JANUARY 1992

TECHNOLOGIES AND COSTS FOR
THE REMOVAL OF PHASE V
SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS FROM
POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES

DRINKING WATER TECHNOLOGY BRANCH
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS DIVISION
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.

One International Boulevard
Mahwah, New Jersey 07495-0018

2 Corporate Park Drive
P.O. Box 751

White Plains, New York 10602


-------
CONTENTS

Page

1.	INTRODUCTION ....				 					1-1

Purpose and Scope 				1-1

Definition of Technology Categories			1-2

Most Applicable Technology 					 .	1-2

Other Applicable Technology 			1-2

Other Technologies 						1-2

Organization of Document 						1-3

2.	DESCRIPTION OF SOCs . 								2-1

Potential Source of Contamination 			2-1

Each Chemical , 							2-2

Uses

Chemical/Physical Properties

3.	AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES				 .	3-1

Activated Carbon 							3-1

Aeration 						3-1

Conventional Treatment 				3-2

Ion Exchange 				 							3-2

Macroreticular Resin Adsorption 				 .	3-2

Oxidation								3-3

Reverse Osmosis 							3-3

Steam Stripping 							3-3

Summary of Available Technologies 				3-4

Most Applicable Technology			3-4

Other Applicable Technology 			3-4

Other Technologies			3-4

4.	MOST APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY - GRANULAR ACTIVATED

CARBON							4-1

Process Description						4-1

Carbon Usage Rate . 								4-2

Empty Bed Contact Time 					4-2

Pretreatment								4-2

Contactor Configuration						4-3

Method of GAC Regeneration				4-5

GAC Equipment 							4-6

Treatability Studies, Isotherm Evaluations and

Estimation of Carbon Usage Rates 		 					4-6

Isotherm Evaluations					4-7

Estimation of Carbon Usage Rates 		 			4-8

Estimation of Adjusted Carbon Usage Rates, 			4-8


-------
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Mini Column Tests		 					4-10

Pilot Scale Studies 		4-11

Full Scale Studies	,				4-11

Compendium of Treatability Case Studies				4-11

Bench Scale Studies 		4-11

Pilot Scale Studies 				4-15

Full Scale Studies				4-17

Summary	,		4-18

5.	OTHER APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY - PACKED COLUMN AERATION ... 5-1

Process Description 				 5-1

Equipment Required 				 5-5

Treatability Studies . 				 5-5

6.	ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGIES	 6-1

Conventional Treatment			 6-1

Process Description 		 6-1

Treatability Studies		 6-2

Summary					 6-5

Powdered Activated Carbon 				 6-5

Process Description 				 6-5

Treatability Studies			6-6

Summary	 6-13

Ion Exchange 					 6-13

Process Description	 6-13

Treatability Studies					6-16

Summary						 6-19

Macroreticular Resin Adsorption 			 6-19

Process Description 	 6-19

Treatability Studies 		 6-19

Summary					6-20

Oxidation	 6-21

Ozonation 		 6-21

Additional Oxidation Techniques 	 6-23

Summary			 6-33

Reverse Osmosis . 			 . 6-34

Process Description			 6-34

Treatability Studies			 6-35

Steam Stripping 		 6-37

Diffused Aeration					 6-38

Process Description		 6-38

Treatability Studies			 6-39


-------
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

7.	COSTS 						7-1

Basis for Costs 				7-1

Granular Activated Carbon 				7-3

Packed Column Aeration 		 		 7-6

Air Emissions Control with Vapor Phase GAC			7-9

Summary 						7-11

8.	REFERENCES 								8-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table	Following

No.	Description	Page

1-1	Phase V SOCs for which Regulations are being

Considered 								1-1

2-1	Chemical/Physical Properties of Phase V SOCs 			 2-19

3-1	Summary of Treatment Data for the 18 SOCs .................. 3-1

4-1	Carbon Adsorption Isotherm Constants 		 4-8

4-2	Carbon Usage Rates 							4-8

5-1	Henry's Law Coefficients for Phase V SOCs				 5-2

6-1	Alum Coagulation of Two Phthalates					6-2

6-2	Removal of Diquat by PAC 				6-8

6-3	Treatment of Simazine by PAC - Bowling Green, Ohio . 			 .	6-11

6-4	Treatment of Simazine by PAC - Tiffin, Ohio 			6-12

6-5	PAH Removal by Chlorine Oxidation 						6-29

6-6	Treatment of PAHs by UV/Hydrogen

Peroxide Oxidation 				 . 6-33

6-7	Treatment of PAHs by UV/Ozonation				 6-33

l l l


-------
CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table	Following

No.	Description	Page

6-8	Effectiveness of Reverse Osmosis					 6-37

6-9	Steam Stripping Computer Model	 6-37

7-1	Plant Design Capacities and Average Flows 		 7-1

7-2	Cost Indices for Late 1987 		 7-1

7-3	General Assumptions Used in Developing

Treatment Costs	. .	 7-1

7-4	GAC System Design Parameters					 7-3

7-5	Granular Activated Carbon Costs	 7-5

7-6	Packed Column Design Parameters	 7-6

7-7	Henry's Law Coefficients Used to Estimate

Equipment Size and Costs Per Packed Column

Aeration	,	 7-6

7-8	Estimated Costs for Removing Dichloromethane

Using PTA				 7-8

7-9	Estimated Costs for Removing 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Using PTA		 . 7-8

7-10	Estimated Costs for Removing Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Using PTA		 7-8

7-11	Estimated Costs for Removing Di(ethylhexyl)adipate

Using PTA ..... 					 7-8

7-12	Estimated Costs for Removing 1,1,2-Triehloroethane

Using PTA					 7-8

7-13	Estimated Costs for Vapor Phase control with GAC

for Phase V SOCs 			 7-11

iv


-------
CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure	Following

No.	Description Page

2-1	Di(2-ethylehexyl)adipate				 2-1

2-2	Dalapon						 2-2

2-3	Dichloromethane 					 2-3

2-4	Dinoseb 							 2-4

2-5	Diquat 						2-5

2-6	Endothal 				2-6

2-7	Endrin 				2-7

2-8	Glyphosate									2-8

2-9	Hexachlorobenzene				 . 2-9

2-10	Hexachlorocyclopentadiene . 				 2-10

2-11	Oxamyl 							 2-11

2-12	PAH - Benzo(a)pyrene 			 				2-12

2-13	Phthalates-Bis(2-ethyIhexyl)phthalate				 . 2-13

2-14	Picloram 					2-14

2-15	Simazine 					2-15

2-16	2,3,7,8-TCDD				 2-16

2-17	1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 	 2-17

2-18	1,1,2-Trichlroethane			2-18

4-1	Schematics of Carbon Contactors				 . 4-3

v


-------
CONTENTS (Continued)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure	Following

No.	Description Page

4-2	Ratio Versus Distilled Carbon Usage Rate 				. 4-9

4-3	Typical Minicolumn Setup 	 4-11

5-1	Schematics of Packed Column Aeration					5-5

6-1	Conventional Treatment Schematic 		 6-1

6-2	Ion Exchange Schematic 				 6-14

6-3	Ozone Oxidation Process Schematic 				 6-21

6-4	Reverse Osmosis Schematic 					 6-35

6-5	Diffused Aeration Schematic					 . 6-38

7-1	Total Cost vs. Carbon Usage Rate - Flow Categories 1-5 		7-5

7-2	Total Cost vs. Carbon Usage Rate - Flow Categories 6-12 	 7-5

7-3	Comparison of Costs, Packed Column Versus GAC 	 7-11

vi


-------
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix	Description	Page

A	Estimation of Carbon Usage Rates 					A-l

B	Summary of GAC Isotherm Studies 				B-l

C	Extrapolation of Vapor Pressure Data 			C-l

D	Flow-Chart for Developing GAC Facility Costs 				D-l

E	GAC Costs for Individual Phase V SOCs			E-l

F	Packed Column Facility Design Backup 				F-l

G	Summary of Glyphosate Technology and Costs	G-l

vi i


-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for several
contaminants found in drinking water. The MCLs are to be established based upon:

1.	Health goals

2.	Effectiveness of treatment technologies in removing the contaminants

.3. Level of treatment that is affordable for the water supply systems

In order to establish the MCLs, the SDWA Amendments emphasize a shift from "generally
available" treatment technologies to "best available treatment" (BAT) technologies. Ali public water
systems will be required to come as close as possible to meeting the MCLs by using the BAT •
technology. EPA is currently establishing MCLs for a number of synthetic organic chemicals
(SOCs) which may occur in contaminated water supplies. The SOCs have been grouped under
different phases, and a list of SOCs to be regulated under Phase V is shown below in Table 1-1.

TABLE 1.1

PHASE V SOCs FOR WHICH REGULATIONS ARE BEING CONSIDERED

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Dalapon

Oxamyl

Dichloromethane

Benzo(a)pyrene

Dinoseb

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Diquat

Picloram

Endothal

Simazine

Endrin

2,3,7,8 - TCDD (Dioxin)

Glyphosate

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

The purpose of this document is to assist EPA in defining BAT technology for removing

1-1


-------
SOCs from water supplies. Additionally, the document can also assist water utilities in preliminary
selection of appropriate treatment methods to meet the regulations. The treatment and compliance
methods available to a community searching for the most economical and effective means to comply
with the proposed SOC MCLs include modification of existing treatment systems, installation of
new systems, and the use of nontreatment alternatives, such as regionalization or alternate raw
water sources or controlling of practices causing SOC discharges to the raw water source. The
major factors that must be considered in selecting a compliance method include:

1.	Quality and type of water source

2.	Degree of SOC contamination

3.	Specific compound(s) present in water source

4.	Economies of scale and the economic stability of the community being served

5.	Treatment and waste disposal requirements

The information in this document provides an evaluation of the various treatment methods in use
today for the removal of different concentrations of SOCs. Some methods are more complex or'
more expensive than others. Selection of a technology by a community will require engineering
studies and/or pilot-plant operations to determine the level of removal a method will actually
provide for that system.

DEFINITION OF TECHNOLOGY CATEGORIES

The methods that can be applied for SOC removal are divided into three categories;

Most Applicable Technologies

Technologies that are generally available, have a demonstrated highly effective capacity to
remove SOCs, and for which reasonable cost estimates can be developed for a wide range of
influent/effluent conditions.

Other Applicable Technologies

Those additional methods not identified as generally used for SOC removal, but which may
have applicability for some water supply systems when considering site-specific conditions, such as
the type of SOC.

Additional Technologies

Technologies which experimentally have been shown to have potential for removing SOCs,

1-2


-------
but for which insufficient data exist to fully evaluate the technology.

Prior to implementing a technology, site-specific engineering studies of the methods
identified to remove SOCs should be made. The engineering study should select a technically
feasible and cost-effective method for the specific location where SOC removal is required. In some
cases, a simple survey may suffice, whereas in others, extensive chemical analysis, design and
performance data will be required. The study may include laboratory tests and/or pilot-plant
operations to cover seasonal variations, preliminary designs and estimated capital and operating
costs for full-scale treatment. This document provides information that can assist in conducting the
site specific evaluation.

ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT

This document has been organized into seven sections which are outlined below:

1.	Introduction: Discusses purpose and scope of the document and presents the
organization of the document.

2.	Description of SOCs: Presents the chemical structures, names, uses and
chemical/physical properties for each SOC.

3.	Description of Available Technologies: Summarizes the available technologies for
SOC removal, provides process descriptions of each available technology and ranks the
technologies according to their applicability for SOC treatment (most applicable, other
applicable, and additional technologies).

4.	Most Applicable Technologies: Summarizes the available treatability information to
date for the most applicable technologies and develops design criteria for each SOC
that can be removed by these technologies.

5.	Other Applicable Technologies: Summarizes the available treatability information to
date for the other applicable technologies and develops design criteria for each SOC
that can be removed by these technologies.

6.	Additional Technologies: Summarizes the available treatability information to date
for any additional technologies that show some potential for removing SOCs.

7.	Costs: Develops cost information for the applicable technologies. Also presents cost
for the removal of Tetrachloroethylene by GAC and PTA.

8.	References

1-3


-------
2. DESCRIPTION OF SOCs

This section provides the names, uses. Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS
#), chemical/physical properties and chemical structures of each of the 18 SOCs. The
chemical/physical properties for the 18 Phase V SOCs are 1 Timarized in Table 2-1.

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION

Many of the Phase V SOCs have agricultural applications and are transported into drinking
water supplies by runoff and percolation. The following SOCs have agricultural applications:

¦	dalapon

¦	dinoseb

¦	, diquat

¦	endothall

¦	endrin

¦	glyphosate

¦	oxamyl

¦	picloram

¦	simazine
2,3,7,8-TCDD

¦	trichlorobenzene

Another source of contamination is industrial point discharge in the form of waste effluent,
spills or leaks, or runoff from maintenance applications. The following Phase V SOCs are used as
industrial, organic solvents:

¦	trichlorobenzene

¦	1,1,2-trichloroethane

The following Phase V SOCs are used in or are byproducts of industrial manufacturing. The
manufactured product is indicated in parenthesis:

¦	di(2-ethyihexvl)adipate (plasticizers)

¦	hexachlorocyclopentadiene (insecticides)

¦	trichlorobenzene (coolants, lubricants, and insecticides)

¦	1,1,2-trichloroethane (1,1,-dichloroethylene)

¦	dichloromethane

¦	benzo(a)pyrene

¦	bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

2-1


-------
ADIPATES

Uses

Adipates are commonly used in manufacturing plastics as well as in processing PVC for food
packaging, films, electrical insulation, and coated fabrics. Di(2-ethylhexyi)adipate is a plasticizer
used for cellulose-based liquid lipsticks. It is also used as low and high temperature lubricants,
Dibutyl adipate is used as a repellant to ticks and chiggers. The general structural formula for
adipates and the structural formula for di(2-ethy!hexyl)adipate are shown in Figure 2-1:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

103-23-1

Chemical Formula

QAA

Molecular Weight

370.57 '

Physical State (room temp.)

oily liquid

Melting Point

-79'C

Boiling Point

214*C @ 5mm Hg

Vapor Pressure

2.60 mm Hg @ 20*C

Specific Gravity

0.925

Solubility in Water

100 mg/L

D1-2-ET.HYLHEXYL ADIPATE

CH«

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

O

li

CH2— C— O —CH2	CH	C4Hg

?2M5

CHj —— CH 2 ~~~ C — O —CHo—- CH -™~ C.Hg
II	|	4

°	C2H5

Cfiamical Nimei: Oioctytadett#;

Sla (2-«tfiylh»xyl) a«tar
Common/Trad* Namaa: Adlool Zah. BEHA. Biaottax Doa. Kedaflax Ooa

Elfomoll Ooa, Flaxol A 2 A. Haxanadioic Aciii
Mollan S, Monoplax Ooa, PX-23B.

Baomol Doa, Rucofiax Plaaticizar Doa,
Sicol 280, Statu* Doa, Trufiax Doa,

Unittax Doa, Vaatlool OA. Wicktno; 168.
Wllimol 320

FIGURE 2-1


-------
DALAPON

Uses

The sodium salt of dalapon is used as a selective herbicide. It is often used as a preplant
treatment to control established perennial grasses in irrigation ditch banks as well as in cropland
and non-cropland areas. It is effective against quickgrass. bermuda grass, johnson grass, and other
perennial and annual grasses. The structural formula for dalapon is shown on Figure 2-2:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

75-99-0

Chemical Formula

CH.C1A

Molecular Weight

142.97

Physical State (room temp.)

liquid

Melting Point

decomposes at 168"C

Boiling Point

185 - 190'C

Vapor Pressure

0 @ 35"C (Na salt)

Specific Gravity

1.4014

Solubility in Water

450,000 mg/L (Na salt)

DALAPON

STRUCTURAL FORMULA
ci

CM CCOOH

3

I

CI

CMamical Mamaa: 2.2~DkcnioropropaflOic AcU:

Alona-Dlchioroproplonic Acid
Common/Trade Nam**: Baafapon, Baalapon B, Bulican/

Baafapon N, BH Dllioon. Buinii,
C r i s a D o r., Dalapon 05. BEO-WmiI.
Dowpon, Dvpon M. Qrimivin, Kanapn,
Llropert, Proproa. Radaoon, Untoon

2-3


-------
DICHLORO METHANE

Uses

Dichloromethane is used in paint stripping and solvent degreasing. It is also used in
manufacturing of aerosols, photographic film and synthetic fibers. It is a fumigant, solvent and used
as a refrigerant in low pressure refrigerators and air conditioners. Other industries using
dichloromethane include textile and leather coating, pharmaceutical, and plastics processing, ft is
also used as dewatering and blowing agents in' foams. The structural formula for dichloromethane
is shown in Figure 2-3;

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

75-09-2

Chemical Formula

CH2C12

Molecular Weight

84.93

Physical State (room temp.)

colorless liquid

Melting Point

-9TC

Boiling Point

42*C

Vapor Pressure

349 mm Hg 20*C

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

20,000 mg/L @ 20*C

DICHLOROMETHANE

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

ci

I

M —C —• M

I

CI

Chamical Nana: Oicftloromathaiia
Common/Trad* Namii: M«thyl*nachlorid«

FIGURE 2-3

2-4


-------
DINOSEB

Uses

Dinoseb is used as a general contact herbicide in orchards, vineyards and forage legumes;
and for killing potato vines and for desiccating seed crops to facilitate harvest. The structural
formula for dinoseb is shown on Figure 2-4:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

88-85-7

Chemical Formula

C ;H:; NA '

Molecular Weight

240.22

Physical State (room temp.)

reddish brown liquid or dark brown, solid

Melting Point

38-42'C

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

1 x 10 * mm Hg at 35'C

Specific Gravity

1.29

Solubility in Water

50 mg/L

DINOSEB

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

NO 2

Chemical Name : 2 - s« c-Buty I-4,6-D in itr oontno I, 2,*-Omitro-6 -
sec- Butylpnenoi; 4,6-OlnttrO-2-t1-mathyl-ft-praDyl)
pftanot

Common/Train Nann: A ra t it , Baaamta, 8 uttonane, 0NP 30, Caldon,

Chemox General, Chamex P.E., DN 2B8, DN1P,

DNOS8P, Dow General, Elgesot, Elgetol 316,

ENT 1 122, Gabutox, Kiloset, Nitropone C,

Plenoten, Premergt, Premerge 3, Sino* General,

Seanc, Spurge, Suittex, Untcroo BNBP,
venae Dimtro WaaO Killer, Knox-Weed 55,

Suaersevtcx, Chemeect, Otoitro. Oinitro 3,

Oimtro General, Oynamyte	FIGURE 2-4

2-5


-------
DIQUAT

Uses

Diquat is a contact herbicide typically used for aquatic and industrial weed control, as well
as for desiccating seed crops and for sugarcane flowering. It is rapidly adsorbed by green plants.
The structural formula for diquat dibromide is shown on Figure 2*5;

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

85-00-7

Chemical Formula

C;2Hl2Br,N,

Molecular Weight

334.05

Physical State (room temp.)

pale yellow crystals

Melting Point

335-340'C

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

0

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

700,000 mg/L

DIQUAT

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

rCU3n.-

A	/ *

Chamical Namaa: 6.7-Dlhydrod!pyrido[l ,2-a:2\ 1'-c ] -by rt*m«0tum

dlbromida: 1.1' -•tnyl«n»-2-2'-eipyriaylium dibramidt;
9.10-dlhyarc-ia, 1 Qa-diazomaDHanantnrana
dlbromld#

Common/Trad* Namaa: FB/2 , ftagiona , Aquacida , Danrona , Sagio*

Waadtrma-O. Daiauat, Praagwria, Dwuat Qiaromtda,

Ras>on

FIGURE 2-5

2-6


-------
ENDOTHALL

Uses

Endothall is generally used in the form of a sodium, potassium or amine salt. It is used as
a pre* and post-emergence herbicide, defoliant, desiccant. aquatic herbicide, and growth regulator.
The structural formula for endothall is shown on Figure 2-6:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

145-73-3

Chemical Formula

csh1=o5

Molecular Weight

186.16

Physical State (room temp.)

solid

Melting Point

144'C

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

Negligible

Specific Gravity

•

Solubility in Water

100,000 mg/L

ENDOTHALL

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

COOM

COOH

Chemical Namaa: 7-OxaDicyclo [2,2,1] naotana - 2,3-dlcarsoxyiic acid,-
1,2-Olearooxy-3,fl- andaxocycionaxana;
3,6-EndaxohaxafiydrooM«a*c acM

Common/Trad® Namai: Enslotnal Ttcnnioal, Hydou! , Hydrotflol-47,
A qua l fio! , Hydrothal-1*9 1 , Triandotnai,
Aceaiarate , Aouatnoi K , Oa»-,_cait ,
Endothal Turf HarOlclda , H«raield» 273 ,
Hyarotnol , Hleantnol , Niaora'"*1

FIGURE 2-6

2-7


-------
ENDRIN

Uses

The manufacture and use of endrin. formerly used as an insecticide, has been discontinued
in the United States, However, it is a minor constituent in dieldrin, The structural formula for
endrin is shown on Figure 2-7:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

. CAS#

72-20-8

Chemical Formula

cI2h8ci6o

Molecular Weight

380,9

Physical State (room temp.)

crystals

Melting Point

235'C (d)

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

2 x 10-7 mm Hg @ 25'C

Specific Gravity

1.7

Solubility in Water

0.25-0.26 mg/L

ENDRIN

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

Ct

Chamical Nana: 1,2,3,4,1 0,1 0-H»* aehluro-6,7 - »ooxy - 1,4.4&.S.
i,?,8,B«-oet«tiydro- l,4-»nioantf«-i,8-
dlmathanonaehtftaiana
Common/Trad* Namai: Csmoound 2 8B . Enflrax, Hixiann, Minarm

FIGURE 2*7

2-8


-------
GLYPHOSATE

Uses

In commercial form, glvphosate is usually applied in the form of an isopropylamine salt.
This herbicide is used for controlling many annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds, plus
many tree and woody brush species in cropland. It also may be applied for general weed control
on noncrop areas such as airports,.ditch banks, canals, fence rows, golf courses, and highways. The
structural formula for glyphosate is shown on Figure 2-8;

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

1071-83-6

Chemical Formula

CjHgNOjP

Molecular Weight

169.07

Physical State (room temp.)

white solid

Melting Point

230'C (d)

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

-

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

12,000 mg/L

GLYPHOSATE

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

0

II

NH	CH2	 P 	OH

1

OH

Chemical Name: N-CpnosDhoromethyl) glycine
Common/Trade Names: Mon 0573, Men 2139, fioundue

FIGURE 2-8

Q

; ii

HO— C 	CHj 	

2-9


-------
HEXACHLOROBENZENE

Uses

Hexachlorobenzene is not produced directly, but occurs as a by-product during the
manufacture of chlorinated compounds, such as, tetrachloroethylene, pentachlorophenol and
aromatic fluorocarbons. It is also found as an impurity in herbicide, DCPA, and pesticide, PCNB,
It has been used as a fungicide which is now discontinued. The structural formula for
hexachlorobenzene is shown on Figure 2-9:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

118-74-1

Chemical Formula

QC16

Molecular Weight

284.78

Physical State (room temp.)

white crystalline solid

Melting Point

230"C

Boiling Point

322.9'C

Vapor Pressure

1.089 x If)"3 mm Hg @ 20'C

Specific Gravity

2.044

Solubility in Water

0.005 mg/L @ 25'C

HEXACHLOROBENZENE

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

Chemical Name: HaxacMorobcnzana
Common/Trad* Nam**: Parehlorobanfana

FIGURE 2'9

2-10


-------
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE (HCCPD)

Uses

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene is a key intermediate in the synthesis of stable, chlorinated
cyclodiene insecticides, including aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, endosulfan. heptachlor, chlordane, isodrin,
and mirex. Non-flammable resins and shock proof plastics, acids, esters, ketones, and fluorocarbons
are some other products derived from hexachlorocyclopentadiene. The structural formula for
HCCPD is shown on Figure 2-10:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

77-47-4

Chemical Formula

CClfi

Molecular Weight

272.77

Physical State (room temp.)

yellow green liquid

Melting Point

-9'C

Boiling Point

234'C

Vapor Pressure

0.08 mm Hg @ 25'C

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

0.8 mg/L

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

C\ /C1

c = cx /C.

c

Uc/ Xc,
c/ \c.

Chemical Names: 1,2,3,4,5,5-Hexachloro- 1,3-cyclooentadiene;

Perchlorocyclooentadiene
Common/Trade Names: C56, Graonlox . HRS 1655 .HCCPD

FIGURE 2-10

2-11


-------
OXA.MYL

L'ses

Oxamyi is a nonionic, broad spectrum pesticide which is used as an insecticide, nematicide,
and acaricide. The structural formula for oxamyi is shown on Figure 2-11:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

23135-22-0

Chemical Formula

CTH,3Nj03S

Molecular Weight

219.26

Physical State (room temp.)

off-white crystalline solid

Melting Point

100-200-C

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

2.3 x 10"4 mm Hg @ 25'C

Specific Gravity

0.97

Solubilitv in Water
' -

280,000 mg/L @ 25'C

OXAMYL

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

CH

CH

0	0

3\ II	II

N — C— C=N— 0— C-N— CH,

/I	I

H

- -	SCH3

Chemical Nam*: M*thyi-2-
-------
PHTHALATES - BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
Uses

Bis(2-ethyLhexvl)phthalate is used in plasticizers and plastics manufacturing and in organic
pump fluid. The structural formula for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is shown on Figure 2-13:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

117-81-7

Chemical Formula

CyHjgOj

Molecular Weight

390.56

Physical State (room temp.)

light-colored liquid

Melting Point

-55"C

Boiling Point

385'C

Vapor Pressure

4.2 x 10"5 at 20'C

Specific Gravity

0.99

Solubility in Water

0.285 mg/L

BIS (2 ~ ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

o
•

C - O - CH2CH(C2H5)C4Hg
C -0 - CH2CH«C2H5)C4 Hig
O

Chemical Name: Bis (2 - ethylhexyl) phthalate

Common/Trad* Names: 1,2-Benzenedicarfioxyiic

acid, BIS(2-Ethytiexyl)
ester, Siaofiex 81.
OAF 68, DEHP, OOP,
Fleximel, Octyl Ptitnalate.
Sicoi 150, Trutlex OOP,
Vinicizer 60, Wltcizer 312

FIGURE 2-13

2-14


-------
PAHs - BENZO(A)PYREN'E

Uses

Polynuclear or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are organic compounds made up
of two or more fused, resonant aromatic rings in linear, angular, or cluster arrangements. They nre
generally toxic and several PAHs exhibit carcinogenic behavior. PAHs enter the environment
through natural and anthropogenic sources. Benzo(a)pvrene is produced in coal tar. coal, coke and
kerosene processing. It is also produced in petroleum and shale refining, and heat and power
generation. Combustion of tobacco and fuels produce benzo(a)pyrene. The structural formula for
benzo(a)pvrene is shown in Figure 2-12:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

50-32-8

Chemical Formula

C?,H|;

Molecular Weight

252.32

Physical State (room temp.)

yellowish crystals

Melting Point

179-C

Boiling Point '

3irc

Vapor Pressure

5 x 10'* mm Hg

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

0.005 mg/L

BENZO (a? FYRENE

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

PuC

Cnemical Name: Sanzo <•> cyr»n«

Common/Trad# Names; 3, 4 - B«nzpyr»ne

FIGURE 2-12

2-13


-------
P1CL0RAM

Uses

Picloram is effective against a wide variety of deep-rooted herbaceous weeds and woody
plants. It is applied for brush control along utility rights-of-way, for weed control in pastures, and
for broadleaf weed control in small grains. The structural formula for picloram is shown on
Figure 2-14;

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES |

CAS #

1918-02-1

Chemical Formula

CH.CUNA

Molecular Weight

241.46

Physical State (room temp.)

-

Melting Point

218-219'C

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

6.17 x 10'" mm Hg (§ 35'C

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

430 mg/L

PICLORAM

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

NH 2

O

Chemical! Nintis: 4-iminD- 3 ,5 ,6-triehlorooyfldlne-2-

carooxylic acid; 4-amino-3,5,6 - tricnioroeicottmc

acid; 3 ,5,6-tricnloro-4-aminooicotimc acid

Common/Trade Names: Tofdon, Amdon, Sorolin, K-Pin, ATCP, NCI-C0023?,

Tordon 10K, Tordon 22K , Tordon 101 Mixture

FIGURE 2-14

2-15


-------
SIMAZINE

Uses

Simazine is a selective herbicide used on corn, citrus,'olive, asparagus, grape, coffee, tea, arid
cocoa crops. It is also used against aquatic weeds and aigae in ponds and fish hatcheries and used
at higher application rates as a total herbicide on non-crop land. The structural formuia for
simazine is shown on Figure 243:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

122-34-9

Chemical Formula

C7HuC1Ns

Molecular Weight

201.66

Physical State (room temp.)

crystals

Melting Point

226-227C

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

6.1 x 10-* mm Hg @ 20"C

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

5 mg/L @ 20'C

SIMAZINE

STRUCT wSAL FORMULA

C2HsNH

r

01

N\^N

NKCjHj

C tiemicaf Name: »-ehloro-N.N '-diethyl- 1

f-ettloro-4,8 -t»$(eth-bi» (atrtyi-ammc) -s-tnazm#
Common:Trad* Nam#: Q-2r692.a»i9y 27682. M1803. Fram.d,

GDT, GET, Triazin* A 384, W SS58, Aquazm# ,
Slmadax. Simanax ,GaaaDum , Aktintt S ,
Balaztna , Bltamol , Hareann , HsrMi ,
Haraoxy , Printed ¦ Hadoeon , S;nax>n .
Tafazma , Zaaour , Hunjaim DT , RadoKor ,
Taonann*

FIGURE 2-15

2-16


-------
13,7.8-TCDD

Uses

2.3.7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2.3.7.8-TCDD) is formed as a contaminant during the
manufacture of herbicides such as 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-TP) and silvex. It has
been identified as an impurity in commercial 2.4.5-trichIorophenol and has been detected in the
products of combustion of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy compounds. The structural formula for
2,3,7,8-TCDD is shown on Figure 2-16;

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

1746-01-6

Chemical Formula

C,H4C1A

Molecular Weight

321.97

Physical State (room temp.)

colorless crystals

Melting Point

305-306'C

Boiling Point

-

Vapor Pressure

1.7 x 10"" mm Hg

Specific Gravity

-

Solubility in Water

.002 mg/L

2.3.7,8- TCDD (DIQXIN)

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

Ctiemicai Name:.2,3,?.8-Tetraciiiorodit>enzo-p~dioxiR;

2,3,7,8-Tetraehlorodi&anzo-1,4-eliQj(m

Common/Trade Nairn: TCDD, Dioxin

FIGURE 2-16

2-17


-------
1.2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE

L'ses

Trichlorobenzenes are used as solvents for high melting products, as coolants in electrical
installations and in glass tempering, and as a heat transfer medium. They are also used in polyester
dyeing, termite preparations, synthetic transformer oil, lubricants, and insecticides. The structural
formula for the 1,2,4-iriehlorobenzene is shown on Figure 2-17:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

120-82-1

Chemical Formula

CJHjClj

Molecular Weight

181.45

Physical State (room temp.)

colorless liquid

Melting Point

ITC

Boiling Point

213'C

Vapor Pressure

10 mm Hg at 38.4*C
1 mm Hg at 20*C

Specific Gravity

1,4734

Solubility , in Water

19 mg/L at 22*C

1, 2, 4 - TRICHLOROBENZENE

STRUCTURAL FORMULA

CI

ci

Ch>mtc*l Name: t, 2, * - Trichlorob»ni#n«
Common/Triae Nifflti: Un«ym - TnchloraB«nz»n«

2-18

FIGURE 2-1?


-------
1.1.2-TRICHLOROETHANE

Uses

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1.1,2-TCA) is used in the manufacture of 1.1-diehloroethylene and
it is used as a solvent for chlorinated rubber and various organic materials, including fats, oils,
resins, etc. The structural formula for 1,1.2-TCA is shown on Figure 2-18:

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

CAS #

79-00-5

Chemical Formula

C2HjC13

Molecular Weight

133.41

Physical State (room temp.)

colorless liquid

Melting Point

-35'C

Boiling Point

113-114'C

Vapor Pressure

19 mm Hg (a 20'C

Specific Gravity

1.44

Solubility in Water

.4500 mg/L

1,1.2-TRICHLOROETHANE
STRUCTURAL FORMULA

ci ci

I I

H 	 C —C —H

I I

H CI

• Chemical Name: 1,1,2-Trichloroettiane
Common/Trade Names: 1,1,2-TCEA, Vinyl Trichloride

FIGURE 2-18

2-19


-------
TABLE 2-1

CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OP PHASE ¥ SOCs

PAHs

CAS#

Chemical
Formula

Mol.
. Wt,

Physical State
(room temp.)

Melting
Point

(C)

Boiling

Point
(C)

Vapor Press
@20°C
(mm/Hg)

Specific
Gravity

Solubility
In Water
® 20 °C
(mg/L)

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate

103-23-1

C^jO^

370.57

oily liquid

-79

214®
5 mm
Hg

2.60

0.925

100

Dalapon

75-09-0

CAC1A

142.97

liquid

NA

185-190 1 0

1.401

450,000

Dichloromethane

75-09-2

CH,CL

84.93

colorless liquid

-97

42

349

N/A

20,000

Dinoseb

88-85-7

ck,hI2n2o5

240.22

reddish brown
liquid or solid

38-42

N/A

1 X 10* <® 35°C

1.29 .

50

Diquat

85-00-7

CJJHiSBr2N2

334.05

pale yellow
crystals

335-340

N/A

0

N/A

700,000

Endolhall

145-73-3

C»H,„(),

186.16

solid

144

N/A

neglilible

N/A

100,000

Endrin

72-20-8

C^C^O

380.90

crystals

235(d)

N/A

2 x 107 25 °C

1.7

0,25-0.26

Glyphosate

1071-83-6

CjHjNOjP

169.07

white solid

230(d)

N/A

-

N/A

12,000

Hexachlorbenzene

118-74-1

QC16

284.78

white crystals

230

323

1.9 x lfrJ

2.04

.005 @25 °C

Hexachloroeyclo-
pentadiene

77-47-4

CA

272.77

yellow green
liquid

-9

234

.08® 25-C

N/A

0.8

Oxamyl

23135-22-1

c7hn,o,s

• 219.26

off-white crystals

• 100-102

N/A

2.3 x 10"* @ 25 °C

0.97

280,000 @°C

Benzo(a)pyrene

50-32-8

CaH

252.32

yellowish crystals

179

311

5 x 10s

N/A

0.003

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phlhalate

117-81-7

W,

390.56

light-colored
liquid

-55

385

4,2 x 10s

0.99

0.285

Picloram

1918-02-1

QHjCIjN.Oj

241.46

crystals

218-219

N/A

6.17 x 10' @ 35°C

N/A

430

Simazlne

122-34-9

C,HKC1N,

201.66

crystals

226-227

N/A

6.1 x 10'

N/A

5

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dixion)

1746-01-6

CeH4C]j02

321.97

colorless crystals

305-306

N/A

1.7 x Iff6

N/A

0.002

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzcne

120-82-1

c£h3ci3

181.45

colorless liquid

17

213

1

1.46

19 ® 22°C

1,1,2-T richloroethane

79-00-5

c2h5ci3

133.41

colorless liquid

-35

113-114

19

1.44

4,500


-------
3. AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES

This section provides an overview of the various technologies which have been considered for
removing the 18 Phase V SOCs from drinking water. The results of a literature review of the treatment
technologies used to remove each of the 18 Phase V SOCs from drinking water are presented in
Table 3-1. The level of development of each technology for the removal of a particular SOC is indicated
by the type of evaluations that have been performed: bench, pilot, and full-scale testing. Bench-scale
testing will generally indicate whether or not a technology is feasible; pilot testing is used in establishing
feasibility and design criteria; full-scale testing provides an evaluation of the process under typical
operating conditions.

ACTIVATED CARBON

Activated carbon has been used to treat all Phase V SOCs. Extensive bench-scale testing either
in the form of isotherm or dynamic minicolumn testing has been performed, along with some pilot and
several full-scale evaluations. Several of the full-scale installations involved either partial replacement
of media filters with carbon, or powdered activated carbon (PAC) addition in conjunction with coagu-
lation/sedimentation. Activated carbon adsorption has proven to be effective in the removal of most of
the SOCs. Therefore, it can be regarded as the most applicable technology in removing the Phase V
SOCs from drinking water.

AERATION

Aeration, has not been used to treat the Phase V SOCs. However, estimated values of the
Henry's Law Coefficients for these SOCs give an indication of the favorable feasibility of aeration
technologies for removing these contaminants. Aeration has been shown to be effective in removing
volatile SOCs and should thus be considered as an applicable technology. However, transfer of VOCs
from water to air might be a concern depending on proximity to human habitation, treatment plant worker
exposure, local air quality, local meteorological conditions, daily quantity of processed water and
contamination level.

3-1


-------
TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY DATA FOR THE 18 PHASE V SOCs

Compound Name

Type of Testing

Bench

Pilot

Full

Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate

GAC

—

—

Dalapon

GAC

—

—

Dibromomethane

GAC

GAC

•

Dionseb

GAC, IE

—

GAC

Diquat

GAC, CT, PAC, IE, OX

—

—

Endothal

GAC

—

—

Endrin

GAC, CT, PAC, OX, RO

CT, PAC

—

Glyphosate

GAC, CT, PAC, OX, RO

CT, OX

—

Hexachlorobenzene

GAC

—

— .

Hexachlorocyclopentadine

GAC, RA

—

—

Oxamyl

GAC, IE

—

—

Benzo(a)pyrene

GAC, OX

—

GAC, CT

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

GAC, CT, PAC

GAC

CT

Picloram

GAC, IE, RA

—

—

Simazine

GAC, PAC, RA, OX

—

GAC, PAC

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)

—

GAC

—

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

GAC, RO

—

RO

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

GAC

—

GAC

Notes:

GAC:	Granular Activated Carbon

CT:	Conventional

PAC:	Powdered Activated Carbon

IE:	Ion Exchange

RA:	Resin Adsorption

OX:	Oxidation

PTA:	Aeration

RO:	Reverse Osmosis


-------
CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT

Conventional treatment (coagulation/sedimentation/filtration) has been used to treat diquat, endrin,
benzo(a)pyrene, glyphosate, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Of the five benzo(a)pyrene and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate have been evaluated in full-scale installations. Removals were poor to good.
Influent concentrations in these tests ranged from ng/L.to mg/L levels. Conventional treatment should
be considered as an additional technology of limited applicability due to the lack of treatability data.

ION EXCHANGE

Ion exchange has been used to treat dinoseb, diquat, oxamyl and pieloram, all of which are
pesticides. The performance of both anion and cation resins were studied in these bench-scale tests. Pilot
scale testing of these pesticides will be required to further determine the feasibility of this process and
to establish preliminary design parameters. Ion exchange should be considered as an additional
technology of limited applicability because it is most effective in removing organic ions and probably
would not be applicable to non-ionic organics.

MACRORETICULAR RESIN ADSORPTION

Macroreticular resin adsorption has been used to treat pieloram, simazine and
hexachlorocyclopentad iene. Bench scale tests were used to assess the effectiveness of this particular
technology in removing these compounds. Pilot scale testing of these compounds will be required to
further determine the feasibility of this process and to establish preliminary design parameters. The
macroreticular resin adsorption process is similar to that used for GAC but the cost of the resin is much
higher than the costs of GAC. However, macroreticular resins are more effective than GAC in removing
low molecular weight organics. Macroreticular resin adsorption should be considered as an additional
technology of limited applicability due to the limited treatability information which is currently available.

3-2


-------
OXIDATION

Oxidation has been used to treat diquat, endrin, benzo(a)pyrene, glyphosate and simazine,
primarily through bench-scale evaluations. The oxidation techniques which have been evaluated include
ozone, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, potassium permanganate, potassium persulfate, and
ultraviolet light, either alone, or in combination with some of the other oxidants. While oxidation may
be effective in degrading certain SOCs, especially those with unsaturated bonds, there is concern about
the degradation products formed by the oxidation of each of the SOCs. These reaction products may be
toxic in themselves and may resist further degradation, requiring excessive oxidant dosages for further
destruction. Except in the case of glyphosate, oxidation should be considered as an additional technology
that requires further development because there is limited treatability information on oxidation, much of
which is bench scale. For glyphosate, oxidation should be considered an applicable technology.

REVERSE OSMOSIS

Reverse osmosis (RO) has been used to treat endrin, glyphosate, and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene.
This testing has been primarily pilot scale, along with some bench and full scale applications. While
some removals have been reported, it is not always clear whether the removal is a result of rejection by
the membrane or adsorption onto the membrane. Some pilot-scale testing indicates that adsorption of
particular SOCs may occur, and that once adsorption has occurred, desorption may be difficult. RO
should be considered an additional technology which requires further development because there only is
limited treatability information and because there is some question as to the mechanism by which SOC
removal occurs.

STEAM STRIPPING

A steam stripping computer model has simulated the treatment of 1,1,2-trichloroethane and 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene. Steam stripping is a form of distillation and, as such, is dependent upon the volatilities
of the compounds being treated. This process is more energy intensive than air stripping, but this
additional energy enables the process to achieve high removals. Steam stripping should be considered
as an additional technology of limited applicability because limited treatability data is available and the
process is more suitable for the industrial wastewater industry.

3-3


-------
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES

Based on the review of treatment data for the 18 Phase V SOCs, the available technologies have
been divided into the three general categories as follows:

Most Applicable Technology

Granular Activated Carbon

Other Applicable Technology

1

Packed Column Aeration
Oxidation

Additional Technologies

Conventional Treatment
Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)

Ion Exchange

Macroreticular Resin Adsorption

Oxidation

Reverse Osmosis

Steam Stripping

Diffused Aeration

More detailed descriptions of each of these technologies and their removal efficiencies for the
18 Phase V SOCs are presented in the following chapters.

3-4


-------
4. MOST APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY - GRANULAR ACTIVATED

CARBON

Most applicable technologies are those technologies which have demonstrated highly
effective capacities to remove the Phase V SOCs, and for which reasonable cost estimates can be
developed for a wide range of influent/effluent conditions. As indicated in Section 3, the only
technology which is considered to be most applicable for all of the Phase V SOCs is granular
activated carbon (GAC) adsorption. According to the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act, Congress specified in Section 1412(b)(5) of the Act that:

Granular activated carbon is feasible for the control of synthetic organic chemicals, and any

technology, treatment technique, or other means found to be the best available for the

control of synthetic organic chemicals must be at least as effective in controlling synthetic

organic chemicals as granular activated carbon.

In the past, the use of GAC for drinking water treatment in the United States had been
limited to primarily taste and odor control applications. However, since the widespread detection
of organics in drinking water supplies, much research and pilot-scale studies have been undertaken
to evaluate the effectiveness of GAC for controlling organic compounds, and many full-scale
facilities have been installed to remove organics, particularly from ground water supplies. Based
on past research and pilot-scale work, GAC represents one unit process with the ability to remove
a broad spectrum of organic chemicals from water. Although GAC is considered to be the best
available broad spectrum removal process, it exhibits a wide range of effectiveness in adsorbing
various individual organic .compounds.

PROCESS DESCRIPTION

The application of granular activated carbon adsorption for removing organic compounds
from drinking water supplies involves the following major process design considerations;

¦	Carbon Usage Rate - pounds of carbon per volume of water treated

¦	Empty Bed Contact Time

¦	Pretreatment

¦	Contactor Configuration - down flow versus upflow, pressure versus gravity, single-stage
versus multi-stage or parallel versus series, GAC contactor versus filter adsorber.

4-1


-------
¦	Method of GAC Regeneration - on-site versus off-site

Carbon Usage Rate

This basic design parameter indicates the rate at which carbon will be exhausted or replaced, thus
affecting the operating cost of the treatment system. For a full-scale GAC installation, the carbon usage
rate is often the decisive factor in the selection of on-site carbon regeneration or replacement of spent
carbon with virgin carbon. It also impacts any costs associated with carbon handling, such as storage,
dewatering, attrition losses and transportation. The carbon usage rate for a given type of water and
contaminant(s) can be estimated by different methods. These methods include:

¦	Isotherm test

¦	Model predictions

¦	Minicolumn Test

¦	Pilot-scale test

¦	Operating full-scale installation

A detailed discussion of each method is provided later in this chapter.

Empty Bed Contact Time

The empty bed contact time (EBCT) provides an indication of the quantity of carbon which will
be on-line at any one time, and thus reflects the capital cost for the system. The EBCT is also an
important design parameter as it has a significant impact on the carbon usage rate for each SOC. The
carbon usage rate will reflect the GAC adsorption behavior under raw water conditions for a particular
SOC. Theoretically, GAC usage rate decreases with an increase in the EBCT until a minimum value
based on the equilibrium capacity for a particular SOC is achieved. This may never be possible because
the presence of background organic matter impacts the adsorption behavior of a particular SOC (Zimmer,
1988 and Crittenden, 1987). Thus, an optimum process EBCT and corresponding carbon usage rate are
important design considerations.

Pretreatment

GAC systems may require some kind of pretreatment to prevent clogging of the carbon bed and
to minimize the organic loading on the carbon. Clogging of the bed could be caused by suspended solids
in the raw water or by precipitation of iron and manganese on the carbon. The former is typical of
surface water systems while iron and manganese in the soluble form may be

4-2


-------
encountered in ground water systems. Clogging may also be caused by biological growths when the
carbon bed life is long. Disinfection with chlorine prior to GAC adsorption should be avoided
because chlorine by-products formed during the reduction of chlorine on GAC are adsorbed by
carbon, and therefore, compete with the organics for adsorption sites. In addition, if carbon
regeneration is anticipated, adsorption of these by-products could possibly result in the formation
of hazardous substances during regeneration processes. Filtration ahead of the GAC system is a
common solution to prevent clogging of the bed. GAC systems are sometimes added to the end
of a conventional treatment process.

When the background organic levels in the raw water are high, the carbon is used at a faster
rate, necessitating more frequent replacement. This increases the operating cost of the system.
Pretreatment can be provided to reduce the organic loading on the carbon, thereby decreasing the
carbon usage rate. The need for pretreatment should, however, be justified on the basis of costs.
Examples of processes which may be used for pretreatment include conventional treatment,'
ozonation and packed column aeration.

Contactor Configuration

Based on the estimates of carbon usage rate and contact time, a conceptual process design
can be developed by evaluating various contactor configurations. The two basic modes of contactor
operation are upflow and downflow. Upflow expanded bed contactors allow suspended solids to
pass through the bed without producing a high pressure drop. This configuration is not generally
considered for use in water treatment where the level of suspended solids is relatively low.
Downflow fixed bed contactors offer the simplest and most common contactor configuration for
SOC removal from drinking water. These contactors can be operated either under pressure or by
gravity.

The choice of pressure or gravity is generally dependent upon the hydraulic constraints of
a given system. Pressure contactors may be more applicable to ground water systems because
pumping of the ground water is required. Gravity contactors are generally more suitable for surface
water systems if sufficient head is available. Gravity contactors, when used, will typically be placed
downstream of surface water filtration systems. Diagrams of pressure and gravity systems are

i

presented on Figure 4-1.

GAC contactors may be configured to operate in series or parallel. In series configuration,
GAC in the first contactor is regenerated when the second contactor achieves the treatment goals
of a particular SOC. Presence of background organic matter, a complex mixture of unknown

4-3


-------
— SUFFG

RT LAYERS

iuo-rILL

PRESSURE CONTACTOR

SURFACE WASKEHS

SUPPORT"LAYERS

NORMAL WORK I NG LEitfL

WASH

-rsmicaZJ?

	' i-

j--- /—
» /

OPERATING FLOOR

GAC BED

pEJ

gpt\_ 1NLn

V BACKWASH OUTLET
BOTTOM CONNECT!OH

GRAVITY CONTACTOR

FIGURE 4-1 SCHEMATICS OF CARBON CONTACTORS


-------
compounds, impacts the adsorption of a particular SOC, Background organic matter is weaker
adsorbing and has a slower rate of adsorption. Therefore, it moves faster through the bed and
preloads the GAC at the downstream end. This preloading effect may reduce the capacity and rate
of adsorption of a particular SOC. Hence, contactors in series should be operated to minimize
effects of preloading by placing the second adsorber on-line once the first adsorber has reached
treatment objective for a particular SOC. In parallel operation, GAC beds can be operated in
staggered pattern such that the effluent from a bed with a breakthrough concentration of a
particular SOC higher than its treatment objective is blended with the effluent from a parallel bed
with no breakthrough. In this manner, the combined effluent concentration from parallel beds can
be kept under the treatment objective of a particular SOC and exhausted beds would also be
regenerated in a staggered manner. Although GAC could be used more effectively in parallel or
series operation, more contactors would be required to treat the same quantity of water. Therefore,
a cost analysis should be performed to determine whether the higher capital costs involved with,*
series or parallel operation are offset by the lower carbon replacement or regeneration cost. The
decision between a series or parallel mode may hinge on the design criteria characteristics of the
SOC to be treated, i.e,, carbon usage rate and EBCT.

Adsorption of SOCs can also be achieved in a filter adsorber, where partial or total quantity
of sand may be replaced by GAC, having shorter EBCTs. Because of short EBCTs as compared
to GAC contactors, breakthrough concentration for a SOC may reach its treatment objective much
earlier. On the other hand, for seasonal changes in the water quality or SOC shock loads, filter
adsorbers may offer an economical choice. One major disadvantage of a filter adsorber is that
GAC losses may be high during backwashing and regeneration. Therefore, a comprehensive
economic analysis considering GAC usage rates and desired treatment goals should be performed
in order to decide between a GAC contactor or filter adsorber.

In drinking water supplies, complex mixtures consisting of various SOCs are encountered.
Some of these SOCs may be degraded biologically. GAC, with its porous structure, may be a good
media for biological activity. Because of limited adsorption sites available on GAC, its capacity for
a mixture is limited. The capacity of a mixture on GAC could be increased if some SOCs are
biologically degraded. This phenomena has been successfully shown in bench-scale studies and its
verification on pilot-scale and full-scale applications is required. The main disadvantages of
biological activity on GAC includes its site specific nature, longer required acclimation times and
coverage of GAC surface and pores by the bacteria. Furthermore, post GAC disinfection may be
required to meet the standards for biological activity in the finished water.

4-4


-------
Method of GAC Regeneration

Another basic consideration in evaluating the design of a GAC system for SOC removal is
the method of carbon regeneration. The two basic approaches to regenerating the carbon are:

1.	Off-site-disposal or regeneration

2,	On-site-regeneration

Based on information from GAC manufacturers, on-site regeneration generally does not
appear to be economical for systems where the carbon usage rate is less than 1,000 to 2,000 pounds
per day. Adams et al. (1986) demonstrated that a regeneration facility having an operating
reactivation capacity of 12,000 pounds of GAC per day could provide a cost-effective alternative to
carbon replacement. Moreover, utilization of the facility's excess capacity for a regional reactivation
system showed that off-site reactivation would be more economical for the participating utilities
than either carbon replacement or on-site reactivation.

Under the concept of off-site disposal, virgin carbon is generally purchased in bags, drums, _
or bulk truckloads. Large surface water treatment plants employing GAC for taste and odor control
often employ the disposal approach and purchase carbon in bulk quantities. Ground water systems
and smaller surface water systems generally do not have the carbon requirements necessary to make
bulk shipment practical, but purchase smaller quantity of replacement carbon. Once the carbon
becomes exhausted, it is generally slurried by gravity to a draining bin where the free water is
removed and returned for treatment. The drained carbon is then manually drummed and shipped
for landfill or incineration.

The advantages to off-site disposal lie mainly in its technical simplicity; and, as such, it is
a sound approach for applications with relatively small carbon usage rates (generally less than 500
pounds per day). The need to dispose of the spent carbon, however, is a concern especially since
toxic or hazardous materials are adsorbed on the spent carbon. Incineration of the spent carbon
to ensure proper ultimate disposal may become necessary.

The off-site regeneration approach is somewhat similar to the disposal concept from a
carbon handling standpoint; however, off-site regeneration begins to assume some of the economies
associated with on-site regeneration. However, the number of handling steps and resulting carbon
attrition and loss are a major disadvantage when compared to other alternatives. The off-site reac-
tivation approach has generally proven most cost effective in applications where the carbon usage
rate falls in the 500 to 2,000-pound per day range (Kornegay, 1979).

4-5


-------
GAC EQUIPMENT

The major equipment typically found in a GAC installation includes:

¦	Carbon Contactors - either common wall concrete or lined steel vessels. In either case,
provisions for underdrainage, backwashing, and removing the spent carbon must be made.

¦	Carbon Storage - additional storage facilities may be required for handling of virgin,
regenerated and spent carbon, depending upon the size and type of facility.

¦	Carbon Transport Facilities - includes piping, valves, and pumps.

¦	Carbon Fill - the actual initial carbon charge depends on the type and volume of carbon
required for treatment.

Having outlined the GAC process and the pertinent design criteria, brief descriptions of the testing
methods and SOC removal case studies are presented below.

TREATABILITY STUDIES, ISOTHERM EVALUATIONS AND ESTIMATION OF CARBON
USAGE RATES

Treatability studies can be grouped into four classifications: isotherm evaluations and mini
column tests both which are bench-scale tests, pilot-scale tests and full-scale tests. In addition, computer
models can be used to predict breakthrough profiles, carbon usage rates, and bed lives using the results
of these studies. For the purpose of this document the Constant Pattern Homogeneous Surface Diffusion
Model (CPHSDM) (Hand et. al., 1984) was utilized to predict usage rates (Miltner et. al. 1988). The
model predictions were based on distilled water isotherm data, and the following assumptions:

¦	Plug flow exists in the bed

¦	Constant hydraulic loading

¦	Surface diffusion is the limiting intraparticle mass transfer mechanism

¦	Local liquid-phase mass transfer rate is described by a linear driving force approximation

¦	The absorbent is in a fixed position in the adsorber and is assumed to be spherical

¦	The adsorption equilibria can be described by the Freundlich isotherm equation

¦	Background matrix has no effect on adsorption equilibria and kinetics

4-6


-------
Isotherm evaluations are batch tests which yield the equilibrium or maximum SOC loading on a
particular carbon at a given SOC initial and equilibrium liquid-phase concentrations. Model predictions
use isotherm data to estimate carbon usage rates and bench-scale test design parameters. Bench scale tests
use a mini column to estimate carbon usage rates under flow-through conditions. Pilot tests are conducted
with larger columns than those used in mini column testing, thus requiring significantly greater quantities
of water and longer run times. Full-scale tests evaluate the performance of GAC in actual field instal-
lations. Further discussion of each method is provided below.

Isotherm Evaluations

Adsorption isotherms are useful screening tools for determining preliminary carbon requirements,
and evaluating the relative absorbability of a particular compound in comparison with other compounds.
The analytical procedure that is generally followed for isotherm testing is outlined by Randtke and
Snoeyink (1983). The procedure, known as bottle point isotherm, involves placing a measured weight
of pulverized carbon in a fixed volume of aqueous solution of known SOC concentration and agitating
over a sufficient time to reach equilibrium. The resultant liquid-phase SOC concentration is then
measured and the equilibrium capacity (or loading) is calculated by a simple mass balance for the SOC.
These steps are repeated for a series of known weights of carbon for a given initial SOC concentration.
The relationship between equilibrium capacity and equilibrium liquid-phase concentration can be described
by various mathematical models and has been found to generally follow the Freundlich isotherm relation-
ship:

X/M = KCUn

where:

X/M = equilibrium capacity Mass of (mass of soc/mass of carbon)
K = Freundlich Isotherm Parameter

C = SOC equilibrium concentration (M/V)
1/n = Freundlich exponent

K and 1/n are typically referred to as Freundlich constants. K is related to the adsorption
capacity of GAC for an SOC, and 1/n is an indicator of the adsorption intensity.


-------
Freundlich parameters, which were determined from the isotherm tests performed by a number
of investigators, as provided in the summary of treatability case studies are presented in Appendix B.
The Freundlich parameters, K and 1/n, are functions of several factors such as contaminant type, water
pH, temperature, and organic matrix. A summary of the Freundlich parameters which were determined
from isotherm tests utilizing water of similar quality is presented in Table 4-1. Based on the isotherm
constants, carbon usage rates for each SOC with different influent with effluent concentrations were
developed using the CPHSDM model as shown in Table 4-2. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate has a 1/n value
greater than 1.0, for which the CPHSDM could not be used. The GAC usage rates for this SOC are
based on the method described in Appendix A.

Estimation Of Carbon Usage Rates

The following equation, derived from the Freundlich equation and a mass balance for column
operation, can be used to estimate carbon usage rates in pounds of carbon per thousand gallons of water
treated:

Carbon usage rate (CUR) (lbs/1,000 gal) = C x 8.34

K(C)1/n

where:

C = SOC influent concentration to column (mg/L)

K, 1/n = Freundlich isotherm parameters

8.34 = conversion factor from g/liter to lbs./1,000 gal

A sample calculation using this method is shown in Appendix A. This method assumes that a
GAC system is operated until the SOC concentration of the GAC equals that of the influent, i.e., the
GAC is in equilibrium with the untreated contaminant concentration. Thus, the carbon usage rate
calculated in this manner represents the maximum amount of SOC adsorbed per unit weight of carbon
for the existing water quality conditions.

Estimation of Adjusted Carbon Usage Rates

The presence of other adsorbable organic compounds and natural and/or anthropogenic organic
matter in the water matrix impacts the adsorption of a specific organic compound of interest. In a given
water matrix, organic compounds compete for the available active sites on the carbon. This results in
reduced capacities for all the compounds when compared to their single

4-8


-------
IX

TABLE 4-1

CARBON ADSORPTION ISOTHERM PARAMETERS



K



mc

ilPllpf

lllllll

Carbon

flm*

1/n

(mg/g)(L/mg)v"

(um/g)(L/iim)<>

Reference

j Di(ethylhexyl)adipate

371

—

F4

0.12

414

990

Polanyi Potential Theory, Speth (1989), Speth (1991a)

Dalapon

143

—

F4

0.22

23

105

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Diehloromethane

85

6.1-7.4

F4

0.80

1.6

2.6

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Dinoseb

240

5.9

F4

0.28

210

587

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Diquat

334

6.6-8.5

F4

0.24

12

27

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Endothall

186

...

F4

0.33

22

68

Speth (1991a)

Endrin

381

5.3

F3

0.80

666

808

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

Olyphosatc

169



F4

0.12

200

954

Speth (1991b)

Hcxachlorobenzene

285

5.3

F3

0.60

450

744

Do^bs and Cohen (1980)

Hexaehlorocyclopentadieoe

273

3.6

F4

0.50

1398

2660

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Oxamyl

219

7.2

F4

0.79

408

561

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Benzo(a)pyrenc

252

7.1

F3

0.44

34

74

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

391

5.3

F3

1.50

11300

7062

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

Picloram

241

6.5-7,5

F4

0.18

81

261

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Simazine

202

6.1

F4

0.23

152

520

Miltner, Speth and Reinhold (1988)

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)

322

—

F4

0.10

585

1623

Polanyi Potential Theory, MPI • '

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenc

181

5.3

F3

0.31

157

511

Dobbs and Cohen (1980) '

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

133

6.7

F4

0.65

33

67

Miltner, Speth and Reinhold (1988) I

N0TE5: , 1

1. Carbon Type: F4 - Calgon's F-400
; F3 - Calgon's F-300

{

"—* Not reported.


-------
TA3LE 4-2

CARBON USAGE RATES









Carbon Usage

Rates









(ibs/l.OOOjzal)



Influent

Effluent

Percent

Distilled

Adjusted

Compound Name

. (mg/L)

(mg/L)

Removal

.Water

Water

Di(ethyl hexyl) adipate

0.0333

0.0100

70 %

0.0010

0.0264



1.6667

0.5000

70 %

0.0327

0.1407



3.3333

1.0000

70 %

0.0600

0.1883



0.1000

0.0100

90 %

0.0280

0.1306



5.0000

0.5000

90 %

0.0885

0.2269



10.0000

1.0000

90 %

0.1630

0.3042



0.5000

o.otoo

98 %

0.0120

0.0869



25.0000

0.5000

98 %

0.3770

0.4550



50.0000

1.0000

98 %

0.6920

0.6091

Dalapon

0.0333

0.0100

70 %

0.0259

0.1258



0.6667

0.2000

70 %

0.2690,

0.3869



3.3333

1.0000

70 %

0.9320

0.7027



0.1000

0.0100

90 %

0.0623

0.1917



2.0000

0.2000

90 %

0.6447

0.5887



10.0000

1.0000

90 %

2.2230

2.2230



0.5000

0.0100

98 %

0.2220

0.3529



10.0000

0.2000

98 %

2.3045

2.3045



50.0000

1.0000

98 %

7.8930

7.8930

Dichlorome thane

0.1667

0.0500

70 %

3.9600

3.9600



0.0167

0.0050

70 %

2.5000

2.5000



1.6667

0.5000

70 %

6.2800

6.2800



0.5000

0.0500

90 %

5.3000

5.3000



0.0500

0.0050

90 %

3.3500

3.3500

*

5.0000

0.5000

90 %

8.4000

8.4000



2.5000

0.0500

98 %

7.7600

7.7600



0.2500

0.0050

98 %

4.9000

4.9000



25.0000

0.5000

98 %

11.1000

11.1000


-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)

CARBON USAGE RATES

Dinoseb

0,0067

" i

0.0020

70 %

0.0012

0,0282 j



0,0233

0.0070

70 %

0,0027

0,0425



0,2333

0.0700

70 %

0.0142

. 0,0942



0,0200

0.0020

90 %

0.0025

0.0409 j



0.0700

0.0070

90 %

0.0062

0.0631



0.7000

0.0700

90 %

0.0324

0.1400



0.1000

0.0020

98 %

0.0082

0.0723



0.3500

0.0070

98 %

0.0201

0,1113



3.5000

0.0700

' 98 %

0.1060

0.2474

Diquat

0.0133

0.0040

70 %

0.0166

0.1016



0.0667

0.0200

70 %

0.0578

0.1849



0.3333

0.1000

70 %

0.1940

0.3:07



0.0400

0.0040

¦ 90 %

0.0400

0,1549



0.2000

0.0200

90 %

0.1350

0.2779



1.0000

0.1000

90 %

0.4600

0.5006



0.2000

0.0040

98 %

0.1380

0.2808



1.0000

0.0200

98 %

0.4700

0.5058



5.0000

0.1000

98 %

1.6000

0.9109

Endothall

0.1667

0.0500

70 %

0.1110

I
!

0.2530



0.3333

0.1000

70 %

0.1760

0.3156



3.3333

1.0000

70 %

0.8200.

0.6608



0.5000

0.0500

90 %

0.0240

0.1212



1.0000

0.1000

90 %

0.3800

0.4568



10.0000

1.0000

90 %

1.7700

1.7700



2.5000

0.0500

98 %

0.7200

0.6208



5.0000

0.1000

98 %

1.1400

1.1400

-

50.0000

1.0000

98 %

5.3300

5.3300

Endrin

0.0007

0.0002

70 %

0.0035

0.0478



0.0067

0.0020

70 %

0.0055

0.0596



0.0333

0.0100

70 %

0.0071

0.0676



0.0020

• 0.0002

90 %

0.0050

0.05.68



0.0200

0.0020

90 %

0.0078

0.0708



0.1000

0.0100

90 %

0.0108

0.0826



0.0100

0.0002

98 %

0.0076

0.0699



0.1000

0.0020

98 %

0.0121

0.0873



0.5000

0.0100

98 %

0.0140

0.0936


-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)

CARBON USAGE RATES

Glyphosate

I

1

0.2333

0.0700

70

%

0.0120

	—,

1

0.0869 ;



2.3333

0.7000

70

%

0.0760

0.2109



6.6667

2.0000

70

%

0.1800

0.3190



0.7000

0.0700

90

%

0.0300

0.1350



7.0000

0.7000

90

%

0.1900

0.3274



20.0000

2.0000

90

%

0.4300

0.4847



3.5000

0.0700

98

%

0.1100

0.2519



35.0000

0.7000

98

%

0.6900

0.6083



100.0000

2.0000

98

%

1,6000

1.6000

Hexachlorobenzene

0.0067

0.0020

70

%

0.0027

0.0425



0.0033

0.0010

70

%

0.0016

• 0.0327



0.0001

0.0000

70

%

0.0004

0.0176



0.0200

0.0020

90

%

0.0044

0.0534



0.0100

0.0010

90

%

0.0024

0.0400



0.0002

0.0000

90

%

0.0007

0.0221



0.1000

0.0020

98

%

0.0087

0.0743



0.0500

0.0010

98

%

0.6900

0.6083



0.0010

0.0000

98

%

0.0014

. 0.0307

Hexachlorocvclo-

0,0167

0.0050

70

%

0.0008

0.0240

pentadiene

0.1667

0.0500

70

%

0.0026

0.0416



1.6667

0.5000

70

%

0.0054

0.0590



0.0500

0.0050

90

%

0.0015

0.0315



0.5000

0,0500

90

%

0.0046

0.0548



5.0000

0.5000

90

%

0.0054

0.0590



0.2500

0.0050

98

%

0.0034

0.0472



2.5000

0.0500

98

%

0.0059

0.0618

¦

25.0000

0.5000

98

%

0.0054

0.0590

Oxamyl

0.0667

0.0200

70

%

0.0124

0.0883



0.6667

0.2000

70

%

0.0202

0.1116



3.3333

1,0000

70

%

0.0282

0.1310



0.2000

• 0.0200

90

%

0.0175

0.1042



2.0000

0.2000

90

%

0.0285

0.1317



10.0000

1.0000

90

%

0.0400

0.1549



1.0000

0,0200

98

%

0.0266

0.1274



10.0000

0.2000

98

%

0.0432

0.1608



50.0000

1.0000

98

%

0.0606

0.1892


-------
TABLE 4-2 t Continued;
CARBON USAGE RATES

i

IBenzo(a)pyrene

0.0001

0.00002

70 7c

0.0012

0.0289

:

0.0007

0.00022

70 %

0.0044

0.0535



0.0013

0.00040

70 %

0,0062

0.0631



0.0002

0.00002

90 %

0.0023

0.0389



0.0022

0.00022

90 %

0,0082

0.0723



0.0040

0.00040

90 %

0,0102

0.0804 ;



0.0010

0.00002

98 %

0.0057

0,0609



0.0110

0,00022

98 %

0,0104

0.0811



0.0200

0.00040

98 %

0.0102

0.0804

Di(ethylhexyl)-

0,0200

0.00600

70 %

0,00063

0.0211

phthalate

1.3333

0.40000

70 %

0.00008

0.0073



0,1333

0.04000

70 %

0.00025

0.0135



0.0600

0.00600

90 %

0.00036

0.0161



4.0000

0.40000

90 %

0.00004

0.0059



0.4000

0.04000

90 %

0.00014

0.0103



0,3000

0.00600

98 %

0.00016

0.0109



20,0000

0.40000

98 %

0.00002

0.0040



2.0000

0.04000

98 %

0.00006

0.0068

Picloram

0.1667

0.05000

70 %

0.02450

0.1224



1.6667

0.50000

70 %

0.16200

0.3033



3.3333

1.00000

70 %

0.27900

0.3938



0.5000

0.05000

90 %

0.06000

0.1883



5.0000

0.50000

90 %

0.40000

0.4681



10.0000

1.00000

90 %

0.70500

0.6146



2.5000

0.05000

98 %

0.23100

0.3597



25.0000

0.50000

98 % •

1.52000

0.8888



50.0000

1.00000

98 %

2.70000

1.1712

Simazine

0.0233

0.00700

70 %

0.00306

0,0451



0.0033

0.00100

70 %

0.00070

0.0222



0,1333

0.04000

70 %

0.01170

0.0859



0.0700

0.00700

90 %

0.00743

0.0690



0.0100

0.00100

90 %

0.00166

0.0336



0.4000

0.04000

90 %

0.02840

0.1314



0.3500

0.00700

98 %

0.02630

0.1267



0.0500

0.00100

98 %

0.00680

0.0662



2.0000

0.04000

98 %

0.10000

0.2406


-------
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
CARBON USAGE RATES

1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene

0.0167 0.00500

70 %

i

1

0.00327 0.0466



0.0300 0.00900

70 %

0.00484 0.0562 !



0.1667 0.05000

70 %

0.01600 0.0998



0.0500 0.00500

90 %

0.00703 0.0672



0.0900 0.00900

90 %

0.01050 0,0815



0.5000 0.05000

90 %

0.03440 0.1441



0.2500 0.00500

98 %

0.02160 0.1153



0.4500 0.00900

98 %

0.03270 0.1407



2,5000 0.05000

98 % .

0.10700 0.2485

1,1,2 Trichloroethane

0.0033 0.00100

70 %

0.03420 0.1437



0.0167 0.00500

70 %

0.06280 0.1924



0.0333 0.01000

70 %

0.07670 0.2118



0.0100 0.00100

90 %

0.05510 0.1807



0.0500 0.00500

90 %

0.09700 0.2371



0.1000 0.01000

90 %

0.12300 0.2657



0.0500 0.00100

98 %

0.10000 0.2406



0,2500 0.00500

98 %

0.17700 0.3165



0.5000 0.01000

98 %

0.22500 0.3551

Dioxin

7.33E-09 2.20E-09

70 %

6.93E-10 2.91E-05



3.33E-07 1.Q0E-07

70 %

2.24E-08 1.54E-04



6.67E-07 2.00E-07

70 %

4.05E-08 2.05E-04



2.20E-08 2.20E-09

' 90 %

1.98E-09 4.81E-05



1.00E-06 1.00E-07

90 %

5.92E-08 2.46E-04



2.00E-06 2.00E-07

90 %

1.11E-07 3.33E-04



1.10E-07 2.20E-09

98 %

8.38E-08 2.91E-04



5.00E-06 1.00E-07

98 %

2.58E-07 4.99E-04



1.00E-05 2.00E-07

98 %

4.81E-06 2.03E-03


-------
solute capacities. Competitive interactions impact a weakly adsorbing compound more than the strongly
adsorbing compound. Further, competitive interactions among organic compounds in a water matrix
depends on a number of compounds and their concentrations.

Natural or anthropogenic organic matter is more weakly adsorbing than the specific organic
compounds, and therefore, moves faster through the bed, and preloads the carbon. This preloading of
carbon impacts the capacity and kinetics of the specific organic compounds (Zimmer et. al. (1987),
Crittenden et. al. (1987)). Strongly adsorbing compounds, which move slowly through the bed,
experience greater reduction in capacity and kinetics when compared with weakly adsorbing compounds.
The impact of background organic matter depends directly on the number of compounds, their
concentrations and the concentration of background organic matter in a water matrix. As the equilibrium
and kinetics of a specific organic compound is directly related to its GAC usage rate, competitive interac-
tions with other organic compounds and background organic matter are important factors.

A comparison of usage rates predicted using distilled water isotherm data and actual field data
was performed in order to determine the magnitude of the impact the background matrix may have on
the estimation of the carbon usage rates. In order to develop this comparison, CPHSDM usage rate
predictions using distilled water isotherm data were made for those field studies where the following
information was available:

¦	EBCT

¦	Influent/Effluent concentration

¦	Superficial velocity

¦	Temperature

The ratio of field to distilled water isotherm usage rates was then calculated for each available
influent/effluent combination. The data used for this comparison along with the ratio of field to distilled
water usage rates are presented in "Technology and Costs for the Removal of Synthetic Organic
Chemicals from Potable Water Supplies", USEPA (1989). These ratios were then plotted versus the
distilled water isotherm usage rates as shown on Figure 4-2. A regression analysis was performed on
the data, and yielded the following multiplier function:

Y = 0.7269 x^5189

where: Y = multiplier

X = distilled carbon usage rate (lb/1000 gal)

The multiplier function was used to adjust the estimated distilled water isotherm usage rates as presented
in Table 4-2. The multiplier function was used in a manner such that the adjusted carbon usage rates was
equal to the multiplier times the distilled water carbon usage rate. These adjusted carbon

4-9


-------
300

100

30

O

I-

210

D
UL

0.3
0.0001

_i	I	_1	L

j.	J	1—L.,i j ill	j . _ i. i i iiii

o.ooi

o.oi	o.i

DISTILLED WATER USAGE RATE (lbs/1000 gallons)

NOTE: F/D RATIO = FIELD /DISTILLED WATER USAGE RATE

FIGURE 4-2: RATIO VERSUS DISTILLED CARBON USAGE RATE


-------
usage rates was equal to the multiplier times the distilled water carbon usage rate. These adjusted
carbon usage rates are also presented in Table 4-2 and will be used to develop GAC costs in
Section 7,

Table 4-2 also shows carbon usage rates adjusted for the competitive and fouling of GAC
by other organics in a water matrix. The carbon usage rates presented in Table 4-2 and isotherm
parameters in Table 4-1 can be used to compare the relative absorbability of the SOCs. Although
all of the contaminants in the table are adsorbed, the SOCs exhibit different degrees of adsorption
capacity such that they may be further classified as either strongly adsorbed, moderately adsorbed
or weakly adsorbed. These regions can be approximated by using the compound's Freundlich K
value as shown below:

REGION

K[(um/g)/(L/um)l/n]

Strong

> 500

Moderate

100 - 500

Weak

< 100

While adsorption isotherms are useful for obtaining preliminary data concerning carbon
adsorption of SOCs, they have certain drawbacks that limit their applicability. Two specific
disadvantages are:

¦	Isotherm tests cannot be used for GAC facility scale-up since the test does not provide
any information on the dynamics of column operation.

¦	A multicomponent isotherm cannot predict the capacities observed in fixed-bed
operation, since the mass transfer zones of various compounds separate
(chromatographic effect) with respect to their absorbability. As a result, bench-scale
or pilot-scale dynamic tests are usually required to develop the necessary design
criteria.

Mini Cohunn Tests

Mini column tests are bench-scale dynamic tests conducted in an attempt to simulate the
operation of a full-scale GAC adsorption system. Mini column tests are used for the following:

¦	Determine the feasibility of carbon treatment for a given water

¦	Estimate carbon usage rates

¦	Develop preliminary process design criteria

¦	Provide preliminary estimate of system economics

A limited number of column studies have been conducted to evaluate the removal of SOCs

4-10


-------
from drinking water, A typical.mini column apparatus is illustrated on Figure 4-3. Water spiked
with the specific compounds is passed through the column and the effluent is monitored to obtain
a breakthrough curve.

Pilot Scale Studies

Before a full-scale GAC system is installed, preliminary on-site analysis should be performed
on the water of concern. Pilot-scale tests may be used for this purpose. The empty bed contact
time and the carbon usage rates are the important design criteria obtained from a field pilot study.

, i

Additional design criteria that can be developed from a pilot- study include:

¦	Bed depth

¦	Effect of hydraulic loading

¦	Number of contactors required
m	Contactor configuration

¦	Carbon type

¦	Carbon life/replacement frequency

¦	System economics

Full Scale Studies

Full-scale operation applications using GAC for removing SOCs have included mobile units
for the treatment of hazardous waste spills and facilities for wastewater and surface water.

COMPENDIUM OF TREATABILITY CASE STUDIES

The case studies for bench-, pilot- and full - scale GAC testing and treatment of the phase
V SOCs are summarized below.

Bench - Scale

Dobbs and Cphen (1980) have performed extensive isotherm testing with
Filtrasorb 300 (F-300), a granular activated carbon manufactured by Calgon Corporation. The
granular carbon was pulverized and screened for classification and only that portion which passed
a 200 mesh (0,0736 mm) but was retained by a 400 mesh (0.0381 mm) screen was used for isotherm
testing. Tests were performed with spiked distilled water at room temperature and at a pH of 3.0
to 9.0. Freundlich parameters were determined for Endrin, Hexachlorobenzene, Benzo(a)pvrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and 1,2,4-Triehlorobenzene, The United States Environmental Protection
Agency's Drinking Water Research Division (USEPA-DWRD) conducted isotherm testing on a

4-11


-------
PRESSURE GAGE

PULSE
DAMPERS

&TV



.9

ADSORPTION
MICROCOLUMN

INFLUENT

GLASS WOOL
PREF1UERS

EFFLUENT

FIGURE 4-3 TYPICAL MINI-COLUMN SETUP


-------
wide range of SOCs (Miltner, et al., 1985, 1988, 1989). Calgon Filtrasorb F. 400 was the type of
activated carbon which was utilized in the isotherm tests. The tests were performed with spiked distilled
water and spiked ground water at room temperature and at pH of 6.1 to 7.85. Miltner and Fronk (July
1985) also evaluated the results of isotherm testing on Simazine. These tests were performed with spiked
distilled water at 20°C. Calgon Filtrasorb 400 again was the type of activated carbon which was utilized.

Narbaitz and Benedek (1986) performed isotherm tests to evaluate the removal of
1,1,2-trichloroethane (TCA) from spiked samples of distilled water and of water taken from the
Groundhog River in northern Ontario. Calgon Filtrasorb 400 was the type of activated carbon which was
utilized in the isotherm tests. The tests were performed at a temperature of 20"C and apH of 7.3 to 7.6.
A two-week contact time was required to allow the slow adsorbing background organics, which were
present in the Groundhog River Water, to reach equilibrium [Lee and Snoeyink (1981), and Randtke and
Snoeyink (1983)]. The Freundlich parameters, which were determined from the distilled water isotherm
tests, are included in Appendix B. The results of the isotherm tests are presented below:



TCA Influent

TOC Influent

TCA Effluent

TCA X/M

Water Type

Cone. (ug/L)

Cone. (mg/L)

Cone. (ug/L)

(mg TCA/g carbon)

Distilled

unknown

0

50

4.2







100

6.25







200

9.3

River

450

3.5

50

3.1







100

4.2







200

5.2

River

350

9.9

50

2.5







100

3.2







200

3.5

River

2,050

10.0

50

4.0







100

5.4







200

7.7

The results, as shown above, indicate that the presence of natural background organics greatly
reduces the adsorption capacity of the GAC for TCA. Pretreatment to remove background organics could
enable the carbon to effectively utilize its capacity to remove toxic organics. The

4-12


-------
results also indicate that the TCA isotherms were greatly affected by a change in the initial TCA
and/or the total organic carbon (TOO) concentrations.

Whittaker and Moore (1983) reported the results of isotherm tests on wastewater from an
electronic component manufacturer which was spiked with volatile organics and phthalates, These
contaminants, which include di-n-butylphthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, had been previously
identified as being consistently present in the wastewater. Westvaco Nuchar WV-G and Nuchar
WV-L were the activated carbons which were utilized in the isotherm tests. The tests were
performed at a pH of 8.5 with a three day contact time. Di-n-butylphthalate and bis{2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. at initial concentrations of 1,000 ug/L, were removed to below detectable limits
(5 ug/L) with carbon dosages as small as 10 mg/L. The results indicated that the phthalates had
a high affinity for activated carbon.

Benedek et al. (1979) evaluated the results of isotherm tests on water from the Grand River
in southern Ontario. PAH levels in the raw water were approximately 1,300 ng/1, but pretreatment'
reduced the PAH concentration to 0.8 ng/L. Calgon Filtrasorb 400, passed through 200 mesh, was
the type of activated carbon which was utilized in the isotherm tests and was applied at a dosage
of 160 mg/L, The tests were performed at a temperature of 20"C with a five day contact time.
The results of the isotherm tests are presented below:

Parameter

Influent

EfTluent

TOC (mg/L)

3.932

1.059

TOX (ug/L)

2.0

0.8

PAHs (ng/L)

0,8

Not detected

Benedek et al. (1979) evaluated the performance of a GAC mini column in removing the
PAHs present in water taken from the Grand River in southern Ontario. The mini column was
2.5 cm in diameter and was 32.5 cm long and it contained 63,3 g of Calgon Filtrasorb 400 GAC.
The raw water was coagulated, settled, and sand filtered. The tests were performed at a loading
rate of 7 ml/min, however, no other operating conditions were reported. The results are presented
below:

4-13


-------
Compound

Applied TOC
(mg TOC/g carbon)

Percent Removal

Fluoranthene

2.15

100



42.8

100

Benzo(a)pyrene

2.15

100



42.8

93

Pvrene

2.15

79



42.8

54

Benzo(a)anthracene

2.15

100



42.8

100

Chrysene

2.15

100



42.8

100

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

2.15

%



42.8

0

Benzo(g,h,i)peryIene

2.15

83



42.8

0

Total PAHs

2.15

93



42.8

64

Note: Thrysene and perylene were also present in the raw water.

As the slow adsorbing background organics approached equilibrium, the percent removal
for the PAHs decreased, and in some instances, desorption occurred as with dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
and dibenzo(g,h,i)perylene. The results of the mini column testing indicate that GAC could remove
some PAHs from drinking water more effectively than others when competitive adsorption is
prevalent.

Shelby, et al. (198-1) conducted a GAC mini column study to evaluate the removal of several
organic pesticides and chemicals, including hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD), from a pesticide
manufacturing wastewater. The mini column was 1 inch in diameter and contained 3 feet of GAC,
the type of which was not reported. The tests were performed at a surface loading rate of
7.5 gpm/sf. The average HCCPD influent concentration was 1,129 ug/L. The following results
were reported:

4-14


-------
Volume Treated (bed volumes)

Effluent Cone. (ug/L)

Percent Removal

3.000

4.2

99.6

4.000

14

98,8

6,000

180

84

The mini column apparently was beginning to experience breakthrough after 6,000 bed volumes had
been treated. The results indicate that GAC could effectively remove HCCPD from drinking water
despite the effects of competitive adsorption.

Pilot - Scale

Cincinnati, Ohio - Westerhoff and Miller (1986) reported the results of a pilot study con-
ducted by the Cincinnati Water Works at the California WTP. which utilizes the Ohio River as its .
source of raw water. The river water contained a variety of organics in the low microgram per liter
range, of which the following, with average concentrations in parenthesis (ug/1), were most common.

Chloroform	( 0.2)

Benzen	( 0.2)

Toluene	( 0.2)

Dichloromethane	( 0.12)

1.2-Dichlorobenzene	( 0.05)

Tetrachloroethylene	( 0.03)
1,1,1-Tetrachloroethane ( 0,03)

Ethylbenzene	( 0.1)

1,2-Dichloroethane	( 0,01)

Trichloroethylene	( 0.01)

The GAC pilot train, which was operated with a 7 to 15 minute EBCT, achieved 95 to 100
percent removal of 1,2.4-trichlorobenzene during the four months of operation. The results indicate
that GAC could effectively reduce the concentration of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene in drinking water
despite the presence of competing organics.

Columbia. Missouri • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's fish-pesticide research laboratory
in Columbia, Missouri performed pilot-scale tests on carbon adsorption of dioxin from Agent
Orange, which is a 1:1 mixture of the acid esters of 2,4,5-TP and 2,4-D (Chemical Engineering and
News, 1977). Design and operating parameters were not reported. GAC reduced the TCDD
(dioxin) concentration in Agent Orange from 10 mg/L to a concentration of 0.1 mg/L in the

4-15


-------
effluent. This is a 99 percent reduction of TCDD levels, however, these results have limited
applicability because the solvent was Agent Orange, not water.

Electronic Component Manufacturer - Whittaker and Moore (1983) also reported the results
of a GAC pilot study on wastewater from an electronic component manufacturer which was spiked
with volatile organics and phthalates. These contaminants, which include di-n-butylphthalate and
bis(2-ethyihe%yl)-phthalate, had been previously identified as being consistently present in the
wastewater. The volatile organics included;

•	l.l.i-trichloroethane

•	1,2-dichloropropane

•	trichloroethylene

•	toluene

•	ethylbenzene

•	methylene chloride

The spiked wastewater was pretreated by flocculation with ferric chloride and a polymer,
sedimentation, aeration, and filtration prior to activated carbon treatment The GAC system
consisted of three 4-inch diameter by 5-foot high glass columns. Each column contained approxi-
mately 4 feet of Westvaco Nuchar WV-G activated carbon. The EBCTs were not reported. The
columns were operated for six weeks at a surface loading rate of 2 gpm/sf, and the following results
were reported;

Compound

Demonstrated Pilot Plant
Capacity (mg/g rarbonl

flow Weighted Average
Cone. (KWAC) (ug/L)

Isotherm Capacity at
FWAC (mg/g carbon)

Di-n-burylphthalate

0,153

575

> 25

Bis(2-«thylhexy1)phuU«e

0.05

19.0

> 25

1.1,1-Tnchloroetlune

0.45

68,4

13

1.2-DichJoropropaae

0.16

36.1

035

Triehioroethyfene

039

113,0

73

Toluene

0,24

53.8

6,0

Ethylbenzene

0.22

51.2

50.0

Methylene Chloride

0.15

108.0

0,12

Methylene chloride was the only compound to experience breakthrough in the columns.
Since the study was terminated prior to phthalate breakthrough, the effects of competitive
adsorption upon phthalate removal can not be determined. However, the high affinity of activated

#-16


-------
carbon for these phthalates relative to the volatile organics with which they were tested suggests that
the concentration of these phthalates will not he a critical parameter in GAC hed life, and thus the
carbon usage rate, under the circumstances of competitive adsorption.

Full Scale Studies

Hazardous Material Spills Treatment Trailer - The Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills
Branch of the USEPA constructed a mobile treatment unit to respond to spills of hazardous
materials to control and remove the toxic chemicals. The Hazardous Materials Spills Treatment
trailer was developed and housed at the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Edison.
New Jersey.

The main features of the trailer are three mixed-media filters for the removal of suspended
materials and three activated carbon columns for the removal of soluble organic chemicals. Each
of the mixed-media filters is 3.5 feet in diameter and 6.7 feet in height with a 2 ft. bed depth of
anthracite on top of a L.5 ft. thick layer of red flint sand. Each carbon column is 7 feet in diameter'
and 8.7 feet high with 1,230 pounds of 18 x 40 mesh GAC. The treatment capacity of the system
is 300.000 gpd. The following are some of the studies which have been conducted with this mobile
treatment unit.

¦	Dinoseb Spill - Millstone River, New Jersey: The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection reported a dinoseb spill into a small, privately owned,
man-made lake which is a tributary to the MiLlstone River, a public water source
Becker and Wilson (1978) reported the results of remedial efforts utilizing the EPA
Hazardous Material Spills Treatment trailer. Approximately 2 million gaLlons were
treated and the dinoseb concentration was reduced from 8 ug/L to below the
detectable limit of 0.002 ug/L. The EBCT was not reported.

¦	Oswego, New York: Becker and Wilson (1978) reported an incident of water
contamination in Oswego, New York, in which a variety of SOCs, including di-n-octy-
ladipate, were detected. The EPA Hazardous Material Spills Treatment trailer treated
approximately 250,000 gallons of water utilizing an EBCT of 8.5 minutes. The
di-n-octyladipate concentration was reduced, from 360 to 320 ug/L, a reduction of only
11 percent.' However, the effluent concentrations of other compounds such as
dimethylphenol, dimethylaniline, toluene, and xylene, which had influent concentrations
similar to that of di-n-octyladipate, were reduced by more than 90 percent. The results
indicate that di-n-octyladipate is poorly adsorbed when competitive adsorption is
prevalent.

Fremont. Ohio - In the agricultural region of northwestern Ohio, the concentration of
pesticides were monitored in the river waters and in the finished drinking water produced by three
water treatment plants. During this EPA study, Baker (1983) reported that GAC reduced the levels

4-17


-------
of pesticides at the Fremont Ohio treatment plant located on the Sandusky River, A 16.5-inch
deep GAC filter cap using Calgon Fiitrasorb 300 was placed upon the rapid sand filters at the water
treatment plants. The average filtration rate through the filter was 1.2 gpm/ft: (Hade 1984) with
an empty bed contact time of 9 minutes. The 'influent and effluent concentration of simazine at the
treatment plant was among those measured during June and July of 1983. Alaehlor and simazine
were also present in the raw water at concentrations of 0.7 to 5.0 ug/I and 0.5 - 8.0 ug/L.
respectively. For an average influent simazine concentration of 0.39 ug/L, removal ranged between
35 and 59 percent. Additional monitoring of the plant at Fremont indicated continuing removal of
SOCs after a filter cap had been in service for approximately 30 months.

The River Trent at Colwick ¦ Lewis (1975) reported the results of PAH removal through
a water treatment plant in Colwick which utilized the River Trent as its source of raw water.
Treatment with activated carbon was preceded by biological pretreatment, copper coagulation,,'
sedimentation, and rapid sand filtration. Design and operating parameters were not reported. The
following results for activated carbon treatment are presented below:

Parameter

Concentration (ng/L)

Percent Removal

Influent

Effluent

Fluoranthene

9.3

0.8

91

Benzo(a)pyrene

0.3

0.2

33

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0.4

ND

>50

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

0.6

0.2

67

Indeno( l,2,3-cd)pyrene

0.6

ND

>67

Note: ND - not detected

SUMMARY

The various studies reviewed in this section indicate that the 18 Phase V SOCs can be
removed by GAC. The economy of the process is dependent on the carbon usage rate. Certain
volatile organics and chlorinated aromatics have relatively poor adsorbabilities, which result in

4-18


-------
higher carbon usage rates. Because of their \olatile nature, these SOCs may be removed more
economically h\ packed column aeration, as discussed in Sections 5 and 1.

Adsorption isotherm tests aid in defining the relative absorbability of each SOC present in
the water. These data should be used along with model predictions to determine mini column
sizing. Since mini column scale-up is currently uncertain, pilot or full-scale data should be obtained.
Since carbon usage rates are dependent on the organic matrix, natural waters rather than distilled
water should be used whenever possible. Carbon usage rates are also dependent upon the following
parameters:

¦	hydraulic conditions

m biological activity

¦	contactor configuration

¦	operating conditions

¦	level of pretreatment

Since carbon usage rates are dependent on several variables, further research should be'
conducted to better define the usefulness of data obtained from all phases of treatability studies.

4-19


-------

-------
5. OTHER APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGY - PACKED COLUMN

AERATION

As indicated in Section 3, air stripping using a packed column has been identified as
another applicable technology. Other applicable technologies are those technologies which are
not identified as generally utilized for removal of the Phase V SOCs, but which may have ap-
plicability for some water supply systems when considering site-specific conditions, such as type
of SOC. Oxidation should be considered an applicable technology for the removal of glyphosate.
See Appendix G for more information.

PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Air stripping has been used effectively in water treatment to reduce the concentration of
taste and odor producing compounds and certain organic compounds. Aeration, or air stripping,
may be described as the transfer of a substance from solution in a liquid to solution in a gas. The
driving force for transfer is a concentration gradient of the substance. A concentration gradient
tends to move the substance in such a direction as to equalize concentrations and, thereby,
eliminate the gradient.

The driving force for mass transfer is the difference between actual conditions in the air
stripping unit and conditions associated with equilibrium between the gas and liquid phases. The
equilibrium concentration of a solute in air is directly proportional to the concentration of the
solute in water at a given temperature. Henry's Law describes this relationship by stating that
the amount of gas that dissolves in a given quantity of liquid, at constant temperature and
pressure, is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the solution. Thus, the
Henry's Law Coefficients describe the relative tendency for a compound to separate between gas
and liquid. Henry's Law Coefficients can be used to give a preliminary indication of how well
an SOC can be removed from water via air stripping.

Theoretical Henry's Law Coefficients at an approximate temperature of 20°C were
estimated for the Phase V SOCs from vapor pressure, solubility and molecular weight as follows:

5-1


-------
H = VP x MW x 711
Sol

where: H = Henry's coefficient (atm)

VP = vapor pressure (mm Hg)

MW = Molecular Weight (g/mole)
sol •= solubility (mg/L)

73.1 = conversion factor

When vapor pressure data at a temperature of 20 C were not available, an
approximate vapor pressure was estimated by extrapolating existing vapor pressure and
boiling point data. The method which was utilized to extrapolate vapor pressure data is
presented in Appendix C. Henry's Law Coefficients for the Phase V SOCs, based on these
theoretical calcuations, are presented in Table 5-1. The magnitudes of the coefficient for the
various compounds are functions of their solubility in the liquid phase and their volatility.
A high Henry's Law Coefficient indicates equilibrium favoring the gaseous phase; i.e., the
compound generally is more easily stripped from water than one with a lower Henry's Law
Coefficient.

As a first approximation, SOCs having Henry's Law Coefficients below 1 atmosphe-
re, at or above room temperature, would most likely not be effectively removed by packed
column aeration. Based on the above criterion, data presented in Table 5-1 indicate that
10 of the Phase V SOCs would not be amenable to packed column aeration. Three other
SOCs, hexachlorobenzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and 2,3,7,8 - TCDD(dioxin), have their
Henry's Law Coefficients greater than 1, but also have relatively low vapor pressure.
Therefore, they may not be strippable. But, based on a solubility value of 100 mg/L for
di(ethylhexyl)adipate, it may be strippable. Five SOCs, which are assumed strippable, are
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, dichloromethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane
and di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate.

The mass transfer coefficient relates the driving force (concentration gradient) to the
actual quantity of material transferred from liquid to air. The mass transfer coefficient is
a function of the physical/chemical properties of an individual SOC, the type of packing
material used, and the gas and liquid loading rates. In packed columns, packing materials
are used which provide high void volumes and high surface area. The water flows downward

5-2


-------
TABLE 5-1

HENRY'S LAW COEFFICIENTS FOR PHASE V SOCs "

soc

Henry's Coefficient (atm)

Hexachlorocvclopetadiene

997

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

349

Dichloromethane

54

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

21

Di(ethvlhexvl)adipate

352

2,3,7,3-TCCD (Dioxin)

1.00

Hexachlorobenzene

23

Bis(2-etbylhexvl)phthalate

2.0

Benzo(a)pyrene

1.5 x 10

Endrin

1.1 x 10-2

Dinoseb

1.75 x 10"

Picloram

1.25 x 10 5

Simazine

0.9 x 10 5

Oxamyl

0.7 x 10 5

Diquat

0

Endothali

0

Glyphosate

0

Dalapon

0

Note: 1. Henry's Law Coefficient estimated from vapor pressure and solubility data.

A 50 percent factor was applied to all estimates to account for temperature
adjustment from 20 XT to 12XT (Cummins, 1987).


-------
by gravity and air is forced upward. The untreated water is usually introduced on top of the
packing with distribution trays or spray nozzles and the air is moved through the tower by
forced or induced draft. This design results in continuous and thorough contact of the liquid
with the gas and minimizes the thickness of the water layer on the packing, thus promoting
efficient mass transfer.

The design of air stripping equipment has been extensively developed within the
chemical engineering industry for handling concentrated organic solutions. The procedures
used in the chemical engineering literature can be applied to water treatment applications
for trace organics removal. The rate at which a volatile compound is removed from water
by aeration depends on several factors:

¦	Ainwater ratio

¦	Contact time

¦	Available area for mass transfer

¦	Temperature of the water and the air

¦	Physical chemistry of the contaminant

The first four factors may be controlled in the design of an air stripping unit, while the last
factor is set for a specific water supply.

The air flow requirements for a packed column depend on the Henry's Law
Coefficient for the particular compound(s) to be removed from the water. In an ideal
aeration system, the minimum ainwater ratio which will achieve complete removal of a
contaminant is proportional to the reciprocal of the Henry's Law Coefficient. The greater
the Henry's Law Coefficient, the less air is required to remove the compound from water.
Because aeration systems are not ideal, the actual air:water ratios which are required to
achieve a given removal efficiency are greater than the theoretical minimum ainwater ratios.

The contact time is a function of the depth of the packing material. An increase in
the depth of packing material results in a greater contact time between the air and the
water, and consequently, will result in higher SOC removals.

The available area for mass transfer is a function of the packing material. Various
sizes and types of packing material are available including 1/4 inch to 3.5-inch sizes in metal,
ceramic and plastic materials. In general, the smaller packing materials provide a greater
available area for mass transfer per volume of material, thus increasing the mass of
contaminant removed. However, smaller packing materials increase the pressure drop
through the packed column.

5-3


-------
The water and air can be heated or cooled as necessary prior to introduction into the column to
achieve the desired initial temperature condition.

The fundamental concept of mass transfer states that the rate of mass transfer per unit
reactor volume is first order, proportional to the difference between the operating concentration
and the equilibrium concentration as follows (Treybal, 1980).

J - KLa * (X - X*) * (1000 L/m3)			 Eq 1

Where:

J = Mass transfer rate per unit reactor volume
(ug VOC/see/m3 reactor volume)

X = Concentration of VOC in liquid phase (ug/L)

X* = Equilibrium concentration of VOC in liquid phase (ug/L)

KLa = Mass transfer coefficient (1/sec)

A general equation relating packing height to mass transfer coefficient, removal
efficiency, Henry's coefficient, air loading, and liquid loading can be obtained by applying
conservation of mass to a differential reactor volume element and integrating. The resulting
equation for packing height is shown as Eq 2.

Packing Height:

Zt = * _R_ * In f fXt/Xbm-D + 1 1	Eq 2

KLa (R-l)	R

Where:

Zt = Packing height (m)

L = Liquid loading (m3/m2/sec)

KLa = Mass transfer coefficient (1/sec)

Xt = Top of packing contaminant concentration (ug/L)

Xb = Bottom of packing contaminant concentration (ug/L)

R = Stripping factor (dimensionless)

R = G * H
L Pt

5-4


-------
G = Air loading (ra3/m2/sec)

H = Henry's Law Coefficient (atm)

Pt = Atmospheric pressure (atm)

Equipment Required

A diagram of a typical packed tower installation is shown on Figure 5-1 and consists of
the following:

¦	Packed Tower: Metal (steel or aluminum), plastic, fiberglass or concrete is used
for the outer shell. Internals (packing, supports, distributors, mist eliminators) are
generally made of metal or plastic.

¦	Blower: Typically centrifugal type, either metal or plastic construction. Noise
control may be required depending on the size and system location.

¦	Effluent Storage: Generally provided as a concrete clearwell below the packed
tower.

¦	Effluent Pumping: Generally required because effluent is usually at atmospheric
pressure. Vertical turbine pumps mounted on clearwell are typical.

In ground water applications, water is generally pumped directly from wells to the top
of the packed tower. The effluent flows from the bottom of the tower into a clearwell from
where it is usually pumped into the distribution system. Depending upon the hydraulic
constraints of an individual location, this effluent repumping may or may not be required.
Similarly, in surface water applications, the system hydraulics dictate the amount of pumping that
is required.

TREATABILITY STUDIES

Currently, there are no studies which directly assess the feasibility of removing the Phase
V SOCs from drinking water using packed column aeration. However, these are studies of
contaminants at similar chemical characteristics which will provide an assessment of the feasibility
of using aeration to remove some of the Phase V SOCs. The reader is referred to the
Technology & Costs for the Removal of Volatile Organic Chemicals for Potable Water, US EPA,
May 1985.

5-5


-------
OEMISTEH MAT

CONTAMINATED
IN PL U EN T

VrJ

PACKING MATERIAL

EXIT AIR
ANO 30C

|

ORIFICE PLATE 2ISTHIBU70R

/

— PACKING MATERIAL

SUPPORT PLATE

INCOMING AIR

,|—

BLOWER

t

effluent

PACKED COLUMN

FIGURE 5-1 SCHEMATIC OF PACKED COLUMN AERATION


-------
6. ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

As indicated in Chapter 3, there are several additional treatment technologies capable of

removing the Phase V SOCs from drinking water. These additional technologies are those which

have shown a potential for SOC removal but for which either the potential is limited or

insufficient data exist to fully evaluate the technology. The following additional technologies

have been identified:

Conventional Treatment
Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)

Ion Exchange

Macroreticular Resin Adsorption

Oxidation

Reverse Osmosis

Steam Stripping

Diffused Aeration

CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT

Conventional treatment, which consists of coaplation and sedimentation followed by
filtration, is generally used in removing turbidity and color from surface water supplies. It can
also be used for removal of some taste and odor producing compounds. Turbid water contains
suspended matter, both seal able solids (particles large enough to settle quiescently) and dispersed
solids (particles which will not readily settle).

Process Description

Coagulation involves two mechanisms: the destabilization of dispersed solids
(coagulation) and the agglomeration of destabilized, dispersed material and suspended material
(flocculation). Sedimentation, or settling, follows as a result of this process of agglomeration.
Filtration is added to provide additional removal of agglomerated solids and protection against
upsets in the coagulation/sedimentation process. The effectiveness of conventional treatment in
removing SOCs from drinking water depends upon the attraction of the SOCs to particulate
matter that is either naturally present in the water or formed during the coagulation process. The
SOCs will be removed to the extent that they are attracted to the particulate material which is
removed. A flow schematic of a typical conventional treatment system is presented on Fig-
ure 6-1.

6-1


-------
COAGULANT
AND
POIVMER
FEEDERS

ALKALINHY
FEEOER

HAW WATER
PUMPING

flllRAIIDN

FILTEH *-*
BACKWASH
PUMP

ClEAHWEl I
STORAGE

FILTER BACKWASH
WASTEWATER

TO WASTE I RE AT MEN I
AND OISPOSAI

SEDIMENTATION BASIN Si IIDGE

FIGURE 6-1 CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT PLANT


-------
Treatability Studies

Bench Scale - Morita, et al. (1974) evaluated the results of jar tests on city water and
river water in Japan which was spiked with two phthalates, AJum and sodium carbonate
were added to the samples, which were stirred at 150 rpm for 3 minutes and were then
allowed to settle for 12 hours. The results of these jar tests utilizing spiked city water and
spiked river water are presented in Table 6-1. Relatively higher removal of the two
phthalates was observed in the presence of the suspended solids in the river. This could be
attributed to adsorption of the phthalates onto the suspended solids prior to their removal
by sedimentation.

Faust and Zarins (1969) performed jar tests on tap water spiked with diquat, Alum
was added to the samples at a dose of 50 mg/L and the samples were mixed for 20 minutes.
Less than 10 percent of the diquat was removed from the solution. However, better results
were obtained when clay mineral addition preceded alum coagulation. For these jar tests,
calcium hydroxide was first added to adjust the total alkalinity, and then calcium-bentonite,
a clay mineral, was added to the test samples. The samples were stirred slowly for
10 minutes prior to the addition of 50 mg/L of alum, after which the samples were
flocculated for 15 minutes. The results are presented below;

Calcium-Bentonite

Dose (mg/L)

Diquat Concentration (mg/L)

Percent
Removal

Influent

Effluent

15.4

1.0

0.04

96

41

2.5

0.02

99.2

84

5.0

0.11

97.8

127

7.5

0.02

99.7

170

10.0

0.09

99.1

The presence of calcium-bentonite improved the removal of diquat by alum coagulation.
This improved performance could be the result of adsorption onto the clay mineral prior
to removal by settling. The results indicate that alum coagulation in the presence of
suspended solids could remove diquat from water in conventional treatment plants.

Thebault, et al. (1981) performed jar tests on water from the western Paris
distribution system which was spiked with two phthalates. The samples were coagulated at

6-2


-------
TABLE 6-1







ALUM COAGULATION OF TWO PHTHALATES





Water

. Type

Alum Dose
fme/L)

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Parameter

Influent

Effluent

Di-n-butylphthaJate

city

25

50

46.8

6



city

50

50

34.7

31



city

25

100

64.5

36



city

50

100

55.6

44



river

25

25

15.6

77



river

50

25

5.8

53



river

25

50

23.4

53



river

50

50

10.5

79

Bis(2-ethyihexl)phthalate

city

25

50

9.0

82



city

50

50

4.5

91



city

25

100

17.0

83



city

50

100

8.3

92



river

25

25

1.9

92



river

50

25

0.9

96



river

25

50

3.8

92



river

50

50

1.5

97


-------
250 rpm for 2 minutes, flocculated at 40 rpm for 23 minutes, and allowed to settle for
15 minutes. The tests were performed at a water temperature of 20 C, at a pH of 8.0, and
with influent concentrations between 10 and 3,000 ug/L. Ferric chloride and basic
aluminum polychloride (BAPC) were used as coagulants. The results are presented below:

Compound

Coagulant

Dosage (mg/L)

Percent Removal

Diethviphthalate

Ferric Chloride

41

15



BAPC

134

15

Dibutylphthalate

Ferric Chloride

41

. 25



BAPC

134

24

The results indicate that conventional treatment would not sufficiently remove the
two phthalates from water, However, the potential effects of phthalate adsorption onto
suspended solids were minimized because the influent for the jar tests was spiked with
finished water. Thebault, et al, (1981) summarized other published results as follows:

Compound

Coagulant

Percent Removal

Endrin

Alum

35

Dibutylphthalate

Alum

30

Diethylphthalate

Alum

80

Di-n-octylphthaiate

Alum

80

Buryi, et al. (1977) reported the results of a bench study on the removal of dalapon

from water by conventional treatment. The sample was coagulated with alum, allowed to
settle for 1.5 to 2 hours, and filtered. The dalapon concentration was reduced from 2 to
0.09 mg/L, a removal of 95 percent. Other treatment parameters, such as temperature, pH
and coagulant dose, were not reported.

Pilot Scale - Robeck. et al. (1965) reported the results of a pilot plant study utilizing
conventional treatment with GAC to remove pesticides from the Little Miami River at the
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Little Miami River had a

6-3


-------
turbidity of 5 to 250 NTUs, a temperature of 2 to 27 C and a pH of 7,3 to 8.5. Design and
operating parameters were not reported, except for the surface loading rate of 2 gpm/sf for
the filters. Conventional treatment, including alum coagulation at 25 mg/L, reduced the
concentration of endrin by 35 percent at influent concentrations of both 1 and 10 ug/L.
Treatment with lime and soda ash with an iron salt as a coagulant did not improve upon the
removal obtained with alum coagulation alone.

Pull-Scale - Lewis (1975) reported the removal of PAHs through a WTP in Colwick
which utilized the River Trent as its source of raw water. Conventional treatment consisted
of biological pretreatment, copper coagulation, sedimentation, and rapid sand filtration.
Design and operating parameters were not reported. The results of this fuE scale study are
presented below:

Compound

Concentration (ng/L)

Percent
Removal

Influent

Effluent

Fluoranthene

149

9.3

94

Benzo(a)pyrene

96.5

0.3

99.7

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

74.5

0.4

99.2

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

111.8

0.6

99.5

Indeno( l,2,3-c,d)pyrene

75.5

0.6

99.2

The results indicate that conventional treatment could remove PAHs from water. However,
96 percent of the PAHs which were removed by conventional treatment had been adsorbed
onto suspended solids present in the raw water. Only 40 percent of the PAHs dissolved in
the water were removed by conventional treatment, whereas all of the PAHs adsorbed onto
suspended solids were removed with those solids.

Morita, et al. (1974) monitored the concentrations of phthalates through convention-
al treatment processes in Japan. Design and operating parameters were not reported,
neither were the types and dosages of the coagulants which were used. The results are
presented below:

6-4


-------
Compound

Mean Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Influent j Effluent

Di-n-butylphthalate

4.5

3.5

22

Bis(2-ethvlhexyl)phthalate

2.1

1.8

33 j

The results indicate that conventional treatment could partially reduce the concentration of
phthalates in drinking water as a form of pretreatment.

Summary

The effectiveness of conventional treatment in the bench, pHot and full scale studies
was determined by the percent removal and the coagulant dosage. Conventional treatment
can remove hydrocarbons effectively whereas small removals are possible for phthalates.
Other SOCs may not be removed by conventional processes.

POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON (PAC)

PAC offers an alternate method of applying adsorption technology, which has been
found to be applicable for SOC removal. PAC represents a less efficient application of the
principles of carbon adsorption. PAC may achieve removal of certain SOCs but may have
limited applicability in locations which have certain constraints (e.g. hydraulic, space).
Generally, PAC addition is found to be less efficient than GAC adsorption for SOC
removal.

Process Description

PAC traditionally has been used in water treatment plants for removing trace organic
compounds associated with taste and odor problems. Few studies have been conducted on
the use of PAC for removing organics frequently found in ground water supplies primarily
because preliminary data have indicated that very large dosages of PAC would be necessary
to achieve satisfactory removals. Pilot and full-scale studies which have been conducted indi-
cate mixed results on the effectiveness of PAC, although most studies to date agree that
PAC has limited applicability.

6-5


-------
PAC requires the same facilities as those used for coagulation/sedimentation,
including feed equipment, mixing chambers, clarifiers, and filters. In addition, the use of
PAC entails additional sludge handling. More stringent sludge disposal requirements may
apply, depending upon the type and level of SOC being removed.

The application of PAC for the removal of organic compounds from drinking water
supplies involves the following major process design considerations;

¦	Carbon Usage Rate

¦	Contact Time

¦	Contactor Configuration - single or multi-stage

¦	PAC disposal/regeneration

These design considerations are similar to those outlined in Section 4 under GAC
treatment with the exception of contactor configuration. Unlike GAC adsorption, in which
the carbon approaches equilibrium with the influent SOC concentration, the PAC is in
equilibrium with the effluent SOC concentration, as it is removed from the effluent by a
settling or filtration process. For the same influent SOC concentration, therefore, the
activated carbon in a PAC system will have a lower adsorptive capacity than in a GAC
system.

Treatability Studies

The treatability testing of PAC for removal of the Phase V SOC has primarily been
bench scale, although some pilot and full scale evaluations have also been performed. The
details of these evaluations are presented below.

Bench Scale • The USEPA DWRD investigated the effectiveness of PAC in
removing simazine from water. Spiked Ohio River water, dosed with 15-20 mg/L of alum,
was utilized in the jar tests (Miltner and Fronk, July 1985). Samples were rapid mixed for
two minutes, flocculated for 30 minutes, and allowed to settle for 60 minutes. Two types of
carbon, Calgon Filtrasorb 400, 200 x 400 mesh and Calgon WPH, were evaluated. The
results of these tests are presented below;

6-6


-------


PAC
Tree

PAC Dose
(mm/L)

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent

Removal

Comtwund

Influent

Effluent

Simazine

F400

16.7

^ 29.9

9.6

68





33,3

29,9

2.1

93



WPH

8.6

76.4

36.7

52





25.?

76,4

20.6

73

Stmazine was adsorbed by the PAC and the percent removal increased with increasing PAC
dose. The results indicate that PAC could effectively remove simazme from drinking water,
Robeck, et al. (1965) reported the results of isotherm tests with PAC to remove
endrin from distilled water, Westvaco Aqua Nuchar A was the PAC which was utilized for
the isotherm tests. Though Freundlich parameters were not reported, the following results
were reported:



PAC Dose
(mt/L)

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal 1

Compound

Influent

Effluent

Endrin

1.8

10

1

90 1



14

10

0.1

99 |



1.3

1

0.1

90 1



2.5

1

0.05

95 |

These results indicate that PAC adsorption could be an effective treatment for
endrin removal.

Morita, et al.*( 1974) evaluated the results of jar tests on water in Iapan which was
spiked with two phthalates. The type of water was not specified. The PAC which was
utilized was manufactured by Kanto Chemicals. PAC was added to the spiked sample,
which was mixed for 30 minutes and then was allowed to settle for 12 hours. The results
are presented below:

6-7


-------
Compound

PAC Dos*
(ms/L)

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal I

Influent

Effluent

Di-n-butyl phthalate

50

50

16,4

67 |

100

50

14.1

72

50

100

15.5

84 1

100

100

14.8

85 |

Bis(2-ethylhexyi)pbthalate

50

50

30.3

40 1

too

50

11.S

76

50

100

29.7

70

100

100

14.4



The results indicate that PAC could be effective in removing these two phthalates from
drinking water.

Faust and Zarins (1969) performed jar tests on tap water spiked with 1.9 mg/L of
diquat. Westvaco Aqua Nuchar was the PAC which was utilized for the isotherm tests. The
PAC was added to the samples, which were shaken for 30 or 60 minutes. The tests were
performed at a pH of 7.2 and the following Freundlich parameters were reported for a
temperature of 20 C and a 60 minute contact time:

K = 0.0194
l/n = 0.09

The removal of diquat for various PAC dosages is presented in Table 6-2. Although PAC
does not remove a high percentage of diquat, it does provide a significant reduction at a
dosage of 40 mg/L. However, this removal could be further reduced by the effects of
competitive adsorption from background organics which were not present in tap water.

6-8


-------




TABLE 6-2







removal of diquat by PAC"



Temperature
(C)

Contact Time
(min)

PAC Dose
(mg/L)

Effluent
Concentration
(mg/L)

Percent
Removal

10

30

10

1.69

11





20

1.41

26





30

1.16

39





40

0.95

50

20

30

10

1.65

13





20

1.34

29





30

1.09

43





40

0.84

56

20

60

10

1.62'

15





20

1.27

33





30

0.95

50





40

0.63

67

40

30

10

1.41

26





20

0.99

48





30

0.70.

63





40

0.49

74

Note: 1. Initial diquar concentration * 1.9 mg/L; pH - 7.2

Weber, et ai. (1965, 1968) reported the results of isotherm tests which utilized
Darco 6-60 charcoal PAC to remove diquat from water. The initial concentration of diquat
was 344 mg/L. The type of water was not specified. Though the Freundlich parameters
were not reported, the following results for the maximum dosages were reported:

6-9


-------
PAC Dose
(me/L)

Carbon
Loading
f me/2)

Concentration (mg/L)

Percent
Removal 1

Influent

Effluent

2,500

26

344

41

88 1

5,000

6.5

344

4.1

99 |

These results were obtained from two different sets of tests. The 2,500 mg/L dosage was
allowed to equilibrate for 48 hours, whereas the 5,000 mg/L dosage had an equilibrium
period of only 1 hour.

Pilot Scale - Robeck, et al. (1965) reported the results of a pilot plant study utilizing
PAC with conventional treatment to remove pesticides from the Little Miami River at the
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Little Miami River had a
turbidity of 5 to 250 NTUs, a temperature of 2 to 27 C, and a pH of 7.3 to 8.5. Design and
operating parameters for the conventional system were not reported, except for the filters,
which had a surface loading rate of 2 gpm/sf. Westvaco Aqua Nuchar A was the PAC
which was utilized in the pilot plant. The following results were reported:

Compound

PAC Dose

(mg/L)

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Influent

Effluent

Endrin

11

10

1

90

126

10

0.1

99

11

1

0,1

90

23

1

0.05

95

The PAC dosages had to be increased almost tenfold to achieve the same removal of endrin
from Little Miami River water as was achieved in distilled water during bench-scale tests.
This can be attributed to the effects of competitive adsorption caused by the presence of
other organics in the river water.

6-10


-------
Full Scale - Singley, et al. (1981) evaluated the removal of PAHs and phthalates by PAC
addition at the Sunny Isles WTP in North Miami Beach, Florida. The conventional lime soften-
ing plant utilizes the East Drive Well Field as its source of ground water. The PAC,
lignite-based ICI Hydrodarco-B, was applied at a dosage of 7.1 mg/L and had a 2-hour contact
time. The following results were reported:

Compound

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Influent

Effluent

Naphthalene

0.006

0.002

67

Acenaphthene

0.38-0.8

t - 0.005

>99

Fluorene

0.21 - 0.5

t - 0.002

>99



Compound

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Influent

Effluent

Phenanthrene

0,01 - 0.03

ND

>80

Fluoranthene

0.01 -0.15

t- ND

>80

Phthalates

0.004 - 0.03

ND - 0.025

17- >50

Pyrene

0.01 - 0.08

ND - 0.01

)- >80 .

Notes: t - trace

ND - not detected

The results indicate that PAC could effectively remove PAHs from water. Ph thai ate removal
apparently would not be effective when conditions of competitive adsorption prevail. However,
the degree of analytical accuracy at these low equilibrium concentrations (nanogram per liter)
must be considered. The effectiveness of PAC should be tested at higher concentrations which
can be measured with greater accuracy.

The EPA DWRD has reported on the treatment of SOCs by PAC at water treatment
plants in Bowling Green and Tiffin, Ohio (Miltner and Fronk, July 1985). The results for the
Bowling Green plant are presented in Table 6-3; the results for the Tiffin plant are

6-11


-------
TABLE 6-4

TREATMENT OF SIMAZINE BY POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON

TIFFIN, OHIO

soc

Concentration
(ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Confidence
Level

Sample
Days

Carbon dose = 11 mg/L Calgon WPH1

Simazine

0.26

43 - 88

99

6

Alachlor

2.53

35-47

99.9

6

CARBOFU-
RAN2

0.39

30-88

98

6

Atrazine

4.43

33-49

99

6

DEA3

0.08

51 - 100

98

4

Carbon dose = 3.6 mg/L Carbon WPH1

Simazine

0.10

56-70

99

6

Alachlor

1.49

30-42

99.9

6

Atrazine

2.61

31 -45

99

6

1.	Applied to clarification process

2.	Removal also possibly affected by hydrolysis

3.	DEA = deethyl atrazine (metabolite)

4.	Applied to filtration process


-------
i
t
}

presented in Table 6-4. The results indicate that simazine was removed by PAC, and
percent removal increased with increasing PAC dose.

TABLE 6-3

TREATMENT OF SIMAZINE BY POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
BOWLING GREEN, OHIO

soc

Concentration
(ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Confidence
Level

Sample
Days

Carbon dose = 33 mg/L hydrodarco B1



Simazine

0.24

100

99.8

6

Alachlor

0.97

80 - 100

99.9

6

Atrazine

239

83-91

99.9

6

DIA3

0.10

100

99

5

Carbon dose = 18 mg/L hydrodarco B1

Simarzine

0.37

79 - 100

99.9

6

Alachlor

8.21

51-73

99.9

6

Carbofuran2

1.26

48-80

99

6

Atrazine

8.11

56-78

99.9

6

DEA4

0.24

100

99.9

6

1.	Applied to clarification process

2.	Removal also possibly affected by hyrolsis

3.	DIA = deisopropyl atrazine (metabolite)

4.	DEA = deethyl atrazine (metabolite)

Baker (1983).evaluated the performance of conventional treatment in combination
with PAC at the Bowling Green, Ohio WTP, which utilizes the Maumee River as its source
of raw water. The concentration of Simazine was among those that were monitored. The
conventional treatment involved alum coagulation, lime/caustic soda softening, recarbona-
tion and filtration. The dosages were not reported. The following results were obtained:

6-12


-------
Compound

Concentration fug/L)

Percent
Removal

Vfaumee Elver'0

| Finished Water'"

Simazine

0.176

1 0.094

47

Aiachlor

0.870

0.494

43

Atrazine

1.261

| 0.748

41

Notes: 1. Based on 5 sample analyses
2, Based, on 6 sample analyses

The results indicate that PAC could remove siir.azine from drinking water, however, the extent of this
removal is uncertain due to the lack of information pertaining to PAC dosages.

Summary

The effectiveness of PAC in the bench, pilot and full-scale studies was determined by the
percent removal and the PAC dosage. Based on the results of the literature studies, PAC can remove
pesticides, PAHs and phthalates among the Phase V SOCs. However, site specific design should be
based on the studies conducted on the particular water,

ION EXCHANGE

Organic removal by ion exchange with synthetic, organic exchange resins is a
treatment method that may prove successful in removing highly soluble ionic species which
cannot be removed by GAC, PAC, or conventional treatment methods.

Process Description

An ion exchange system employs the use of resins to replace certain ions in the feed
water with ions fixed to the resin matrix. Exchange resins are generally insoluble solids
comprising fixed cations or anions capable of exchanging with similarly-charged, mobile ions
in the feed water. In a single-bed, weak base resin system for removing anions, the process ¦
involves the replacement of chloride ions (anions) on the bed with other anions from so-
lution. When using a strong base resin, hydroxide ions are replaced with anions. A weak
acid resin will replace sodium ions with cations while a strong acid resin replaces hydrogen
ions with other cations. Such resins are utilized in fixed-bed exchanges.

6-13


-------
When all the anions or cations have been replaced, the system must be regenerated.
During the operation, the resin bed is backwashed, regenerated with a concentrated solution,
rinsed, and placed back in operation. The type of concentrated solution which is used to
regenerate the resin bed is dependent upon the type of resin. A regeneration matrix is
presented below:

Type of Resin

Resin Ion

Regeneration Solution |

Weak Base

cr

HC1

OH

NaOH, NH4OH, Na2C03

Strong Base

cr

NaCl.HCl

OH"

NaOH

Weak Acid

Na+

NaOH

H*

HCl.HjSO,

Strong Acid

Na*

NaCl

H*

CH1,HjS04

A typical process schematic for an ion exchange treatment plant is presented on
Figure 6-2, The major components of this system include;

•	Ion exchange column

•	Regenerant storage and feed pump

•	Storage tanks for wastewater

•	Brine reclamation tank

•	Any pre- or post-treatment facilities

•	Finished water storage

Ion selectivity, resin capacity, and regeneration requirements are important design

parameters.	A discussion of each is presented below.

Ion Selectivity - All ion exchange resins will exhibit some degree of selectivity. The
bed is exhausted more quickly, with a corresponding increase in regeneration frequency,
when the resin has a greater preference for other ions present in the raw water. Increased
regeneration frequency increases both the cost for the regenerant as well as disposal costs.

6-14


-------
ION EXCHANGE

BED

REGENERANT REGENERAN r

STORAGE	I EED PUMP

FIGURE 6-2 ION

EXCHANGE PROCESS SCHEMATIC


-------
Further, the product water must be monitored more frequently to ensure effluent concen-
trations do not exceed the applicable standard.

Several factors influence the preference of an exchange resin for ions. The most
significant influence is the magnitude of the charge on the ion. An exchange resin has a
greater preference for counter-ions of higher valence. A second factor influencing the
selectivity of an exchange resin is the degree of pressure within the resin, which forces
swelling of the particle. The hvdrated radius is the primary variable which affects the
pressure within the resin, such that the resin has greater preference for ions of smaller
hvdrated radius. Since the hydra ted radius is inversely proportional to the ionic radius for
ions of similar charge, preference increases with increasing ionic radius. The exclusion of
ions by screening or sieving action is another significant selectivity factor. A high degree
of crosslinking prevents penetration of the matrix by large, organic ions.

Resin Capacity - In the design of an ion exchange system or the selection of an ion
exchange resin, the capacity of the resin is important because of its effects on process
efficiency and system cost. A high exchange capacity resin is preferred since it permits
smaller resin beds and requires less rinse volumes. An exception to this is with highly
sulfate selective resins, which require increasingly larger rinse volumes with time, an effect
reportedly occurring in waters where sulfate represents a large fraction of the total anions
present.

Regeneration - Regeneration displaces ions exchanged during the service run and
returns the resin to its initial exchange capacity or to any other desired level, depending on
the amount of regenerant used. To minimize the regeneration time and the amount of
regenerant used, the regenerant should provide a maximum peak elute concentration with
minimum "tailing" of the elute. In deciding upon regeneration requirements, four factors
have to be considered. They are the regenerant volume, flow rate, concentration, and
regeneration frequency. An elution test is often the basis of deciding these factors. After
completing a saturation loading, the resin is eluted with an excess of regenerant to convert
it fully to the desired ionic form. Successive volumes of regenerant are collected, after they
have passed through the bed, to determine the concentrations of the ions of interest in each
volume. These data can be used to choose the degree of regeneration that will be optimum
with respect to operating capacity (resin conversion) and regenerant efficiency.

6-15


-------
Treatability Studies

Presently, the majority of ion exchange treatability studies have consisted of bench
scale evaluations to determine whether a given SOC is amenable to removal by ion
exchange. Most bench scale studies consist of isotherm tests, which are performed similarly
to activated carbon isotherm tests. Freundlich parameters and equilibrium resin capacities
can be obtained from these tests and utilized to determine the effectiveness of an exchange
resin in treating the specific SOC,

Bansal (1983) performed isotherm tests to study the adsorption of oxamyl onto
montmorillonite, a cation exchange resin. The isotherm tests were conducted at a
temperature of 25 C and the following Freundlich parameters Were reported for various
saturating cations;

Compound

Saturating
Cations

Freundlkh Parameters

k

l/n

Oxamyi

Al»*

5112

1.280



Fe3'

560.0

1.170



' Li'

550.2

0,800



Na*

537,2

0.780



K*

530.6

0.770



Cs

500.2

0.750

Arnold and Farmer (1979) evaluated the adsorption of picloram onto various ion
exchange resins through the use of isotherm tests. The initial concentration of picloram was
varied between I and 100 mg/L. The applied resin dosages were 50 g/L for the Dowex
resins and 10 g/L for the Cellex resins. The results of the isotherm tests are presented
below:

6-16


-------
Resin

Resin
Type

Ionic
Form

Capacity
(meq/L)

Exchange
Equilibrium
pH

Freundikh
K Value

Dowex 50 - 1 x 4

Cationic

Al3*

-

3.32

9.50





Ca1*

-

3.52

3.10





H*

5.5

3.24

t.01

Cellex CM



Ca:"

-

4,72

4.52





Na*

0.68

3,95

3.49

Ceilex P



NV

0.93

4.88

5.79

Dowex 1 - x 4



CI"

4.0

6.10

750.0

The performance of the anion exchange resin (Dowex I-x4) was significantly better than that
of the cation exchange resins, as would be expected due to the acidic nature of this
pesticide. The Dowex I-x4 anion exchange resin removed more than 97 percent of the
picloram from solution,

McCail, et al. (1972) studied the performance of ionic exchange resins in reducing
concentrations of the potassium salt of picloram in solution during isotherm tests. The
solutions were allowed to equilibrate overnight. The following results were reported:

Resin

Resin
Type

Ionic
Form

Exchange
Capacity

(meq/L)

Maximum
Resin Loading

(mg/g)

Amberlite IRA-900

Anionic

Cl-

4.2

375

ow

-

394

Amberlite 200

Cationic



-

2.78

Na'

4.3

2.37

H*

-

2.26

Only Amberlite IRA-900, the anion exchange resin, strongly adsorbed picloram from
solution, as would be expected due to the acidic nature of this pesticide.

6-17


-------
Harris and Warren (1964) performed isotherm tests to evaluate the removal of
dinoseb and diquat from aqueous solution by ionic exchange resins. The solutions were
allowed to equilibrate for 5 hours. The cation exchange resin, Amberlite IR-200, had
adsorptive capacities of 0.82 and 1.8 mg/g for dinoseb equilibrium concentrations of 10.6
and 20.6 mg/L, respectively, at a pH of 4.3. The anion exchange resin, Amberlite IR-400,
achieved even better results, adsorbing dinoseb such that similar initial concentrations in
solution were reduced below detectable limits at a pH of 5.4. The much better performance
of the anion exchange resin for dinoseb removal was expected due to the acidic nature of
this pesticide.

A different cation exchange resin, Amberlite IR-120, reduced the residual
concentration of diquat below detectable limits. The removal of diquat was independent of
pH. The anion exchange resin, Amberlite IR-400, poorly adsorbed diquat from aqueous
solution. The much better performance of the cation exchange resin for diquat removal was
expected because diquat readily ionizes in aqueous solution and forms an organic cation.

Weber, et al. (1965, 1968) performed separate isotherm tests utilizing ion exchange
resins to remove diquat from aqueous solutions. The anion exchange resin, Amberlite
IRA-411, failed to adsorb a detectable amount of diquat. Contrarily, the cation exchange
resin, Amberlite IR-120, was effective in reducing diquat concentrations in water. Though
the initial and equilibrium concentrations were not reported, the following results were
reported:

Parameter

Resin

Ionic Form

Resin Capacities

(»8/D

Diquat

Amberlite IRA - 120

H*

829 - 843

Na+

850 - 860

Sheets (1959) conducted a bench scale study on the adsorption of simazine by ion
exchange resins. The cation exchange resin, Duolite C-3, had a maximum loading capacity
of 2 mg/g. The initial and equilibrium simazine concentrations were not reported.
Simazine was poorly adsorbed by the anion exchange resin, Duolite A-2.

6-18


-------
Summary

The effectiveness of ion exchange in the isotherm studies was determined by the
percent removal or the relative resin capacities (i.e. cationic resins vs anionic resins).
Compounds with potential to dissociate or ionize, such as the acidic pesticides, could be
removed from drinking water by ion exchange. Ion exchange would be preferred over GAC
for these ionic pesticides, many of which have high solubilities and probably would not be
amenable to GAC treatment.

MACRORETICULAR RESIN ADSORPTION

Resin adsorption is a technology for which there are limited field data available on
SOC removal. Additional research will be necessary to determine its applicability to SOC
treatment.

Process Description

The resin adsorption process is essentially the same as GAC adsorption with a
synthetic resin replacing activated carbon. Synthetic resins, which effectively adsorb low
molecular weight organics from water, have been developed. One such resin, Ambersorb
XE 340, has been designed to remove low molecular weight, nonpolar organics, such as the
halogenated organics most frequently found in ground waters. The major disadvantages of
using synthetic resins are the high cost of the resins ($10 per pound compared to S1.00 per
pound for carbon) and the unproven technology (especially on a full-scale) associated with
regenerating the resins in situ with low temperature steam.

Treatability Studies

Presently, the majority of macroreticular resin treatability studies have consisted of
bench scale evaluations to determine whether a given SOC is amenable to removal by
macroreticular resin adsorption. Most bench scale studies consist of isotherm tests which
are performed similarly to those performed with activated carbon. Freundlich parameters
and equilibrium resin capacities can be obtained from these tests and utilized to determine
the effectiveness of an exchange resin in treating the specific SOC, Mini column tests can
give a more accurate indication of the ability of an exchange resin to remove a contaminant
in a continuous flow system.'

6-19


-------
McCall, et al. (1972) studied the performance of macroreticular resins in reducing
concentrations of the potassium salt of picloram in solution during isotherm tests. Amberlite XA-
D-2 was the resin which was utilized in the isotherm tests. The solutions were allowed to
equilibrate overnight. A maximum resin loading of 4.04 mg/g was reported; however, the initial
and equilibrium concentrations and resin dosages were not reported. The macroreticular resin
was not as effective as an anion exchange resin in removing picloram from aqueous solution.

Shelby, et al. (1981) conducted a mini column study to evaluate the removal of several
organic pesticides and chemicals, including hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCPD), from a
pesticide manufacturing wastewater by macroreticular resins. The mini column was 1 inch in
diameter and it contained 3 feet of XAD-4 resin. The tests were performed at a surface loading
rate of 7.5 gpm/sf. The average HCCPD influent concentration was 1,127 ug/L. After
6,000 bed volumes of wastewater had been passed through the mini column, the effluent
concentration was 590 ug/L, a 48 reduction in the HCCPD concentration. However, after
4,000 bed volumes had been passed through the mini column, the HCCPD effluent concentration
was only 6 ug/L, a 99.5 percent reduction. It would appear that the mini column began
experiencing HCCPD breakthrough after 4,000 bed volumes had been passed through the column.
The results indicate that macroreticular resin adsorption could effectively remove HCCPD from
drinking water despite the effects of competitive adsorption.

Rees and Au (1979) studied the removal of simazine from spiked tap water through the
use of a mini column. The mini column was 1 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length and it was
packed with XAD-2 resin. The operating conditions were not reported. For simazine influent
concentrations of 10 and 50 ug/L, the mini column achieved 85 to 95 and 81 to 91 percent
removal, respectively, of simazine from the spiked tap water.

Summary

The effectiveness of macroreticular resin adsorption was determined by the percent
removal and the resin dosage. Compounds with potential to dissociate or ionize, such as the
acidic or ionic pesticides, could be removed from drinking water by ion exchange and probably
would not be amenable to macroreticular resin adsorption.

6-20


-------
OXIDATION

Several oxidants are available for removing SOCs from drinking water, including
ozone, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, and ultraviolet (UV)
light, either by itself or in combination with any of the other oxidants. The mechanism for
SOC removal by oxidation is the conversion of an SOC into either intermediate reaction
products or into carbon dioxide and water, which are the complete destruction products.
Complete destruction is not always possible as the intermediates which are formed may be
more resistant to further oxidation than the original SOC In addition, these intermediates
may be, in some cases, more toxic than the original SOC,

Ozonation has been the most widely tested oxidant for the removal of SOCs from
drinking water, and as such, are discussed first. Additional oxidation technologies that have
been evaluated for SOC removal are presented at the end of this subsection on oxidation.
Since only limited data are available for SOC removal via oxidation, further evaluations
would be required before oxidation can be considered as an applicable technology.

Ozonation

Process Description - Ozone has been used primarily for disinfection and taste and
odor control, but is recently receiving more attention as a means of controlling SOCs in
drinking water. Ozone is the most powerful oxidant available for water treatment and
therefore has a greater capacity to destroy SOCs than do other oxidants.

Ozone generally reacts at centers of unsaturation within a molecule; that is, at
double bonds. For example, saturated aliphatic (straight chain) hydrocarbons do not react
with ozone while aromatic (benzene-like) compounds generally are oxidized to some degree,'
Upon reviewing the structures of the 18 SOCs of concern presented in Chapter 2, keeping
this criterion of unsaturation in mind, it appears that only dichloromethane and 1.1.2-trichlo-
roethane would not be oxidized by ozone. Based upon their structure, the other SOCs
would appear to be oxidizable to some extent by ozone; however, actual testing would be
required to evaluate the degree to which these compounds are amenable to ozone oxidation.

A diagram of the ozone treatment process is illustrated on Figure 6-3, The major
components of the system include an ozone production unit, a contact basin, an ozone
destruction unit and associated valves and piping. The ozone production unit consists of gas
handling, ozone generation, and cooling system components. The contact basin is designed

6-21


-------
OZUNL
OFf - GAS

WATER

V t"

°9

0

1

T

bl Ml'., II k





9







0



#

ll

u



¦J (1

1?



c'\

- 1

- 1 -

OZONAItl)
WATER

OZOIJl
IU SIRIJC I

h

i 11 i

I a 11 i r., |

111 owl k

OZONE

AIR



t

WAIER

A

I u.'niil
u mlra i uk-

air

COMPRESSOR

AH IERCOOI ER
(OPTIONAL)

REJ'RICE RAN f
DRYER

Ut SICCA! i i
DRYER

AIR
ULTER

FIGURE 6-3 OZONE OXIDATION PROCESS SCHEMATIC


-------
in terms of the raw water flow and required detention time. The ozone destruction unit destroys
any excess ozone before discharge to the atmosphere.

Treatability Studies - The majority of ozone treatability studies for SOC removal to date
have been bench scale evaluations to determine whether or not a given SOC is amenable to
ozonation. Ozone is typically applied to aqueous solutions of individual SOCs as either a gas or
as a solution of ozone in water. The amount of SOC destruction depends upon the type of SOC,
the amount of ozone applied and reacted, the ozone demand, pH, degree of mixing, and contact
time. The results indicate that ozonation could effectively reduce the concentration of PAHs in
drinking water.

The EPA DWRD has reported on the treatment of simazine by ozonation (Miltner and
Fronk, July 1985). Distilled water which had been spiked with simazine, was used In the pilot
scale evaluations. The experimental apparatus was a countercurrent contactor with a stone
sparger. The column was 6 feet high and 4 inches in diameter. The tests were performed at a
flow rate of 0.76 L/min, which resulted in a 13 minute contact time. The simazine had an
influent concentration of 23 ug/L. An ozone dose of 9 mg/L achieved a 92 percent reduction of
the simazine concentration in the distilled water. The results indicate that ozonation could
effectively reduce the concentration of simazine in drinking water.

Benedek et al (1979) studied the effects of ozone upon the biological degradation and
GAC adsorption of PAHs in water taken from the Grand River in southern Ontario, Canada. The
experimental procedures and operating conditions of these bench scale tests were not reported.
The influent concentration of total PAHs was 30.3 ng/L. An ozone dose of 2 mg/L reduced the
concentration of total PAHs to 3.3 ng/L, an 89 percent removal. The results indicate that ozone
could effectively reduce PAH concentrations in drinking water.

The effect of ozonation upon the performance of a GAC mini column was also evaluated
in a related study. Water from the Grand River was coagulated, settled, and sand filtered. Two
parallel GAC mini column trains were utilized in the study. The mini column was 2.5 cm in
diameter and was 32.5 cm long and contained 63.3 g of Calgon Filtrasorb 400 GAC. The feed
to only one column was ozonated, receiving an applied dosage of 2.0 mg/L. The tests were per-
formed at a loading rate of 7 ml/min; however, no other operating conditions were reported.

6-22


-------
The applied TOC is representative of the bed-life of the mini column. As the slow
adsorbing organics approached equilibrium, the percent removal for the PAHs decreased,
and in some instances, desorption occurred as with dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. The results of
the mini-column testing indicate that ozone could significantly improve the performance of
GAC and could prolong the bed life of a GAC system. The results for both GAC trains are
presented below;

Compound

Applied TOC
(mg TOC/g carbon)

Percent Removal

With Ozone

Without Ozone

With Ozone

Without Ozone

Fluoranthene

1.89

2.15

100

100

29.9

42.8

0

100

Chrycene

L89

2.15

100

100

29.9

42.8

100

100

Benzo(a)anthracene

1.89

2.15

100

100

29.9

42.8

100

100

Benzo(a)pyrene

1.89

2.15

100

100

29.9

42.8

66

93

Dibenozofa,h)anthracene

1.89

2.15

0

%

29.9

42.8

0 '

0

Bcnzo(g,h,i)perylcac

1.89

2.15

88

83

29.9

42.8'

23

0

Pvrene

1.89

2,15

100

79

29.9

42.8

100

54

Total PAHs

1.89

2.15

• 95

93

29.9

42.8

83

64

Perylene was also present in the raw water.

Additional Oxidation Techniques

In addition to ozone, additional oxidants have been evaluated for removing SOCs
from drinking water. These include potassium permanganate, chlorine, chlorine dioxide,

6-23


-------
hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet (UV) tight and UV light in conjunction with other oxidants.
Based upon bench scale results reported primarily by the EPA DWRD, these additional
oxidants are apparently effective in removing only a few of the Phase V SOCs from drinking
water. Again, an evaluation of breakdown products of any oxidation process should be
made before considering oxidation for SOC removal A brief description of the studies
conducted on additional oxidation techniques are presented below.

Potassium Permanganate - Gomaa and Faust (1971) evaluated the effects of
potassium permanganate oxidation on the removal of diquat from water. The bench scale
oxidation tests were performed at a temperature of 20 C and the initial diquat concentra-
tion, and the permanganate dosage were varied. One test was performed at a pH of 9.13
and with a permanganate dose of 158 mg/L. The results of this test are presented below:



Reaction Time
(min)

Concentration (mg/L)

Percent
Removal

Compound

Influent

Effluent

Diquat

15

14.3

9.5

34



30



7.3

49



45



5.5

62



60



4.4

69



120



1.8

87 '

The potassium permanganate oxidation of diquat, which was pH dependent, conformed to

second order kinetics. The highest oxidation rates were observed at pH values greater than

8.0.

The EPA DWRD has reported on the treatment of simazine and endrin by
potassium permanganate oxidation. Spiked, distilled water at a temperature of 20 C was
used in the bench scale evaluations. The following results were reported:

6-24


-------
j Compound

Permanganate
Dose (mg/L)

Reaction
Time

Initial Cone.
(ug/L)

Percent
Removal

J Endrin

10

. 22.5

22

-23

Simazine

10

24

67

26

10

24

31

0

The results indicate that potassium permanganate oxidation would not remove endrin from
drinking water and would only partially reduce simazine concentrations in drinking water.

Leigh (1969) studied the chemical and biological degradation of several insecticides,
including endrin, in water. Spiked, distilled water at a temperature of 20 C wis used in the
bench scale evaluations. The influent and effluent concentrations of endrin were not
reported. Potassium permanganate was one of the oxidants which were evaluated. The
results of the potassium permanganate oxidation of endrin are presented below;

Compound

| Initial pH

Permanganate
Dosage (mg/L)

Reaction Time
(hr)

Percent
Removal

Endrin

2.0

' 61

48

0



109.8

61

48

0

The results indicate that potassium permanganate oxidation would not reduce the
concentration of endrin in drinking water.

Chlorine * Harris and Hansel (1984) reported the effects of chlorination upon the
treatment of pound water contaminated by PAHs from the Reilly Superfund site in St.
Louis Park, Minnesota. The bench tests were conducted in a 3-inch diameter by 3 foot high
vessel at a pH of 4.5 and with a 10 mg/L dosage of chlorine, which was then allowed to
react for 60 minutes. The test with chlorination alone was performed at a temperature of
75 F, whereas the test with aeration/chiorination/filtration was performed at a temperature
of 50 F. The results are presented below. Also presented, for the purpose of comparison,
are test results with aeration/filtration at a pH of 7.0 and temperature of 50 F.

The results indicate that chlorine oxidation could effectively remove acenaphthylene.
acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene pyrene, phenanthrene and
fluot anthrene from drinking water. Chlorination effectively reduced the concentration of

6-25


-------
total PAHs. Chlorination also significantly improved the removal of PAHs by aeration/-
filtration,

Compound

Ave raft
lit Until!
(ng/L)

CI:

Effluent Cone.

(ng/«

Pwtent Removal

Aeration/
FiltrMio*

Atration/Clj
Filtration



A/F

A/Clj/F

Napthalene

109

63

-

67

42

.

39

Acenaphthylene

1200

ND

-

ND

>99.9

-

. >99.9

Be nzo(a}anthracene

¦ 12

ND

6.8

ND

>99.9

43

>99.9

Chryseue

10

ND

4.7

ND

>99.9

53

>99.9

Acenaphihene

1950

ND

-

ND

>99,9

-

>99,9

Fluorene

2000

1800

1900

1700

10

5

15

Anthracene

165

ND

ISO

ND

>99.9

9.1

>99,9

Phenamhrene

67

16

63

23

76

6

66

Pyrene

445

ND

370

ND

>99.9

17

>99.9

Fluoranthene

575

150

470

160

74

18

12

Total PAHs

6718

2039.2

6573

1866

TO

2

71

Note;

ND - not detected

Rav-Acha et al (1983) studied the chlorine oxidation of several PAHs in spiked,
deionized water. The PAHs which were studied included fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo (a)
anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, and anthracene. The bench tests were performed
at room temperature and at a pH of 6.8 with initial concentrations between 0.1 and 2 ug/'L.
Chlorine, applied at a dosage of 2 mg/L and allowed to react for 2 hours in the presence
of light, achieved a 100 percent removal of fluoranthene. A similar chlorine dose, allowed
to react for 20 hours without the presence of light, achieved only 40 percent removal of
fluoranthene. Chlorine, applied at a dosage of 2 mg/L and allowed to react for 30 minutes,
reduced the concentration of benz(a)pyrene by 65 percent. For other tests which utilized
an applied chlorine dosage of 1 mg/L. the following results were reported:

6-26


-------
Compound

Half-life (min)

Benzo(a)pyrene

17

Benzo(a)anthracene

30

Anthracene

60

Pyrene

120

Naphthalene

400

Fluoranthene

900[

These results would indicate that chlorine oxidation could effectively reduce the concentrations
of these PAHs in drinking water.

Harrison et al. (1976) studied the effect of chlorine oxidation on several PAHs at many
different operating conditions. The PAHs which were studied included benzo(a)pyrene and
fluoranthene. At a chlorine dose of 2.2 mg/1, a pH of 6.8, and a temperature of 20 C, a 55
percent removal of benzo(a) pyrene and 20 percent removal of fluoranthene were reached after
25 minutes. At a pH of 6.8, a temperature of 20 C and a five minute contact time a 55 percent
removal of benzo(a)pyrene and a 50 percent removal of fluoranthene was achieved at a 13.2 mg/1
chlorine dose. The study also showed that as temperature increased and pH decreased, the
removal efficiencies increased.

The EPA DWRD has reported on the oxidation of simazine and endrin by chlorine
(Miltner and Fronk, July 1985). Chlorine was added to spiked, distilled water and to spiked
Ohio River water. The tests were performed in the dark at a temperature of 20 C. The Ohio
River water had a pH of 8.0 to 8.4; the pH of the distilled water was not reported.

Simazine would appear to be amenable to removal by chlorine oxidation at high dosages
for long reaction times; however chlorination apparently would not reduce endrin concentrations
in drinking water. The results of these tests are presented below:

6-27


-------
Compound

Water Type

Dose (mg/L)

Initial Cone.
(ug/L)

Reaction
Time

Percent
Removal

Simazine

Distilled

10

67

24

74





10

31

24

62



Ohio River

3

43

2

1





3

43

6

9





3

32

2

-1





3

32

6

17

Endrin

Distilled

10

22

22.5

-17

Gomaa and Faust (1971) evaluated the effects of chlorine oxidation on the removal
of diquat from water. The bench tests were performed at a temperature of 20 C The pH,
initial concentration, and chlorine doses were varied. The results of one test, performed at
a pH of 8.14 and a chlorine dose of 13 mg/L, are presented below;

Compound

Contact Time

(mtn)

Concentration (mg/L)

Percent
Removal

Initial

Final

Diquat

0

14.3

14.3

0

120

8.5

40.6

180

7.8

45.5

360

5.2

62.2

720

2.1

85.3

The reaction followed second order kinetics and was pH dependent The highest oxidation
rates were found when the pH was greater than 8.0.

Leigh (1969) studied the degradation of endrin by chlorine oxidation in bench scale
tests. The experiments were performed with spiked, distilled water at a temperature of 20
C. Chlorine was applied at a dosage of 61 mg/L at a low pH of 2.0 and a high pH of 9.8.
Chlorine oxidation failed to reduce the endrin concentration after 48 hours. Initial and final
endrin concentrations were not reported. These results indicate that endrin would not be
amenable to chlorine oxidation.

6-28


-------
Sorrell, Brass, and Reding (1980) compiled a number of studies on the removal of PAHs
from water by chlorine oxidation. The results of the studies are shown on Table 6-5.

These results indicate that benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, acenaphthylene, and
phenanthrene could be amenable to chlorine oxidation.

Chlorine Dioxide - Rav-Acha et al. (1983) studied the oxidation of several PAHs in
deionized water by chlorine dioxide. The PAHs which were studied included fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and anthracene. The bench tests were performed at room temperature and at a
pH of 6.8, with initial concentrations between 0.1 and 2 ug/L. Chlorine dioxide, at applied
dosages of up to 20 mg/L, removed less than 5 percent of the fluoranthene in the sample. At an
applied dosage of 2 mg/L, chlorine dioxide achieved a 98 percent removal of benzo(a)pyrene
after only three minutes. For other tests, which utilized an applied chlorine dioxide dosage of
1 mg/L, the following results were reported:

Compound

Half-life (min)

Benzo(a)pyrene

0.07

Anthracene

0.15

Benzo(a)anthracene

1.0

Pryene

90.0

Fluorene

no reaction after 24 hr.

The results indicate that benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, pyrene and anthracene could be
amenable to chlorine dioxide oxidation.

Gomaa and Faust (1971) evaluated the effects of chlorine dioxide oxidation upon the
removal of diquat from water. The bench tests were performed at a temperature of 20 C.

6-29


-------


TABLE 6-5







PAH REMOVAL BY CHLORINE OXIDATION





Initial

Chlorine



Contact

Bwamt---

Coapowwi:'-

ConmtflUiw

Dose {mg/D

pH

H»e. (far)

Removal

benzo(a)pyrene

1

0.5

.

0.5

88



1

0.3

-

0.5

82



1

0.3

-

2

92



5

0.3

-

3

50



2

0.5

-

2

50



2

0.5

-

13 .

100



4

0.5

•

0.5

72



4

0,5

-

2

85



4

0.5

-

24

92



10.5

6

.

1.5

•96



4.3

6

-

3

*82



11.25

6

-

6

*92



13.62

6

-

1.5

85



12,70

6

-

3

88



13.5

6

•

6

92

Benzo(a)anthracene

30.62

6

.

6

31



3.06

* 2+0.25

•

05

33

Pvrene

50

10

7.0

24

100



3.2

6

•

6

22



3.2

2+0.25

-

0.5

37

Napthalene

10,000

30

6

16

34

Fluorene

0.33

. • 1.2

7

0.5

27

Anthracene

0.97

12.4

65

3.75

78

Phenanthrene

0.24

3.7

6.8

0.5

23



0.23

26.3

6

3

14



0.24

19.6

4.2

3

91



0.24

22

5.9

3

37



0.24

23.9

4

3

58

Fluoranrhcne

0.24

22

5.9

3

37



0.24

23.9

4

3

58

Fluorene

200

9.8

7.0

24

65

Naphthalene

100

10

7

24

82

Acenaphthyleae

200

10

7

24

100

anionic detergent present

6-30


-------
The pH, initial concentration, and chlorine dioxide doses varied. The results of several tests
are presented below:

Compound

Chlorine
Dioxide
Dose (mg/L)

Concentration (mg/L)

Contact
Time
(min)

pH

Percent
Removal

Initial

Final

Diquat

6.75

15.0

15

0

-

0







0

1

10.15

100







0

1

9.04

100







0

1

8.14

100







15

1

7.12

0

These results indicate that diquat could be amenable to chlorine dioxide oxidation at higher pHs.

The EPA DWRD has reported on the oxidation of simazine by chlorine dioxide (Miltner
and Fronk, July 1985). Chlorine dioxide was added to spiked, distilled water and to spiked Ohio
River water. The tests were performed in the dark at a temperature of 20 C. The Ohio River
water had a pH of 8.0 to 8.4; the pH of the distilled water was not reported. The results of these
bench tests are presented below:

Compound

Water Type

Chlorine Peroxide
Dose (mg/L)

Initial
Cone.
(ug/L)

Reaction
Time

Percent
Removal

Simazine

Distilled

10

31

24

22



Ohio River

1.5

43

2

8





1.5

43

6

7 '





1.5

32

2

-13





1.5

32 ¦

6

27

The results indicate that chlorine dioxide oxidation could partially reduce the
concentration of simazine in drinking water.

Hydrogen Peroxide - The EPA DWRD has reported on the oxidation of simazine by
hydrogen peroxide (Miltner and Fronk, July 1985). Hydrogen peroxide was added to spiked,
distilled water and to spiked Ohio River water. The tests were performed in the dark at a

6-31


-------
temperature of 20 C. The Ohio River water had a pH of 8,0 to 8.4; the pH of the distilled
water was not reported. The results of these bench tests are presented below:

Compound

Water Type

Hydrogen
Peroxide

Dose (mg/L)

Initial Cooc.


-------
The results indicate that UV irradiation could partially reduce the concentration of endrin

in drinking water.

UV/Hvdroeen Peroxide - Harris and Hansel (1984) reported the effects of
UV/hydrogen peroxide upon the treatment of ground water contaminated with PAHs from
the Re illy Superfund site in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The bench tests were conducted in
a 3-inch diameter by 3-foot high vessel. The reaction vessel was exposed to UV light for the
full reaction time; however, the operating conditions of the UV source were not reported.
The tests were performed at different temperatures and pHs with different hydrogen
peroxide doses and different reactor times. The results are presented in Table 6-6. The
results indicate that PAHs could be amenable to UV/hydrogen peroxide oxidation.

UV /Ozone - Terkonda and Thompson (1981) studied the effect of UV/ozonation
upon the removal of endrin from contaminated ground water at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. The bench tests were conducted in a 6-inch diameter by
30-inch high vessel into which ozone was introduced at a rate of 29 mg/min. The vessel was
irradiated by a low-pressure, mercury vapor lamp which had a power input of 43 watts,
Other test conditions were not reported. UV/ozonation reduced the endrin concentration
from 8.6 ug/L to below detectable limits after 60 minutes. These results indicate that
UV/ozonation could effectively reduce endrin concentrations in drinking water.

Harris and Hansel (1984) reported the effects of UV/ozonation upon the treatment
of ground water contaminated with PAHs from the Reilly Superfund Site in St. Louis Park.
Minnesota. The bench tests were conducted in a 3-inch diameter by 3-foot high vessel. The
reaction vessel was exposed to UV light for the full reaction time; however, the operating
conditions of the UV source were not reported. The tests were performed at different
temperatures and pHs with different ozone dosages and reaction times. The results are
presented in Table 6-7. The results indicate that PAHs could be amenable to UV/ozonati-
on.

Summary

The effectiveness of the various oxidants was determined by the percent removal,
dosage, and contact time. Compounds with double bonds could be oxidized by ozone, which
reacts at centers of unsaturation within a molecule. With new research in the field of
advanced oxidation processes, a better assessment of their application for SOCs removal
should be made in the future.

6-33


-------




TABLE «









TREATMENT OF PAHi by uv/hydrogen peroxide oxidation







Hydrogen
Peroxide

Reaction

Temperature

CP)



Concentration

(ng/L)



Compound

Dosage

(mg/L)

Time
(rr.in)

PH

Initial

Final

Percent
Removal

Naphthalene

10

340

75

10

109

8

93



10

240

75

7

109

18

84



S

60

SO

7

47

NO

>99



2

60

40

7

47

4.9

90



•*1

20

40

~S

1

47

13

72

Acenspluhylene

10

240

75

10

1,200

4.8 j

99.6 |



10

240

75

7

1,200

1.6

99,9



5

60

50

7

1,200

7

99.4



2

60

40

7

1.200

1.1

99.9



2

20

40

7

1J00

14

98.8

Acenaphthene

10

240

75

10

1,950

4.9

99.8



10

240

75

7

1,950

3.7

99.8



5

60

SO

7

2,033

14

99.3



2

SO

40

7

2,033

3.9

99.8



2

20

40

7

2,033

79

%

Fluorene

10

240

75

10

2,000

21

99



10

240

75

7

2,000

2.1

99.9



5

60

50

7

2067

22

99



2

60

40

7

2067

4J

99.8



2

20

40

7

2367

74

n

Aattaeene

10

240

75

10

165

ND

>99



10

240

75

7

' 165

ND

>99



5

60

50

7

167

ND

>99



2

60

40

'7

167

ND

>99



2

20

40

7

167

1J

98.1

Pheaantfaxeae

10

240

75

10

67

1J

97



10

240

75

7

67

1.0

98i



s

60

SO

7

81

ND

>99



2

60

40

7

81

1

98.8



2

20

40

7

81

S.6

93


-------




TABLE 6-i (continued)









TREATMENT OF FAHs BY UV/HYDROGEN PEROXIDE OXIDATION







Hydrogen
Peroxide

Reaction

Temperature

(*F)



Concentration

(ng/L)

Percent
Removal

Compouwi

Dosage

(mg/L)

Time

pH

Initial

Final

Fluoramhene

10

240 ,

75

10

575

11

98.1



10

240

75

7

57S

2.6

99.5



5

60

50

7

530

9.6

9S.2



2

60

40

7 •

530

3J

99.3



2

20

40

7

530

36

93

Pvrene

10

240

75

10

445

4.2

99



10

240

75

7

445

2.1

>99



5

60

SO

7

407

ND

>99



2

60

40

7

407

2.0

>99



2

20

40

1

407

15 .

96

Beazo92



10

240

75

7

12

m

>92



s

60

so

7

16

ND

>94



2

60

40

7

16

ND

>94



2

20

40

' 7

16

ND

>94

Qirvsene

10

240

75

10

10

ND

>90



10

240

75

7

10

ND

>90



s

60

so

f

16

ND

>94



2

60

40

7

16

ND

>94



2

20

• 40

7

16,

ND

>94

Total PAH*

10

240

75

10

6,718

65.4 •

99



10

240

75

7

6,718

38J

99.4



$

60

50

7

6.87J

52.6

99.2



2

60

40

j

6,872

254

99.6



2

20

40

7

6,872

256.1

96

Note: ND = Not Detected


-------




TABLE 6-1











TREATMENT OF PAHs BY UV/OZONATION









Ozone

Reaction

Temperature

(•p)



Concentration
(ng/L)



Compound

Dosage
(mg/L)

Time
(msn)

PH

Initial j

Rati

Percent
Removal

Naphthalene

8.6

60

75

10

109

6.1

94



10

60

75

7

109

4.9

96



6

60

50

7

47

4.3

91 !



1.2

60

40

7

47

7,4

84



.1.1

20

40

7

47

7.8

S3

Acenaptuhylene

8.6

60

75

to

1JQQ

ND

>99



10

60

75

7

1,200

ND

>99



6

60

SO

7

1,200

1.0

99.9



1.2

60

40

7

1,200

ND

>99



1.1

20

40

7

1,200

ND

>99

Acenaphtbene

8,6

60

75

10

1,950

ND

>99



10

60

75

7

1,950

ND

>99



6

60

50

7

2,033

X2

99,9



1.2

60

40

7

2,033

1.7

99.9



1.1

20

40

7

2,033

2.2

99.9

Fluoieae

8.6

60

75

10

2,000

m

>99



10

60

75

7

2,000

ND

>99



6

60

50

7 '

2.267

6.8

99.7



1.2

60

40

7

2M7

3.2

99.9



1.1

20

40

. 7

2261

34

98J

Anthracene

8.6

60

75

10

1&5

ND

>99



10

60

75

7

165

ND

>99



- 6

60

50

7

167

ND

>99



1.2

60

40

7

167

ND

>99



1.1

20

40

7

167

ND

>99

Phenantiirene

8.6

60

75

10

67

1.0

98J



10

60

75

7

67

ND

>98 J



6

60

50

7

81

ND

>98.8



1.2

60

40

7

11

1.0

98J



1.1

20

40

7

81

1.4

98.3


-------




TABLE 6-7 (continued)







-



TREATMENT OF PAH* BY OT/OZONATION









Ozone

Reaction

Temperature
(*F)



Concentration

(«l/L)



Compound

Dosage
(mg/L)

1 iRte

(min)

pH

Initial

Final

Percent

Removal

Fluoianthene

8.6

60

73

10

575

1.2

99.8



10

60

75

7

S75

ND

>99



S

60

SO

7

530

2.5

99J



1.2

60

40

7

530

2.0

99.6



1.1

20

40

7

530

53

99

Pyrtne

84 •

60

75

10

445

1,2

>995



10

60

7$

7

445

ND

>99



6

60

so

7

407

1.4

>99.5



1.2

60

40

7

407

1-$

>99



1.1

20

40

7

407

2.0

>99 S

Benzo(a)amhrtcene

8.6

60

75

10

12

ND

>92



10

60

75

7

12

ND

>92



6

60

50

7

16

ND

>94



1.2

60

40

7

16

ND

>94



1.1

20

40

7

16

ND

>94

Chrysene

' 8.6

60

75

10

10

ND

>90



10

60

75

7

10

ND

>90



6

M

50

7

16

ND

>94



1.2

m

40

7

16

ND

>94



LI

20

40

7

16

ND

>94

Total PAH*

8.6

60

75

10

6,718

15.1

99.8



10

60

75

7

6,718

10.9

WJ



6

60

50

7

6J72

20.9

99.7



1.2

60

40

7

6,872

24.1

99.6



1.1

20

40

7

6,872

60.6

99.1

Note; ND = Not Detected


-------
REVERSE OSMOSIS

Reverse osmosis (RO) is a technology for which limited experimental data exist for
the removal of the Phase V SOCs from drinking water. Additional evaluations of this
technology will be required to determine whether or not this technology is applicable for
removing any of the 18 SOCs from drinking water.

Process Description

Reverse osmosis has been used primarily for removing total dissolved solids from
water in treatment of brackish waters and for desalinatien of sea waters. At reduced
pressures, RO is adaptable to fresh water sources. The reverse osmosis process uses a
specially prepared membrane which permits the flow of water through the membrane while
selectively rejecting the passage of salts dissolved in the feed water. This semipermeable
membrane acts as a barrier to the salt but not to water. A high hydraulic pressure on the
feed water side produces a pressure gradient which enhances the water low through the
membrane. This pressure gradient must be greater than the osmotic pressure of the feed
water. Only a portion of the feed water passes through the membrane. The remainder
washes the rejected salts from the membrane surfaces and is discharged as a concentrated
stream.

While RO primarily has been used to desalinate water, it has been proven capable
of removing certain SOCs from drinking water, generally those whose molecular weights are
greater than 120. It should be noted, however, that this removal may not be due to
rejection, but to SOC adsorption onto the membrane. Continued adsorption leads to
membrane poisoning, and consequently, membrane replacement, because SOC desorption
is generally difficult and usually entails destruction of the membrane. In addition,
membrane leakage due to sporadic desorption and/or permeation has been shown to occur.

The performance of an RO system for SOC removal depends upon a number of
factors including pH, turbidity, iron/manganese content of the raw water, and membrane
type. Pretreatment is sometimes required to prevent fouling of the membrane system.
Design of a pretreatment system is dependent upon the quality and quantity of the feed
water source. Pretreatment for reverse osmosis may include one or more of the following:
pH adjustment, filtration or additives for scale prevention. Existing treatment plants may
already provide much of the pretreatment required, for example, coagulation/filtration for

6-34


-------
highly turbid surface waters or iron removal for well waters. Reverse osmosis is adaptable
to all size systems, especially small systems.

Because reverse osmosis systems generally produce high quality water, blending of
treated water and raw water to produce a mixed finished water of acceptable quality may
be a factor in selecting a reverse osmosis system. The blending process, while site specific,
is more economical than treating all of the raw water. That fraction of the raw water to be
treated, if blending is practiced, will depend upon the SOC removal efficiency of the selected
reverse osmosis membrane and the SOC concentration in the raw water.

A typical process schematic for a reverse osmosis treatment plant is presented on
Figure 6-4. The major components of this system include;

¦	Provision for prefiltration including polymer feed system, provisions for
backwashing and backwash water storage

¦	Storage and feed facilities for pH and scale control

¦	Reverse osmosis unit

¦	Provisions for brine or wastewater storage and disposal or treatment

•	Disinfection

¦	Finished water storage

Treatability Studies

Reverse osmosis studies pertaining to the removal of SOCs have primarily centered
around Water Factory 21, a water reclamation plant in Orange County, California. Both
pilot and full scale studies have been performed at this facility utilizing a variety of
operating pressures and RO membranes.

Pilot Scale - Argo (1984) reported the results of a pilot study at Water Factory 21
in Orange County, California, in which RO was used to further treat secondary wastewater
effluent. The SOCs of concern which were studied included naphthalene and the
trichlorobenzenes (TCBs). Lime clarification, pH adjustment, and ultrafiltration preceded
RO. The RO system consisted of three tubes which were 10.2 cm in diameter and 3.05 m
in length. Hie poiyamide membrane had a total surface area of 39 m1. The study was
conducted at a temperature of 25 C, a pH of 5.6 to 5,8, and an operating pressure of
250 psi. The following results were reported:

6-35


-------
V

SU1 FURIC

FIGURE 6-4 REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC


-------
Compound

Concentration (ug/L)

Percent
Removal

Percent
Recover?

Feed

Permeate

Brine

Naphthalene

0.10

0.02

0.21

80

58

1,2,4-TCB

0.46

0.02

0.84

96

46

1.2.3-TCB

0.06

<0.01

0.12

>83

55

The results indicate that RO could effectively remove naphthalene and trichlorobenzene
concentrations in drinking water.

Regunathan et al. (1983) evaluated the performance of two point-of- use treatment
devices in removing various organics, including endrin, from ground water during field tests
in Miami, Florida. One system consisted of a full-scale combination of a RO unit, a
prefilter, and two GAC beds. The water quality of the ground water which was utilized
during the field testing is summarized below;

SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY

pH

7.4

TDS (mg/L)

625

Alkalinity (mg/L as HCO,

160

Sodium (mg/L)

120

Sulfate (mg/L)

230

Chloride (mg/L)

12

Silicate (mg/L SL02)

5

The RO unit achieved greater than 90 percent removal of the endrin, which had an initial
concentration of 2 ug/L. The results indicate that RO could effectively reduce endrin
concentrations in drinking water.

Full Scale - Reinhard et al. (1986) studied the performance of a RO system at Water

t

Factory 21 In Orange County, California. The full-scale RO system was used to further
remove various organics, including naphthalene and 1,2.4-trichlorobenzene (1,2.4-TCB), from
secondary wastewater effluent. Lime clarification, air stripping, recarbonation, filtration, and

6-36


-------
GAC preceded RO. The RO system consisted of two units with three sections. Each
section contained forty-two 6.1 m vessels. The cellulose acetate membrane had a total
surface area of 45,000 m2. The study was conducted at a pH of 5.8 and an operating
pressure of 460 psi. The following results were reported.

Compound

Concentration (ug/L)

Average
Percent
Removal

Average
Influent

Average
Effluent

Naphthalene

0.11

0.05

56

1,2,4-TCB

0.16

0.07

56

The results indicate that RO could partially reduce naphthalene and 1.2,4-TCB concentra-
tions in drinking water.

Table 6-8 summarizes the results of the reverse osmosis studies pertaining to the
SOCs of concern. The effectiveness of reverse osmosis was determined by the percent
removal and the percent recovery.

STEAM STRIPPING

Steam stripping has traditionally been used for wastewater treatment. However, this
technology appears to have some potential for reducing organic levels in potable water. The,
contaminated stream is contacted with live steam. The soluble or slightly soluble organics
volatilize and are driven into the vapor phase; Steam stripping is a form of distillation and
has similar equipment, including perforated trays, floating-valve or cap type trays, and
packed towers.

Steam stripping can be carried out in tray columns to treat a large number of organic
pollutants from wastewater to effluent concentrations ranging from 1 to 50 ug/L. Generally,
it is difficult to efficiently remove low molecular weight aliphatic-chain phthalate esters and
benzidines by steam stripping. Five SOCs, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenze-
ne, di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate, dichloromethane and 1,1,2-tricholoroethane, based on their
Henry Law Coefficient may also be stripped using steam. Table 6-9 shows the results of a

6-37


-------
TABLE 6-8



pwetttufiotcc nr DrvrrDCi? ncMncrc

mLe Jk tL*_«X X V1LINJStji3 UJ? *C1j VHiX&cftJb!*

Compound

Full

Pilot

Di-(2-ethylhexyl)adipate

NA®

NA

Dalapon

' NA

NA

Dichloromethane

NA

NA

Dinoseb

NA

NA

Diquat

NA

NA

Endothall

NA

NA

Endrin

NA

NA

Glyphosate

NA

NA

Hexachlorobenzene

NA

NA

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

NA

NA

Oxamyl

NA

NA

Benzo(a)pyrene

NA

NA

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate

NA

NA

Pieloram

NA

NA

Simazine

NA

NA

2,3,7,8-TCCD (Dioxin)

NA

NA

1,2,4-T richlorobenzene

partially

yes

1»1,2-T richloroethane

NA

NA

<1) Not available


-------
computer model that was used by Hwang and Fahrenthold (1979) to design steam strippers.

TABLE 6-9
STEAM STRIPPING COMPUTER MODEL

Parameter

Concentration

No. of Actu-
al

Trays
Required

Steam
Required
(kg/kg feed)

Percent
Removal

Influent

(mg/L)

Effluent

(ug/L)

1,2,4-TCB

550

50

6

,008

= 100

1,1,2-TCEA

4500

50

8

.02

= 100

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

50

50

6

-

0

DIFFUSED AERATION

Diffused aeration represents another way of applying aeration technology, which was
found to be applicable for SOC removal. For larger systems, diffused aeration represents a less
efficient way of implementing the principles of aeration, as compared to packed column aeration.
However, diffused aeration may achieve removal of certain SOCs and may have limited
applicability in locations which have certain constraints (e.g. hydraulic, space).

Process Description

Diffused aeration is often used to provide dissolved oxygen, particularly in wastewater
treatment. A typical diffused aeration system is shown on Figure 6-5. Air stripping is
accomplished in the diffused-air type equipment by injecting bubbles of air (usually compressed
air) into the water by means of submerged diffusers or porous plates. Ideally, diffused aeration
is conducted counterflow with untreated water entering the top of the contactor, treated water
existing the bottom, fresh air entering the bottom and exhausted air leaving the top. Gas transfer
may be improved by increasing basin depth, producing smaller bubbles, improving contact basin
geometry and by using a turbine to reduce bubbles size and increase bubble holdup.

This type of aeration technique may be adapted to existing storage tanks and basins. The
air diffusers may be placed on the side of the tank to further induce turbulence and assist in gas
transfer. If porous tubes or perforated pipes are used, they may be suspended

6-38


-------
¦VEIL

'"-v R«W WATER	—- 8AFFt.ES

AIR SUPPLY EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 6-5 DIFFUSED AERATION SCHEMATIC


-------
at about one half depth.of the tank to reduce compression heads. When porous diffusers
are used, incoming air should be filtered carefully through an electrostatic unit or a filter
in order to minimize clogging. Porous plates are located at the bottom of the tank. Static
tube aerators have also been used in a variety of applications and have provided adequate
aeration when properly designed.

The design of air stripping equipment has been developed extensively in the chemical
processing industry for handling concentrated organic solutions. The procedures found in
the chemical engineering literature can be applied to water treatment for SOC removals.
The rate of which an SOC is removed from water by diffused aeration depends upon several
factors:

1.	Physical and chemical characteristics of contaminant

2.	Temperature of the water and the air

3.	Air-to-water ratio

4.	Contact time

5.	Available area for mass transfer

The first factor is fixed by the influent water stream and the contaminant; the last
four are dependent upon the equipment and operating conditions and can be evaluated in
a pilot testing program.

These design considerations are similar to those outlined in Section 5, Other
Applicable Technologies, in which packed column aeration was discussed. The major
difference is the substitution of contact time for the packing height parameter.

Treatability studies

At present no treatability data exists for diffused aeration for the SOCs of concern.

6-39


-------
7. COSTS

The purpose of this section of the document is to develop costs for GAC and packed column
aeration treatment facilities for removing the Phase V SOCs from drinking water. In addition, costs for
air emissions control using vapor phase GAC were also developed. As described in Section 3, these are
the two technologies that have been identified as being applicable treatment methods for SOC removal.
The basis for costs and design assumptions are explained below.

BASIS FOR COSTS

Capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and total costs (in cents per 1,000 gallons) were
developed for GAC and packed column facilities for water supply systems of several sizes. The design
and production capacities of these systems which serve different ranges of population are presented in
Table 7-1. Costs for GAC facilities were developed using the Adams and Clark (1989) cost model.
Packed column aeration costs were developed by the Technical Support Division of the Office of Drinking
Water, USEPA, using an in-house computer model (Cummins and Westrick, 1987). The basis of this
model has been presented by Cummins and Westrick (1986).

TABLE 7-1

PLANT DESIGN CAPACITIES AND AVERAGE FLOWS

Population
Category

Population

Average Flow
(MOD)

Design Capacity
(MGD)

25-100

57

0.0056

0.024

101-500

225

0.024

0.087

501-1,000

750

0.086

0.27

1,001-3,300

1,910

0.23

0.65

3,301-10,000

5,500

0.70

1.8

10,001-25,000

15,500

2.1

4.8

25,001-50,000

35,000

5.0

11.0

50,001-75,000

60,000

8.8

18.0

75,001-100,000

88,100

13.0

26.0

100,001-500,000

175,000

27.0

51.0

500,001-1,000,000

730,000

120.0

21.0

Greater than 1,000,000

1,550,000

270.0

430.0

7-1


-------
All costs presented in this document are in late 1987 dollars. The construction costs were
updated using the construction cost index as shown in Table 7-2. The cost of maintenance
materials, which are a component in the O&M costs, were updated using the Producers Price Index
for Finished Goods, also shown in Table 7-2. The unit costs of power, labor and natural gas are
shown in Table 7-3. Table 7-3 also presents the percentages of the costs allowed for site work,
contractors overhead and profit, contingencies, and engineering and technical fees. For the purpose
of estimating total costs(cents per 1,000 gallons), the capital costs were amortized over a 20 year
period at an interest rate of 10 percent. Costs for acquiring new land for construction sites or
easements for a raw water transmission line are not included since these costs are site specific.
However, these costs, when included, could be significant.



TABLE 7-2



COST INDICES FOR LATE 1987



Description

Index Reference

Numerical Value

Producers Price Index

Department of Labor

267.7

Construction Cost Index

Engineering New Records

412.4



TABLE 7-3

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS USED IN DEVELOPING TREATMENT COSTS

Electric Power

$ 0.086/Kwh

Labor - Small System Sizes (< 1 MGD)
Large System Sizes (> 1 MGD)

$ 5.90/hr
S 14.30/hr

Diesel Fuel

S 0,80/ga!

Natural Gas

$ 0,0027/scf

Sitework

15% of construction costs

Contractor's Overhead & Profit

12% of construction costs
(including sitework)

Contingencies

15% of construction costs

(including sitework & contractor's O&P)

Interest Rate

10%

Number of Years

20

7-2


-------
The design assumptions which were used for the purpose of cost estimation and the resulting
treatment costs for GAC adsorption and packed column aeration are presented below. For both
technologies, design and system costs should be viewed as preliminary and should be used only for
planning purposes by a community with an SOC contamination problem. More complete and detailed
design and cost estimates should be developed based upon pilot-plant testing and site-specific
considerations.

GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON

Although variations in the design of GAC systems result in a range of cost estimates, the major
components of any GAC treatment system are:
a. Capital Costs:

¦	Carbon Contactors

¦	Carbon Charge

¦	Backwash pump

¦	Carbon Storage

¦	Carbon Transport Facilities

¦	Regeneration Facility, if applicable

In	addition, there may be other site-specific capital costs components, which are not included in
the cost estimates, such as:

¦	Special site work

¦	Raw water holding tank (for ground water systems)

¦	New/restaged well pump (for ground water systems)

¦	Chemical facility

¦	Clearwell

¦	Finished water pump(s)

¦	Backwash storage

b- Operating and Maintenance fO&M) Costs:

¦	Carbon Make-up

¦	Labor

¦	Fuel

¦	Steam

¦	Power

¦	Maintenance

¦	Maintenance Materials

Capital and O&M costs for the contactor, initial carbon charge and backwash pumps were

7-3


-------








TAM,E 7-4















gac system ukshjn parameters







iHtitn flov t .000,000
430
270

Concrete Gravjiy

10

155

5®

H.010

i m

11,630,000

21,600

8

\.	Included with ihe p&dcag« pressure eem
-------
estimated using the Adams and Clark cost model. These costs are based on facility size and are
independent of the SOC being considered. The overall approach to developing GAC facility costs
is explained in the flow-chart illustrated in Appendix D.

The desip parameters used to estimate the costs for contactor, carbon charge and backwash
pumps are shown in Table 7-4. The following assumptions were used for design purposes:

¦	The contactors are sized to provide an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 10 minutes
at the design flow, but would have an operating EBCT of greater than 15 minutes
based on the average flow.

¦	Systems with a design flow of less than 1 MGD used package pressure contactors. The
construction costs include cylindrical steel contactors mounted on steel skid, piping,
valves, instrumentation and control panel, supply and backwash pumps, the initial GAC
for the contactors, and a building to house the system.

¦	Systems with a design flows of 1 MGD - 11 MGD used pressure contactors.

¦	Systems with a design flow larger than 11 MGD used concrete gravity contactors. '

¦	The conventional steel and concrete contactors include structures, liquid and carbon
handling piping, butterfly valves, instrumentation, control panel, cast-in-place concrete
slab, and a building to house the system.

¦	GAC storage is provided for 1.5 times volume of a contactor.

¦	Backwash pumps, except for the package pressure contactors, assumed a maximum
design rate of 18 gpm/sq ft and a pumping dynamic head of 50 ft.

¦	O&M costs for contactors included building, process and pump energy, labor, materials
and maintenance. These costs included carbon replacement or regeneration and
make-up. These costs were adjusted using a utilization factor which was ratio of
average to design flow rates.

¦	Maintenance material costs were estimated for general supplies, pumps,
instrumentation repair, valve replacement or repair, and other miscellaneous work
items.

¦	Costs for land, raw water pumping, chlorination, bulk potable water storage, finished
water pumping and waste disposal were not included.

The following assumptions were used for estimating the carbon replacement/regeneration

costs:

¦	Carbon usage rates were developed using model predictions for the specific SOC in
distilled water. These carbon usage rates were then adjusted by the following
multiplier function:

7-4


-------
Y = 0.7269 X-°sm

where: Y = multiplier

X = Distilled carbon usage rate (lbs/1000 gal)

The multiplier function was used in such a manner that the adjusted carbon usage rate was
equal to the multiplier times the distilled water carbon usage rate. The adjusted carbon
usage rate are presented in Table 4-2 and discussed on Page 4-9.

¦	If the carbon usage is less than 1,000 lb/day (this is a conservative assumption that does
not take into account efficient carbon usage attainable with multiple contactors in series or
parallel), spent carbon was replaced on SOC breakthrough meeting the MCL. The labor
requirements for on-site carbon handling are assumed to be 0.4 hr/1,000 lb of carbon.

¦	If GAC usage is greater than 1,000 lb/day, spent GAC was regenerated on-site using
multiple-hearth furnaces upon meeting the MCL at breakthrough. GAC transport and
attrition losses were assumed to be 12 percent. The operation time for the furnace was
assumed to be 120 hr/wk. Therefore, 30 percent downtime including maintenance of
furnace was assumed.

¦	Regeneration furnace costs included the basic furnace, the center shaft drive, furnace and
cooling fans, spent GAC storage and dewatering equipment, the auxiliary fuel system, the
exhaust scrubbing system, the quench tank, the steam boiler, the control panel,
instrumentation, and a building to house the system.

¦	Water requirements for the carbon transport and regeneration is assumed to be 29 gal/lb
of GAC.

¦	Cost of GAC is $l/lb.

Figures 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate the GAC process costs (cents/1,000 gal) as function of GAC usage
rates for the 12 flow categories. As indicated on these figures, there is little variation in the total
production costs when the carbon usage rate is below 0.1 lbs/1,000 gallons. There are also distinct
ranges above 0.1 lbs/gallons where the total production cost does not vary significantly.

Based on the cost analysis discussed above, it is possible to provide costs for SOCs grouped
according to their usage rates. GAC facility costs for usage rates from less than 0.1 lb/1,000 gallons up
to 2.0 lb/1,000 gallons are presented in Table 7-5. The cost for the individual SOCs based on the carbon
usage rates from Table 4-2 are included in Appendix E.

7-5


-------
1,200

1,000

CO
O)

O 800

o
o

OJ

c

g 600
m

4_<

w
o
O

to
+-•

o

400 -

200

001

GAC Usage Rate (lb/1000 gal)

FIGURE 7-1: TOTAL COSTS vs. USAGE RATE
FLOW CATEGORIES Nos. 1-5

FLOW 1
FLOW 2
FLOW 3
FLOW 4
FLOWS


-------
GAC Usage Rate (lb/1000 gal)

FLOW 6
FLOW 7
FLOWS
FLOW 9
FLOW 10
FLOW 11
FLOW 12

FIGURE 7-2: TOTAL COSTS vs. USAGE RATE
FLOW CATEGORY Nos. 6-12


-------
TABLE 7

GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON COSTS

imputation Range





















Design Flow (MGD)









CARBON USAGE RATES (lb/1000 GAL)





AvKtag^ lastly Flow (MGD)















1.3 •• L5

1.5 - LB



25-100

Total Capital Cost (K$)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

0,0056

Total Production Cost

910

930

950

980

1000

1020

1050

1070

1100



' (cents/1000 gal)



















101-500

Total Capital Cost (K$)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

22

0.024

Total Production Cost

310

330

350

380

400

420

450

470

500



(cents/1000 gal)



















501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

3 00

0.2?

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

i

13

21

29

35

43

51

59

66

0.086

Total Production Cost

140

150

180

200

220

250

270

300

320



(cents/1000 gal)



















1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (K$)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

14

27

48

69

85

107

128

149

170

0,23

Total Production Cost

80

100

120

150

170

190

220

240

270



(cents/1000 gal)



















3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

2900

3000

1.8

O&M Cost (KS/Year)

30

70

130

200

250

310

380

270

290

0.70

Total Production Cost

49

64

89

110

130

160

180

240

250



(cents/1000 gal)



















10,001 25,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

1700

1700

1700

4000

4200

4500

4700

4900

5100

4.8

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

70

190

380

320

370

430

480

540

590

2.1

Total Production Cost

36

51

76

103

113

124

135

145,

155



(cents/1000 gal)







		












-------
TABLE

GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON COSTS

mmsp



- . ... 		 -



CARBONU

SAGE RAT

3S (lb/1000 i

... ¦... ¦—.¦¦¦ ¦ 	r—	...

jAL)

<0.1

0.1-0. J

0.3-0.6

: 0.J

0.8 1.0

1.0 - 1.3

U- 14

1.5 - 1.8

1,8-2.0

25,001-50,000
11,0
5.0

Total Capital Cost (K$)
O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
' (cents/1000 gal)

3300
130

29

3300
400

44

6000

340
58

6600
450
67

6900
540
74

7300
640

82

7600
740
90

7900
840

97

8200
940
104

50,001-75,000
18.0
8.8

Total Capital Cost (K$)
O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1000 gal)

5100
200
25

7500
300
37

8500
500
47

9200
700
55

9600
800
61

10000
1000
68

11000
1200
75

11000
1300
82

1 1000
1500
88

75,001-100,000
26.0
13.0

Total Capital Cost (K$)
O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1000 gal)

6500
300
23

9400
400
32

10000
700
41

11000
1000
48

12000
1200
54

12000
1400
60

13000
1600
67

13000
1900
73

14000

2100
79

100,001-500,000
51,0
27.0

Total Capital Cost (K$)
O&M Cost (KVYear)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1000 gal)

13000
400
19

14000
700
25

16000
1300

32

17000
1800
38

18000
2200
43

19000
2600
49

19000
3100

55

20000
3600
60

21000
4000

65

500,001-1,00),000
210.0
120.0

Total Capital Cost (K$)
O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1000 gal)

36000
1200
12

39000
2600
16

42000
4700
22

44000
6700
27

46000
8300
31

47000
10000

36

48000
12000
41

49000
14000
45

50000
16000
50

>1,000,000
430.0
270.0

Total Capital Cost (K$)
O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1000 gal)

63000
2600
10

67000
5400
14

71000
9900
19

74000
14000
23

76000
18000
27

79000
22000
31

81000
26000
36

82000
30000
40

84000
34000
44


-------
PACKED COLUMN AERATION

The major components of a packed column aeration facility are:

¦	Column structure

¦	Internals

¦	Packing

¦	Blower(s)

¦	ClearweE

¦	Booster pump(s)

¦	Piping

In addition, there may be other site-specific capital cost components, which are not included
in the estimation of costs, such as:

¦	Special sitework

¦	Raw water holding tank

¦	New/restaged well pump

¦	Blower building

¦	Booster pump building

¦	Chemical facility

¦	Noise control installation

The key design criteria used to size the packed column facilities are presented in Table 7-6.

TABLE 7-6

PACKED COLUMN DESIGN PARAMETERS

Ground water temperature

12 C

Column shell construction

304 stainless steel

Packing Material

1 inch plastic saddles

Clear Well

Concrete

Maximum column diameter

16 ft

Maximum liquid loading

30 gpm/ft2

Minimum Air Gradient

SON m'W

Safety factor for K,a

1.1

The following assumptions were utilized for the purpose of developing preliminary packed column cost esti-
mates:

¦ Henry's Law Coefficients for 5 SOCs are presented in these SOCs Table 7-7, The Henry's
Coefficients for these SOCs have not been proven in pilot studies.

7-6


-------
TABLE 7-7

HENRY'S LAW COEFFICIENTS USED TO ESTIMATE EQUIPMENT SIZE AND COSTS FOR PACKED COLUMN

AERATION

Compound

Henry's Coefficient
(atm)

Source"1

Diehloromethane

54

50% (vapor pressure/solubility)

Hhexaehlorocyelopenladiene

997

50® (vapor pressure/solubility)

Di(ethylhexyl)adipate

352

50% (vapor pressure/solubility)

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

349

50% (vapor pressure/solubility)

1,1,2-Trichloroe thane

21

50% (vapor pressure/solubility)

Notes: 1. Henry's constant estimated from vapor pressure and solubility data used a factor of 50
percent to account for temperature adjustment from 20°C to 12°C (Cummins and
Westrick, 1987).

¦	Tower design is based on a maximum liquid loading rate of 30 gpm/sf, and a minimum air
pressure drop gradient of 50 Nm': m"1.

¦	The maximum packed tower diameter is 16 feet. Multiple units were used in instances
where a diameter greater than 16 feet was required.

¦	A dumped packing material is used.

¦	Column shell is constructed of 1/4 inch 304 stainless steel walls with 1/2 inch thick by
3-inch wide flanges.

¦	Column internals include one support plate, one liquid distributor and redistribution rings
and are placed every two meters of packing height, all of which are constructed of 304
stainless steel.

¦	Also included are the blower, a concrete clear well on which the column was mounted,
pumping (200 feet TDH) to the distribution system, piping and valves, instrumentation and
electrical work.

¦	Operating costs for pumping is based on the headloss due to the packed tower. Power
usage is adjusted by a motor size-up factor of 25 percent, motor efficiency of 80 percent
and a pump efficiency of 80 percent.

¦	Operating costs included for the blower are based on 70 percent motor efficiency, 50
percent fan efficiency and 25 percent motor size-up.

7-7


-------
¦	Labor operating costs are estimated on a fixed rate of $0,003 per 1,000 gallons.
Annual maintenance iabor and material costs are estimated to be 10 percent of the
pump and blower capital costs and 4 percent of the nonmechanical equipment.
Administrative costs are estimated to be 20 percent of the operating labor plus 25
percent of the maintenance cost.

• No costs are included for housing or treated water storage, other than the clearwell
under the packed column.

The capital, operation and maintenance, and total costs for varied influent/effluent com-
binations for each volatile of the five Phase V SOC are presented in Tables 7-8 to 7-12,

The parameters used in developing Tables 7-8 to 7-12 are presented in Appendix F. The
costs in Appendix F were broken down as follows:

¦	Capital costs are divided into process equipment cost, support equipment cost, direct
cost, and indirect cost. The operating costs are divided into power, maintenance,
labor, and administrative.

¦	The process equipment includes the column shell, column internals (i.e. liquid
distributor, liquid redistributor, and packing material support plate), packing material,
one blower, and one pump.

¦	The support equipment includes assembly and installation of the above process
equipment, a concrete air well which is a foundation for the packed column and a
liquid reservoir, 200 feet of piping, instrumentation, air duct, and electrical
connections.

¦	The total direct cost includes all equipment installed at the site and is the sum of the

process and support equipment.

¦	The indirect cost includes all non-physical items required for the air stripping system.
This includes sitework, design engineering, contractor overhead and profit, legal and
financial, interest during construction, and contingencies.

¦	The total capital cost is the sum of the direct and indirect costs.

The operating cost is the sum of power, maintenance, labor, and administrative costs. The
costs associated with each of these components were estimated and described as follows:

m The total production cost is the total annual cost divided by the volume of water
treated per year.

¦	The blower costs are based on the projected volume of water treated per year.

> The maintenance costs are based on 10 percent and 4 percent of the mechanical and
non-mechanical process equipment capital cost, respectively.

7-8


-------
Table 7-8 Estimated Cost for Removing Dichloronethane Using PTA

September 1989

System Size Category	MCL = 5.0 (ug/L)

Population Range

Design Flow (MGD)	Influent (ug/L)

Average Daily Flow

(MGD)	250.	50.	17.



Percent Removed

98.

90.

70.

=»s:ssas3a£SSESS3ssia!!sss==ss5Ssa:=:

«=s=s»w»**==»==»ss»m*=«S!Sk=:;ss®;=es:







25-100 '

rotal Capital Cost (K$)

31.

24.

19.

0.024

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.0056

Total- Production Cost

210.

160.

120.



(cents/1,000 gal)







101-500

Total Capital Cost (K$)

55.

43 .

34.

0.087

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

1.7

1.3

1.0

0.024

Total Production Cost

94.

72.

57..



(cents/1,000 gal)







501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

98.

72.

54.

0.27

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

4.0

2.9

2.1

0.086

Total Production Cost

49.

36.

27.



(cents/1,000 gal)







1,001-3,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

170.

120.

86.

0.65

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

8.5

6.2

4.5

0.23

Total Production Cost

34.

24.

'17.



(cents/1,000 gal)







3,001-10,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

340.

240.

160.

1.8

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

22.

16.

12.

0.70

Total Production Cost

24.

17.

12.



(cents/1,000 gal)







10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

730.

500.

340.

4.8

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

60.

43,

32.

2.1

Total Production Cost

19.

13 .

9.3



(cents/1,000 gal)







25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

1600.

1000.

630.

11.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

140.

100.

74.

5.0

Total Production Cost

18.

12.

8.4



(cents/1,000 gal)







50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

2500,

1700.

1100.

18.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

240.

170.

130.

8.8

Total Production Cost

17.

12.

7.8



(cents/1,000 gal)







75,001-100,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

3600.

2400.

1500.

26.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

350.

250.

180.

13.

Total Production Cost

16.

11. •

7.6



(cents/1,000 gal)







100,001-500,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

6900.

4500.

2800.

51.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

700.

520.

380.

27.

Total Production Cost

15.

11.

7.2



(cents/1,000 gal)







500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

27000.

17000.

11000.

210.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

3100.

2300.

1700.

120.

Total Production Cost

14.

9.9

6.8



(cents/1,000 gal)







>1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

54000.

35000.

21000.

430.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

6800.

5200.

3900.

270.

Total Production Cost

13.

9.4

6.5

(cents/1,000 gal)


-------
Table 7-9 Estimated Cost for Removing 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzer.e Using PTA

September 1989

System Size Category
Population Range

Design Flow (MGD)
Average Daily Flow
(MGD)

MCL =9.0 (ug/L)

Influent (ug/L)
450.	90.	30.

Percent Removed	98.	90.	70.

25-100
0.024
0.0056

101-500
0.087
0.024

501-1,000
0.27
0.086

1,001-3,000
0.65
0.23

3,001-10,000

I.8
0.70

10,001-25,000
4.8
2.1

25,001-50,000

II.
5.0

50,001-75,000

18.

8.8

75,001-100,000

26.
13.

100,001-500,000
51.

27.

500,001-1,000,000

210.
120.

>1,000,000
430.
270.

Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

Total Production Cost
(cents /.1 ,000 gal)

Total Capita 1 Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (KS/Year)

Total Production Cost
(cents/l,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$)

o&M Cost (K$/Year)

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$)

o&M Cost (K$/Year)

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$)

o&M cost (K$/Year)

Total Production Cost	10.	8.0	6.4

(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$) 1500.	1100.	830.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)	140.	110.	95.

Total Production Cost	9.8	7 . 5	6.0

(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$) 2100.	1500.	1200.

O&M Cost (KS/Year)	210.	170.	140.

Total Production Cost	9.5	7.3	5 . 8

(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$) 3900.	2800.	2100.

O&M Cost (KS/Year)	420.	340.	290.

Total Production Cost	9.0	6.8	5.5

(cents/1,000 gal)

Total capital Cost (K$) 15000. 10000.	7700.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)	1900.	1600.	1300.

Total Production Cost	8.3	6.4	'5.1

(cents/1,000 gal)

Total Capital Cost (K$) 29000. 21000. 15000.

O&M Cost (K$/Year)	4400.	3600.	3100.

Total Production Cost	7.9	6.1	4.9

(cents/1,000 gal)

———





24.

20.

17.

0.4

0.3

0.3

160.

130.

110.

45.

36.

30.

1.1

0.9

0.7

73 .

58.

49.

15

59.

48.

2.5

1.9

1.6

36.

28.

23.

120.

93.

74.

5.2

4.0

. 3.3

23.

18.

14.

230.

170.

130.

13.

10.

8.6

16,

12.

9.5

470.

350.

270.

36.

29.

24.

12.

9.1

7,2

940.

690.

530.

82.

66.

55.


-------
Table 7-10 Estimated Cost for Removing Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Using PTA

September 1989

System Size Category
Population Range

Design Flow (MGD)
Average Daily Flow
(MGD)

MCL = 50. (ug/L)

Influent (ug/L)
500.	170.

25-100
0.024
0.0056

101-500
0. 087
0.024

501-1,000
0,27
0.086

1,001-3.000
0.65
0.23

3,001-10,000

I.8
0.70

10,001-25,000
4.8
2.1

25,001-50,000

II.
• 5.0

50,001-75,000
18.
8.8

75,001-100,000

26.

13.

100,001-500,000
51.

27.

500,001-1,000,000
210.
120.

>1,000,000
430.
270.

Percent Removed

Total Capital Cost (K$)
O&M Cost (K$/¥ear)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total'Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total - Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

90.
19.

0,3

130.

110.

35.

30.

0.9

0.

57.

48.

58.

48.

1.9

1.

28.

23.

92.

73.

4.0

3.

18."

*14.

170.

130.

10.

8.

12.

9,

340.

270.

28.

24.

8.9

670.
65.
7.9

1100.
110.
7.3

1500.
160.
7.1

2800.
340.

6.7

10000.
1500.
6.3

20000.
3600.
6.0

7.2

530.
55.
6.4

820.
94.
5.9

1200.
140.

5.8

2100.
290.

5.4

7700.

1300.
5.1

15000.
3100.

4.9


-------
Table 7-11 Estimated Cost for Removing Di(ethylhexyl)adipate Using PTA

May 19 90

System Size Category
Population Range

Design Flow (HGD)
Average Daily Plow
(MGD)

MCL

= 500 (ug/L)

Influent (ug/L)

25000

5000

1667

98.

90.

70.

ii

II
II

I

II
II

ii

ii



ssis38sssss*s:

31.

25.

21.

0.7

0.5

0.4

210.

160. -

140 .

54.

42.

34.

1.4

1.1

0.8

89.

69.

55.

92.

69.

53 .

3.1

2.3

1.7

44.

¦ 33.

25.

150.

110.

82.

6.4

4.7

3.6

29.

21.

16.

290.

210.

150.

16.

12.

11.

20.

14.

11.

590.

420.

300.

43.

33.

26.

15.

11.

8.

1200.

830.

600 .

99.

75.

59.

13.

8.4

7.1

1900.

1300.

940.

170.

130.

100.

12.

8.8

6.6

2600.

1800.

1300.

250.

190.

150.

12.

8.5

6.4

5000.

3400.

2400.

510.

390.

310.

11.

8.0

6.0

19000.

13000.

8900.

2300.

1800.

1400.

10.

7.5

5.7

37000.

25000.

17000.

5200.

4100.

3300.

9.7

7 . 1

5 . 4

0.0056

101-500
0.087
0.024

501-1,000
0.27
0.086

1,001-3,000

0.65
0.23

3,001-10,000

I.8

0.70

10,001-25,000
4.8
2.1

25,001-50,000

II.
5.0

50,001-75,000
18.
8.8

75,001-100,000

26.

13.

100,001-500,000
51.

27.

500,001-1,000,000

210.
120.

>1,000,000
430.
270.

Percent Removed

25-100 Total Capital Cost (K$)
0.024 O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/l,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (KS/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (KS/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (KS/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (K$)

O&M Cost (K$/Year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)


-------
Table 7-12 Estimated Cost for Removing 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Using PTA

September 1989

System size Category-
Population Range

Design Flow (MGD)
Average Daily Flow
(MGD)

MCL =5.0 (ug/L)

Influent (ug/L)
250.	50.	17.

• 1

00
I 1,000,000
430.
270.


-------
The labor cost is based on a flat rate of 0.3 cents per 1,000 gallons of treated water
and the volume of liquid treated per year.

¦	The administrative cost is based on 20 percent and 25 percent of the labor and
maintenance cost respectively.

AIM EMISSIONS CONTROL WITH VAPOR PHASE GAC

Packed column aeration transfers volatile SOCs from water to air. There are basically two
options for controlling VOC emissions from packed tower aeration facilities. These include;

¦	Modification to tower design/operation

¦	Vapor phase treatment

In order to minimize air emissions, the following modifications can be made to the tower
design or its operation;

¦	Increase tower height

¦	Increase air flow rate

¦	Increase air exit velocity

¦	Restrict use of wells

¦	Limit tower operation

Several treatment methods for vapor phase VOCs control include:

¦	Thermal incineration

* Catalytic incineration

¦	Ozone destruction

¦	Vapor phase GAC adsorption

Vapor phase GAC adsorption appears to be the most feasible treatment method of present.
The principal components of the system include the heating element, air blower, carbon contactor
and GAC. Exit air from the packed column is first passed through a heating element to raise its
temperature. The air must be heated to approximately 25-30 C to reduce the humidity to less than
50 percent. This provides for greater adsorptive capacity by minimizing the tendency for the vapor
to condense and fill the pores of the GAC. The heated air then passes through the GAC bed, and
the organic-free air is finally vented into the atmosphere.

The following methods can be used to regenerate the GAC besides replacing it upon its
saturation:

¦	Steam regeneration

¦	Extraction with a super critical fluid such as CQ2

7-9


-------
¦	Thermal regeneration

¦	Wet oxidation

¦	Solvent extraction

In order to estimate the preliminary costs for vapor phase GAC, the following assumptions were
used:

¦	Capital costs are developed for the following air to water ratios for each system size:

¦	40:1
• 120:1

200:1

¦	Capital costs include:

¦	GAC contactor

¦	Initial GAC charge

¦	Blower

¦	Heater

¦	Ductwork

¦	Gas piping

¦	Concrete slab

GAC contactor are designed based on an air loading rate of 75 to 100 ft/min:

Air Flow

Contacotr

Bed Depth

No. or

(Cfm)

Diameter (ft)

(ft)

Contactors

5,000

10

3

1

50,000

10

.6(1)

4

500,000

12

6(1)

24

(1) Dual-bed construction

The relative humidity of the influent air is reduced from 100 to 50 percent.

Capital costs are based on quotations from vendors.

O&M costs included:

¦	GAC replacement

¦	Natural gas
* Power

¦	Materials and maintenance

In absence of the "vapor phase adsorbability data" for the Phase V SOCs, the following

7-10


-------
assumptions were used to determine the GAC capacity:

GAC replacement costs were estimated for three cases:

Vapor Phase
Adsorbability

Carbon Capacity
0>m SOC/gin GAC)

Poor

0.03

Moderate

0.05

Good

0.08

¦ The unit cost for the vapor phase GAC is $2/lb. The unit cost for the Natural gas is
$0.47/100,000 BTU.

The estimated vapor phase GAC Costs for the 5 Phase V SOCs amenable to stripping are
presented in Table 7-13. These costs should be added to the packed column aeration costs if air
emissions control is required. The vapor phase GAC costs presented in this section should be used as
a guideline only, and site specific cost estimates should be developed before deciding for vapor phase
GAC treatment facilities.

SUMMARY

The choice between GAC adsorption and packed column aeration for removing SOCs from
drinking water depends, to a large extent, on the economics of the two processes. Treatment costs for
GAC adsorption show relatively little variation between contaminants. As indicated in Chapter 5, only
5 of the 18 Phase V SOCs di-(2ethylhexyl)adipate, dichloromethane, hexachlor-ocydopantodiene, 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene and 1,1,2 - trichloroethane were identified to be amenable for treatment by packed
column aeration. Packed column facility costs for these 5 SOCs show a wider range than GAC
adsorption costs for the same compounds.

A comparison of GAC and packed column aeration facility costs is shown on Figure 7-3 for
Endrin and 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. For Endrin, which is a well adsorbed and relatively low volatile
pesticide, GAC adsorption is more economical than packed column aeration. For 1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene, which is relatively volatile and poorly adsorbed, packed column aeration is more
economical. Therefore, for the 4 Phase ¥ SOCs (all named above except diehloroethane) that are suitable
for both GAC adsorption and packed column aeration, a detailed site-specific evaluation will be required
to identify the most economical option.

7-11


-------
TABLE 7-13, Estimated Cost for Vapor Phase Control with GAC for Phase V SOCs

System Size Category

Population Range

PHASE V SOCs

Design flow (MGD)

sttamsMaasMEStzxaur



¦aaaaanan

issananiBBasi



Average Daily Flow

Hexachlorocyc-

1,2,4-Trich-

Dlchloro-

1,1,2-Trtch-

01(ethylhex-

(MGD)



lopentadiene

lorobenzene

me thane

loroethane

yl)adip»t«

mxstsxxssszssmmmm









25-100

Total Capital Cost (KS)

46

46

58

65

46

0.024

O&M Cost (US/year)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.00S6

Total Production Cost

270

270

3S0

390

270



(cents/1,000 gal)











101-500

Total Capital Cost (K$)

60

60

78

89

60

0.087

O&M Cost (KS/year)

0.4

0.6

1.2

1.4

0.4

0,024

Total Production Cost

85

SO

120

140

85



(cents/1,000 gal)











501-1.C00

Total Capital Cost (K$)

79

79

no

135

79

0.27

, OW Cost (K$/year)

1.6

2

4

5.0

1.6

0.086

Total Production Cost

35

36

54

,70

35



(cents/1,000 gil)











1,001-3,000

Total Capital Cost (Id)

100

100

160

210

100

0.65

OM Cost (Kl/year)

4

6

12

13

4

0.23

Total Production Cost

19

21

37

45

19 '



(cents/1,000 gal)











3,001-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

150

ISO

280

380

110

1,8

O&M Cost (Kl/year)

13

19

35

40

13

0.7

Total Production Cost

12

14

27

33

12



(cents/1,000 gal)











10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (KJ)

260

260

560

900

260

4.8

0&M Cost {KJ/year)

38

56

100

120

38

2.1

Total Production Cost

9

11

22

29

9



(cents/1,000 gal)











25.001-50,000

Total Capital Cost {KS3

440

440

1200

2000 ..

440

11.0

0&M Cost (Kl/year)

SO

130

250

290

90

5.0

Total Production Cost

8

10

21

23

8



(cents/1.000 gal)











50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cost (KJ)

700

700

1300

3100

700

18.0

0&M Cost (Kl/year)

150

240

440

510

160

8.8

Total Production Cost

8

10

21

27

8



(cents/1,000 gal)











75.001-100,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

970

970

2700

4200

970

26.0

0&M Cost (Wyear)

240

350 '

560

750

240

13.0

Total Production Cost

7

10

21

26

7



(cents/1,000 gal)











100,001-500.000

Total Capital Cost KS)

1800

1800

5000

7900

1800

51.0

O&M Cost (KJ/year)

500

•*¦4

o
o

1400

1600

500

27.0

Total Production Cost

7

9

20

26

7

500; 001-i.ooo,ooo
210.0
¦120.0

>1,000,000
430.0
270,0

(cents/1.000 gal}

Total Capital Cost (K$J
Q&M Cost (K$/year)

Total Production Cost
(cents/1.000 gal)

Total Capital Cast (K$)
Q&M Cost (K$/year)

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

6600
2200

13000
5000

7

8600

3200
9

13000
7200
9

18000
6100
13

34000
14000
18

28000
7000
23

¦54000
1S600
22

8600
Z200

7

13000
5000

7


-------
700

600

CO

z

o

—I
<

(5

o
o
o

CO

500

400

LLI

O 300

CO

o

o

_J

£

o

200

100

0

0,001













* \











1 \
* \

**













V
\*

\ *

\ *









¦

\ %

\

V

ENDRIN







V

N



/

2,4-TRICHLOROBI

/ /

ENZENE











	

\

0,01

NOTE:

90% REMOVAL OF1,2,4-TCB, CM90 ug/L
90% REMOVAL OF ENDRIN Ci = 20 ug/L

0,1	1	10

AVERAGE PLANT FLOW (MGD)

FIGURE 7-3: COMPARISON OF COSTS
PACKED COLUMN VS. GAC

100

1,000

PACKED COLUMN
GAC


-------
8.0 REFERENCES

Adams, J. Q., R. M. Clark, B, W. Lykins, and P. Kittredge (1986), Regional Reactivation of
Granular Activated Carbon J. A WW A. 5, 38-41.

Adams, J. Q. and Clark, R. M. (1989). Cost Estimates for GAC Treatment Systems.

J.AWWA- 1, 35-42.

Argo, D.R. (1984). Use of Lime Clarification and Reverse Osmosis in Water Reclamation.

Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 56, (12), 1238-1246.

Arnold, I.S. and Farmer, W.J. (1979). Exchangeable Cations and Picloram Sorption by Soil and
Model Adsorbents. Weed Sri- 22, (3), 257-262.

Baker, D. (1983). Herbicide Contamination in Municipal Water Supplies in Northwestern Ohio. Final
Draft Report. Prepared for Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, cited in Review of Treatability Data for Removal of Twenty-five Synthetic
Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Bansal, O.P. (1983). Adsorption of Oxamyl and Dimecron in Montmorillonite Suspensions. Soil Sci.
Soc. AM. J.. 47, 877-882, cited in Review of Treatability Data for Removal of Twentv-five
Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Becker, D. L. and Wilson, S.C. (1978). The Use of Activated Carbon for the Treatment of Pesticides
and Pesticidal Wastes, cited in Carbon Adsorption Handbook. (Chemisinoff, D.H. and
Ellerbuseh, F., eds.). Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 167-213,

Benedek, A.; Bancsi, J.J.; Malaiyandi, M. and Lancaster, E.A. (1979). The Effect of Ozone on the
Biological Degradation and Activated Carbon Adsorption of Natural and Synthetic Organics,
cited in Water, Part II: Adsorption, Ozone, Science and Engineering. 1, (4), 347-356,

Bulla, III, C.D. and Edgerley, Jr., E, (1968). Photochemical Degradation of Refractory Organic
Compounds. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 52, (6), 546-556,

Buryi, V.S., Popovich, N.A., and Sannikov, G. P. (1977). Dinamika Razlozheniia Dalaponav Vode.
Khim, Sel'sk Khoz.. 15 (8), 29-31, cited as Abstract (English) 77-2617 in Pesticides
Abstracts. USEPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Chemical Information
Division, cited in Review of Treatability Data for Removal of Twentv-five Synthetic Organic
Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Crittenden, J.C., Hand, D.W., Arora, H., Miller, J., Zimmer, G. and Sontheimer, H. (1987).
Adequacy of Mathematical Models for Designing Full-scale Adsorption Facilities which
Remove Synthetic Organic Chemicals. Proceedings of the 1987 AWWA Conference. Kansas
City, MO, June 14-17.

8-1


-------
Culp/Wesner/Culp. Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs. EPA Contract

No. 68-03-3093. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati. OH. NTIS PB85161644.

Cummins, M. D. and Westrick, J.J. (October, 1986). Packed Column Air Stripping Preliminary
Design Procedure, presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Conference.

Los Angeles, CA.

Cummins, M. D. and Westrick, J. J. (1987). Feasibility of Air Stripping for Controlling Moderately
Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals, presented at American Water Works Association
Annual Conference. Kansas City, MO.

Dobbs, R. A. and Cohen, J.M. (1980). Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic Organics.

EPA 600/8-80-023. USEPA Office of Research and Development, MERL Wastewater
Research Division. Cincinnati, OH.

Faust, S.D. and Zarins, A. (1969). Interaction of Diquat and Paraquat with Clay Minerals and

Carbon in Aqueous Solutions, cited in Review of Treatability Data for the Removal of Twenty
Five Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA,
1984.

Gomaa, H.M. and Faust, S.D. (1971). Kinetics of Chemical Oxidation of Dipy-ridylium Salts.

J. Agr. Food Chem.. 17. cited in Review of Treatability Data for the Removal of Twenty
Five Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA,
1984.

Hade, J. (1984). Personal Communication. Fremont, OH Water Treatment Plant to ESE
Gainesville, FL.

Hand, D. W., Crittenden, J.C., and Thacker, W.E. (1984). Simplified Models for Design of
Fixed-Bed Adsorption Systems. Jour. Env. Engr.. ASCE. 110. (2).

Harris, C.I. and Warren, G.F. (1964). Adsorption and Desorption of Herbicides by soil. Weed Sci..
12, 120.

Harris, M.R. and Hansel, M.J. (1984). Removal of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons from
Contaminated Ground Water. AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings. 683-712.

Harrison, R.M.; Perry, R. and Wellings, R.A. (1976). Effect of Water Chlorination Upon Levels of
Some Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water. Env. Sci. and Tech.. K), (12),

1151-1156.

Kornegay, B. H. (1979). Control of Synthetic Organic Chemicals by Activated Carbon-Theory,
Application, and Regeneration Alternatives, presented at Seminar on Control of Organic
Chemicals in Drinking Water , Westvaco Corp., Covington, Virginia, sponsored by the
USEPA, February 13 and 14.

Lee, M.C., Snoeyink, V.L. and Crittenden, J.C. (1981). Activated Carbon Adsorption of Humic
Substances. J.AWWA. 8, 440-446.

8-2


-------
Leigh, G.M. (1969). Degradation of Selected Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation. 41, (11), Part 2, R450-R460.

Lewis, W.M. (1975). Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water. Water Treat. Exam., 23,
243-277,

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (April 20, 1989). Personal Communication. Harish Arora to Dave Huber,
ODW, USEPA.

McCall, H. G.; Bovey, R.W.;, McCully, M.G.; and Merkle, M.G.; (1972). Adsorption and

Desorption of Picloram, Trifluralin and Paraquat by Ionic and Non Ionic Exchange Resins,
Weed Sci.. 20, (3), cited in Review of Treatability Data for the Removal of Twenty Five
Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Method Rids Agent Orange of TCDD Contamination. Chemical and Engineering News. 55, (11), 25.

Miltner, R. J. and Fronk, C.A. (July 1985). Treatment of Synthetic Organic Contaminants for
Phase II Regulations. Progress Report. Drinking Water Research Division, USEPA.

Miltner, R. J., Baker, D. B., Speth, T. F., Fronk, C, A. (1989). Treatment of Seasonal Pesticides in
Surface Waters. J. AWWA. 8L (1), 43-52.

Morita, M., Nakamura, H, and Mimura, S. (1974). Phthalic Acid Esters in Water. Water Res..
8, 781-788.

Narbaitz, R.M. and Benedek, A. (1986). Adsorption of Trichloroethane in Competition with
Naturally Occurring Background Organics. Annual AWWA Conference Proceedings.
1721-1741.

Randthe, S.J. and Snoeyink, V.L. (1983). Evaluation of GAC Adsorptive capacity". J.AWWA. 75,
(8), 406-413.

Rav-Acha, C., Blits, R., Choshen, E., Serri, A. and Limoni, B. (1983). The Action of Chlorine

Dioxide on Aquatic Organic Materials During the Disinfection of Drinking Water. Journal of
Environmental Science and Health. A18. (5), 651-671.

Rees. G. A. V., and Au, L. (1979). Use of XAD-2 Macroreticular Resin for the Recovery of

Ambient Trace Levels of Pesticides and Industrial Organic Pollutants from Water. Environm.
Contam. Toxicol.. 22. 561-566, cited in Review of Treatability Data for the Removal of
Twenty Five Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water,
USEPA, 1984.

Regunathan, P., Beauman, W. H. and Kreusch, E. G. (1983). Efficiency of Point of Use Treatment.
J.AWWA. 75, (1), 42-50.

Reinhard, M., Goodman, N.L., McCarty, P.L. and Argo, D.G. (1986). Removing Trace Organics
by Reverse Osmosis Using Cellulose Acetate and Polyamine Membranes. J.AWWA. 78, (4),
163-174.

8-3


-------
Robeck, G. G., Dostal, K.A., Cohen, J. M. and Kreissl, J.F. (1965). Effectiveness of Water
Treatment Processes in Pesticide Removal. J A WW A 59. (2). 181-199.

Scully, F. E. and White, W.N. Reactions of Potential Organic Water Contaminants with Aqueous

Chlorine and Monochloramine. Versar Work Assignment No. 2-41, USEPA Contract No. 68-
D0166, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH.

Sheets, CTJ. (1959). The Uptake Distribution, and Phototoxicity of 2-chloro-4-6-Bis(ethylamino)-
S-triazine, Ph.D Thesis University of California 1959, cited by Turner, M.A. and Adams,
R-S JR. The Adsorption of Atrazine and Atratene bv Anion and Cation Exchange, cited in
Review of Treatability Data for the Removal of Twenty Five Synthetic Organic Chemicals
from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Shelby, S.E. Jr, Koon, J.H., Markas D.R. and Scott, H.A. (1981). Application of Adsorbent Resins,
presented at Internal Conference on Applications of Adsorption to Wastewater Treatment.
Technology and Economics, Nashville, TN, cited in Review of Treatability Data for the
Removal of Twenty Five Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of
Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Singley, I. E., Beaudet, B.A. and Ervin, A.L. (1981). Use of Powdered Activated Carbon for

Removal of Specific Organic Compounds. AWWA Seminar Proceedings - Organic Chemical
Contaminants in Ground Water. 1-15.

Sorrell, R. K., Brass, H. J. and Reding, R. (1980). A Review of Occurrences and Treatment of

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water. AWWA Research Foundation Water Quality
Research News. 245-254.

Speth, T. F. (March 20, 1989). Personal Communication. Cincinnati, OH, ORD, RREL, USEPA to
Bob Raczko, MPI, Paramus, NJ.

Speth, T. F, (December 4, 1991). Personal Communication.

Speth, T. F. (December 1991). The Removal Glyphosate from Potable Waters.

Speth, T.F., and Miltner, R.J. (1990). Technical Note: Adsorption Capacity of GAC for Synthetic
Organics. J .AWWA. 82, (2), 72-75.

Speth, T. F., Miltner, R. J., and Reinhold, J.M. (1988). Final Internal Report on Carbon Use Rate
Data. Drinking Water Research Division, Office of Research and Development, USEPA.

Terkonda, P.K. and Thompson D. W. (1981). Treatment of Ground Water Contaminants Resulting
from the Impoundment of Hazardous Wastes. National Conference on Environmental
Engineering. Proceedings of the ASCE Environmental Engineering Division. 72-73.

Thebault, P., Cases, I. M. and Fiessinger, F. (1981). Mechanism Underlying the Removal of

Organic Mieropollutants During Flocculation by an Aluminum or Iron Salt. Water Research.
15, 183-189.

8-4


-------
Treybal, R. E. (1980). Mass Transfer Operations. McGraw Hill Book Co,, New York, New York.

USEPA/Gulp, Wesner, Culp, and Technicomp, Inc. (1986). WATERCOST - A Computer Program
for Estimating Water and Wastewater Treatment Costs, companion to Culp/Wesner/Culp.
NTIS PB85161651.

USEPA, Office of Drinking Water (May 1985). Technologies and Cost for the Removal of Volatile
Organic Chemicals from Potable Water Supplies.

USEPA, Office of Drinking Water (March 1989). Technologies and Costs for the Removal of
Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Potable Water Supplies.

Weber, J. B., Perry P. W., and Upchurch, R.P. (1965). The Influence of Temperature and Time in
the Adsorption of Paraquat, Diquat, 2,4-D, and Prometone by Clays, Charcoal, and an
Anion-Exchange Resin. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.. 29, 678, cited in Review of Treatability
Data for the Removal of Twenty Five Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water.
Office of Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Weber, J. B., Ward, T. M., and Weed, S.B. (1968). Adsorption and Desorption of Diquat,

Paraquat, Prometon, and 2,4-D by Charcoal and Exchange Resins. Proc. Soil Sci. Amer.. 32,
197, cited in Review of Treatability Data for the Removal of Twenty Five Synthetic Organic
Chemicals from Drinking Water. Office of Drinking Water, USEPA, 1984.

Westerhoff, G. P. and Miller, R. (1986). Design of the GAC Treatment Facility at Cincinnati.
J.AWWA. 78, (4), 146-155.

Whittaker, K. F. and Moore, A. T. (1983). Pilot Scale Investigations on the Removal of Volatile
Organics and Phthalates form Electronics Manufacturing Wastewater. 38th Industrial Waste
Conference Proceedings. Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana. 579-589.

Windholz, M. (1983). The Merck Index. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals and Drugs. 10th Edition,
Merck & Company, Inc., Rahway, New Jersey.

Zimmer, G., Haist, B., and Sontheimer, H. (1987). The Influence of Preadsorption of Organic

Matter on the Adsorption Behavior of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. Proceedings of the Annual
A WW A Conf.. Kansas City, Missouri. June 14-18. 815-826.

Zimmer, G., Crittenden, J. C., Sontheimer, H., and Hand, D. (1988). Design Consideration for
Fixed-Bed Adsorbers that Remove Synthetic Organic Chemicals in the Presence of Natural
Organic Matter. Proceedings of the Annual AWWA Conf.. Orlando, Florida, June 19-23.
211-219.

8-5


-------
APPENDICES FOR:

TECHNOLOGIES AND COSTS FOR THE
REMOVAL OF PHASE V SYNTHETIC ORGANIC
CHEMICALS FROM POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES

DRINKING WATER TECHNOLOGY BRANCH
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

JANUARY 1992

MALCOLM PIRN IE, INC.

One International Boulevard	2 Corporate Drive

Mahwah, New Jersey 07495-0018	P.O. Box 751

White Plains, New York 10602-0751

0313-72-1


-------
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATION OF CARBON USAGE RATES


-------
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATION OF CARBON USAGE RATE

From Chapter 4 (isotherm evaluations)

Carbon usage rate (lbs/1000 gals) * C x 8.34

KC1/a

Where:	C = SOC Influent concentration (mg/L)

K, 1/n = isotherm constants
8.34 - conversion factor from g/L to lbs/1000 gal

For example: SOC = Simazine

K = 152 (mg/g) (L/mg)l/* (From Table 4-1)

1/n « 0.23 (From Table 4-1)

Influent Concentration = 500 ug/L ¦ 0.05 mg/L

Carbon Usage Rate - fQ.051 Cmg/U x 8.34 flbs/KGl/fg/O

152 (mg/g)(L/mg)1/B x (0.05 (mg/L))"1

CUR = 0.0058 lbs/1000 gals

For adjusted-carbon usage rate:

Y	« 0.7269 )t*sm (From Chapter 4)

Y	= multiplier

X = distilled water CUR

Adjusted-CUR - Y x CUR

(0.7269 (CUR)""1®) CUR
0.7269 CUR0-4*11
0.7269 (0.0058 lbs/lOOOgai)0*811
Adjusted-CUR - 0.0615 lb/1000 gal


-------
APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF CARBON ADSORPTION
ISOTHERM STUDIES


-------
APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF CARBON ADSORPTION ISOTHERM STUDIES



K





Mol,

Water













HOC

Wt.

Type

Temp

pit

1/a

(mg/g)(L/m-
g)1*

(iim/g)(I7um}l/n

Reft rente

Di-2-ethyl hcxyladipate

371

...

...

...

0.12

990

414

Polanyi Potential Theory, Speth (1989),
Speth (1991a)

Dalapon

143

Distilled

Room

—

0.22

105

23

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Dinoseb

240

Distilled

Room

—

0.28

587

210

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Diquat

334

Tap

Room

7.2

0.09

0.019

0.007

Faust and Zarins (1969)

Diquat

334

Distilled

Room

6.6-8.5

0.24

27

12

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Endolhall

186

—

—

—

0.33

68

22

Speth (1991a)

Endrin

381

Distilled

Room

5.3

0.80

808

666

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

Glyphosate

169

Distilled

Room

— •

0.12

954

200

Speth (1991b)

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

273

Distilled

Room

5.3

0.17

1088

370

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

Hexachlorocyclojienladiene

273

Distilled

Room

3.6

0.50

2660

1398

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Oxamyl

219

Distilled

Room

7.2

0.79

561

408

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Benzo(a)pyrene

252

Distilled

Room

7.1

0.44

74

34

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phihalaie

391

Distilled

Room

5.3

1.50

7062

11300

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

Picloram

241

Distilled

Room

6.5-7.5

0.18

261

81

Speth and Miltner (1990)

Simazine

202

Distilled

Room

—

0.56

991

490

Miltner and Fronk (1985)



202

Distilled

Room

6.1

0.23

520

152

Miltner, Speth ,and Reinhold (1989)



202

Ground

Room

7.85-8.1

0.31

579

192

Miltner, Speth, and Reinhold (1989)

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)

322

—

—

—

0.10

1623

585

Polanyi Potential Theory, MPI

1,2,4 TCB

181

Distilled

Room

5.3

0.31

511

157

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

1,1,2 TCA

133

Distilled

Room

5.3

0.60

13

5.81

Dobbs and Cohen (1980)

133

Distilled

Room

—

0.60

59

26

Karbailz and Benedek (1986)



133

Distilled

Room

6.7

0.65

67

33

Miltner, Speth, and Reinhold (1989)



133

Distilled

Room

...

0.48

157

55

Speth and Miltner (1990)

NOTE:

= Not available or not reported.


-------
APPENDIX C
EXTRAPOLATION OF VAPOR PRESSURE DATA


-------
APPENDIX C
EXTRAPOLATION OF VAPOR PRESSURE DATA

The vapor pressure of compounds for which data were not available at
temperatures below 25°C was approximated by utilizing Antoine's Equation.
This method requires the use of two known vapor pressure values. Boiling
points and any other available vapor pressure data were used in making the
approximations at a temperature of 20°C. Antoine's Equation is presented
below:

log VP - A

T + 230

where VP - the vapor pressure at the desired temperature, in
mm Hg

T = the desired temperature, in °K

B = fTl -t- 230) (T2 4- 230) log V£1
T1 - T2	VP2

A = log VP1 +	B

T1 + 230

VP1, VP2 = known vapor pressure values in mm Hg
Tl, T2 = temperatures at which vapor pressure valves are
known, in K

Antoine's Equation is valid only when the reduced temperature is
between 0.85 and 0.95. Since the critical temperature, from which the
reduced temperature is calculated, was not available for most compounds,
the validity of this method is uncertain. However, it is the best means
of approximating vapor pressure valves at a temperature (20°C) which will
provide a basis for comparison of Henry's Law Coefficients. A sample
calculation is presented below for 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene:

VP = 5 mm Hg	Tl - 63.8°C - 336.8 °K

VP2 - 760 mm Hg	T2 - 208.5°C - 481.5 °K

C-l


-------
B - (336.8 + 230) (481.5 + 2301 log 5
(336.8 - 481.5)	760

= 6081

A » log (5) + 6081

336.8 + 230

= 11.43

for VP at T - 20°C - 298 °K

log VP - 11.43 - 6081
298 + 230

- -0.087
VP « 0.82 mm Hg at 20°C

C-2


-------
APPENDIX D

FLOW-CHART FOR DEVELOPING
GAC FACILITY COSTS


-------
PLANT

CAPACITY

soc



•

ItOTNIMI

CONSTAim





CAMOU vu
RATia

1

*

CAAWM
DKMAMO

CONTACTOR,
CARBON

CHASM
¦W >

(1, CARBON DEMAND" ""^c" RATE

FLOW-CHART FOR DEVELOPING GAC FACILITY COSTS


-------
APPENDIX E

GAC COSTS FOR INDIVIDUAL
PHASE V SOC'S


-------
:ac Adsorption istiaatad Costa for twaowing oi(atnythaayi)adipata

¦ ¦¦¦¦¦11J WMWllMlIHHm »—a—'*

influant (mg/Li 0.033 0.100 0.500

1.66?

itaaisfsssatiasisasstistasaiasunuttsst
5.000 25.000 3.333 10,000 50.000

'count ion Ranga
Deiign Horn (MGO)

Effluent (mg/i)

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.500

0.500

0.500

1.000

1.000

1.000





















4v«rig« Daity flaw

1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

67000

63000

67000

67000

71000

67000

71000

74000

410.0

QM Cost (KS/yaar)

2600

5400

2600

5400

5400

9900

5400

woo

•4000

270.0

Total Production Coat
(cantt/1,000 gal)

10

14

10

14

14

19

14

•o

23


-------
CAE Adsorption ¦¦

:SZS2S«S£l

Estimated Coats for it Moving Dalapon

Iiaxiaxs3x3»xxisxi=s:3:»xx3isxxsiiiis23»iaxiax333»s3s*sr:==ai:

Influant (ng/L) 0.033 0.100 0.500 0.667 2.000 10.000 0.067

0.200

ssssaass

1.000

Popular ion Rang*

Effluent (mg/L)

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.200

0.200

0.200

0.020

0.020

0.020

Design Floy (MGO)
Average Oaily Flow

• - « « »



















(MGO) Percent Removed

70

90

98

70

90

98

70

90

98





laassuu



siiitimiiiMi

25-100

Total capital Coat (KS)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

0IM Coat (KS/ytar)

4

4

5

5

5

8

6

9

20

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cent*/1,000 gal)

930

930

950

950

980

1100

1000

1160

1700

101-500

Total Capital Cast (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

OCM Cost (KS/ytar)

7

7

9

9

11

22

13

27

n

0.024

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

330

330

350

350

380

500

400

560

1100

501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

Irt
O

o

300

300

0.27

0SM Cost (KS/ytar)

13

13

21

21

29

66

35

15

260

0.086

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

150

150

180

180

200

320

220

330

930

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

3000

0.65

OIM Cost (KS/year)

27

27

48

48

69

170

85

220

260

0.23

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

100

100

120

120

150

270

170

330

730

3,301-10,000

total Capital Cost (KS)

800

800

800

800

800

3000

800

3300

4700

1 .SO

QIM Cost (ICS/year)

70

70

130

130

200

290

250

340

730

0.70

Total Production Cost
(esnts/1,000 gal)

64

64

89

89

110

250

130

280

500

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

4000

5100

4200

5500'

7900

4.8

OSM Cost (KS/year)

190

190

380

380

320

590

370

710

1700

2.1

Total Production Cost
(ctnts/1,000 gal)

51

51

76

76

103

151

113

180

350

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3300

3300

6000

6000

6600

8200

6900

3300

12000

11.0

QIM Cost (KS/ytar)

400

400

340

340

450

940

540

1200

3200

5.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

44

44

58

58

67

104

74

120

250

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

7500

7500

8S00

8500

9200

11000

9600

12000

17000

18.0

QIN Coat (KS/ytar)

300

300

500

500

700

1500

800

' 1900

5300

s.a

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 fat)

37

37

47

47

51

88

61

103

220

.75,001-100,000

Total Capital Cost (ICS)

9400

9400

10000

10000

11000

14000

12000

15000

20000

26.0

am Coat (KS/ytar)

400

400

700

700

1000

2100

1200

2700

7500

13.0

Total Production Coat
(eants/1,000 gal)

32

32

41

41

48

79

54

93

210

100,001-100,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

14000

14000

16000

16000

17000

21000

18000

22000

29000

S1.0

QUI Coat (KS/ytar)

700

700

1300

1300

1800

4000

2200

5100

15000

27.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

25

25

32

32

38

65

43

78

180

;oo,001-1,ooo,ooo

Total Capital Cost (KS)

39000

39000

42000

42000

44000

50000

46000

53000

67000

210.0

QIN Cost (KS/ytar)

2600

2600

4700

4700

6700

16000

1300

23000

60000

120.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

16

16

22

22

27

50

31

61

155

>1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

67000

67000

71000

71000

74000

84000

76000

HZZQ

'08000

430.0

QIN Cost (KS/ytar)

5400

5400

9900

9900

14000

34000

18000

-COO

130000

270.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

14

14

19

19

23

44

27

S 5

145


-------
!¦¦¦!¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ W"—*











nsnxai

nmimi

********

¦lanaxuaaisiu



Influent (ng/l)

0.17

0.50

2.50

0.01

0.02

0.05

1.67

5.00

25.00

Population Rang*

Effluant (mg/L)

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.005

0.005

0.003

0.50

0.50

0.50

Design Flow (MGD)









































Avaraga Daily Flow (MGD) Pareant Raaovad

70

90

98

70

75

90

70

90

98









**********



********

J1SXXX1U1

niuiu;

aaassxuasnssza

25-100

Total Capital Coat (ICS)

123

123

125

123

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

0M Coat (KS/yaar)

12

16

20

9

12

16

16

20

27

0.0056

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gal)

1300

1500

1700

1160

1300

1500

1500

1700

2000

101-500

Total Capital Coat (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

0M Coat (KS/yaar)

40

58

75

27

40

58

58

75

100

0.024

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gal)

710

910

1100

560

710

910

910

1100

1400

501-1,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300



300

0.27

0M Coat (KS/yaar)

133

200

260

85

133

200

200

260

350

0.006

Total Production Coat
(eanti/1,000 gal)

530

740

940

380

530

740

740

940

1250

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Coat (ICS)

480

2700

3000

480

480

2700

2700

3000

3300

0.65

0M Coat (KS/yaar)

350

220

260

220

350

220

220

260

330

0.23

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gal)

480

640

730

330

480

640

640

730

850

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3800

4300

4700

3300

3800

4300

4300

4700

5300

1.80

0M Coat (KS/yaar)

450

590

730

340

450

590

590

730

920

0.70

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gal)

350

430

500

280

350

430

430

500

600

10,001-23,000

Total Capital Coat (ICS)

6300

7200

7900

5500

6300

7200

7200

7900

3800

4.8

OM Coat (KS/yaar)

1000

1400

1700

710

1000

1400

1400

1700

2300

2.1

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gal)

230

290

350

180

230

290

290

350

430

23,001-50,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

10000

11000

12000

8800

10000

11000

11000

12000

14000

11.0

0M Cost (KS/yaar)

1700

2500

3200

1200

1700

2500

2500

3200

4200

5.0

Total Production Cost
(eanta/1,000 gal)

160

210

230

120

160

210

210

250

320

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

14000

15000

17000

12000

14000

15000

15000

17000

18000

18.0

0M Cost (KS/yaar)

2900

4000

5300

1900

2900

4000

4000

5300

7000

8.8

Total Production Cost
(eanta/1,000 gsl)

140

180

220

103

140

180

180

220

280

75,001-100,000

Total Capital Cost (K$)

17000

19000

20000

15000

17000

19000

19000

20000

22000

26.0

0M Cost (KS/yaar)

4000

5700

7500

2700

4000

5700

5700

7500

10000

13.0

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gsl)

138

167

210

93

138

167

167

210

260

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

24000

27000

29000

22000

24000

27000

27000

29000

32000

51.0

OM Cost (KS/yaar)

7800

11000

15000

5100

7800

11000

11000

15000

20000

27.0

Total Production Cost
(eanta/1,000 gal)

105

146

18S

78

103

146

146

185

240

500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

58000

63000

43000

53000

58000

63000

63000

63000

73000

210.0

0M Cost (KS/yaar)

31000

46000

60000

20000

31000

46000

46000

60000

81000

120.0

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gal)

87

121

155

61

87

121

121

155

200

>1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

94000

102000

108000

88000

94000

102000

102000

108000

116000

430.0

0M Coat (KS/yaar)

68000

99000

130000

44000

68000

99000

99000

130000

175000

270.0

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 gal)

SO

112

145

55

80

112

112

US

190


-------
GAG Adsorption -- Estimiad Costs for Raaoving Dtneaab

In#luant (ma/L) 0,00? 0.020 0.100 0.023 0.070 0,350

¦sssssssassassss



0.233 0.700 3.520

Peculation Rang*

Effluent (mg/L) 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.007 0,007

0.070 a.070 0.070

Design Now (MGD;





















Average Daily Plow

(mod) Parcant Removed

70

90

98

70

90

98

70

90

98

; a *sr 3 ssssssastaissa

uiimiinnuiuiiuiuiniui





*assaxan»

isasssssa

HHtnm

asaarssssssssasssss

*!««***



2S-100

Total Capital Cost (tt)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

0AM Cost (KS/vMf)

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

0.0056

Total Production Cost

910

910

910

910

910

930

910

930

930



Ccents/1,000 gal 5



















101-500

Total Capital Cast (ICS)

• 190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.08?

QtM Cost 

5

5

5

5

5

7

5

7

7

0.024

Total Production Cost

310

310

310

310

310

330

• 310

330

330



(cents/1,000 gal)



















501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

OM Cost (ICS/war)

8

8

8

8

3

13

8 ¦

13

13

0.086

Total Production Cost

140

140

140

140

140

150

140

150

150



4

44



(cants/1,000 fal)



















50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cast (KS)

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

7500

5100

'500

7500

18.0

am Cost 1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

67000

63000

;*:co

430.0

OM Cost (KS/yaar)

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

5400

2500

5-00

5400

270.0

Total Production Cost

10

10

10

10

10

14

*C



14


-------
SAC Adsorption •• Estimated Costs for Removing Diquat

::::::auiniiiiiiu>u»ina«ni«nuiiii»i>»tii>ii»iiiai1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

67000

67000

67000

67000

67000

71000

71000

71000

32000

430.0

OM Cost (KS/year)

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

9900

9900

9900

30000

270.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

14

14

14

14

14

19

19

19

40


-------
SAC Adsorption »- Estimated Costs for tawing Endothall

Influent (mg/L) 0.17 0,50 2.50 0.33 1.00 5.00 3.33 '0.30 50.00

Population Rang#
Design flow (MCO)

Effluent (109/15

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.10

0.10

0.10

1.00

1.00

1.20





















Avtrage Daily flew 1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

94000

102000

108000

71000

71000

79000

76000

icZCC

430.0

OtN Coat (KS/year)

68000

99000

130000

9900

9900

22000

18000

1:300

99000

270.0

Total Production Cost

80

112

145

19

19

31

27

.0

112


-------
==ssasa*************

iiunnmnniMtnaHnisai

U
11
It

H
II

M



ft
II
ft
ft

ft
ft

ft
N
II
II

«i

N
H
II
If

lassaaaai

lamttamszx

IIXSSSSS3

			



Influent (mg/L)

0.0007

0.0020

0.0100

0.007

0.020

0.100

0.033

3.100

0.500

e<3puta: i on Range

Design How (NGO)

Effluent (mg/L)

0.0002

0.0002

0.0002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.010

0.010

0.010





















Av«r»f« Daily Rom

(MGO) Percent Removed

70

90

98

70

90

98

70

90

98

::33s=s3f»33s3s3ss3aisssiii»ssaaai*ssaass»st3asa9a»»iiaax»«t«f

aatMSMSttau

maaxai

taaisiasi

laaaaaaas

SS333SSS3

:S;2==33S

¦ 11*113!

25-100

Total Capital Cost (KS>

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

OUt Coat (ICS/year)

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

101-500

Total Capital Cost (KS)

190

190

'90

190

190

190

190

190

190

a. 087

OUt Cost (KS/year)

S

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

0.024

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

310

310

310

310

310

310

110

310

310,

501-1,000

Totai Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

out Cose (KS/year}

8

. 8

8

8

8

8

8

8

a

0.086

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

OS* Cost (KS/year}

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

' 14

14

0.23 '

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

80

80

80

80

30

80

80

ao

80

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS>

800

800

800

800

SOO

800

800

800

300

1.80

OUt Cost (KS/year)

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0.70

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (M)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4.8

OSM Cost (ICS/year)

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

2.1

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

11.0

CUM Cost (KS/year)

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

5.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,MO gal)

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cast (KS)

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

18.0

OIN Coat (KS/year)

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

8.8

Total Production Cost
{cams/1,000 gal)

25

25

25

2S

25

25

25

25

25

75,001-100,000

Total capital Cost (KS)

6100

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

26.0

QUI Cast (H/year)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

13.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

11000

•3000

13000

51.0

OIM Coat (KS/year)

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

-00

400

27.0

Total' Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

'9

19

500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

210.0

OUt Cost (KS/year)

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

•200

1200

120.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

•2

12

>1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

;j:C0

63000

430.0

OUt Cast (KS/year)

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

:soo

2600

270.0

Total Production Cost

10

10

10

10

10

10

'3

•3

10


-------
GAC Adsorption -- Estimated Costs for Removing Glyphosate

Influent (mg/L) 0.23 0.70 3.50 2.333 7.000 35.000

6.667 20.000 100.000

Population Rang*
Design Flow (HGD)

Effluent (mg/L)

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.700

0.700

0.700

2.000

2.000

2.000





















Average Daily Flow (MGD) Percent Removed

70

90

98

70

90

98

70

90

98

333SX333SSSSS3 =

ssaiaas

25-100

Total Capital Cost (KS)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

OM Cost (KS/year)

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

7

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

910

930

930

930

950

980

950

950

1070

101-500

Total Capital Cost (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

OM Cost (KS/year)

5

7

7

7

9

11

9

9

19

0.024

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

310

330

330

330

350

380

350

350

470

501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

OAM Cost (KS/year)

8

13

13

13

21

29

21

21

59

0.036

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

140

150

150

150

180

200

180

ISO

300

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

OM Cost (KS/year)

14

27

27

27

48

69

48

' 48

149

0.23

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

80

100

100

100

120

150

120

120

240

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

. 300

2900

i.ao

OM Cost (KS/year)

30

70

70

70

130

200

130

130

270

0.70

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

49

64

64

64

89

110

89

89

240

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4000

1700

1700

4900

4.8

OM Cost (KS/year)

70

190

190

190

380

320

380

380

540

2.1

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

36

51

51

51

76

103

76

76

145

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3300

3300

3300

3300

. 6000

6600

6000

6000

7900

11.0 ,

OM Cost (KS/year)

130

400

400

400

340

450

340

340

340

5.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

29

u

44

44

58

67

58

58

97

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

5100

7500

7500

7500

8500

9200

3500

8500

11000

18.0

OM Cost (KS/year)

200

300

300

300

500

700

500

500

1300

8.8

Total Production Cast
(cants/1,000 gal)

25

37

37

37

47

55

47

47

82

75,001-100,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

6500

9400

9400

9400

10000

11000

10000

10000

13000

26.0

OM Coat (KS/year)

300

400

400

400

700

1000

700

700

1900

13.0

Total Production Coat
(cents/1,000 gal)

23

32

32

32

41

48

41

41

73

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

13000

14000

14000

14000

16000

17000

16000

16000

20000

51.0

OM Cost (KS/year)

400

700

700

700

1300

1800

1300

1300

3600

27.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

19

25

25

25

32

38

32

32

60

500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

36000

39000

39000

39000

42000

44000

42000

42000

49000

210.0

OM Cost (KS/year)

1200

2600

2600

2600

4700

6700

4700

<•700

14000

120.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

12

16

16

16

22

27

22

22

45

>1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

67000

67000

67000

71000

74000

71000

71000

32000

430.0

OM Cost (KS/yaar)

2600

5400

5400

5400

9900

14000

9900

9900

30000

270.0 "

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

10

14

14

14

19

23

19

' 9

40


-------
GAC Adsorption -- Estimated Coats for Reanving HexactUorobenzene

isaassaninMiMiMM'WBliHwmmMHiMiiiiiaiHiiaiiiiiiminMiMiMiimamaiiwxsMaaasasaaasiiasaaasssssgsasssa

Influent (mg/l) 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.002 0.00S 	 0.00007 C.00020 0.00100

Population Range
Design Flow (MGO)

Effluent (mg/L) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001

0.001

001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002

Average Daily Flow (MGO) Percent Removed

70

90

98

70

SO

...

70

90 98

saaaaasssaaxaaaaaaaaaaassassaaaaaasSMsmaaaaaaaaaaaaiHuiisiaaisaaaaasisaaaa

SUM3

isasns

aaassasaaaaas

SSSS3

ssszsssssaszaas

25-100 Total Capital Cost (ICS)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125 125

0.024 Ott Coat (KS/year)

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 4

0.0056 Total Production Cost

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910 910

101-500

(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Coat (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

OM Cost (KS/year)

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

0.024

Total Production Coat

310

310

310

310

310

310

310

310

310



(cents/1,000 gal)



















501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

O&M Cost (KS/year)

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

S

8

0.086

Total Production Cost

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140



(cents/1,000 gal)



















1,001-3,300

Total Capital Coat (KS)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

CAM Cost (KS/year)

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

. 14

14

0.23

Total Production Cost

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80



(cents/1,000 gal)



















3,301-10,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

800

800

800

800

800

800

300

300

800

1.80

O&M Coat (KS/year)

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0.70

Total Production Cost

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

. 49

49



(cents/1,000 gal)



















10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4.8

Ott Cost (KS/year)

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

2.1

Total Production Cost

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36



(cents/1,000 gal)



















25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

11.0

O&M Coat (KS/year)

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

5.0

Total Production Coat

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29



(cants/1,000 gal)



















50,001-75,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

18.0

Ott Coat (KS/year)

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

8.8

Total Production Cost

25

25

2S

25

25

25

25

25

25



(cants/1,000 gal)



















75,001-100,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

26.0

Ott Coat (KS/year)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

13.0

Total Production Coat

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23



(canta/1,000 gal)



















100,001-500,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

51.0

Ott Coat (KS/year)

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

o
o

400

27.0

Total Production Cost

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19



(cents/1,000 gal)



















500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

210.0

Ott Coat (KS/year)

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

120.0

Total Production Coat

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12



(cents/1,000 gal)



















>1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

S33C0

63000

430.0

Ott Cost (KS/year)

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

270.0

Total Production Coat

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

"0

10

(cants/1,000 gal)


-------
GAC Adsorption -- Estimated Coats for Reaoving Hexaehlorocyclooentadien#

::ssias3i3iaasusaixasasuaaaniiiu1,000,000 Total Capital Cost (KS)	63000

430.0 O&M Cost (KS/year)	2600

270.0 Total Production Cost	10
(cents/1,000 gal)

0.01 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.50 0.50 0.50

98

7°

90

94

70

38

38

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

310

310

310

310

310

310

310

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

440

480

480

480

480

480

480

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

800

800

800

800

300

800

800

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

0.01

90

125

4

910

190

5

310

300

a

140

480

14

80

800

30

49

1700

70

36

3300

130

29

5100

200

25

6500

300

23

13000

400

19

36000

1200

12

63000

2600

10


-------
GAC Adsorption -• Sstiinatad Cost* for Reaoving Qxamyl

s3»M8«a»iM»ii»t«iiii»MWiiiiii—Mi—'WMWMMmiiiiwaitiiiwmwMMaaiiissaMniini

Influent (ag/l) 0.07 0.20 1.00 0.667 2.000 10.000 3.33 13.00 SO.00

Population Range Effluent Ctng/1.3 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.200 0.200 0.200 1.00 1.00 1.00
Design Flow (MGO)				

Average Daily Flow (HGD) Percent Removed

70

90

98

70

90

98

70

90

98

3SS»31»1»IMH1»

mmwMiiwmnfMWMiwi

itsiatasii

:iisi«na

iiiinas*

asasaasvi



lasaaaaasa

KsxatBxasxa

IS1IMIS

axsuxi

25-100

Total Capital Cost (XS)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

04* Cost US/year)

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

910

930

930

930

930

930

930

930

930

101-500

Total Capital Cast (ICS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

0&M Cast (KS/year)

5

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

0.024

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

310

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

330

501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

QW Cost («/year>

8

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

0.086

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

140

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

OM Cost {KS/year)

14

27

27

27

27

27

27

.27

27

0.23

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

80

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

BOO

800

800

800

800

800

800

200

800

1.80

QAM Cost (KS/yaar)

30

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

0.70

Total Production Coat
(cents/1,000 gal)

49

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

64

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4.a

DIM Cost (KS/year)

70

190

190

190

190

190

190

*90

190

2.1

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

36

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

1300

3300

11.0

OM Cost (KS/yaar)

130

400

400

400

400

400

400

i00

400

5.0

Total Production Coat
(cants/1,000 gal)

29

44

44

44

44

44

44



44

'50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

5100

7500

7500

7500

7500

7500

7500

7500

7500

18.0

OUt Coat (KS/yaar)

200

300

300

300

300

300

300

100

300

B.S

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

25

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

37

75,001-100,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

6500

9400

9400

9400

9400

9400

9400

9400

9400

26.0

OtM cast (KS/yaar)

300

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

13.0

Total Production Coat
(cants/1,000 gal)

23

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

13000

14000

14000

14000

14000

14000

14000

liOOO

14000

51.0

0CN Coat (KS/yaar)

400

700

700

700

700

700

700

?00

700

27.0

Total Production Coat
(cants/1,000 gal)

19

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

iOO,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

36000

39000

39000

39000

39000

39000

39000

39000

39000

210.0

0IM Cost (KS/yaar)

1200

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

120.0

Total Production Coat
(cents/1,000 gal)

' 12

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

>1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

67000

67000

67000

67000

67000

67000

i'CCO

67000

430.0

DIM Cost (KS/year)

2600

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

SCO

5400

270.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

10

H

14

14

14

14

K



14


-------
ZAC Adsorption -• Estiaatad Costs for A Moving Benioii«sxsssissxa«sis«aiai«««na>««issMa««iaaiaai*isss*iaaissxxxs;:sa3SS53S2S3S3x

Influent (fng/L) 6.71-05 2.01-04 1,01*03 6.71-04 2.06-03 3.06-03 1.3E-03 3.0E-03 3.CE-Q3

Peculation flange

Design Flow CNGO)

Averas* Caily Flow (Mffl)

uiiiuumim

25-100
0.024
0.0056

Percent Removed

101-500
0.087
0.024

501-1,000
0.27
0.086

1,001-3,300
0.65

0.23

3,301-10,000

1.ao
0.70

10,001-25,000
4.8

2.1

25,001-50,000
11.0
5.0

50,001-75,000
18.0

8.8

75,001-100,MO
26.0
13.0

100,001-500,000
51.0

27.0

500,001-1,000,000
210.0
120.0

»1,000,000
430.0
270.0

Total Capital Cast (KS)

OIM Cost (ICS/year)
Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cast (KS)

0m Cost (KS/year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (KS)

OIH Cost (ICS/year J
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (KS)

OW Cost (ICS/year}
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cast 

OM Cost (KS/year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cost (ICS)

OSM Cost (ICS/year)
Total Production Cost
(cents/1,OOQ gal)
Total Capital Cost (KS)

OSM Cost (ICS/year)
Total Production Cost
Ccent1/1,000 gal)
Total Capital Cast (K$)

OIM Cost 

36000

36000

56000

36000

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

'200

1200

12

12

12

12

12

12

63000 63000 63000
2600 2600 2 MO
10 10 10

63000 63000 63000
2600 2600 2600
10 10 10

'2

63000
2600

12

12

:SSC0 6300C
:600 Z60C
1C


-------
GAC Adsorption -- Estimated Coats for Removing Oi(ethylhexyl)phthalate

:aii8sssa«iiii«8Ssai»niWMmi«inn««iii»«ii9»a««Mtwaam«aMH»»itniiin8aniiiia»i«iiin8ig»8aii»i8sg8aagas33S8sia

Influent (mg/L) 0.02 0.06 0.30 0.01 0.04 0.20 0.13 0.40 2.00

Population Range
Design Flow (MGO)

Effluent (mg/L)

0.006

0.006

0.006

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.040

0.040

0.040





















Average Oaily Flow

(mgd ) Percent Removed

70

90

98

70

90

98

70

90

98

::ss8aaasaaasss3<3ss

ssssuutsinnismtuiisissni

aasifl«a

iisaaiu

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassaaaaaaaaaaaaa

ssaasss:



uaaaaa:

25-100

Total Capital Cost (KS)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

OM Cost (ICS/year)

4

4

4

4

4

4 .

4

4

4

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

910

101-500

Total Capital Coat (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.037

OM Cost (KS/year)

5 '

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

0.024

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

310

310

310

310

310

310

310

310

310

501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

OM Cost (KS/year)

a

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

9

0.086

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

OM Cost (KS/year)

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

0.23

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

1.80

OM Cost (KS/year)

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

0.70

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

49

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4.3

OM Cost (KS/year)

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

2.1

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

11.0

OM Cost (KS/year)

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

130

5.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

5100

18.0

OM Coat (KS/year)

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

8.8

Total Production Coat
(cants/1,000 gal)

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

75,001-100,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

6500

26.0

OM Coat (KS/year)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

13.0

Total Production Coat
(canta/1,000 gal)

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

13000

51.0

OM Coat (KS/year)

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

27.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

O
O

o

o
o
o

o
o
o

Total Capital Cost (KS)

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

36000

210.0

OM Cost (KS/year)

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

1200

120.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

>1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

630C0

63000

430.0

OM Cost (KS/year>

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2400

2600

2600

270.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10


-------
SAC Adsorption -- £stis»tad Costs tor Rowing Picloraa

iixaiiixssfSixassaiaanMauasssicuiwiissssaxaxaittssssxiMisxsststsasimsisasaiisastssstusaiassxsaisassMisxssiiiatc

Irif luant (mg/L) 0.17 0,50 2.50 1.67 5.00 25,00 3.33 10.00 50.00

Population Hang*
Design Flow (MOD)

gfflusnt (mg/D

0.050

0.050

0.050

0.500

P.500

0.500

1.000

1.000

1.000





















Avarage Daily flow (MCD) Parcant R amoved

70

90

98

70

90

98

70

90

98

,sss-3sa*.J83*a****5S*3*3 = s;

:»iininuiiiuu>iM«nnui>9ii>iimm

sstaitasi

MIX33SUX.

Musissl

isatasa^atM

:aa«aa»a

asaaaa«sa

aatsaa

25-100

Total Capital Cost (KS)

125

12S

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

OCM Cost (KS/y«ar)

4

4

5

5

5

7

5

5

9

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 sal)

930

930

950

950

950

1070

950

980

1160

101-500

Total Capital Cost (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

out Cost (KS/yaar)

7

7

9

9

9

19

9

11

27

0.024

Total Production Cost
(carts/1,000 gal}

330

330

350

350

350

470

350

380

560

501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (ICS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

OW Cost (KS/y«ar)

13

13

21

21

21

59

21

29

85

0.086

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

150

150

180

180

180

300

180

200

380

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

480

480

440

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

OU* Cost (KS/yaar)

27

27

48

48

48

149

48

69

220

0.23

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

100

100

120

120

120

240

120

150

330

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (Kt>

800

800

800

800

800

2900

800

300

3300

1.80

OCM Cost (KS/ytar)

70

70

130

130

130

270

130

200

340

0.70

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal>

64

64

89

89

89

240

39

¦110

280

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4900

1700

4000

5500

4.8

O&M Cost (KS/yaar)

190

190

380

380

380

540

380

320

700

2.1

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

51

51

76

76

76

145

76

103

ISO

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

3300

3300

6000

6000

6000

7900

6000

&600

8800

11.0

OCM Cost (KS/y»ar)

400

400

340

340

340

840

340

450

1200

5.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

a

44

58

58

58

97

58.

67

120

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cast (KS)

7500

7500

8500

COO

8500

11000

3500

9200

12000

18.0

OCM Cost (KS/yaar)

300

300

500

500

500

1300

500

700

1900

8.8

Total Production Coat
(eanta/1,000 sal)

37

37

47

47

47

82

47

55

103

75,001-100,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

9400

9400

10000

10000

10000

13000

10000

11000

15000

26.0

Oiil Cost (KS/ytar)

400

400

700

700

700

1900

700

1000

2700

13.0

Total Production Coat
(cants/1,000 gal)

32

32

41

41

41

73

41

48

93

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

14000

14000

16000

16000

16000

20000

16000

17000

22000

51.0

QIM Cost (KS/yaar)

700

700

1300

1300

1300

3600

1300

1500

5100

27.0

Total Production Coat

25

25

32

32

32

60

32

38

78



(cants/1,000 gal)

















53000

500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

39000

39000

42000

42000

42000

49000

42000

44000

210.0

OCM Cost (KS/yvar)

2600

2600

4700

4700

4700

14000

4700

6700

20000

120.0

Total Production Cost

16

16

22

22

22

45

22

27

61



(cants/1,000 gal)

















88000

>1,000,000

Total capital Cost (KS)

67000

67000

71000

71000

71000

82000

71000

-4C00

430.0

OCM Cost (KS/yaar)

5400

5400

9900

9900

9900

30000

9900

•4000

44000

270.0

Total Production Cost

14

14

19

19

19

40

19

23

55

(cants/1,000 gal)


-------
SAC Adsorption •-

Estiaatad Costs for SMoving Simazine



















liiinntmuuiiuiiiiiiiiiKiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiuiiluililiiiiisuiiiisiiiiu]!]:::

:S33SCS*S

iiisusa:

S3333K8



Influent (ng/l)

0.023

0.070

0.350

0.003

0.010

0.050

0.133

0.400

2.000

Population Range

Effluent (mg/L)

0.007

0.007

0.007

0.001

0.001

0.001 .

0.040

0.040

0.040

Design Flow (HGO)









































Average Daily Flow s»aist

			

saasaaaaa.

aaaaaas

25-100

Total Capital Cost 

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

OPt Cost (KS/year)

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

910

910

930

910

910

910

910

930

930

101-500

Total Capital Cost («)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

o.oer

OIM Cost (ICS/year)

5

5

7

5

5

5

5

7

7

0.024

Total Production Coat
(cents/1,000 gal)

310

310

330

310

310

310

310

330

330

501-1,000

Total Capital Cost CXS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

DIM Cost tw/year)

a

8

13

8

8

8

8

11

13

0.086

Total Production Cost
Ccents/1,000 gal)

140

140

150

140

140

140

uo

150

150

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

430

480

480

480

480

480

480

, 480

480

0.65

OIM Cost (M/year)

14

14

27

14

14

14

14

27

27

0.23

Total Production Cost
Icents/1,000 gal)

80

80

100

80

80

80

80

100

100

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

800

1.80

OtH Cost US/year)

30

30

70

30

30

30

30

70

70

0.70

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

49

49

64

49

49

49

49

64

64

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost CXS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4.8

OS* Cost (ICS/year)

70

70

190

70

70

70

70

190

190

2.1

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

36

34

51

36

36

36

36

51 .

51

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Cost («>

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

11.0

OIM Cost CKS/yesr)

130

130

400

130

130

130

130

400

400

5.0

Total Production Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)

29

29

44

29

29

29

29

44

44

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Cost (ICS)

5100

5100

7100

5100

5100

5100

5100

7500

7500

18*0

01)1 Cost (ICS/year)

200

200

300

200

200

200

200

300

300

8.8

Total Production Cost
(cams/1,000 gal)

25

25

37

25

25

25

25

37

37

75,001-100,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

6500

6500

9400

6100

6500

6500

6500

9400

9400

26.0

(HM Coat (Kf/yaar)

300

300

400

300

300

300

300

400

400

13.0

Totai Production coat
(cents/1,000 gal)

23

23

32

23

23

23

23

32

32

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Cost (XS)

13000

13000

14000

13000

13000

13000

13000

14000

14000

51.0

OIM Cost (KS/yur)

400

400

700

400

400

400

400

700

700

27.0

Total Production Coat
(cents/1,000 gat)

19

19

25

19

19

19

19

25

25

500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Cost 1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

63000

67000

63000

63000

63000

63000

67000

67000

430.0

OIM Cost (KS/year)

2600

2600

5400

2600

2600

2600

2600

5400

5400

270.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

10

10

14

10

10

10

10

14

t H


-------
gac Adsorption -- Estimated Coats for ftaanving 1,2,4 TridUorotoanzane

Ii3aai»»isixas«xs»imtixiia»a>3s9xi3sxax3tsxtis339x333ii3s==i:3==i:;;=;3

Infium  0,01? 0.050 0.210 0.030 0.090 0,450 0.167 0.500 2.500

Population Rang*

Effluent 

	.............

.........

		-

	

.........

	....



		-

*		

	

*v«rag« Daily flew (NCS) Parcant Ramovad

70

90

98

70

90

9§

70

to

98

luKiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiuunnntiiunNiuMiiiiiiuiinniiiuiiuiiuHutuiuiiitmiiiiiiiiHiHuiistiiiiiiiiii

25-100

Total Capital Cast (K3)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

OIN Cost (KS/yaar)

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

£

0,0056

Total Production Coat

910

910

910

910

910

930

910

930

930



(cants/1,000 gat)



















101-500

Total Capital Coat (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

•90

190

0,08?

OtM Cost (tt/y*ar)

5

5

7

5

5

7

5

7

f

0.024

Total Production Cost

310

310

330

310

310

330

310

330

330



1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

43000

63000

67000

,63000

63000

67000

63000

t'OQQ

430.0

OIM Coat (rt/yaar)

2600

2600

5400

2600

2600

5400

2600

5400

5400


-------
GAC Adsorption --

Estimated coats far Removing 1,1,

,2 Trichloroethane















assxsstiKsissstssa

¦iiiinraniiiiauaiiaiiiiini:

iiniaiiiiiiumuiimn



isassaaaa

ISH3S3I31X

stssaas

xxamammm

:3::S35S;



Influent (mg/L)

0.003

0.010

0.050

0.017

0.050

0.250

0.033

0.100

0.500

Population Range
Design Flow (MGD)

Effluent »nui

IU»3«H

iiumiin



¦ssissi:

S3381S3"

25-100

Total Capital Cost (KS)

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

125

0.024

OM Cost (KS/year)

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

4

5

0.0056

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

930

930

930

930

930

950

930

930

950

101-500

Total Capital Cost (KS)

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

190

0.087

O&N Cost (ICS/year)

7

7

7

7

7

9

7

7

9

0.024

Total Production Cost
(centa/1,000 gal>

330

330

330

330

330

350

330

330

350

501-1,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

0.27

O&M Cost (KS/year)

13

13

13

13

13

21

13

13

21

0.086

Total Production Cost
(centa/1,000 gal}

150

150

150

150

150

180

150

150

130

1,001-3,300

Total Capital Cost (KS)

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

480

0.65

OIM Cost (KS/year)

27

27

27

27

27

48

27

27

43

0.23'

Total Production Coat
(cants/1,000 sal)

100

iqo

100

100

100

120 '

100

100

120

3,301-10,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

300

800

800

800

800

300

800

800

800

1.80

OIM Coat (KS/yesr>

70

70

70

70

70

130

70

70

130

0.70

Total Production Cost
(centa/1,000 gal)

64

64

64

64

64

89

64

64

89

10,001-25,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

1700

4.8

OCM Coat (KS/year)

190

190

190

190

190

380

190

190

380

2.1

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

51

51

51

51

51

76

51

51

76

25,001-50,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

3300

3300

3300

3300

3300

6000

33QO

3300

6000

11.0

OSM Cast (KS/year)

400

400

400

400

400

340

400

400

340

5.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

44

a •

44

44

44

58

44

44

58

50,001-75,000

Total Capital Coat {KS)

7500

7500

7500

7500

7500

8500

7500

7500

8500

18.0

OtM coat (KS/yaar)

300

300

300

300

300

500

300

300

500

8.8

Total ProductIon Cost
(centa/1,000 sal)

37

37

37

37

37

47

37

37

47

75,001-100,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

9400

9400

9400

9400

9400

10000

9400

9400

10000

26.0

OCM Coat (KS/yaar)

400

400

400

400

400

700

400

400

700

13.0

Total Production Coat
(cents/1,000 gal)

32

32

32

32

32

41

32

32

41

100,001-500,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

14000

14000

14000

14000

14000

16000

14000

14000

16000

51.0

OIM Coat CKS/year)

700

700

700

700

700

1300

700

700

1300

27.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

25

21

25

25

25

32

25

25

32

500,001-1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

39000

39000

39000

39000

39000

42000

39000

39000

42000

210.0

OtM Coat (KS/year)

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

4700

2600

2S00

4700

120.0

Total Production Coat

16

16

16

16

16

22

16

16

22



(cants/1,000 gal)

















71000

>1,000,000

Total Capital Coat (KS)

67000

67000

67000

67000

67000

71000

srooo

i'OCO

430.0

OIM Coat (KS/yaar)

5400

5400

5400

5400

5400

9900

5400

5400

9900

270.0

Total Production Cost
(cants/1,000 gal)

14

14

14

14

14

19





19


-------
GAC Adsorption •• EstiBBrtad Coats for Rsaoving 2,3,7,8*T06 (Dioxin)

Influent (mgA) 7.36-09 2.26*08 1.16-07 3.36-07 1.06-06 5.06-06 6.76-07 2.0E-06 1,01-05

soul as ion Rsnge
sstgn flow (MOD)

effluant Cmg/D

2.26-09 2

.26-09 2,

¦2E-09

1.06-07 1

.06-07 1.0E-07

.2.06-07 2.

.06-07 2.06*07





















1,000,000

Total Capital Cost (KS)

63000

61000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63000

63001

430.0

0AM Cost (KS/yaar)

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

2600

260

270.0

Total Production Caat
(canta/1,000 gal)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

1


-------
APPENDIX F

PACKED COLUMN FACILITY
DESIGN BACKUP


-------
Estimated Equipment Size and Cost for
Removal of Phase V SOCs from Drinking Water

Via

Packed Column Air Stripping
September 1989

Compounds
Dichloromethane
Henry's Coefficient » 54 atm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Drinking Water
Technical Support Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268


-------
esi

umb

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Dichlororaethane

Table 1

DESIGN CRITERIA - September 1989

Plant
Capacity
(MGD)

Average
Flow
(MGD)

Removal
Efficiency
(%)

Cost Optimized Parameters
stripping j Air Gradient
Fractor | (N m-2 m-1)

0.024
0.024
0.024

0.006
0.006
0.006

70.
90.

98.

1.3
1.8

3.4

190.
150.
130.

0.087
0.087
0.087

024
024
024

70.
90.
98.

1.6

2.3
2.9

170.
150.
140.

0.270
0.270
0.270

0,
0,

0,

086
086
086

70.
90.
98.

1.4

2.1
2.6

170.
140.
130.

0.650
0.650
0.650

0,
0,
0,

230
230
230

70.
90.
98.

1.3
2.0
2.5

150,
130.
120,

1.80
1.80
1.80

0.700
0.700
0.700

70.
90.
98.

1.2
1.8

2.3

130.
110.
100.

4,

4,

4,

80
80
80

11.0
11.0
11.0

18.0
18.0
18.0

2
2
2

10
10
10

5.00
5.00
5.00

8.80
8.80
8.80

70
90
98

70
90
98

70
90
98

1.2
1.8
2.1

1.1
1.7
2.1

1.1
1.7

2.1

110.

96.
100.

120.
110.
100.

110.
100.
95.

26.0
26.0
26.0

13.0
13.0
13.0

70,

90,
98,

1.1
1.7
2.1

110.
99,

93,

51.0
51.0
51.0

27.0
27.0
27.0

70.
90.
98.

1,

1.

2.

110,
94,
88,

210.
210.
210.

120.
120.
120.

70.
90.
98.

1.1

1.7
2.1

99.
86.
81.

430.
430.
430.

270.
270.
270.

70.
90.
98.

1.1
1.7
2.1

95.

80.
76.


-------
Dichloromethane

Table 2





SYSTEM

SIZE - September

1989







Design

Loadings

J Air:

Mass j

Number ]

Column

|Packing

Air |

Air

dumber! Liquid

Air

{Water

Trans.j

of !

Diameter!Height

Flow !Pressure



(GPM

(SCFM Ratio

Coef.

Columns



i



(inch



ft-2)

ft-2)

i

(sec-1)j

1

i

(ft)

! (ft)

(SCFM)|

H20)

1

29.

160.

41.

0.015

1.0

0.9

9.2

91.

4.1

2

21.

170.

60.

0.012

1.0

1.0

15.

130.

4.8

3

' 13,

190.

110.

0.0084

1.0

1.3

18.

250.

4.9

4

25.

170.

50.

0.013

1.0

1.8

7.7

410.

3.6

5

18.

180.

75.

0.011

1.0

2.1

13.

610.

4.4

6

15.

190.

95.

0.0095

1.0

2.3

20,

770.

5. 5

7

26.

160.

46.

0.014

1.0

3.0

8,3

1100.

3.7

8

19.

170.

67.

0.011

1.0

3.5

14,

¦ 1700.

4.5

9

16.

180.

85.

0.0098

1.0

3.9

22.

2100.

5.5

10

26.

150.

43 .

0.014

1.0

4.7

8.7

2600.

3.6

11

19.

160.

63 .

0.011

1.0

5.5

14.

3800.

4.3

12

16.

170.

80.

0.0098

1.0

6.1

23.

4800.

5.2

13

26.

140.

40.

0.013

1.0

7.8

9.0

6800.

3.4

14

19.

150.

59.

0.011

1.0

9.2

15.

9900.

4.0

15

16.

160.

74 .

0.0096

1.0

10.1

24.

12000.

4.9

16

25.

130.

39.

0.013

1.0

13.0

9.3

17000.

3.3

17

19.

140.

57.

0.011

1.0

15.1

16.

25000.

3.8

18

17.

150.

68.

0.010

1.0

16.0

25.

30000.

5.1

19

27.

130.

37.

0.014

1.4

16.0

9.8

38000.

3.5

20

20.

140.

54.

0.011

1.9

16.0

17.

55000.

4.2

21

17.

150.

67.

0.010

2.3

16.0

26.

69000.

5.2

22

26,

130.

37.

0.013

2,4

16.0

9.8

62000.

3.4

23

20.

140.

54.

0.011

3,2

16.0

16.

90000.

4.0

24

16.

150.

67.

0.0099

3.8

16.0

26.

110000.

5.0

25

26.

130.

37.

0.013

3.4

16.0

9.8

89000.

3.4

26

19.

140.

54.

0.011

4.6

16.0

16.

130000.

4.0

27

16.

150.

67.

0.0099

5.5

16.0

26.

160000.

4.9

28

26.

130.

37.

0.013

6.9

16.0

9.8

170000.

3.3

29

19.

140.

54.

0.011

9.2

16.0

16.

250000.

3.9

30

16.

140.

67.

0.0097

11.0

16.0

26.

320000.

4.8

31

25.

120.

37.

0.013

28.8

16.0

9.8

720000.

3.2

32

19.

130.

54.

0.011

39.1

16.0

16.

1000000.

3.7

33

15.

140.

67.

0.0095

46.8

16.0

25.

1300000.

4.5

34

25.

120.

37.

0.013

60.0

16.0

9.8

1500000.

3.1

35

18.

130.

54.

0.010

0
-------
Dichlorcmethane

Table 3

ESTIMATED COST - September 1989

Design! Estimated Capital Costs j Operating j Yearly ' [Production
Number Process{Support J Indirectj Total Cost	Cost	Cost

! ($K) J ($K) j ($K) j ($K) j($K Year-1) j ($K Year-1)J ($ Kgal-1)

1

3.6

7.7

7.4

19.

0.34

2.5 •

1.24

2

5.6

8.9

9.4

24.

0.50

3.3

1.61

3

8.2

10.

12 •

31.

0.73

4.4

2.13

4

7.9

13 .

14 .

34.

0.97

5.0

0.57

5

11.

15.

17.

43.

1.3

6.3

0. 72

6

16.

18.

22.

55.

1.7

8.2

0.94

7

13.

20.

21.

54.

2.1

8. 5

0.27

8

20.

24.

29 .

72.

2.9

11.

0.36

9

29.

30.

39.

98.

4.0

16.

0.49

10

21.

31.

34.

86.

4.5

15.

0.17

11

34 .

39.

47.

120.

6.2

20.

0.24

12

51.

50.

66.

170.

8.5

28.

0.34

13

42.

56.

65.

160.

12.

31.

0.12

14

69.

74.

94 .

240.

16.

44,

0.17

15

110.

100.

130.

340.

22.

62.

0.24

16

91.

110.

130.

340.

32.

71.

0.09

17

150.

160.

200.

500.

43.

100.

0.13

18

230.

210.

290.

730.

60.

150.

0.19

19

190.

220.

270 .

680.

74.

150.

0.08

20

320.

320.

410.

1000.

100.

220.

0,12

21

500.

450.

620.

1600.

140.

320.

0.18

22

300.

350.

420.

1100.

130.

250.

0. 08

23

510.

500.

660.

1700.

170.

370.

0.12

24

810.

720.

1000.

2500.

240.

530.

0.17

25

430.

480.

600.

1500.

180.

360.

0.08

26

730.

710.

940.

2400.

250.

530.

0.11

27

1200.

1000.

1400.

3600.

340.

770.

0.16

28

830.

890.

1100.

2800.

380.

710.

0. 07

29

1400.

1300.

1800.

4500.

520.

1000.

0. 11

30

2200,

1900.

2700.

6900.

700.

1500.

0. 15

31

3300.

3100.

4200.

11000.

1700.

3000.

0. 07

32

5600.

4900.

6800.

17000.

2300.

4300.

0. 10

33

8800.

7400.

11000.

27000.

3100.

6200.

0. 14

34

6600.

6000.

8300.

21000.

3900.

6400.

0.06

35

11000.

9700.

14000.

35000.

5200. ,

9200.

0.09

36

18000.

15000.

21000.

54000.

6800.

13000.

0.13


-------
Estimated Equipment Size and Cost for
Removal of Phase V SOCs from Drinking Water

Via

Packed Column Air Stripping
September 1989

Compound:
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Henry's Coefficient = 349 atm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Drinking Water
Technical Support Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268


-------
1,2, 4-Trichlorokenzene







Taoie l









DESIGN <

CRITERIA - September 1989



Design

Plant

Average

Removal |

Cost Optimized Parameters

Number

Capacity

Flow

Efficiency

Stripping

Air Gradient



(MGD)-

(MGD)

(%) I

Fractor j

(N m-2 m-1)

1

0.024

0.006

70.

4.7*

50.*

2

0.024

0.006

90.

4.8*

. 53.

3

0.024

0.006

98.

5.9*

73.

4

0.087

0.024

70.

4.7*

50.*

5

0.087

0.024

90.

4.7*

50.*

6

0.087

0.024

98.

4.7*

50.*

7

0.270

0.086

70.

4.7*

50.*

8

0.270

0.086

90.

5.1*

58.

9

0.270

0.086

98.

5.9*

74.

10

0.650

0.230

70.

4.7*

50.*

11

0.650

0.230

90.

4.8*

52.

12

0.650

0.230

98.

5.6*

67.

13

1.80

0.700

70.

4.7*

50.*

14

1.80

0.700

90.

4.7*

50.*

15

1.80

0.700

98.

5.2*

59.

16

4.80

2.10

70.

4.7*

50,*

17

4.80

2.10

90.

4.7*

50.*

18

4.80

2.10

98.

4.8*

53.

19

11.0

5.00

70.

4.7*

50. *

20

11.0

5.00

90.

4.7*

50.*

21

11.0

5.00

98.

4.7*

50.

22

18.0

8.80

70.

4.7*

50.*

23

18.0

8.80

90.

4.7*

50. *

24

18.0

8.80

98.

4.7*

50. *

25

26.0

13.0

70.

4.7*

50.*

26

26.0

13.0

90.

4.7*

50.*

27

26.0

13.0

98.

4,7*

50.*

28

51.0

27.0

70.

4.7*

50.*

29

51.0

27.0

90.

4.7*

50.*

30

51.0

27.0

98.

4.7*

50.*

31

210.

120.

70.

4.7*

50.*

32

210.

120.

90.

4.7*

50.*

33

210.

120.

98.

4.7*

50.*

34

430.

270.

70.

4.7*

50.*

35

430.

270.

90.

4.7*

50.*

36

430.

270.

98.

4.7*

50.*

* Design parameter held to limiting value,


-------
1,2,4-Trichlorcbenzene
Table 2

SYSTEM SIZE - September 1989

Design! Loadings 'Air: j Mass 'Number j Column {Packing! Air ' Air
Number Liquid! Air Water Trans. of Diameter Height Flow Pressure
(GPM (SCFM Ratio Coef. Columns	Cinch

J ft-2) ift-2) j	; (sec-1) j	j (ft) j (ft) j (SCFM)j H20)

1

30.

73 .

18.

0.014

1.0

0.8

7.0

41.

2 .4

2

30,

76.

19.

0.014

1,0

0.8

14.

42.

2.9

3

30.

93.

23.

0.014

1.0

0,8

23.

52.

4.1

4

30.

73.

18.

0.014

1.0

1,6

7.0

150.

2.4

5

30.

73.

18.

0.014

1.0

1.6

14.

150.

2.9

6

30,

73 .

18.

0.014

1.0

1.6

25.

150.

3,5

7

30.

73.

18.

0.014

1.0

2.8

7.0

460.

2.4

8

30,

81,

20,

0.014

1.0

2.8

14.

510.

3.0

9

30.

94 .

23.

0,014

1.0

2,8

23.

590.

4.1

10

30.

73.

18,

0,014

1,0

4.4

7.0

1100.

2.4

11

30.

75.

19,

0,014

1.0

4.4

14.

1100.

2.9

12

30.

88,

22.

0,014

1,0

4.4

24.

1300.

4.0

13

30.

73 .

18.

0.014

1.0

7.3

7.0

3100,

2.4

14

30.

73.

18,

0.014

1,0

7,3

14.

3100.

2.9

15

30.

82.

20,

0,014

1.0

7.3

24.

3400.

3.8

16

30.

73.

18.

0.014

1,0

11.9

7.0

8200.

2.4

17

30.

73.

18.

0.014

1,0

11.9

14.

8200.

2.9

18

30.

76.

19.

0.014

1.0

11.9

24 .

8500.

3.6

If

30.

73.

18.

0.014

1.3

16.0

7.0

19000.

2.4

20

30.

73.

18.

0, 014

1.3

16.0

14.

19000.

2.9

21

30,

74.

18.

0.014

1.3

16,0

25.

19000.

3.5

22

30.

73.

18.

0.014

2.1

16.0

7.0

31000.

2.4

23

30.

73.

18.

0.014

2.1

16.0

14.

31000.

2.9

24

30.

73.

18.

0.014

2.1

16.0

25.

31000.

3.5

25

30.

73.

18.

0.014

3.0

16,0

7.0

44000.

2.4

26

30.

73.

18.

0.014

3.0

16.0

14,

44000.

2.9

27

30.

73.

18.

0.014

3.0

16.0

25.

44000.

3.5

28

30.

73.

18.

0.014

5.9

16.0

7.0

87000.

2.4

29

30.

73.

18.

0.014

5.9

16.0

14.

87000.

2.9

30

30.

73.

18.

0.014

5.9

16.0

25.

87000.

3.5

31

30,

73.

18.

0.014

24.2

16.0

7,0

360000.

2.4

32

30.

73 .

18,

0.014

24.2

16.0

14,

360000.

2.9

33

30.

73.

18.

0.014

24.2

16.0

25.

360000.

3.5

34

30,

73.

18.

0.014

49.5

16.0

7.0

730000.

2.4

35

30.

73.

18,

0.014

49.5

16,0

14.

730000.

2.9

36

30.

73,

18.

0.014

49.5

16,0

25.

730000,

3.5


-------
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Table 3

ESTIMATED COST - September 1989

Design!	Estimated Capital Costs j Operating j Yearly !Production:

Number Process[SupportjIndirectj Total Cost	Cost	Cost

j ($K) j ($K) j ($K) j ($K) j ($K Year-1) j ($K Year-1) j ($ Kgal-1)j

1

2.8

7.2

6.6

17.

0.25

2.2

1. 07

2

4 . 0

7.8

7.7

20.

0.32

2.6

1.27

3

5.6

8.7

9.4

24.

0.42

3.2

1. 56

4

6.4

12.

12.

30.

0.73

4.3

0. 49

5

8.7

13.

14.

36.

0.89

5.1

0. 58

6

12.

15.

18.

45.

1.1

6.4

0.73

7

11.

18.

19.

48.

1.6

7.2

0.23

8

15.

21.

23 .

59.

1.9

8.9

0.28

9

21.

25.

30.

75.

2.5

11.

0.36

10

17.

28.

29.

74.

3 . 3

12.

0. 14

11

24.

32.

37.

93 .

4.0

15.

0. 18

12

35.

39.

48.

120.

5.2

20.

0.23

13

32.

49.

53.

130.

8.6

24.

0.10

14

46.

58.

69.

170.

10.

31.

0.12

15

67.

72.

91.

230.

13.

40.

0.16

16

67.

96.

110.

270.

24.

55.

0.07

17

95.

120.

140.

350.

28.

69.

0.09

18

140.

150.

190.

470.

36.

91.

0. 12

19

140.

180.

210.

530.

55.

120.

0. 06

20

190.

220.

270.

690.

66.

150.

0. 08

21

280.

290.

370.

940.

82.

190.

0. 10

22

220.

280.

330.

830.

95.

190.

0. 06

23

310.

350.

430.

1100.

110.

240.

0. 07

24

440.

450.

590.

1500.

140.

310.

0. 10

25

310.

390.

460.

1200.

140.

270.

0.06

26

440.

490.

610.

1500.

170.

350.

• 0.07

27

630.

630.

830.

2100.

210.

450.

0. 10

28

590.

710.

850.

2100.

290.

540.

0.05

29

830.

890.

1100.

2800.

340.

680.

0 . 07

30

1200.

1200.

1500.

3900.

420.

880.

0 . 09

31

2300.

2400.

3100.

7700.

1300.

2200.

0. 05

32

3200.

3100.

4100.

10000.

1600.

2800.

0 . 06

33

4600.

4200.

5800.

15000.

1900.

3600.

0. 08

34

4600.

4500.

6000.

15000.

3100.

4900.

0.05

35

6500.

5900.

8100.

21000.

3600.

6000.

0 . 06

36

9300.

8200.

11000.

29000.

4400.

7800.

0 . 08


-------
Estimated Equipment Size and Cost for
Removal of Phase V SOCs from Drinking Water

Via

Packed Column Air Stripping
September 1989

Compound:
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Henry's Coefficient = 997 atm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Drinking Water
Technical Support Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268


-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadi

ene







Table 1









DESIGN

CRITERIA - September 1989



esign

Plant

Average

Removal

Cost Optimized Parameters

umber

capacity

Flow

Efficiency

Stripping j

Air Gradient



(MGD)

(MGD)

(*)

Fractor ]

(N m-2 m-1)

1

0.024

0.006

70.

13.3*

50. *

2

0.024

0.006

90.

13.3*

50.*

3

0.087

0.024

70.

13.3*

50.*

4

0.087

0.024

90.

13.3*

50.*

5

0.270

0.086

70.

13.3*

50.*

6

0.270

0.086

90.

13.3*

50 . *

7

0. 650

0.230

70.

13.3*

50.*

8

0.650

0.230

90.

13.3*

50.*

9

1.80

0.700

70.

13.3*

50.*

10

1.80

0.700

90.

13.3*

50.*

11

4.80

2.10

70.

13.3*

50.*

12

4.80

2.10

90.

13.3*

50. *

13

11.0

5.00

70.

13.3*

50.*

14

11.0

5.00

90.

13.3*

50.*

15

18.0

8.80

70.

13.3*

50.*

16

18.0

8.80

90.

13.3*

50.*

17

26.0

13.0

70.

13.3*

50.*

18

26.0

13.0

90.

13.3*

50.*

19

51.0

27.0

70.

13.3*

50.*

20

51,0

27.0

90.

13.3*

50.*

21

210.

120.

70.

13.3*

50.*

22

210.

120.

90.

13.3*

50.*

23

430.

270.

70.

13.3*

50.*

24

430.

270.

90.

13.3*

50.*

* Design parameter held to limiting value.


-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Table

SYSTEM SIZE - S<

Design

Loadings

Air: j

Mass

Number j

Column

jPacking]

Air !

Air

Number

Liquid

Air

Water

Trans.

! of

Diameter Height

Flow Pressure



(GPM I

(SCFM

Ratio

Coef.

jColumns



i i

1 I



(inch



ft-2) !

ft-2)

1

i

(sec-1)

1 1

t i

(ft)

! (ft)

(SCFM) j

H20)

1

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

0.8

6.9

41.

2 . 4

2

30.

73 .

18.

0.013

1.0

0.8

13 .

41.

2.8

3

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

1.6

6.9

150.

2.4

4

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

1.6

13.

150.

2.8

5

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

2.8

6.9

460.

2.4

6

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

2.8

13.

460.

2.8

7

30.

73 .

18.

0.013

1.0

4.4

6.9

1100.

2.4

8

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

4.4

13.

1100.

2.8

9

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

7.3

6.9

3100.

2.4

10

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

7.3

13 .

3100.

2.8

11

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

11.9

6.9

8200.

2.4

12

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.0

11.9

13.

8200.

2.8

13

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.3

16.0

6.9

19000.

2.4

14

30.

73.

18.

0.013

1.3

16.0

13.

19000.

2.8

15

30.

73.

18.

0.013

2.1

16.0

6.9

31000.

2.4

16

30.

73.

18.

0.013

2.1

16.0

13.

31000.

2.8

17

30.

73.

18.

0.013

3.0

16.0

6.9

44000.

2.4

18

30.

73.

18.

0.013

3.0

16.0

13.

44000.

2.3

19

30.

73.

18.

0.013

5.9

16.0

6.9

87000.

2.4

20

30.

73.

18.

0.013

5.9

16.0

13.

87000.

2.8

21

30.

73.

18.

0.013

24.2

16.0

6.9

360000.

2.4

22

30.

73.

18.

0.013

24.2

16.0

13.

360000.

2.8

23

30.

73.

18.

0.013

49.5

16.0

6.9

730000.

2.4

24

30.

73.

18.

0.013

49.5

16.0

13.

730000.

2.8


-------
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Tsbls 3

ESTIMATED COST - September 1989

Design! Estimated Capital Costs j Operating j Yearly jProduction
Number Process{Support|Indirect! Total Cost	Cost	Cost

j (SK) } ($K) ! {$K) I (SK) j<$K Year-1)j ($K Year-l)j($ Kgal-1)

1

2.8

7.2

6.5

17.

0.25

2.2

1.07

2

3.9

7.7

7.6

19.

0. 31

2.6 '

1.25

3

6.4

12.

12.

30.

0.73

4.3

0.48

4

8.5

13.

14.

35.

0.87

5.0

0.57

5

11.

18.

19.

48.

1.6

7.2

0.23

6

15.

21.

23.

58.

1.9

8.7

0.23

7

17.

28.

29.

73.

3.3

12.

0.14

8

24.

32.

36.

92.

4.0

15.

0.18

9

32.

49.

53 .

130.

8.6

24.

0.09

10

45.

58.

67.

170.

10.

30.

0.12

11

66.

95.

11 .

270.

24.

55.

0.07

12

93.

110.

140.

340.

28.

68.

0.09

13

140.

180.

210.

530.

55.

120.

0.06

14

190.

220.

270.

670.

65.

140.

0.08

15

220.

280.

330.

820.

94.

190.

0.06

16

300.

340.

420.

1100.

110.

240.

0.07

17

310.

390.

460.

1200.

140.

270.

0.06

18

420.

480.

590.

1500.

160.

340.

0.07

19

590.

700.

840.

2100.

290.

540.

0. 05

20

810.

870.

1100.

2800.

340.

660.

0.07

21

2300.

2300.

3000.

7700.

1300.

2200.

0. 05

22

3200.

3000.

4000.

10000.

1500.

2800.

0.06

23

4600.

4500.

5900.

15000.

3100.

4900.

0. 05

24

6300.

5800.

7900.

20000.

3600.

5900.

0.06


-------
Estimated Equipment Size and Cost for
Removal of Phase V SQCs from Drinking Water

Via

Packed Column Air Stripping
May 1990

Compound:
Di(ethylhexyl)adipate
Henry's coefficient =3 52 atm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Drinking Water
Technical Support Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268


-------
Di(ethylhexyl)adipate

Design
Number

1

2

3

Plant
Capacity
(MGD)

0.024
0.024
0.024

Table 1
DESIGN CRITERIA - May 1990

Average
Flow
(MGD)

0.006
0.006
0.006

Removal
Efficiency
(%)

70.

90.

98.

Cost Optimized Parameters

Stripping
Tractor

4.7*
5.4*
5.9*

Air Gradient
(N m-2 m-1).

50.*

62.

72.

4

5

6

0.087
0.087
0. 087

0.024
0.024
0.024

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
5.7*
6.4*

50.*

68.
82.

7

8

9

0.270
0.270
0.270

0.086
0.086
0.086

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
5.5*
6.2*

50. *
64.

79.

10

11

12

0. 650
0. 650
0. 650

0.230
0.230
0.230

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
5.1*
5.9*

50. *

58.
72.

13

14

15

1.80
1.80
1.80

0.700
0.700
0.700

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
4.7*
5.4*

50.*

51.
63.

16

17

18

4.80
4.80
4.80

10
10
10

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
4.7*
5.1*

50.*

50.
67.

19

20

21

11.0
11.0
11.0

5.00
5.00
5.00

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
4.7*
4.9*

50.*
50.*

54 .

22

23

24

18.0
18.0
18.0

8.80
8.80
8.80

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
4.7*
4.9*

50. *
50.*
53.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

26.0
26.0
26.0

51.0
51.0
51.0

210.
210.
210.

430.
430.
430.

13.0
13.0
13.0

27.0
27.0
27.0

120.
120.
120.

270.
270.
270.

70.
90.
98.

70.
90.
98.

70.
90.
98.

70.
90.
98.

4.7*
4.7*
4.8*

4.7*
4.7*
4.8*

4.7*
4.7*
4.7*

7*
7*
7*

50.*
50.*

52.

50.*

50.*

51.*

50.*
50. *
50.*

50.*
50.*
50.*

* Design parameter held to limiting value.


-------
Di(ethyihexyl)adipate

Table 2
SYSTEM SIZE - May 1990

Design! Loadings [Air:
Number Liquid! Air Water
(GPM (SCFM Ratio
[ft-2) (ft-2)J

j Mass
Trans.
Coef.
|(sec-l)

j Number

of
Columns

Column jPacking! Air
Diameter Height Flow

(ft)

I

ift) {{SCFM)

Air
i Pressure
! (inch

i H2Q)

1

30. *

73.

18.

0.0098

1.0

0.8

9.9

41.

2 . 6

2

30.

85.

21.

0.0098

1.0

0.8

2U.

47.

3.5

3.

30.

92.

23.

0.0099

1,0

0.8

34.

51.

5.0

4

30.

' 73.

18.

0.0098

1.0

1.6

9.9

150.

2.6

5

30.

89.

22.

0.0099

1.0

1.6

19.

180.

3.6

6

30.

99.

25.

0.0099

1.0

1.6

33.

200.

5.3

7

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

1.0

2.8

9.9

460.

2.6

8

30.

85.

21.

0.0098

1.0

2.8

20.

530.

3.5

9

30.

97.

24.

0.0099

1.0

2.8

33.

610.

5.2

10

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

1.0

4.4

9.9

1100.

2.6

11

30.

85.

20.

0.0098

1.0

4.4

20.

1200.

3.4

12

30.

92.

23.

0.0099

1.0

4.4

34.

1400.

5.0

13 '

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

1.0

7.3

9.9

3100.

2,6

14

30.

74.

18.

0.0098

1.0

7.3

20.

3100.

3.2

15 '

30.

85.

21.

0.0098

1.0

7.3

j4 .

3500.

4.6

16

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

1.0

11.9

9.9

8200.

2.6

17

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

1.0

11.9

20.

8200,

3.2

18

30.

80.

20.

0»0098

1.0

11.9

35.

8800.

4.4

19

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

1.3

16.0

9.9

19000,

2.6

20

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

1.3

16.0

20.

19000.

3.2

21

30.

77.

19.

0.0098

1.3

16.0

35.

20000.

4.3

22

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

2.1

16.0

9.9

31000.

2.6

23

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

2.1

16.0

20.

31000.

3.2

24

30.

76.

It.

0.0098

2.1

16.0

35.

32000.

4.3

25

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

3.0

16.0

9.9

44000.

2.6

26

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

3.0

16.0

20.

44000.

3.2

27

30.

76.

19.

0.0098

3.0

16.0

35.

45000.

4.2

28

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

5.9

16.0

9.9

87000.

2.6

29

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

5.9

16.0

20.

87000.

3.2

30

30.

75.

19.

0.0098

5.9

16.0

35.

88000.

4.2

31

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

24.2

16.0

9.9

360000.

2.6

32

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

24.2

16.0

20.

360000.

3.2

33

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

24.2

16.0

35.

360000.

4.2

34

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

49.5

16.0

9.9

730000.

2.5

35

30.

73.

18.

0.0098

49.5

16.0

20.

730000.

3.2

36

. 30.

73.

18.

0.0098

49.5

16.0

35.

730000.

4.2


-------
Di(ethylhexyl)adipate

Table 3
ESTIMATED COST - May 1990
[Design! Estimated Capital costs j Operating j Yearly jProduction]
Number Process j Support[Indirect J Total Cost	Cost	Cost

|	j ($K) | ($K) j ($K) j (SK) j ($K Year-1) j ($K Year-1)j($ Kgal-l) J

1

4 . 3

8.2

8.2

21.

0.40

2.8

1. 38

2

5.9

9.1

9.8

25.

0.51

3.4

1.68

3

8..4

10.

12.

31.

0.67

4.3.

2. 12

4

7.8

13.

13.

34.

0.85

4.8

0.55

5

11.

14.

17.

42.

1.1

6.0

0. 69

6

16.

17.

21.

54.

1.4

7.8

0.89

7

13.

19.

21.

53.

1.7

7.9

0. 25

8

18.

23.

27.

69.

2.3

10.

0.33

9

27.

28.

36.

92.

3.1

14.

0.44

10

20.

29.

33.

82.

3.6

13.

0.16

11

30.

36.

43.

110.

4.7

18.

0.21

12

45.

45.

59.

150.

6.4

24 .

0.29

13

38.

53.

60.

150.

9.4

27.

0.11

14

50.

67.

82.

210.

12.

36.

0.14

15

88.

86.

110.

290.

16.

50.

0.20

16

79.

100.

120.

300.

26.

61.

0.08

17

120.

130.

170.

4?0.

33.

82.

0.11

18

180.

180.

230.

590.

43.

110.

0.15

19

160.

200.

240.

600.

59.

130.

0.07

20

240.

260.

330.

830.

75.

170.

0.09

21

360.

350.

450.

1200.

99.

240.

0.12

22

250.

310.

370.

940.

100.

210.

0. 06

23

380.

410.

520.

1300.

130.

280.

0.09

24

580.

550.

740.

1900.

170

390.

0.12

25

360.

430.

520.

13' 0*

150.

300.

0. 06

26

540.

570.

730.

18' 0.

190.

410.

0.09

27

820.

780.

1000.

2600.

250.

550.

0.12

28

690.

780.

970.

2400.

310.

600.

0.06

29

1000.

1000.

1400.

3400.

390.

790.

0. 08

30

1600.

1400.

2000.

5000.

510.

1100.

0.11

31

2700.

2700.

3500.

8900.

1400.

2500.

0.06

32

4000.

3700.

5100.

13000.

1800.

3300.

0.07

33

6000.

5300.

7400.

19000.

2300.

4500.

0.10

34

5400.

5100.

6900.

17000.

3300.

5400.

0.05

35

8000.

7200.

10000.

25000.

4100.

7000.

0.07

36

12000.

10000.

15000.

37000.

5200.

9500.

0.10


-------
Estimated Equipment Size and Cost for
Removal of Phase V SOCs from Drinking Water

Via

Packed Column Air Stripping
September 1989

Compound:
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Henry's Coefficient =21 atm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Drinking Water
Technical Support Division
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268


-------
1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Table 1

DESIGN CRITERIA - September 1989

Design

Plant

Average

Removal

Cost Optimized Parameters

Number

Capacity

Flow

Efficiency

Stripping

Air Gradient



(MGDF-

(MGD)

(%)

Fractor J

(N m-2 m-l)

1

0.024

0.006

70.

1.1

150.

2

0;024

0.006

90.

2.5

150.

3

0.024

0.006

I

98.

3.1

150.

4

0.087

0.024

70.

1.4

170.

5

0.087

0.024

90.

2.1

150.

6

0.087

0.024

98.

2.7

140.

7

0.270

0.086

70.

1.3

150.

8

0.270

0.086

90.

1.9

130.

9

0.270

0.086

98.

2.4

120.

10

0.650

0.230

70.

1.2

130.

11

0.650

0.230

90.

1.8

120.

12

0.650

0.230

98.

2.3

110.

13

1.80

0.700

70.

1.2

110.

14

1.80

0.700

90.

1.7

100.

15

1.80

0.700

98.

2.1

96.

16

4.80

2.10

70.

1.1

110.

17

4.80

2.10

90.

1.6

100.

18

4.80

2.10

98.

2.0

100.

19

11.0

5.00

70.

1.1

110.

20

11.0

5.00

90.

1.6

100.

21

11.0

5.00

98.

2.0

96.

22

18.0

8.80

70.

1.1

110.

23

18.0

8.80

90.

1.6

95.

24

18.0

8.80

98.

2.0

91.

25

26.0

13.0

70.

1.1

100.

26

26.0

13.0

90.

1.6

93.

27

26.0

13.0

98.

2.0

89.

28

si. m

27.0

70.

1.1

100.

29

51.®'-':

27.0

90.

1.6

88.

30

51.#*

27.0

98.

2.0

85.

31

210.

120.

70.

1.1

96.

32

210.

120.

90.

1.6

82.

33

210.

120.

98.

2.0

78.

34

430.

270.

70.

1.1

93.

35

430.

270.

90.

1.6

76.

36

430.

270.

98.

2.0

73 #


-------
1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Table 2

SYSTEM SIZE - September 1989

! Air: j Mass

Design Loadings |Mr: j Mass j Number { Column j Packing! Air ! Air
Number Liquid} Air Water Trans. of Diameter Height Flow Pressure
(GPM HSCFM Ratio Coef. Columns	{inch

,ft-2) fft-2)j	j(sec-1)j	j (ft) j (ft) |(SCFM)| H20)

1

18. .

180.

74.

0.0082

1.0

l.i

11.

170.

4.1

2

10.

210.

160.

0.0056

1.0

1.5

14.

360.

4.4

3

8.2

220.

200.

0.0050

1.0

1.6

21.

450.

5.8

4

16.

200.

94.

0.0076

1.0

2.2

9.0

760.

3.9

5

11.

210.

140.

0.0062

1.0

2.6

15.

1100.

4.8

6

9.2

210.

180.

0.0053

1.0

2.9

23.

1400.

6.0

7

17.

190.

85.

0.0077

1.0

3.8

9.7

2100.

3.9

8

12.

200.

130.

0.0062

1.0

4.5

16.

3200.

4.6

9

9.4

200.

16Q.

0.0054

1.0

5.0

25.

4000.

5.8

10

16.

180.

80.

0.0076

1.0

5.9

10.

4900.

3.7

11

12.

180.

120.

0.0061

1.0

7.0

17.

7100.

4.4

12

9.4

190.

150.

0.0053

1.0

7.8

26.

8900.

5.4

13

16.

160.

76.

0.0074

1.0

10.0

11.

13000.

3.5

14

11.

170.

110.

0.0060

1.0

11.8

18.

19000.

4.2

15

9.4

180.

140.

0.0053

1.0

13.0

27.

23000.

5.2

16

17. 160.

72.

0.0075

1.0

16.0

3* .

32000.

3.6

17

12. 170.

100.

0.0063

1.3

16.0

19.

46000.

4.4'

18

10. 180.

130.

0.0056

1.6

16.0

29.

57000.

5.6

19

17. 160.

71.

0.0076

2.3

16.0

12.

72000.

3.6

20

12. 170.

100.

0.0062

3.1

16.0

19.

110000.

4.3

21

10. 170.

130.

0.0055

3.8

16.0

29.

130000.

5.4

22

17. 160.

71.

0.0075

3.8

16.0

12.

120000.

3.5

23

12. 160.

100.

0.0061

5.2

16.0

19.

170C00.

4.2

24

9.9 170.

130.

0.0054

6.3

16.0

29.

210! 00.

5.3

25

16. 150.

70.

0.0074

5.5

16.0

12.

i7oaoo.

3.5

26

12. 160.

100.

0.0061

7.6

16.0

19.

250000.

4.2

27

9.8^ 170.

130.

0.0054

9.1

16.0

29.

310000.

5.2

28

16. 's ISO.

70.

0.0073

10.9

16.0

12.

330000.

3.4

29

12. 160.

100.

0.0060

15.1

16.0

19.

490000.

4.1

30

9.6 160.

130.

0.0053

18.3

16.0

29.

600000.

5.0

31

16.

150.

70.

0.0072

45.3

16.0

12.

1400000.

3.4

32

11.

150.

100.

0.0058

64.0

16.0

19.

2000000.

3.9

33

9.4

160.

130.

0.0052

77.4

16.0

29.

2500000.

4.8

34

16.

150.

70.

0.0072

93.8

16.0

12.

2800000.

3.3

35

11.

150.

100.

0.0057

134.7

16.0

19.

4100000.

3.8

36

9.1

150.

130.

0.0051

162.9

16.0

29.

5000000.

4.6


-------
APPENDIX G

SUMMARY OF GLYPHOSATE TECHNOLOGY AND COSTS


-------
GLYPHOSATE REMOVAL ¦ Basis of Cost Estimates

Background

Speth (1991) conducted bench and pilot-scale studies to determine glyphosate
removal by granular and powdered activated carbon; chlorine, ozone, hydrogen peroxide,
and permanganate oxidation; conventional treatment; and membranes. Chlorine and ozone
oxidation were the most effective treatment processes for glyphosate removal. The following
section provides design criteria and cost estimates for implementation of these treatment
technologies.

Chlorine Oxidation

Chlorine oxidation of glyphosate was tested at doses between 2 and 4 mg/L with 5
to 15 minutes of contact time. These chlorine doses were established at levels where
detectable residuals could be maintained through the contact basin. Influent glyphosate
concentrations during jar and pilot testing ranged from 400 to 800 ug/L, and effluent
concentrations were below the detection level(BDL). Pilot-plant testing found glyphosate
was completely oxidized from 695 ug/L to BDL, consuming approximately 1.5 mg/L of
chlorine in 5 minutes. Therefore, approximately 1 mg/L of chlorine is required to remove
300 ug/L of glyphosate, assuming a safety factor of 1.5.

The design criteria and assumptions for development of costs for chlorine oxidation
of glyphosate are presented below:

• Influent glyphosate concentrations and associated removal chlorine dosages
are presented below, based on an MCL of 0.7 mg/L.

Influent

(ug/L)

Effluent
(ug/L)

Removal
(percent)

Removal
(ug/L)

Clj Dose
(mg/L)

875

700

20

175

0.6

1,000

700

30

300

1.0

1,600

700

56

900

3.0

2,380

700

70

1,680

5.6

3,500

700

80

2,800

9.4

Contact time - 7.5 minutes

G 1


-------
Assumptions:

•	TOC levels of 2 to 2.5 mg/L observed during testing are representa-
tive. Systems with higher TOC levels may need higher chlorine doses
to compensate for higher chlorine demands. High levels of inorganic
contaminants will also cause interference and require higher chlorine
doses; however, this is not likely since glyphosate is found predomi-
nately in surface water.

•	There are no existing chlorination facilities or contact basins.

•	Sodium hypochlorite is used for flow categories 1-4 (small systems).
Chlorine gas is used for flow categories 5-12 (large systems) except
when the system requires less than 10 pounds per day of chlorine, in
which case sodium hypochlorite is used.

•	New contact basins will be above ground steel tanks.

•	Costs for systems using chlorine gas are based on the CWC
WATERCOST model, and costs for systems using sodium hypochlor-
ite are based on the Small Systems Manual and the WATER Model.
Some facilities may require special containment and gas scrubber
facilities and special health and safety precautions. Provisions for
sophisticated controls may also be required at some facilities to
prevent overdoses and very high residuals. However, these issues are
not considered in our cost estimates.

•	The treatment system operates 365 days a year. These costs may
need to be adjusted if the influent glyphosate has a different
occurrence pattern.

•	Systems requiring up to 100 lb/day of chlorine gas use 150 lb
cylinders.

•	Systems using greater than 100 and up to 4000 lb/day of chlorine gas
use one ton containers.

•	Systems requiring more than 4000 lb/day gas use on-site storage with
bulk railway deliveries.

The major components of the chlorine oxidation system are:
a. Capital Costs

•	Chemical feed pump

•	Contact basin

•	30-days of chemical storage

•	Housing for chemical feed and storage area

G2


-------
Other components may be required at some sites, including:

•	Special site work

•	Special containment and gas scrubber facilities

•	Pumping modifications

These components are not included in the cost estimates, which is the normal
procedure for all T&C documents.

b. Operating and Maintenance Costs:

•	Chemicals

•	Labor

•	Power

•	Maintenance

•	Maintenance materials

Estimated capital, operation and maintenance, and total costs are presented in Table
1 for chlorine oxidation of glyphosate in flow categories 1 through 12. Total costs for this
process range from 313 cents/1000 gal for 20 percent removal in flow category 1 to 1.5
cents/1000 gal for 80 percent removal in flow category 12. In the small systems, costs are
fairly uniform for all levels of removal because of the relatively low operating costs in
comparison to the capital costs. The level of removal has a more significant effect on total
cost in the higher flow categories where operating costs are higher.

Ozone Oxidation

Ozone oxidation of glyphosate was tested in a six inch counter-current contactor
having a 7.2 minute contact time. Tests were conducted at applied ozone doses of 1.0, 1.9
and 2.9 mg/L. Influent glyphosate concentrations ranged from approximately 850 ug/L to
1050 ug/L, and effluent concentrations ranged from approximately 450 ug/L to BDL.
Glyphosate concentrations were reduced from 1050 ug/L to 450 ug/L at an adsorbed ozone
dose of 0.95 mg/L. Therefore, approximately 1.0 mg/L of adsorbed ozone is required to
remove 420 ug/L of glyphosate, assuming full consumption of ozone and a safety factor of
1.5. Ozone demands were not estimated from the tests using 1.9 and 2.9 mg/L applied
ozone doses, because glyphosate levels were BDL, and no residual information was
available.

G3


-------
TABLE 1

COST ESTIMATES FOR CHLORINE OXIDATION OF GLYPHOSATE (1)



How :
Category

HtwKibfd)



II1I»



Design .

Average



30

56

70!



Capital Costs (KS)

1

0.024

0.00056

36

36

36

36

36

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







0.22

0.22

0.22

0.22

0.22

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







313

313

313

313

314

Capital Costs (KS)

2

0.087

0,024

38

38

38

38

38

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







2.2

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.3

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







76

76

76

76

77

Capital Costs (KS)

3

0.27

0.086

40

40

40

40

40

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







2.3

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







22'

22

22

23

23

Capital Costs (KS)

4

0.65

0.23

43

43

43

43

43

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







2.3

2.4

2.6

2.9

3.3

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







8.8

8.8

9.1

9.4

9.9

Capital Costs (KS)

5

1.8

0.7

62

107

114

123

136

O&M Costs (cents/1000 gal)







1.0

1.1

_

..

-

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







2.6

2,8

11

12

14

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







3.8

3,9

9.3

10

12

Capital Costs (KS)

6

4.8

2.1

128

132

151

175

211

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







9.9

11

14

18

23

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







3.3

3.4

4.1

5.0

6.3

Capital Costs (KS)

7

11.0

5,0

179

188

231

287

368

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







11

13

20

29

43

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







1.8

1.9

2.6

3 J

4.7

Capital Costs (KS)

8

18.0

8.8

233

248

318

409

'515

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







13

15

28

44

67

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







1.3

1.4

2.0

2.9

4,0

Capital Costs (KS)

9

26.0

13.0

263

283

385

502

745

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







15

18

37

60

75

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







0,96

1.1

1.7

2.5

3.4

Capital Costs (KS)

10

51.0

27.0

354

394

575

724

843

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







20

28

65

111

174

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







0.63

0.75

1.3

2.0

2.8

Capital Costs (KS)

11

210.0

120.0

927

1048

1306

1508

1722

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







58

90

188

335

547

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







0.38

0.49

0.78

1.2

1.7

Capital Costs (KS)

12

430.0

270.0

1517

1621

1950

2225

2516

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







115

151

399

726

1201

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







0.30

0.40

0.64

1.0

1,5

Note:

(I) Costs in June 1991 dollars.


-------
• Influent glyphosate concentrations and associated removals and ozone doses
are presented below, based on an MCL of 0.7 mg/L.

Influent
(ug/L)

Effluent
(ug/L)

Removal
(percent)

Removal

(ug/L)

Ozone Dose
(mg/L)

875

700

20

175

0.4

1,000

700

30

300

0.7

1,600

700

56

900

2.1

2,380

700

70

1,680

4.0

3,500

700

80

2,800

6.7

• Contact time - 10 minutes

Assumptions:

•	TOC levels of 2 to 2.5 mg/L observed during testing are representa-
tive. Systems with higher TOC levels may need higher ozone doses
to compensate for higher ozone demands. High levels of inorganic
contaminants will also cause interference and require higher chlorine
doses; however, this is not likely since glyphosate is found predomi-
nately in surface water.

•	pH = 7.5, based on test results. Data are not available for a range
of pHs.

•	There are no existing ozone facilities.

•	This treatment is not feasible for flow categories 1 and 2 because of
the high costs associated with the process and the degree of difficulty
with this technology for these system sizes. Costs are not presented
for these flow categories.

•	Small systems costs are developed from the small systems manual.
Large system costs are based on the CWC WATERCOST model
except when the required ozone is less than 10 lb/day, in which case
they are based on the Small Systems Manual and the WATER
Model.

•	The treatment system operates 365 days a year. These costs may
need to be adjusted if the influent glyphosate has a different
occurrence pattern.

G 4


-------
• Systems requiring more than 100 lb/day of ozone will use oxygen
instead or air for ozone generation.

The major components of the chlorine oxidation system are:

a.	Capital Costs

•	Ozone generation and dissolution equipment

•	Ozone contactor, including off-gas recycling equipment

•	Oxygen generation equipment, where applicable

•	Housing for ozone equipment

Other components may be required at some sites, including:

•	Special site work

•	Pumping modifications

These components are not included in the cost estimates.

b.	Operating and Maintenance Costs:

•	Labor

•	Power

•	Maintenance

•	Maintenance materials

Estimated capital, operation and maintenance, and total costs are presented in Table
2 for ozone oxidation of glyphosate in flow categories 3 through 12. Total costs for this
process range from 115 cents/1000 gal for 20 percent removal in flow category 3 to 9.6
cents/1000 gal for 80 percent removal in flow category 12. Costs increase significantly with
both the level of removal and flow category for all flow categories.

Conclusions

Both ozone and chlorine oxidation are feasible treatments for removal of glyphosate.
Chlorine oxidation is much more cost effective in all flow categories.

G5


-------
TABLE 2

COST ESTIMATES FOR OZONE OXIDATION OF GLYPHOSATE (1,2)



Flow
Category

Flow

(mgd)

CHypfeosate PereeotRonroval





liilii

ill mi

IIIIIIPp

70



Capital Costs (KS)

3

0.27

0.086

250

263

290

307

331

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







6.6

7.0

8.1

9.0

10

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







115

121

134

144

156

Capital Costs (KS)

4

0.65

0.23

284

298

330

371

427

O&M Costs (K$/yr)







7.4

8.0

9.6

11

13

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







49

51

58

65

76

Capital Costs (KS)

5

1.8

0.7

307

325

309

470

699

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







9

9.6

15

19

24

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







18

19

20

29

41

Capital Costs (KS)

6

4.8

2.1

363 (3)

340

657

998

1454

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







11

15

23

34

49

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







7.0

7.1

13

20

29

Capital Costs (K$)

7

11.0

5.0

409

564

1164

1882

2608

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







16

20

39

65

99

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







3.5

4.8

9.7

16

22

Capital Costs (KS)

8

18.0

8.8

560

810

1689

2606

3232

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







21

28

61

103

160

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







2.7

3.8

8.1

13

17

Capital Costs (KS)

9

26.0

13.0

738

1032

2293

3043

3939

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







25

36

83

144

222

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







2.4

3.3

7.4

11

14

Capital Costs (KS)

10

51.0

27.0

1244

1769

3211

4478

6049

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







40

62

155

266

406

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







1.9

2.7

5.4

8.0

11

Capital Costs (K$)

11

210.0

120.0

4820

6990

11374

16502

24651

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







162

255

646

1100

1772

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







1.7

2.5

4.5

6.9

11

Capital Costs (KS)

12

430.0

270.0

9566

13991

21710

31316

47912

O&M Costs (KS/yr)







343

546

1380

2350

3853

Total Costs (cents/1000 gal)







1.5

2.2

4.0

6.1

9.6

Note:

(1)	Costs in June 1991 dollars.

(2)	This treatment is not economical feasible for flow categories 1 and 2.

(3)	Cost difference between 20 and 30 percent glyphosate removal at 4.8 rngd is
due to different cost models being used.


-------