadvantages
• High initial capital investment
• Not readily adaptable to changing
conditions
• Conditioning agent may be necessary
to control resistive particles
• More sensitive to particle loading
than other devices
• Space requirements may be greater
than that for a fabric filter or
venturi scrubber
VENTURE SCRUBBER MAY FEED LIQUID
THROUGH ETS a OVER A WEIR b OR
SWIRL THEM ON A SHELF c
VENTURI
Advantages
• Low initial investment
• Takes up relatively little space
• Can control sticky, flammable, or
corrosive matter with few problems
• Can simultaneously collect particulates
and gaseous matter
b.
(1 Of 2)
8-25
-------
YENTURI
Advantages
Control efficiency is independent
of particle resistivity
• Simple to operate, few moving parts
• Efficiency up to 99+%
(2 Of 2)
VENTURI
Disadvantages
• High operating cost due to high
pressure drop (40" water or greater).
particularly for smaller (<1 micron)
particles
• Has wastewater and cleaning/disposal
costs
• Least efficient with particles less
than 0.5'micron diameter
8-26
-------
EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS
STANDARDS
DETERMINES COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
CONTROL EQUIPMENT ALTERNATIVES
DRY
CENTRIFUGAL
COLLECTOR
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
WET
COLLECTOR
FABRIC
FILTER
AFTER-
BURNER
CAS STREAM
CHARACTERISTICS
PARTICLE
CHARACTERISTICS
VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
MOISTURE CONTENT
CORROSIVENESS
ODOR
EXPLOSIVENESS
VISCOSITY
WASTE TREATMENT
SPACE RESTRICTION
PRODUCT RECOVERY
PROCESS
1 •
PLANT
FACILITY
IGNITION POINT
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ABRASIVENESS
HYGROSCOPIC NATURE
ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES
GRAIN LOADING
DENSITY AND SHAPE
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
WATER AVAILABILITY
FORM OF HEAT RECOVERY
(GAS OR LIQUID)
ENGINEERING STUDIES
HARDWARE
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
LAND
STRUCTURES
INSTALLATION
START-UP
E
COST OF
CONTROL
POWER
WASTE DISPOSAL
WATER
MATERIALS
GAS CONDITIONING!
LABOR
TAXES
INSURANCE
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
SELECTED
GAS CLEANING SYSTEM
DESIRED EMISSION RATE
Criteria for selection of gas cleaning equipment.
8-27
-------
CturMttriitto of Air Pollution Control Equipment
NuMWOnta
OM«ll
"gy
(lir.Wilir,
MnMacMy
AII MkbMr
tabttM *ky.
Indiutrkl Ctotkttt
HUM
OMbotMMil
0-ltMOO
MtWOO
bilo hoppoit
DfymMctloii
FlMi
DKnmorpor-
formtiutk
Mlkoibk
CoOonkHlor
Ml|k iflkkiuki
oonlbk
hig velocity
ItlfMflfllpfnliirt
IIMI mull b«
cooM 10 100* I-1
10 tStff
Afttfltd by nil-
Iht humidity
StnetpllMllty of
ribrk w rttml-
til iiucfc
hMlplUton
(Hkk
VolUK)
1*11 m*
ttHMfMM
MID
Wti
uo-«oo
,10400
NXf/Ilcluicy
Mububk
Vity>minp.ilkfc.
CHtOMDicltd
PinkM my b<
MlkcMwIM
00
to
00
MitaiMiim k
iwrnliwUnlMi
hnlnmittrkli
inlundM
r«« mo» ta| PIHI
•tkllnlr N|ll !«!•
ililnii
htclpltilon irt
ttMitJn 10 vukblt
dintloitlniioi
flo* HIM
KnlilMiy aunt
loffll miltrlill to
•t tcOMnthnUy
Hncolkciibta
Fftciulloni irt ft*
IjKlno'lourf
IHird ptrwfificl
rtomMlhvolUK
CoRecfton
ckl ntl diUrto-
tilt trtduilly *nd
DtylfUflkl IMtDiiltkuikw
CalMclon
lckMb«
ItlnnlX
CyttotM
Moliipk tytloM
Invairrtun
OyiiMik
AlUntKlUfM
MUkt
»» »
>W »
l
>IO >l
>l >l
>IO >l
>IO >l
woo
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
0-100
M-tM ChimlMi <0.l u into
koliptr
Modtntt Dry dull w
U» onion km,
rlmpUdiyord*
milnicntnc*
Uith floor ip«ct
Much ipict
rto.uired
Much h«id room
lt|»M hilo
Mudotili Dry d«M of
la* 10 modtnu
prttMn IOH
Ilindki bill
Low calkclloA
imilt pirlkki
Svnilllvi to vitkole
dull loidlrtgi ind
(law titii
Dry 4ml ot
Modiriu Dry d.it 01
lk).M Into
liwliprndtnt
-------
(CofitlntMct)
Cmnl
Ml
(Ml) (»/Mfl)
rn
(HT.tfcM,
Air IfMmtr
WOOMlM)
Appliaikm
Uffllliitoni
ItrabMn Cyetom
mutrpvMi
ft
Dynuilioolkxut
MullUrMmtt
V«ll«rl
Crwi0.\
>J
O.M«
Mnw/IOOOefm
40-109 10-40 tooVIOOOifM
40-100 Mltm/IOMcta IJOOO-HOOO HUM!
40-110 IIOO-MM ««d
M
>1.0
>4.0
1-4
Um
Urn
8 nun
o«
Jlutirlludll
with mtr
SlnrytMii
with witir
Slurry >M|i
wllh *iiM
40-100
49-100
MOO-WOO Intel
100-1000 Intel
incy Ifld pluml
Willi npoi con-
lflbu<«l to vlilbk
plum! undet unit
ilmoiphcik
*i*nilltn>Al
AtliibuiMn Mmt
00
M
V£>
Any
Only
CMkwdMi 1500
MOO l.l»t./rf«'4T SOO-IOM Chinrtm
100-1000 diuibtr
05
<«5
MnltnK
Hl|h itinowl iffl-
ctertcrofMrb*
mlctvn Oder*
lilt mitttt
rwif or com-
bmllbkinnin
Md «ltlk»lill
Hl|n openlhinil
rail
(•lit hiiitd
C*lilr*U
(tonloite iRtci
Ml mm to llM
•imt/ipherf iflei
Law milnltntni
On tpny lorn
Aowib.fi
ticMlmt
fltme.«
OWMH»M«
**MB)klriOj|li
Md«ot,>M.
MoltHlir X.OOI 40-100
40-100 J-fljw/IOOO.fm M(livorndil) U-4ln,WO;
>«.»! 40-109
MO(mpMAehl)
<4
LifK Solylkm h
CompMt SohltoD to
MtdlliU iohilkm In
mm
On
(l-»ft)
IhoImM
Mthnki
-------
ORGANIC VAPOR
PROCESS POINT SOURCE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
• Absorption
• Condensation
• Flaring
• Adsorption
• Incineration
DATA NEEDS FOR ORGANIC
VAPOR EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Emission Stream Properties
HAP content
Organic content
Heat content
Oxygen content
Moisture content
Halogen/metal content
Flow rate
Temperature
Pressure
HAP Properties
Molecular weight
Vapor pressure
Solubility
Adsorptive properties
Demister
Liquid solvent
feed
Liquid solvent
outlet
Sloped bottom
CouiUcrcurrent packed tower absorber.
8-30
-------
How diagram for a typical condensation system
with refrigeration.
Emission Stream Outlet
t
Emission
Stream
Inlet
~*1 Condenser I
\ J—*
Condensed VOC
Coolant'
Refrigeration
Unit
Steam
nozzles
Emission
stream
Pilot burners
Gas collection header
and transfer ine
. — Steam fine
I U Ignition device
Air ine
Gas line
Knock-out drum
Drain
Steam-assisted flare system schematic
8-31
-------
ADSORPTION CYCLE
Pretreatmont
(if necessary)
A/C
adsorbers
Polluted
air
source
— *~
Particulate removal
Absorption
Condensation
— ^-
^-
DESORPTION CYCLE
(a)
Solvent Decanter
to
storage
(a) Adsorption cycle; (b) desorption cycle.
(t!
8-32
-------
ADSORPTION-REGENERATION PROCES
CLEAN AIR
NATURAL GAS
Carbon
Classes of Organic Compounds Amenable to Adsorption on Activated
Aromatic solvents
Polynuclear aromatics
Chlorinated aromatics
Phenolics
High-molecular-weight aliphatic amines
and aromatic amines
Surfactants
Soluble organic dyes
Fuels
Chlorinated solvents
Aliphatic and aromatic acids
Benzene, toluene, xylcne
Naphthalene, biphenyls
Chlorobenzenc, PCBs, Aldrin, Endrin.
toxaphene, DDT
Phenol, cresol, resorcinol
Aniline, toluene diamine
Alkyl benzene sulfonates
Methylene blue, textile dyes
Gasoline, kerosene, oil
Carbon tetrachloride, perchloroethylene
Tar acids, bcnzoic acids
COMMON ADSORBENTS AND
THEIR APPLICATIONS
Adsorbent Application
Activated carbon
Alumina
Bauxite
Molecular sieves
Silica gel
Solvent recovery, elimination of
odors, purification of gases
Drying of gases, air. and liquids
Treatment of petroleum
fractions: drying of gases
and liquids
Selective removal of
contaminants from
hydrocarbons
Drying and purification of gases
8-33
-------
Purge
Well 11
To Atmosphere
ill ill
Treated Water lo
Seepage Ponds
Air Stripping Columns In Series
Beaver Creek Air Stripping Process
Beaver Creek Air
Stripping Process Performance
BEAVER CREEK AIR STRIPPING PROCESS
OPERATING COSTS
SI DEPRECIATION
BENEHGY
WJOCK
8-34
-------
Stripping
Adsorption
Condensation
Pretrettaent
• Design t Operating
Practices
• 1n dtu Treitaient
• TSOFi
GENERALIZED FLOW OF VOLATILE EMISSIONS
Bar f million Stream anrt WIP rrnrimrfirrn Hr Wfff-p **~m-f TT-^-JTITT f— "rj"^ Vrrr-t fnrm fithit Tmirrtt
Emte«k>nS HAP Cturtcurbtks
Conlrat O«vlc«
Tlwmul
IndiMrMor
Cautytic
InciiwMor
FUr.
Boilw/
Proctst HMtar
Carbon
Adtortxr
Abjortwr
Condentar
HAPlOr«inlcs HMt Moittun
Conuntt ConltM ConMM
(ppmv) (BtuAcfl <*l
>M;
(<2S%oTULI
SO-10.000:
(300
>\»
1JXJO-10.000
«2S%ofLELI 60%
250-10.000
> 5.000
Mol«ul«r
Wdghl Vapor
Row Rat* Tamp. {1Mb* Praasura
<«cftnt m 10
Source: Purcell, 1988
8-35
-------
1
1*.
Tlwnul Indmntioa
T »W% T - *-"*
T ' T
CiulyliclndMrttion
T »90%T V5* T
T " T T
Carbon AoHocpllon
_ 60% _ 95% _ 99%
T * T T * T
Absorption
T— •?0% T i?5* T «.98% T
T T * T T
Cofldmation
50% 80% 95%
T - T l T
0 M SO 100 200 300 SCO 1400 2400 MOO 6.000 10400 20.000
Source: Purcell, 1988
Cwlnlt
Afte
ioomnc wet Knitter. Uric Star (U»-
NO.
Plltlfllluu. W«U»
Do*.
Safe
RMdcapett
SpManducuoo
Source: Mr & Waste Management
Association, 1990.
tjBiPMFDOiui Watorumy cmt>nMtf^f oM (or
Endomn of binder D
Suction hood (in-
8-36
-------
DATABASES SUPPORTING
TECHNOLOGY SELECTIONS
Abstract
Slides
9-2
9-4
9-1
-------
DATABASES SUPPORTING TECHNOLOGY SELECTIONS
Barbara L. Cormier Joseph T. Swartzbaugh, Ph.D.
PEER Consultants, P.C. PEER Consultants, P.C.
Dayton, OH Dayton, OH
The EPA has developed a number of databases on remedial actions and the data
required to evaluate remedial alternatives. These databases provide information on
past activities, treatment alternatives utilized, and costs. In addition, they may
provide such supporting information on chemical toxicities and other pertinent
characteristics of the contaminants. The major function of these databases is to
facilitate the information dissemination associated with hazardous waste site cleanup.
The following discussion identifies some of the more fully developed databases available
and the type of information contained therein as well as the computer capabilities
needed to access them. Names and telephone numbers are provided for additional
information and assistance on each database identified.
The OSWER Electronic Bulletin Board System (BBS) provides up-to-date
information on technical developments and conferences. The BBS was created by the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response as a tool for communicating ideas and
disseminating information. In addition to its message capabilities, BBS is a gateway for
many Office of Solid Waste (OSW) electronic databases. Few restrictions are set on the
types of information exchanged. The BBS is available to U.S. EPA, their contractors,
and state and local personnel.
The BBS provides easy access, through personal computers, to over 250 technology
and program case studies, a calendar of training events and seminars, a directory of
experts, a bibliography of 300 frequently referenced publications, and descriptions of
federal and state programs. Users can order documents through BBS, which is
electronically linked to the Center for Environmental Information (CERT).
The Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) database
contains information for the following areas:
SITE Program NATO/International Studies
Industry Studies and Data Records of Decision (ROD)
COLIS - Technical Information Exchange (TIX) RCRA Delisting Actions
State Agencies Historical User File
Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model Treatability Studies
RREL Water Treatability Database USATHAMAIR Reports
Hazardous Waste Collection Database OSWER Bulletin Board
Geophysics Advisor Expert System Commercial Databases
Technical Assistance Directory Regional Databases
RSKERL Soil Transport and Fate Database
Of these, the Record of Decision (ROD) database can be a good resource for the
cleanup of hazardous waste sites by providing records of past remedial activities. The
ROD database can be accessed through ATTIC.
Using keywords, the user can locate sites which exhibit similar characteristics; are
contaminated with the same types of hazardous components; or, employ specific
remedial alternatives. Further, RODs for NPL sites within a certain region or location
can be identified.
9-2
-------
The purpose of the Treatability Data Base/Superfund Treatability database is to
compile data on the treatability of specific organic and inorganic compounds in all
types of waters and wastewaters. The database currently contains more than 800
compounds, and more than 2500 sets of treatability data available for approximately
300 of those compounds. Again, access is available to the public and is operable on
standard PC units.
The Computerized On-Line Information System (COLIS), developed by RREL,
provides actual cost and performance information for past corrective actions. COLIS is
currently composed of three files: Case Histories, Library Search, and Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Applications Analysis Reports (AARs). The
Case Histories file contains historical information obtained from corrective actions
implemented at Superfund sites and on leaking underground storage tanks. The Library
Search system is designed to provide access to special collections or research
information pertaining to many RREL program (e.g., oil and hazardous materials,
underground storage tanks, soils washing, incineration, and stormwater controls). The
SITE AARs file provides actual cost and performance information. It presents results
from three sites for which AARs have been prepared. Additional information will be
added as AARs are completed. Information stored in this systems is textual in nature
instead of numerical, which permits the user's interpretation. Plans for near-term
development call for the implementation of both the Aqueous Treatability Data Base
and the Soils & Debris Treatability Data Base. Access equipment includes standard PC
devices.
Finally, databases such as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), PHRED,
and QSAR provide chemical-specific risk information on the relationship between
exposure and health effects. This is useful in that it aids in hazard identifications and
does-response assessments for applicable sites.
CONTACTS
BBS Jim Cummings, (202) 382-4686
ATTIC - Myles Morse - EPA ORD, (202) 475-7161
WERL - Treatability Data Base/Superfund Data Base
Kenneth Dostal - EPA RREL (513) 569-7503
COLIS - Hugh Masters - EPA, Edison, (201) 321-6678
IRIS Coordinator - (513) 569-7254
Dialog - (312) 726-9206
PHRED - (202) 382-2180
QSAR - (406) 994-4481
9-3
-------
OBJECTIVES OF
DATABASES
• Provide a compilation of
information on past remedial
activities
• Provide information on contaminants
for risk assessment and
treatability
AVAILABLE DATABASES
• BBS
• ATTIC
• ROD Database
* WERL Treatability Database
• COLIS
• IRIS
• Others
Electronic Bulletin Board System
(BBS)
• A vehicle through which users can
post and receive messages
• Equipment required includes
PC. modem, and communications package
9-4
-------
BBS
(continued)
• Currently has eight different components,
including news, mail services, conferences,
and publications on technical areas
BBS
(continued)
• Contains
-over 250 technology and program
case studies
-calendar of training events and seminars
-bibliography of frequently
referenced publications
BBS
(continued)
• Can be accessed by any person
affiliated with government, trade
association/industry, or academia
• For more information contact
Jim Cummings
(202)382-4686
9-5
-------
ATTIC
Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center
• A compendium of information from
many available databases
• Currently in process of reorganization,
expansion, and modification
ATTIC
• Records of Decision (ROD)
• COLIS-Technical Information Exchange (TIX)
• Cost of Remedial Action (CORA) Model
• WERL Treatability Database
• RSKERL Soil Transport and Fate Database
• Historical User File
• Commercial Databases
• Others (e.g.. DIALOG)
ATTIC
Can be accessed through the
RCRA/CERCLA Hotline or the BBS
For more information contact
Myies Morse
(202)475-7161
9-6
-------
ROD DATABASE
• Contains
-abstract
-text of ROD
• Search on keywords
• Equipment required:
-P.C. (DOS 3.3)
-modem
-communication software (Crosstalk)
ROD DATABASE
Information Can Be Accessed Based on:
• Contaminants
• Media contaminated
• Region or location
• Selected remedy
• ROD date
WERL Treatability Database/
Superfund Database
• Contains information on 800 compounds
in water and wastewater, soon to
include soils and debris
• Contains more than 2500 sets of
treatability data for approximately
300 of these compounds
• Maintained by Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati
9-7
-------
WERL
• The following hardware or software
is needed:
-IBM PC or compatible
-PC/MS DOS. Version 2.0 or greater
-524 K RAM available
-10 cbi printer
-monochrome or color monitor
WERL
(continued)
• For more information contact
Kenneth Dostal
(513)569-7503
COLIS
Computerized On-Line
Information System
• Consolidates several databases
developed by RREL in
Cincinnati and Edison, NJ
• Information stored as text
9-8
-------
COLIS
Contains three files:
1. Case Histories - contains historical
information on prior corrective
actions
2. Library Search - provides access
to information pertaining to
RREL programs
3. SITE Application Analyses Reports (AARs)
-provides actual cost and performance
information
COLIS
(continued)
* Equipment required includes
PC and modem
• Menu-type format with standard
prompt commands
• For more information contact
Hugh Masters
(201)321-6678
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
• On-line database of chemical-specific
risk information on relationship
between chemical exposure and
estimated human health effects
• Includes over 370 chemical
risk summaries
• Updated monthly
9-9
-------
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
• For more information contact
IRIS Coordinator
(513)569-7254
APPLICABILITY
Supports first two steps of
risk assessment process of
-hazard identification
-dose-response assessment
Provides quantitative risk values
and qualitative health effects
information
LIMITATIONS
Risk values cannot be used to
predict incidence of disease or
type of effects that chemical
exposures may have on humans
RfD is an estimate based on
lifetime exposure
Carcinogen assessments begin with
a quantitative weight-of evidence
judgement
9-10
-------
OTHER DATABASES
• DIALOG
-contains pollution abstracts and
world environmental information
from 1971 to present
-contact (312)726-9206
• PHRED
-contains information on 364 chemicals
-contact Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. EPA (202)382-2180
OTHER DATABASES
(continued)
•QSAR
-contains a series of exposure
assessments for numerous chemicals
-contact (406)994-4481
9-11
-------
BBS EXAMPLE OUTPUT
.{ £/>| Super fund/So I id Haste Technology *s»Utaac« IIS
KA1N BOARD ItllttTTHS
To download ait of these bulletins, type "I nil A* (vitboet the quotation
Where "«" is the bulletin nanbrr. T«rn CApture off in Crosstalk.
Mauler Update Description
i 09-07 -A? Usiflc, thit bulletin board tysteiii
2 00-25-09 Participating ia oil ire specialty conferences
3 01-30-90 Upload in) and downloading file* frott the IIS.
4 0? 24 87 Sending ft*ma,ei to other bulletin board «»m*
S 01-30-90 Archived («*RC and .ZIP) file* and frow to unpack
4 tO*13'C9 Hew ORJ Peiltcations — Electroaic orderiif.
? 02 24 90 Trtlnlaj aad Tech traaifer Cotirie* and Uorluhapi
• 01-15- »7 25 Most Cgnaoa S«»«ta»cvs Found at Saprrfi*d Sites
t 01-02-90 Haatkly StatUtUt on talletia loird «**$•
10 12 Jeff Narely's list of M-irei fttbllc Ms
Karet
f*c for ATtoMioot MOM to $«ltih i Cteterv Off t local
tod lilt of fiPA fte^ioaal Libraries
14 69-12-09 Jeff Rortlv'f list of »C-irti Paftlic
14 Ot-39'90 list of CIP Ifl Orjaaic* Uborat«ri«>
17 01-30-90 list of tlf in loorfMics U»oritorj«s
14 01-30-90 Hit «f CIP IFB VOA-Only Ubarjtoriei
19 01-30-90 lilt of CIP in BJ«xt» l»bor«t»rjf»
20 01-30-90 Schetile of Bpconia? CIP Coofere«ce»
22 09-U-M Affilft totieoiftjJMl Profii»&
23 tl-tO-IO Coidaice «• Itvelopttf txpert
24 tl-M-aa Foreword of Cotilof of ft«perfo*d iirectivei
2« 02-U-09 >escflptio> of 0PM a POOR Coniiud oa flSOM Jtfi
29 03-21-19 Federal Refister notices related to hazardois *aste
30 03-21-09 Orift t««*e«ti oa proposed NCP
31 03-31-19 fofomatioa toide to EPA's Office of Environnental.
Procoises and Effects Researcb
32 07-01-90 Saterfood Tedmalo^y Svptort Crcjrct
33 04-05-09 Croand-ttiter Tech Assistance: Regional Coatacts
34 04-05-Of Croand-Oater tetfc Assistance: HO and lab Contacts
35 06-03-87 trd««d-uater itcn As«iitittte: Tech fraasfer Offices
34 09*25-09 Huardoos fliterials Inforftiiion IxckaAje
-------
BBS (CONTINUED)
Conference* are open to «M (except vnere indicated)^ but you
reojieft ocnb«rthip the first tint. le«v« a CCJonnent for the STSOFt
Conference
N«nber
1 Environmental Service* Oivision Cogfermt --
Open to anyone interested in CA/flCj analytical
fi*U analyse?, ind laboratory «vdits«
2 Ccound'lfater Vorkstition C«ftfer«ncf --
Pri«i*ri)y of interest to tke «
-------
ROD DATABASE EXAMPLE OUTPUT
REGION :&
SITE NAME :
ROD 10 :
ROD DATE :8703Z7
4,000 CUBIC YARDS OF HIGHLY CONTAMINATED SOILS MERE FOUND OVER THE .FIRST
THIRD OF A MILE OF FRONTIER PARK ROAD, AND 22*000 CUBIC YARDS OF
MODERATELY CONTAMINATED SOILS WERE FOUND UP TO 2 MILES ALDUS THE ROAD
**(TABLE 1). HIGHLY CONTAMINATED SOILS HERE DEFINED AS. THOSE KITH GREATER
MOHAN 100 PPM POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAH) OR VOLATILES, AND
IMMODERATELY CONTAMINATED SOILS ARE THOSE BETWEEN 10-100 PPM PAHS OR
MKVOLATILES. THESE CRITERIA ARE BASED ON A DIRECT CONTACT THREAT
ESTABLISHED BY THE AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY.
pah (text)
Order number -004-001
page 4 set 8 with 106 of 106 Items
DUE TO THE VOLUME OF DATA GENERATED DURING THE SAMPLING EFFORT. TOO
MARKER COMPOUNDS HERE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT CLASSES OF COMPOUNDS. BENZENE
MO HAPHTHALEHE HERE THE HOST PREVALENT CONTAKDWOS XH THE SAMPLES
MCOLUECTEO AUNG FRONTIER PARK ROAD. THEREFORE* BENZENE HAS USED TO
WONOICATE THE PRESENCE OF OTHER VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS FOUND AT THE SITE
MONO HAPHTHALEHE HAS USED TO INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF OTHER BASE NEUTRAL
CMCOKmONMOS (PRIMARILY PAHS). IK GENERAL. THE BENZENE CONTAMINATION
MAS HUD UP TO A MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION; OF 2100 PPM AND NAPHTHALENE UP
TO A MAXIMUM COHCENTRATIOH OF 700 PPM-IN THE ROADWAY.
TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE POTENTIAL IW CONTACT tOTO
CONTAMINANTS. BECWSE THE ROAD PROVIDES THE ONLY ACCESS TO THEIR HOMES,
TOE OK-SIIE RESIDENTS MAY POTENTIALLY BE EXPOSED SEVERAL TIMES DAILY.
WWONS DRY PEROTS, VEHJCUUR TRAFFIC RAISES OUST PARTICLES COHTWttHATEO
WHITH VMS AW VOLATHES. ONSTTE RESIDENTS HAY THEK BE EXPOSED THROUGH
IKHUATZDK OF BUST PARTICLES. DUST PARTICLES MAY ALSO BE INGESTED OR
DEPOSlltD OH SKIN AND-OTHER BODY kiaaUES.
- OBJECTIVES HlEVENTtUIlECTCONTAJCTIOTH HIGHLY CONTAMINATED
SOUS.
«K omHiXON: 100 PHI TOTAL POUAROMATTC HYDROCARBONS (PAR'S). OR
«K 100'PPH TOTAL VOLATILES (TVS). CFOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY
«K TOTAL VOUTXtJESKTU. BE DEFINED AS .BEHZeKE. ETKYISEHZEHE.
« TOUJENE, 2-eOTANONE, 4-METHYL. 2-PEMTANONE, STYRENE. AND
«* XYLENE).
- OBJeCTXVEt KnOKCZE DIRECT CONTACT HZ1H MODERATELY CONTAHIHATEO
SOUS.
*w
«« CRITERION: BETHEEN 10 AND 100 PPM TOTAL PAH'S OR 10 AND 100-PPM
Mf TVS.
- OBJECTIVES IMPROVE ACCESS TO SHE FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT TO
FACILITATE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLING AND MONITORING AND
ALTERNATIVE MERE RETAINED AND ANALYZED FOR HTTIGATING THE PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED HUH THE FRONTIER PARK ROAD. THE FOLLOWING IS A DESCRIPTION
OF EACH ALTERNATIVE AND ITS RESPECTIVE COST.
«K
«KALTERNATIVE 1: OM-SITE STORAGE WTTH RELOCATION
*K
IHCEMOVE/EXCAYATE CONTAMINATED SOIL TO BELOW ZOO PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS AND
««OISPOSE OF THEM TH AN ON-SITE RCRA STORAGE FACILITY. BACKFILL AS
NECESSARY tOTH NATURAL SOILS. CONSTRUCT A ROAD SO THAT. ACCESS IS
KKpROVIDEO TO ALL AREAS OF THE SITE. CONSTRUCT THE ROAD SO THAT ALL SOILS
**OH THE ROAD, CONTAMINATED WITH GREATER THAN 10 PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS ARE
KKCOVERED. TEMPORARILY RELOCATE ON-SITE RESIDENTS AND MAINTAIN THEIR
PROPERTY UNTIL THEIR RETURN: THE COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE IS $1,266,524.
•**
9-14
-------
ROD DATABASE (CONTINUED)
pah (text)
Order number -004-001
page 5 set 6 with 106 of 106 items
«*ALTERNATIVE 2t ON-SITE STORAGE WITH DETOURS
«*
«*REtnVE/E3CCAVATE CONTAMINATED SOIL TO BEtOH 100 PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS AND
MKOISPOSE OF THEM IN AN ON-SITE RCRA STORA6E FACILITY. BACKFILL AS
NECESSARY KTTH NATURAL SOILS. CONSTRUCT A ROAD SO THAT ACCESS IS
«KFROVIOED TO ALL AREAS OF THE SITE. CONSTRUCT THE ROAD so THAT ALL SOILS
MCOH THE ROAD, CONTAMINATED HUH GREATER THAN 10 PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS ARE
«*COVERED. PROVIDE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DETOURS TO ALLOW ON-SITE
RESIDENTS ACCESS TOTHEIR PROPERTY DURING REMEDIAL ACTIONS. THE COST OF
THIS ALTERNATIVE ZS $1,469*106.
KM
MKALTERNATIVE 3: OFF-SITE DISPOSAL KITH RELOCATION
.«N
•"REMOVE/EXCAVATE CONTAIUNATEO SOIL TO BEtOH 100 PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS AKO
«WISPOS£ OF THEN ZH AN OFF-SITE RCRA FACILITY. CONSTRUCT A ROAD SO THAT
KKACCESS ZS PROVIDED TO ALL AREAS OF THE SITE. CONSTRUCT THE ROAD SO THAT
«KALL SOILS OK THE ROAD, COHTAMINATEO KITH GREATER THAN 10 PPM PAHS AMD/OR
WfTVS ARE COVERED. TEMPORARILY RELOCATE ON-SITE RESIDENTS AND MAINTAIN
THEIR PROPERTY UNTIL THEIR RETURN. THE COST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE ZS
43.353,162.
«K
MtALTERNATZVE 4s OFF-SITE DISPOSAL KITH DETOURS
«K
««EMOVE/EXCAVATE CONTAMINATED SOIL TO BEtOH 100 PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS AND
WOXSPOSE OF THEN ZH AN OFF-SITE RCRA FACILITY. CONSTRUCT A ROAD SO THAT
MttCCESS ZS PROVZOEO TO ALL AREAS OF THE SITE. CONSTRUCT THE ROAD SO THAT
«KAU SOUS OK THE MAO* COHTAMXNATEO HCTH GREATER THAN 10 PPM PAHS AHO/OR
«"TVSARE COVERED. PROVIDE TEMPORARY •CONSTRUCTION DETOURS TO ALUM OMSXTC
RESXDEKTS ACCESS TO -THEIR PKUPfcKlf DURING REMEDIAL ACTIONS. THE COST OF
THIS ALTERNATIVE ZS $3,575,744.
Wf
•KALTERKATZVE'St . ALTERNATIVE ACCESS
«M
WPROVZOE TEMPORARY ALTERNATE ACCESS AROUND PORTIONS OF FRONTIER PARK ROAD
WCOOTAMXHATED MXTR GREATER THAN 100 PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS. FENCE THE.
ETER OF THE COHTAMIMATED AREAS TO PREVENT ACCESS. CONSTRUCT A ROAD
««SO THAT ACCESS ZS PROVZOEO TO ALL AREAS OF THE SITE. CONSTRUCT THE ROM
«*30 THAT ALL SOILS KITH GREATER THAN 10 PPM PAHS AND/OR TVS ARE COVERED.
PROVIDE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DETOURS TO ALLOH ON-SITE RESIDENTS ACCESS
TO THEIR PROPERTY DURING REMEDIAL ACTIONS. POSTPONE FURTHER REMEDIAL
ACTION UNTIL REMEDIATION OCCURS AT THE REMAZNOER OF THE SITE. THE COST
9-15
-------
WERL TREATABILITY DATABASE EXAMPLE OUTPUT
WERL Treatability Database
Ver No. 2.0
01/03/80
NAPHTHALENE
CAS NO.:
91-20-3
COMPOUND TYPE: PAH,
FORMULA:
CIO H8
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
REF.
MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 128.17
MELTING POINT (C): 8O.5
BOILING POINT (C): 218
VAPOR PRESSURE € T(C), TORR: O.082 € 25
SOLUBILITY IN WATER € T(C) , MG/L: 30 € 25
LOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 3.37
HENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 MOLE-1:4,83 E-4 6 25
333A
333A
333A
1O06A
463A
163A
419A
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
REF.
CHRONIC NONCARCENOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXIdTY
RISK ESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS
DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS
HATER QUALITY CRITERIA
AQUATIC TOXICXTZ DATABASE
HA
HA
NA
345B
SB
FREUNDLICH ISOTHERM
ADSORBENT
FILTRASORB
FILTRASORB
FILTRASORB
300
300
400
MATRIX
C
C
C
K
132
123
277
VN
O.42
0.41
0.43
Ce
UNITS
ag/L
ag/L
ag/L
X/M
UNITS
ag/ga
ag/ga
ag/ga
REF.
3B
780B
10S6B
NAPHTHALENE
CAS NO.: 91-20-3
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION — O—1OO ug/L
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION
CODE
PERCENT
REMOVAL
REFERENCE
AS
AS
AS
AS
RO
TF
ChOx(Cl) (B)
AL
AS
RBC
D F36
D P
D F
D F38
D P
D F21
X 28 B4
SF P
SF P
SF , P
9 (S)
<0.7 (8)
5 (11)
<3 (4)
0.02
<3 (6)
<2
86
>99.O9
89
>91.9
80
>89
>88
>82
>82
>82
IB
204A
201B
1B
180A
IB
975B
192D
192D
192O
-S-
-S-
-S-
-S-
— $
-S-
9-16
-------
WKRL TREATABILITY DATABASE (CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY
AL
AL
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
CAC
TF
TF
AL -I- AL
AS
AS
AS
AS
AL
AS
AL
AS
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >X-XO lag/L
EFFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCE
CODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
MATRIX SIC SCALE
CODE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I 28
I 28
I 28
I 28
I 28
S
S
SF
SF
P2
PI
F60
P
P
PI
P2
P
P
P
F
F4
Fl
F31
Fll
B
B
P
P
- >100-1000 ug/L
EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATION PERCENT
( ug/L ) REMOVAL
13 (11)
36 (11)
<10 (5)
6 (12)
4 (XI)
95.4
95.0
96.3
>93.0
97.9
27
32
88
98.3
>99.17
>95.9
>99.OO
>96.O
97.7
99.5
96.5
96.5
REFERENCE
203A
203A
XB
240A
203A
24 XB
24XB
203A
203A
240A
2330
975B
6B
6B
6B
37XD
X050E
1920
192D
-S-
-S-
-S-
-S-
-s-
vs-
vs-
-s-
-s-
-s-
vs-
V
— — —
— —
vs-
vs-
—
•.
AS I 28 FS 99.56 6B
AS S B <1O >99.86 202D VS-
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION — >10-100
EFFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCE
CODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL
AS I 28 F33 <10 (14) >99.952 €B
AirS S B2 6,200 (S) 74 X328E
WERL Treatability Database Reference Number: X328E
Humford, R.L. and ?,L. Schnoor, «Air Stripping of Volatile Organics in
Hater**, Proceedings of the AWWA Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL,
pp 601-617 (1982).
Several *fr stripping studies were conducted using a bench scale unit 4 ft
high and 3.75 in. ID containing 0.25 in. ceramic berl saddles. Runs were
nad£ at air to liquid ratios ranging from 25 to 200. Media depth was 1.5
ft for sone runs and 2.5 ft for others.
All data reported herein for media depth = 1.5 ft and air:water ratio =
100:1 (liquid rate = €.81 tt3/m2-hr). Feed water was tap water spiked with
organics of interest.
The run labeled Bl had a total THM = 4OO ug/L and the run labeled B2
contained 12 solutes at 5 to 50 ng/L each.
*END OF DATA*
9-17
-------
COLIS DATABASE EXAMPLE OUTPUT
SITE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS ANALYSIS
TERRA VAC IN SITU VACUUM EXTRACTION SYSTEM
RISK REDUCTION EHGIHEBRIHG LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AMD DEVELOPMENT
U.S. BNViRONMEHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CIHCItntATI, OR 45268
HOTTCB
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the
O*8. Environmental Protection agency under the auspices of the Superfund
innovative Technology Evaluation <8ITE) Program and under Contract Mo.
ۥ-03-3255 to Foster Vheeler Bnvlresponse, Inc. It has been subjected to the
Agency** peer and administrative review, and It has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Hentlon of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
A>TXPB TBRVACOl.AAR
SECTION 1
BXECtrrlvK SUMMARY
Terra vac« inc.'s in situ vacuum extraction process has been employed at
several Superfund and non-Superfund sites. Available data from four Superfnnd
sites, where field activity has occurred, were reviewed and are summarized in
Appendix 0 of this report.
OOHCUISIOKS
The following conclusions, regarding applications of the technology, were
drawn from reviewing the data on the Terra Vac in situ vacuum extraction
process, both from the SITE Demonstration Test and other available data
(Appendices C and D):
o The process represents a viable technology to fully remediate a site
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) .
o The major considerations in applying this technology are the contaminant
compound's volatility, site soil porosity, and the site-specific cleanup
level.
9-18
-------
COLIS DATABASE (CONTINUED)
o The process demonstrated good performance in removing VOCs from soil with
measured permeability ranging between 10E-04 and 10E-08 cm/s. In
practical terms, the process works well with most soil types. It was
determined that air-filled porosity of a soil is a more important factor
than permeability in the application of this technology.
o It is of utmost Importance where soils of low permeability and high
moisture content, i.e. low air-filled porosity, are encountered that a
pilot demonstration test be considered to determine the feasibility of
dewatering the soil.
o The process operated well In all weather conditions. There had been
concerns raised on its applicability during extreme winter conditions.
The technology is relatively simple and should be considered reliable.
o Chemicals with Henry's Constant greater than 0.001 (dimenslonless) have
been successfully extracted by the Terra Vac process. The process
A>TYPB TERVAC02.AAR
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
THE SITE PROGRAM
In 1886, the EPA's Office of solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSVER)
and Office o£ Research and Development (ORD) established the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program to promote the development
and use o£ Innovative technologies to clean up Snperfund sites across the
country. How in its third year, SITE is helping to provide the treatment
technologies necessary to implement new federal and state cleanup standards
aimed at permanent remedies, rather than quick fixes. The SITE Program is
composed of three major elements: the Demonstration Program, the Emerging
Technologies Program, and the Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
Program.
The major focus has been on the Demonstration Program, which Is designed
to provide engineering and cost data on selected technologies. To date, the
demonstration projects have not involved funding for technology developers.
EPA and -developers participating in the program share the cost of the
demonstration. Developers are responsible for demonstrating their Innovative
systems at chosen sites, usually Superfund sites. EPA is responsible for
sampling, analyzing, and evaluating all test results. The result is an
assessment of the technology's performance, reliability, and cost. This
Information will be used in conjunction with other data to select the most
appropriate technologies for the cleanup of Superfund sites.
Developers of innovative technologies apply to the Demonstration Program
by responding to EPA's annual solicitation. EPA also will accept proposals
at any time when a developer has a treatment project scheduled with Superfund
waste. To qualify for the program, a new technology must be at the pilot or
full scale and offer some advantage over existing technologies. Mobile
technologies are of particular Interest to EPA.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, EPA and the developer work with the EPA
regional offices and state agencies to Identify a site containing wastes
suitable for testing the capabilities of the technology. EPA prepares a
detailed sampling and analysis plan designed to thoroughly evaluate the
9-19
-------
IRIS CHEMICAL FILE STRUCTURE
1.0 CHRONIC HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
1.1 REFERENCE DOSE FOR CHRONIC ORAL EXPOSURE (RfD)
.1.1 Oral RfD Summary
.1.2 Principal and Supporting Studies (Oral RfD)
.3 Uncertainty and Modifying Factors (Oral RfD)
.4 Additional Comments (Oral RfD)
.5 Confidence in the Oral RfD
.6 EPA Documentation and Review of the Oral RfD
1.
.7 EPA Contacts (Oral RfD)
1.2 REFERENCE DOSE FOR CHRONIC INHALATION EXPOSURE (RfD) (structure
not available at this time although will be very similar to the
structure of the oral reference dose section)
2.0 CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE
2.1 EVIDENCE FOR CLASSIFICATION AS TO HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY
2.1.1 Height-of-Evidence Classification
2.1.2 Human Care i nogeni ci ty Data
2.1.3 Animal Careinogenicity Data
2.1.4 Supporting Data For Cardnogenici ty
2.2 QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATE OF CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM ORAL EXPOSURE
2.2.1 Summary of Risk Estimates
2.2.2 Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity. Oral Exposure)
2.2.3 Additional Comments (Cardnogenicity, Oral Exposure)
2.2.4 Discussion of Confidence (Carcinogenicity, Oral Exposure)
2.3 QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATE OF CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM INHALATION EXPOSURE
2.3.1 Summary of Risk Estimates
2.3.2 Dose-Response Data for Carcinogenicity, Inhalation Exposure
2.3.3 Additional Comments (Cardnogenicity, Inhalation Exposure)
2.3.4 Discussion of Confidence (Cardnogenicity, Inhalation
Exposure)
2.4 EPA DOCUMENTATION, REVIEW. AND CONTACTS (CARCINOGENICITY
ASSESSMENT)
2.4.1 EPA Documentation
2.4.2 Review (Cardnogenicity Assessment)
2.4.3 U.S. EPA Contacts (Cardnogenicity Assessment)
9-20
-------
3.0 HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENTS FOR VARIED EXPOSURE DURATIONS
3.1 DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES
3.1.1 One-Day Health Advisory For A Child
3.1.2 10-Day Health Advisory For A Child
3.1.3 Longer-Term Health Advisory For A Child
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
.4 Longer-Term Health Advisory For An Adult
.5 Drinking Mater Equivalent Level/Lifetime Health Advisory
.6 Organoleptlc Properties
.7 Analytical Methods For Detection 1n Drinking Hater
.8 Water Treatment
3.1.9 Documentation and Review of HAs
3.1.10 EPA Contacts
3.2 OTHER ASSESSMENTS
(content and structure to be determined)
4.0 U.S. EPA REGULATORY ACTIONS
4.1 CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)
4.2 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT CSDWA)
4.3 CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
4.4 FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA)
4.5 TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)
4.6 RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)
4.7 SUPERFUND (CERCLA)
5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
5.1 ACUTE HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
5.2 PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
6.0 REFERENCES
SYNONYMS:
9-21
-------
PHREO EXAMPLE OUTPUT
CAS
Acetone
67641
Benzene
71432
Benzo(a)pyrene
50328
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207089
WQC Drinking DW MCLs DW MCLG Ref Dose
Water Only (mg/fi.) (mg/ft) (ug/B.)
— — — —
0 (0.67 pg/fc) — 0 0.35
0 (3.1 ng/fi,) — — —
0 (3.1 ng/fc) — — —
Carbon Disulfide
75150
Chloroform
67663
Chrysene
218019
Di butyl Phthai ate
84742
1,3-Oichlorobenzene
541731
1,1-Oichloroethane
75343
Dichloromethane
82751
Fluorene
86737
Naphthalene
91203
Phenanthrene
85018
Phenol
108952
Pyrene
129000
Toluene
108883
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71556
Vinyl Chloride
75014
Xylene (mixed)
1330207
— 0.1 h/
44 jig/ft —
470 pg/H —
Insufficient data —
see Hal one thanes —
Insufficient data —
0 (3.1 ng/Jl) —
3.5 Jlg/fc —
NA
15
19
0 (2.0 Jig/A)
0.2
0
NA
22000
0.015
NA
9-22
-------
QSAR EXAMPLE OUTPUT
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES WORKSHEET
CAS
NAME
SMILES
*
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Property
Mol Wgt.
Parachor
Hoi Ref.
Mol Vol.
LogP
Melt Pt.
Boil Pt.
V. Press.
Ht. Vpr.
pKa
Sol H20
S. Area
: 75-99-0
: Propanoic acid. 2,2-dichloro-
0-C(0)C(C1)(C1)C
Value and Units
142.00 g/mol
248.00
27.30
119.00 cm 3/g.m.
1.47
188.00 C 0760mm
0.44 mmHg
4103.00 cal/mol
1.339 25C
13.70 gm/L
Source Method Error
Calc.
Calc. ""
Calc. Ave. % Error - 5
Calc. ""
C logP ""
Heas
Calc. Ave. % Error - 39.0
Calc. Ave. < Error = 1.85
Calc.
Calc. ""
Property c)hanged or 0)etai1ed
Connectivity Dndices or Q)uit
9-23
.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF 1CEI 1990-748-I 59/004 I 8
------- |