Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Environmental Protection
Agency
December 2011
www.epa.gov/superfund
Superfund
Environmental Remediation
Technologies
Student Manual
Evaluate appropriate techniques to assess, stabilize, and screen potential remedies for contaminated
sites.
Identify the processes and explain the limitations of the most frequently used treatment
technologies.
Note:
presented by
Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Response Team
U.S. EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER
OSRTI
ERT
Parking
Classroom
Restrooms
Water fountains, snacks, refreshments
Lunch
Telephones
Emergency telephone numbers
Alarms and emergency exits
IMMOBILIZATION
U.S. EPA. Immobilization Technology Seminar: Speaker Slide Copies and Supporting
Information U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory.
Cincinnati, OH. 1990
U.S. EPA. Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes: Physical Tests,
Chemical Testing Procedures, Technology Screening and Field Activities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. 1989
U.S. EPA. Stabilization/Solidification of Organics and Inorganics. EPA/540/S-92/015. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 1993
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: In-situ Vitrification Treatment. EPA/540/S-94/504. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC. 1994
THERMAL TREATMENT
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment.EPA/540/290/014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH. 1990.
U.S. EPA. Superfund Engineering Issue: Issues Affecting the Applicability and Success of
Remedial/Removal Incineration Projects. EPA/540/2-91/004. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Research and Development. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, DC. 1991a.
U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies. 2nd Ed. ISBN: 0-86587-263-5. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. Government Institutes, Inc. Rockville, MD. 1991b.
U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin: Thermal Desorption Treatment. EPA/540/S-94/501. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Washington, DC; and Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1994.
TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix
and Reference Guide, Version 4.0. Web address http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html
U.S. EPA. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank
Sites. EPA 510-R-04-002. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 2004
U.S. EPA. Seminar Publication, Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies under CERCLA.
Publication EPA/540/R-92/071a. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of
Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1992
U.S. EPA. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. EPA 540-F-93-035.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1993
U.S. EPA. Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and Technology Selection for
CERCLA Sites with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils. EPA 540-F-93-048. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1993
U.S. EPA. Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment technologies for
Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites. EPA/540/R-96/023. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1996
U.S. EPA. Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and Sludges at Wood Treater Sites.
EPA/540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Office of Research and
Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1995
PROCESS TESTING
U.S. EPA. Innovative Site Remediation Technology-Design and Application-Thermal
Desorption Volume 6. EPA 542-B-93-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC. 1993.
Chu, C. Observations of Performance Test. WA#R1A00111, Trip Report. FCX Engineering.
April 17, 2000.
WEBSITES
www.epa.gov
www.clu-in.org
www.frtr.gov
10
11
12
13
14
Facility description
Site address
General site operation
Physical setting
Area topography
Area land use
15
Facility description
Site address
General site operation
Physical setting
Area topography
Area land use
Site
16
Geology
Site is located on the Great Miami River
alluvial deposits glacial outwash
materials consisting of poorly sorted,
poorly bedded silt and sand.
Depth of Ordovician limestone bedrock is
greater than 100 feet below the surface.
17
Hydrogeology
Site is located on permeable sand and
gravel deposits in ancestral drainage
channels
Deep aquifer groundwater wells yield
5001000 gpm
Site includes a shallow unconfined
aquifer and a deep confined aquifer
Site
Site
18
Ecological Profile
Describes the physical
relationship of the
organisms on the
developed and
undeveloped portion
of the site and adjacent
off-site properties
Land use
Contaminant information and site activities
Potential exposure pathways and risk estimation
On-going data evaluation and data gap
identification
19
1960s to 1974
1974 to 1980
1980 to present
Aerial photo
December, 1979
Chem-Dyne
Hamilton, OH
20
21
Removal Action
Stabilization
22
Chem-Dyne:
Removal of drums and standing liquid
Excavation of grossly contaminated soil
Contaminants of concern
Potential contaminant source areas
Contaminant fate and transport
Contaminant susceptibility to treatment options
23
24
25
Contaminant susceptibility to
treatment options
26
Fate-andtransport
mechanism
Exposure route
Receptors
27
Fate-andtransport
mechanism
Exposure route
Receptors
Employees of adjacent
business
Hazardous materials
released by onsite activities
Fate-andtransport
mechanism
Exposure route
Inhalation
Receptors
Neighbors
Emissions
Exposure pathway:
contaminated
fugitive dust
migrated offsite to
neighboring habitats
28
29
Meteorological
Annual rainfall
Average temperature
Evapotransporation
Offsite information
Nearby population
Offsite land use
Zoning issues
30
Cost
31
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1988
90
92
94
96
98
2000
Year
32
33
34
35
36
$1
MILLION
1 CUP
TCE
WHY?
Soil
Air
Water
37
Percolation
Volatilization
Degradation
Vadose zone
Adsorption
Diffusion
Dispersion
Solubility
Capillary forces
Groundwater
Runoff
Retardation
Surface Water
Adsorption
Degradation
Retardation
Diffusion
Dispersion
Surface
Subsurface
Distribution
Degradation
Physical state
Volatilization
Runoff
Solubility
Percolation
38
Solid
Gas
Liquid
Least
mobile
Most
mobile
PHASE DIAGRAM
Pressure
(mm Hg)
H2O
Solid
Liquid
A
760
17.5
C
Temperature
0C
20C
100C
(Not to scale)
-100
0 20
86 to 80
MEK
87 to 87
TCE
Hg
Pb
300
5.5 to 80.1
Benzene
PCP
200
0 to 100
H2O
Propane
100
189.9 to 42
188 to 310 (decomposes @ 310)
39.9 to 357
327 to 1620
39
Function of:
Molecular weight
"Cohesive forces"
Van der Waals forces
Polarity
Temperature
VP (mmHg @ 20c)
Benzene
80.0
TCE
63.0
H2O
17.5
PCP
.00011
MORE
VOLATILE
LESS
VOLATILE
Function of:
Hydraulic gradient
"Cohesive forces" (e.g., internal friction)
40
(centipoise @ 20c)
TCE
.57
Benzene
.65
H2O
1.0
Kerosene
2.5
Phenol
8.5
MOST
MOBILE
LEAST
MOBILE
Function of:
Cohesive forces
Adhesive forces
Van der Waals
Polarity
Ionization
Pb(OH)+1
Pb(OH)2
Fe(OH)+2
Al(OH)3
Fe(OH)3
Al(OH)+2
Al(OH)41
pH (s.u.)
41
h
Function of:
Fluid height or "head"
Fluid density
Cohesive forces ("surface tension")
Adhesive forces ("wetting")
(centistokes @ 20c)
TCE
.39
Benzene
.74
H2O
1.0
MOST
MOBILE
LEAST
MOBILE
Function of:
Preferential pathways (channeling)
Macropores
Micropores
Solubility
Sorption
Volatility
42
Ped or
particle
NAPL
Organic carbon
Pore air
Pore water
Solubility
43
Contaminant movement
Soil particles
Soil particles
Percolation
Through
Saturated Zone
Soil
LNAPL
H2 O
Dissolved
contaminant
Groundwater
flow
DNAPL
44
Air
Water
Solubility (Sol.)
Water/Air
Water/soil
HL =
Compound
VP
Solubility
atm-m3
Sol.(mg/L)
HL mol
2,300
1,100
6.9 10-1
Benzene
76
1,780
5.4 10-3
TCE
58
1,100
8.9 10-3
MEK
71.2
268,000
2.7 10-5
2 8 10 6
VC
VP (mmHg)
PCP
0 00011
Function of:
Contaminant
Fraction of organic carbon in medium (fOC)
Properties of soil, e.g., structure, texture
(KOC)
45
Function of:
pH
Bond strengths of contaminant
Properties of attacking agent
Redox potential
"Hospitable" environment (biodegradation)
46
1.0
GW flow
chloride
Source
carbon
tetrachloride
0.5
MW1
PCE
0
0
Time (days)
200
400
GW
flow
47
48
49
50
Applications
Slows the movement of airborne or
dustborne contaminants
Slows the movement of surface water
into the ground
Limitation
Does not directly remediate
contaminants
Makes soil recovery and further
treatment difficult
51
Ground
Leachate Collection
System
Cap
Cap
Waste Material
Atlanta, GA
Hickory Ridge Landfill
52
53
Explore alternative and more aestheticallypleasing ways to cover mine waste piles
with materials that will help preserve the
historic appearance of the mining
landscape
Water management strategy
54
Before capping
After capping
Before capping
After capping
55
After capping
Before capping
After capping
Before capping
After capping
56
www.merid.org/leadville
EPA Web Address:
www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/co
57
Primary advantages
Efficient utilization of permitted
landfill capacity
Stabilization of waste in a shorter time
Reduced leachate handling cost
Reduced post closure care
Secondary Advantages
Potential for landfill gas can be a revenue stream
Promotes more sustainable waste management
Reduced air emissions containing VOC and
hazardous air pollutants
May possibly reduce long term costsReduced
toxicity of leachate and waste material
Consistency with sustainable landfill design
58
Applications
Slows movement of groundwater-borne
contaminants using subsurface walls
Can be used to dewater a site for
remediation
Limitations
Does not directly remediate contaminants
59
Monitoring
well
Production
well
Groundwater flow
Aquitard
Keyed slurry
trench cutoff wall
60
Monitoring
well
Production
well
LNAPLs
Recovery
well
Groundwater
flow
Aquitard
Groundwater
flow
Wall
Hanging slurry
trench cutoff wall
Waste
Drain
Soil
Stream
Groundwater
flow
Wall
Soil
Waste
Extraction well
Stream
61
Soil
Grout
curtain
Contaminant
plume
Groundwater flow
Injection
tube
62
Injection tube
Zone of influence
Z-type
T-fitting
63
64
65
66
67
pH
Control
Oil / Water
Separator
Reactor
Tank
Sand
Filter
Air
Stripper
Carbon
Contactor
Water
68
Oil
Water
Sludge
69
70
71
Off-gas
treatment
Storage
tank
Air
blower
Effluent
treatment
Snowflakes
Packing Saddles
Packing Rings
72
73
74
aBsorption
aDsorption
75
76
CHEMICAL REACTIONS
AND SEPARATIONS
77
78
Neutralization
Precipitation
Reduction
Oxidation
Advantage
Eliminates corrosives
Disadvantages
79
Advantages
Disadvantages
80
Chemical
flocculants/
settling aids
Chemical
precipitants
Flocculation
paddles
Flocculation
well
Liquid
feed
Effluent
Baffle
Mixing tank
Flocculation
clarifier
Sludge
81
Chemical reactions
Advantages
Disadvantages
Unintended reactions
Acid feed
H+
SOX
pH control
Mixer
Lime
slurry hopper
Ca
(OH)2
Chrome
wastewater
feed
Effluent
Cr6+
Cr3+
Cr3++OH Cr(OH)3
Chrome reduction
tank
Chrome
precipitation
Hydroxide
sludge
82
H2O2
O3
Influent
Effluent
UV
lamps
Microfiltration
Reverse osmosis
Ion exchange
83
Separation
Process
Reverse
Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Nanofiltration
Particle Filtration
Microfiltration
Aqueous
Salt
Relative
Size of
Common
Materials
Sediment
Endotoxin Pyrogen
Metal Ion
Virus
Bacteria
Oil Emulsion
Colloidal
Silica
Lactose
Microns 0.001
0.01
0.1
1.0
Cryptosporidium
10
100
1000
84
removes
contaminants from a fluid by passing
though a microporous membrane.
Advantage
Disadvantages
85
To disposal
Filtrate
recirculation
Air
Static
mixer
Tyvek
Filter cake
storage
Used Tyvek
86
Pressure
Contaminated
water
Treated
water
Concentrated
wastewater
87
Storage
tank
NaOH
caustic
soda
Clarifier
HCI
Feed
tank
Sludge
Filters
88
89
Acid
regenerant
Caustic
regenerant
Waste containing MX
Removal:
H+ [Cat(s)] + M+
M+ [Cat(s)] + H+
Regeneration:
M+ [Cat(s)] + H+
H+ [Cat(s)] + M+
Removal:
OH [An(s)] + X
X [An(s)] + OH
Cation
exchanger
Anion
exchanger
Regeneration:
X [An(s)] + OH
OH [An(s)] + X
Deionized effluent
Spent regenerant
90
SEDIMENT REMEDIATION
91
92
Sediment Remediation
Define Sediments
List common sediment remedy options
List the advantages and disadvantages
for the three common sediment
remedy options
93
Sediment Remediation
94
Sediment Remediation
Source: Adapted from EPA Region 5, Sheboygan Harbor and River Site
95
Sediment Remediation
Physical processes
Sedimentation, advection, diffusion, dilution,
dispersion, bioturbation, volatilization
Biological processes
Biodegradation, biotransformation,
phytoremediation, biological stabilization
Chemical processes
Oxidation/reduction, sorption, or other
processes resulting in stabilization or reduced
bioavailability
96
Sediment Remediation
97
Sediment Remediation
Advantages
Relatively low implementation costs
Non-invasive
Limitations
Leaves contaminants in place
Slower to reduce risks than active technologies
Often relies on institutional controls such as
fish consumption advisories
98
Sediment Remediation
Stabilization:
Contaminant & erosion protection to reduce
re-suspension
Chemical isolation:
Prevent dissolved and bound contaminants
from transporting into water column
Physical:
Population density of organisms
Sand cap consolidation through compression
Stabilization:
Potential erosion from bed shear stresses due to
river, tidal, and wave-induced currents,
turbulence generated by ships/vessels, etc.
Chemical
Gas generation due to anaerobic degradation
from organic content, can generate uplift
forces on the cap (especially w/ less
permeable cap material)
99
Sediment Remediation
100
Sediment Remediation
Advantages
Quickly reduce exposure
Less infrastructure for material handling,
dewatering, treatment & disposal
Less expensive than dredging or excavation
Quick to implement
Limitations
Risk of re-exposure if cap is disturbed
Cap materials may not promote native habitat
101
Sediment Remediation
Mechanical Dredging
Clamshell: Wire supported
Enclosed bucket: Wire supported, watertight
Articulated mechanical: Backhoe designs
Hydraulic Dredging
Cutterhead: pipeline dredge w/ cutterhead
Horizontal auger: pipeline dredge with auger
Plain suction: pipeline dredge w/ suction
Pneumatic: Air operated submersible pump
102
Sediment Remediation
Air or Gas
Residue
Treatment
Debris
Removal
Sediment
Removal
Transport
Staging
Pretreatment
Contaminated
Solids
Solids
Water Effluent
Treatment
and/or
Disposal
Solids
Disposal
and/or
Reuse
Treatment
Contaminated
Solids
Disposal
and/or
Reuse
103
Sediment Remediation
Example of
excavation
following isolation
using sheet piling
Advantages
Contaminant removal poses less risk
uncertainty
Less limitation for water body uses
Limitations
Complex and costly
Uncertainty of residual contamination
Contaminant losses through re-suspension and
volatilization
Temporary destruction of aquatic community
104
Sediment Remediation
Fox River, WI
105
Sediment Remediation
106
Sediment Remediation
Capping Slope
Diagram
7-inch thick sand
and armor stone
3-6 inch sand
cover where
PCBs < 2 ppm
107
Sediment Remediation
Cutterhead Dredge
& Piping
108
Sediment Remediation
Treated Sediment is
Transported to
landfill or TSCA
landfill
Geotube
Dewatering
109
Sediment Remediation
110
BIOREMEDIATION
111
Principles of Bioremediation
Define bioremediation
Describe a basic oxidation-reduction reaction
List the different microbial metabolic processes
List the basic ways that microbes demobilize
contaminants
List three indicators of microbial activity
List factors that may complicate bioremediation
112
Principles of Bioremediation
Bioremediation
In-Situ
Engineered
Bio-stimulation
Ex-Situ
Natural Attenuation
Bio-augmentation
Addition of Oxygen,
Addition of oxygen
Nutrients & Bacteria
-Bio venting
Addition
of
Oxygen
-Bio-sparging
& nutrients
113
Principles of Bioremediation
114
Principles of Bioremediation
115
Principles of Bioremediation
Bacteria
Single-celled organisms
Metabolize soluble food
C5H7O2N
C5H7O2N
C5H7O2N
116
Principles of Bioremediation
NUTRIENTS
Daughter
Cell
Parent
Cell
GROWTH
AND
REPRODUCTION
WATER
CO2
Daughter
Cell
117
Principles of Bioremediation
Energy Source
Chemical compounds (organic or inorganic)
Sunlight and Substrates
Carbon Source
Organic Compounds
CO2
Nutrients
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Trace Nutrients (sulfur, potassium, and iron)
Aerobic respiration
Anaerobic respiration
Fermentation
Secondary utilization and cometabolism
Reductive dehalogenation
Inorganic compounds as electron
donors
118
Principles of Bioremediation
ENZYME
C7H8 +9O2
7CO2 + 4H2O
Enzymes
Biological catalysts
Are not altered by the reaction
Reaction specific
Anaerobic Respiration
Inorganic chemicals are used as electron
acceptors
Nitrate (NO3-), sulfate (SO42-)
Metals (Fe3+, Mn4+)
C02
119
Principles of Bioremediation
Benzylsuccinic acid
Benzoyl Coenzyme-A
Non-beneficial biotransformation
The microorganism transforms the
contaminant but does not benefit
from the reaction
120
Principles of Bioremediation
C7H8 + 9O2
7CO2 + 4H2O
121
Principles of Bioremediation
122
Principles of Bioremediation
Trickling Filters
123
Principles of Bioremediation
Aerated Lagoon
124
Principles of Bioremediation
Anaerobic Digester
Contaminated soil
Slurry
Emission
control
Water
Mixer
Bioreactor
Centrifuge
Water
Clean soil
Nutrients
Vapor treatment
Air
Injection
well
Extraction wells
Extraction wells
Vadose zone
Groundwater
125
Principles of Bioremediation
Pretreatment
Microbes
Nutrients
Oxygen
126
127
128
129
Advantages
An in-situ treatment
May be a lower cost alternative
May be effective as a final process to
treat residual contaminants
Disadvantages
May not be accepted by the regulatory
agency or public
May not treat contaminant within a
reasonable time
May not treat desired contaminants
Requires detailed site characterization
and continued monitoring
130
Concerns
MNA is site and contaminant specific.
The success of MNA depends on many
natural environmental conditions
which will change as MNA proceeds.
131
Residual NAPL
Water
table
Methanogenesis
Denitrification
Aerobic
respiration
Iron (III)
reduction
Plume of
dissolved fuel
hydrocarbons
Sulfate
reduction
Groundwater
flow
Natural attenuation of a
chlorinate solvent
No natural attenuation of a
chlorinate solvent
Natural attenuation of
inorganic compounds
132
133
134
Evidence of biotransformation is
supported by concentrations of cisDCE, vinyl chloride, and ethene,
daughter products of TCE reductive
dechlorination.
Samples collected near the source
show that 825% of the TCE had been
converted to ethene.
135
Surface
drainage
Approximate extent of
MTBE above 2 ppb
(11/97)
N
W
E
S
100 200
Scale: feet
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
Unsaturated
Saturated
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE Enhancements
Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *
Phytoremediation *
Bioremediation *
Immobilization *
Air Sparging
Unsaturated
Saturated
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE Enhancements
Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *
Phytoremediation *
Bioremediation *
Immobilization *
Air Sparging
146
Relies on:
Volatilization of contaminant
Biological processes
Chemical processes
147
Unsaturated
Saturated
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE Enhancements
Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *
Phytoremediation *
Bioremediation *
Immobilization *
Air Sparging
Vapor
Vapor
Blower
TreatmentTreatment
Blower
Condensate
Collection
Condensate
Collection
148
Vapor
Treatment
Blower
Condensate
Collection
Flux:
Contaminant vaporizes into the
introduced fresh air.
Vapor
Treatment
Blower
Condensate
Collection
Mass transfer:
Vapors move to one or more
extraction wells.
Vapor
Treatment
Blower
Condensate
Collection
Treatment:
Single- or multi-step process
extracts and treats vapors.
149
150
Secondary factors
Affinity to medium
Contaminant composition
151
KH =
Pv
C
152
153
Coarse-grained
material (gravel)
Fine-grained
material (silt)
Soil permeability
Second only to Henry's Law Constant for
success of an SVE system
Gravel
Silt
154
155
Surface caps
Impermeable seals that increase the radius of
influence and reduce surface water infiltration
156
Suction ~20 Hg
Radius of
influence
(ROI) is the
distance from
the extraction
well to well
points where
the applied
vacuum is
recognized
157
Homogeneous
Soil Type
Coarse sand
Fine sand
Silt
Clay
ROI
Extraction well
Area of contamination
158
Unsaturated
Saturated
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE Enhancements
Air Sparging
Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *
Phytoremediation *
Bioremediation *
Immobilization *
Extraction well
Heat canisters
Extraction well
Heating blanket
159
Inlet well
Microwave probes
20C
40C
TCE
328*
544
1370
Benzene
133
230
619
1,2Dichloroethane
30
51
134
Methylene
chloride
53
89
226
* atm m3/mole
Source: In situ Treatment Technology E. Nyer
Unsaturated
Saturated
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE Enhancements
Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *
Phytoremediation *
Bioremediation *
Immobilization *
Air Sparging
160
SVE wells
Dissolved phase
Process can:
Strip volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from dissolved phase
Volatilize trapped or sorbed phase
contaminants
Enhance aerobic biodegradation by
direct injection of O2
Contaminant characteristics
Soil properties
System design, including:
Air distribution (zone of influence)
Air injection pressure and flow rates
161
Zone-of-Influence Considerations
Dissolved phase
Silt layer
Zone-of-Influence Considerations
Dissolved phase
162
Zone-of-Influence Considerations
Dissolved phase
163
164
165
166
Unsaturated
Saturated
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE Enhancements
Air Sparging
Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *
Phytoremediation *
Bioremediation *
Immobilization *
Contaminated plume
Permeable
reactive barrier
Groundwater flow
167
168
Treatable Organic
Compounds
1,1,1-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
trichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2dichloroethene
vinyl chloride
benzene
freon 113
Treatable Inorganic
Compounds
chromium
lead
uranium
selenium
cadmium
sulphate
nitrate
arsenic
Depends on:
Contaminant characteristics
Site characterization
System design
169
170
Reductive dechlorination
Chromium (Cr+6) reduction
171
Cl
C
Cl
TCE
Cl
Cl
DCE
H
+(2e-+ H+)
-(Cl-)
Cl
+(2e-+ H+)
-(Cl-)
H
H
H C C H
H Ethane H
H
+(2e- + 2H+)
H
C
Cl
+(2e- + H+)
-(Cl- )
C
VC
H
C
H
H
Ethene
172
173
Continuous
PRB
Reactive material
Groundwater flow
Funnel-andgate PRB
Groundwater flow
Gate w/ reactive
material
Funnel of
impermeable
walls
174
175
Unsaturated
Saturated
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Physical
Chemical
Biological
SVE Enhancements
Chemical Oxidation
Soil Flushing *
Phytoremediation *
Bioremediation *
Immobilization *
Air Sparging
No waste generation
May be less expensive than
other treatments
Low operation and
maintenance costs
Can remediate contaminant
source at many depths
Unobtrusive to surface structures
176
Perchloroethene, trichloroethene,
dichloroethene, vinyl chloride
MTBE
Aromatic hydrocarbons
177
Depends on:
Matching an oxidant to the
contaminant
Achieving adequate contact between
oxidant and contaminant
Assuring that the oxidant is not
consumed by other natural material
178
Potassium
permanganate
PCE
4KMnO4 + 3C2Cl4 +
8H-
Water
4H2O
179
Strongest oxidant
Effective in treating chlorinated
VOCs, PAHs, and BTEX compounds
Fisherville Site
Grafton, Massachusetts
ISCO Case Study
180
Treatability Study
On-Site Injection Testing
Installation of Temporary Dam in
Blackstone Canal
Full-Scale In Situ Chemical Oxidation
(ISCO)
181
182
Centrifugal
pumps with
pressure
release valve
Injection Manifold
183
Bailer showing
sodium
permanganate
solution in well
immediately
offset from
injection well
184
185
186
187
188
189
Spray
(1)
Pump
Water
table
Flushing
additives
(5)
Groundwater
treatment
(4)
Groundwater
extraction well
(3)
Pump
Vadose
zone
Contaminated area
Leachate
collection
(2)
Groundwater
zone
Low permeability zone
190
Soil Flushing
Water
Soluble (hydrophilic) organics
Octanol/water partition coefficient <10
191
192
Groundwater treatment
Flushing additives:
Reuse
Degradability
193
194
Particle Size
Distribution
Comments
>2 mm
pretreatment
Oversize
requirements
0.252 mm
0.0630.25 mm
<0.063 mm
<1" soil
>1"
stones
soil
fines
soil
fines
clean
sand
195
POLYMER
CONTAMINATED
SOIL
Centrifuges
Slurry
Water
Sludge basin
Oversized
material
RETURNED TO SITE
Air
Surfactant
Filter press
Concentrator
Sludge
Clean sand
Froth flotation cells
TO DISPOSAL
Soil Washing
196
Soil Washing
197
198
Physical
Chemical
Thermal
Biological
199
Solidification
Sludges and sediments
Clays, vermiculite, and saw dust
Stabilization
Cement technologies
Phosphate technologies
Matrix formation
200
Portec Pugmill
Reagent blending
201
Mouat Industries
Columbus, Montana
202
Mouat Industries
Columbus, Montana
Traub Battery
Traub Battery
203
Vitrification
Primarily radioactive waste
Electrical resistance or
combustion heating
204
205
206
Stabilized Tailings
Advantages
Treats metals in soils, sludges,
and sediments
Can be used for radioactive and
mixed wastes
Treats large volume mine tailings
Disadvantages
Increases waste volume
Not suitable for treating organics
Requires secondary containment
207
208
THERMAL TREATMENT
209
210
Thermal Treatment
211
Thermal Treatment
Contaminant is destroyed
Established technology
Volume reduction
Best demonstrated available technology
Can be costly
Possible air pollution problems
Public disapproval
212
Thermal Treatment
Primary Combustion
Chamber in presence of
oxygen at 800 to 1400 EF
(20 min)
Secondary Combustion
Chamber temp. at
1800 to 2400 EF
(seconds)
Stack
Caustic
soluciton
scrubber
Quencher
cools with
water to
400EF
Ash
Collection
Ash
Collection
Induced
Draft
Fan
Time
Temperature
Turbulence
Oxygen
213
Thermal Treatment
214
Thermal Treatment
Volatilizes contaminants
Condenses and/or treats vapors
Clean soil returned to the site
215
Thermal Treatment
216
Thermal Treatment
217
Thermal Treatment
Thermal oxidizers
Catalytic oxidizers
218
Thermal Treatment
Air Inlet
Flue Gas Outlet
Forced Draft Fan
Heat
Exchanger
Combustion Area
Air
Flue Gas
Flow
Flue Gas
Flow
Burner
Air
Flue Gas
Air
Flue Gas
Flow
Air
Flue Gas
219
Thermal Treatment
Catalyst
Beds
220
PHYTOREMEDIATION
221
222
Phytoremediation
Define phytoremediation
List six phytotechnologies
List the advantages and
disadvantages of
phytoremediation technologies
Review phytoremediation
decision trees
223
Phytoremediation
Phytotechnologies
include containment in
addition to treatment or removal strategies.
224
Phytoremediation
Mechanism
Description
Clean up goals
Phytosequestation
Containment (sequesters)
Rhizodegradation
Phytohydraulics
Phytoextraction
Phytodegradation
Phytovolatilization
Remediation by
destruction (degrades)
Containment by
controlling hydrology
(sequesters)
Uptake contaminants into the Remediation by removal
plant
of plants (extracts)
Uptake and break down
Remediation by
contaminants within the plant destruction (degrades)
Uptake, translocation, and
Remediation by removal
transpire volatile contaminants. through plants (extracts)
Groundwater
Seep Zone
Infiltration
and Settling
Zone
Seasonal
Floodplain
Water
Body
Solar-powered
Minimal air emissions, water discharge,
225
Phytoremediation
remediation approaches or as a
polishing step
RHIZOSPHERE
PLUME
226
Phytoremediation
Plants:
Typically
13 mm
Surrounding
Roots
O2
Rhizosphere
Root or
Root Fragment
O2
Soil Microbes
O2
E = Exudates
(Nutrients)
O2
E
H2 O
H2O
O2
E
O2
O2
H2O
Photosynthesis:
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + light energy yields phytochemicals
(including carbohydrate) + 6 O2
Respiration:
Phytochemical (stored chemical energy) + O2 yields
carbohydrates + metabolic energy + CO2
Growth and metabolism:
Metabolic energy + cell biomass yields biomass
production and metabolism
End result: up to 20% of carbon produced by plant
goes into rhizosphere
227
Phytoremediation
228
229
230
231
Phytoremediation
232
Phytoremediation
233
Phytoremediation
234
PROCESS TESTING
235
236
Process Testing
Startup
Shakedown
Performance Testing
Production Testing
237
Process Testing
238
Process Testing
Strategy
GRAB
SAMPLES
WIND
COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
TREATING
SAMPLE
TREATED
PILE
COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
JAR
GRAB
SAMPLES
WASTE
PILE
Media
Feed streams
Reagent streams
Treated materials
Waste streams
239
Process Testing
Emissions
Stack
Fugitive
Strategy
Grab
Continuous
Ambient Air
Workzone
Fenceline
240
Process Testing
241
Process Testing
242
Process Testing
MCS Unit
Closed
MCS Unit
Open
243
Process Testing
Monitoring
Shed
Emission
Stack
244
Process Testing
245
Process Testing
246
Process Testing
Impingers
Sample recovery
from media
247
Process Testing
248
TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
249
250
Technology Selection
Presumptive remedies
Potential remedies
Treatability studies
Technology searches
251
Technology Selection
Containment
Landfill
Groundwater control
Leachate collection and treatment
Gas collection and treatment
LNAPL recovery
Air stripping, carbon adsorption,
chemical precipitation, ion
exchange
252
Technology Selection
Volatile organics
Semivolatile to non-volatile
organics
Pesticides
253
Technology Selection
Aqueous
Air stripping, air sparging, bioslurping, or in
situ biological treatment
Aqueous
Carbon adsorption, UV oxidation, chemical or
electron beam destruction, and in situ
biological treatment
Aqueous
UV oxidation, thermal, carbon
adsorption, or biological treatment
Dehalogenation
254
Technology Selection
Aqueous
Chemical treatment, ion exchange, or
membrane separation
255
Technology Selection
Literature searches
Internet searches
256
Technology Selection
www.clu-in.org
www.epareachit.org
www.frtr.gov
www.gwrtac.org
257
258
Home Page
You may access the information in this document in one of five ways:
259
Previous Section
Top Page
Screen Matrix
Table of Contents
Synonym List
Next Section
Table of Contents
PREFACE
z
z
z
z
Notice
Foreword
Report Documentation Page
Acknowledgment
1 INTRODUCTION
z
z
z
z
z
z
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Background
1.3 How To Use This Document
1.4 Requirements To Consider Technology's Impact on Natural Resources
1.5 Cautionary Notes
1.6 On Line Survey
2 CONTAMINANT PERSPECTIVES
z
z
260
3 TREATMENT PERSPECTIVES
z
z
z
z
3.1 In Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.3 In Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
261
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
3.5 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.6 Ex Situ Thermal Treatment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.7 Containment for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.8 Other Treatment Technologies for Soil, Sediment, Bedrock and Sludge
3.9 In Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
3.10 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and
Leachate
3.11 Ex Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
3.12 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and
Leachate
3.13 Containment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate
3.14 Air Emissions/Off-Gas Treatment
4.1 Bioventing
4.2 Enhanced Bioremediation
4.3 Phytoremediation
4.11 Biopiles
4.12 Composting
4.13 Landfarming
4.14 Slurry Phase Biological Treatment
262
z
z
z
z
4.24 Pyrolysis
4.25 Thermal Desorption
4.26 Landfill Cap
4.27 Landfill Cap Enhancements/Alternatives
Other Treatment
z
4.41 Bioreactors
4.42 Constructed Wetlands
4.43 Adsorption/Absorption
4.44 Advanced Oxidation Processes
4.45 Air Stripping
4.46 Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC)/Liquid Phase Carbon Adsorption
4.47 Ground Water Pumping/Pump and Treat
4.48 Ion Exchange
4.49 Precipitation/Coagulation/Flocculation
4.50 Separation
4.51 Sprinkler Irrigation
Containment
z
z
4.54 Biofiltration
263
z
z
z
z
z
5 REFERENCES
z
z
z
APPENDICES
z
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
RELEASE EXERCISE
285
SITUATION
On June 18, 1979, a Missouri
Department of Conservation agent
responded to a major fish kill at a
0.7 acre farm pond located near
Houston, Missouri. (See Figure 1,
Location Map.) The agent
observed a petroleum product
covering the farm pond which most
likely caused the fish kill. The
most probable source of the
petroleum release was the Cairo
Treating Plant of Houston
Chemical Company (Cairo
Treating) located across U.S.
Highway 63 and up gradient from
the farm pond.
HOUSTON, MISSOURI
PCP RELEASE
Jefferson
City
Springfield
St. Louis
Houston
Van Buren
DETAIL BOX 1
SITE DESCRIPTION AND OPERATIONAL DETAILS
The Cairo Treating Plant blends PCP with petroleum which is then sold in bulk to
wood treatment facilities. Because PCP is toxic to micro organisms that attach to
wood fibers and other insects that may attach to wood products (such as termites),
the PCP acts as a preservative. Cairo Treating purchased bulk PCP in a powder
form and blended the PCP with petroleum. This solution, 5% PCP and 95%
petroleum, is pressurized into the wood; however, wood treating was not done at
the Cairo Treating facility. The Cairo Treating Plant consisted of a small building
used for the blending operation, two above ground storage tanks (a 20,000-gallon
and a 15,000-gallon), a small storm water holding pond, and a potable water well.
(See Figure 2, Site Map.) After the release, the on-site well was found to be
fouled with the PCP/petroleum blend.
PAGE 2
At the time of the initial investigation, no product flowed beyond the farm pond; however,
the spillway from the pond empties into Hog Creek. Hog Creek is a tributary of the Big
Piney River, a source of drinking water for several area towns. Because there was very little
freeboard on the pond and a threat of heavy rain, representatives from the federal
government (including the EPA, the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Food and Drug Administration) and Missouri State agencies (including the Departments of
Health, Conservation, Natural Resources, and Highways) arrived on-site the following day
to determine an immediate course of action and remediation plans.
GROUP TASKS
The class will be divided into small groups, and each group will be required to complete the
following tasks. The findings of the tasks will be discussed as a class at the end of this
exercise.
1. Because of the possibility of a significant rainstorm, develop a short term plan for
controlling a possible release from the pond into Hog Creek.
2. Using the site data and conversion factors found in Table 1, determine the following:
Given that 1/2 inch of product (PCP and petroleum) was floating on the pond,
calculate gallons of product on the farm surface
Calculate the percentage of the total 15,000 gallon release that collected on the pond
surface
Allowing a treated water discharge of 10 parts per billion, calculate the total number
of pounds of activated carbon needed to remove PCP from the pond water
PAGE 3
287
288
289
290
PRBs Exercise
W = v tr
Where:
291
PRBs Exercise
2.5 to 4
cm
discharge
sand
reactive
material
flow
10 to 100 cm
sand
input
pump
sample
ports
292
PRBs Exercise
Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Concentration (ppb)*
2633
1500
650
283
150
83
17
tp = 0 hr
C0 = 2633
ppb
293
PRBs Exercise
t = -0.6931 / k
Where:
t = Half-life of contaminant (a time value)
-0.6931 = First order rate constant decay [ln ()]
k = First order constant obtained from
graphing results of a column test
294
PRBs Exercise
Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
ln (C/Co)*
0
-0.5626
-1.3989
-2.2304
-2.8652
-3.4570
-5.0426
0.5
1.5
2.5
k = slope
-1
-2.9
(-4.4) (-1.5)
=
3-1
2
-1.5
-2
k = -1.45
-3
-4
-4.4
-5
Time (hr )
295
PRBs Exercise
t = -0.6931 / k
t = -0.6931 / -1.45
TCE t = 0.478 hours
Where:
296
PRBs Exercise
N = ln (Ceff /Co) / ln
N = ln (5 ppb / 2633 ppb) / ln
N = -6.266 / -0.6931
TCE N = 9.04 (a unit less number)
297
PRBs Exercise
N = 9.04
t = 0.478 hours
298
PRBs Exercise
Residence time tr = tp + td
Using:
299
PRBs Exercise
TCE
(Initial Concentration 2650 g/L)
DCE
VC
300
PRBs Exercise
Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Concentration (ppb)*
15
30
100
140
172
195
200
185
150
120
tp = 2.75 hr
C0 = 200 ppb
301
PRBs Exercise
Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
ln (C/Co)*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.0779
-0.2876
-0.5108
2.5
3.5
4.5
-0.25
k=
-0.475 (0)
0 1.5
k=
-0.475
1.5
k = -0.3167
-0.5
-0.475
-0.75
Time ( hr )
t = -0.6931 / k
k for DCE = -0.316
t = -0.6931 / -0.316
DCE t = 2.18 hours
302
PRBs Exercise
= ln (Ceff /Co) / ln
= ln (5 ppb/200 ppb) / ln
= -3.688 / -0.6931
= 5.32 (a unit less number)
303
PRBs Exercise
Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Concentration (ppb)*
0
10
55
97.5
142.5
160
155
125
120
115
Tp = 2.5 hr
C0 = 160 ppb
304
PRBs Exercise
Time (hours)
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
ln (C/Co)*
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.0317
-0.2468
-0.2876
-0.3302
2.5
3.5
4.5
VC Concentration ln(C/C o)
k=
-0.33 (0)
4.5 2.5
-0.25
-0.33
-0.5
Time ( hr )
t = -0.6931 / k
k for VC = -0.16
t = -0.6931 / -0.16
VC t = 4.33 hours
305
PRBs Exercise
Using
= ln (Ceff / Co) / ln
= ln (2 ppb / 160 ppb) / ln
= -4.38 / -0.6931
= 6.32 (a unit less number)
306
PRBs Exercise
307
PRBs Exercise
ft/ft
= KI / n
K = 10 ft/day
I = 5 feet rise / 100-foot run (5 ft/100ft)
n = 25% (0.25)
308
PRBs Exercise
309
PRBs Exercise
K = 10 ft/day
n = 0.25
I = 10 ft/ 100 ft
v = 4 ft/day
PRB thickness (W) = (Tr)(v)
W = (29.86 hrs)(4 ft/day)(1day/24hrs)
W = 4.9 feet
310
TREATMENT SYSTEM
DESIGN EXERCISE
311
INTRODUCTION
BRANDON, FLORIDA
SYDNEY MINES SLUDGE PONDS
SITE HISTORY
Prior to the site being used as a permitted waste disposal facility, Sydney Mines was a
1,700 acre open pit mine. The mine was operated by the American Cyanamid Co., and the
main product was phosphate ore. In 1973, Hillsborough County constructed a 0.6 acre pond
on an approximate 10 acre parcel which they leased from the owner. This pond accepted
septic waste, grease trappings from commercial restaurants, waste automotive oil, industrial
cutting oils, and other types of liquid wastes. In 1978, plans to expand other portions of the
Sydney Mines site to accept solid waste were rejected by the county. However, in 1979, the
FDER granted a construction permit for the waste disposal activities, and a second larger
pond (1.5 acres) was constructed. (See Figure 2, Site Map.) The second pond was used to
contain and separate the septic waste, therefore, separating the septic waste from the other
waste. In 1980, FDER granted an operating permit. Each pond was constructed in a
reclaimed area of the former phosphate mine. For more detailed information on the
reclaimed area and former mining operations. (See Detail Box 1.)
PAGE 2
312
Not to Scale
DETAIL BOX 1
FORMER MINING OPERATING SITE DESCRIPTION
The Sydney Mines operated during the 1930s and 1950s. During each period,
phosphate rich ore was excavated and the phosphate separated from the rock.
The waste products from this operation included phosphatic clay, called slimes,
and sand mine tailings. In order to contain the clay slimes, settling ponds were
created using the sand tailings to construct dikes. These settling ponds were built
in areas that had been mined; however, the bottom of the ponds consisted of an
undisturbed natural clay strata. Therefore, when filled, the clay slimes cover
the natural clay creating a very low permeable layer. The clay slime retention
ponds were then covered with sand tailings ranging in thickness from 3 to 18 feet.
PAGE 3
313
A
Perched Groundwater
and Contaminant Flow
Perched
Water
Table
Sand
Tailings
Sand
Tailings
Clay
Slimes
Former
Septic Pond
Former Waste
Oil Pond
Sand
Tailings
Clay
Slimes
Not to Scale
PAGE 4
314
North
Clay Slimes
Settling Pond
N
Original Sand Tailings Dike
Waste Oil Pond
South
Clay Slimes
Settling Pond
Well
Points
Septic
Pond
Groundwater
Treatment
System
Not to Scale
PAGE 5
315
The next activity required a treatment train be designed to treat the groundwater from the
on-site system. Design of an on-site groundwater treatment train will be the responsibility
of each student team. The following pages contain groundwater contaminant constituents
and chemical information, a list of conditions concerning the treatment, and four treatment
unit descriptions.
Construction costs, operation and maintenance costs per treatment unit, and efficiencies are
provided for each. With this information, conduct the following:
1. Using a saturated volume and the porosity given, calculate the amount of groundwater (in
gallons) that will require treatment.
2. If the groundwater pumps produce an average of 240 gpm (gallons per minute),
calculate the length of time needed to fill a 200,000-gallon pre-treatment holding tank.
3. Select a treatment unit or units to treat the groundwater waste stream to the specified
discharge limits.
See Table 2.
4. Calculate the annual cost of treatment:
a.. Spread construction cost over 5 years
b. Flow rate is 200,000 gpd over 5 years
PAGE 6
316
CONDITIONS
1. Treatment units were selected to meet the applicable and relevant or
appropriate requirements (ARARs).
2. Unit design features such as size, retention time, overflow rates, and other
parameters
were preselected. Design of the units themselves would be an effort
beyond the
scope of this course.
3. Cost factors were calculated using averages, and only gross costs are provided for
simplicity. Actual cost-benefit comparisons are much more complex and would be
too time consuming for the course.
4. All removal efficiencies were arbitrarily selected from averages and would not
necessarily hold true for a specific wastestream.
5. The selection of appropriate treatment systems is much more complex than is
possible to simulate in detail within the time constraints of this course. However,
every effort has been made to provide a problem that covers the most important
aspects of the process.
INFORMATION
Influent Flow Rate
100,000 to 200,000 GPD
Groundwater analytical results
See Table 1.
TABLE 1. GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION
AND MAXIMUM DESIGN CONCENTRATIONS
Benzene
0.1 ppm
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.05 ppm
Carbon tetrachloride
0.1 ppm
Trichloroethylene
0.1 ppm
Chloroform
0.08 ppm
Toluene
0.5 ppm
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.025 ppm
Vinyl chloride
0.05 ppm
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.02 ppm
Pentachlorophenol
0.2 ppm
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.2 ppm
2,4-D
0.5 ppm
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.03 ppm
2,4,5-TP
0.03 ppm
Methylene chloride
1 ppm
Iron (mg/L)
7-45 ppm
PAGE 7
317
Discharge Limits
See Table 2. Discharge Limits are based on the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs).
TABLE 2
Benzene
0.005 ppm
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.2 ppm
Carbon tetrachloride
0.005 ppm
Trichloroethylene
0.005 ppm
Chloroform
0.0002 ppm*
Toluene
1 ppm
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.81 ppm*
Vinyl chloride
0.002 ppm
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.005 ppm
Pentachlorophenol
0.001 ppm
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.007 ppm
2,4-D
0.07 ppm
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.1 ppm
2,4,5-TP
0.5 ppm
Methylene chloride
0.005 ppm
Iron (mg/L)
NA
Duration of Treatment
Five years estimated duration would naturally vary for different treatment systems, but the
time has been established for the problem set in order to simplify comparisons.
Size
1 acre = 43,560 ft2
Discharge (through an on-site irrigation system)
Irrigation will be over the site, providing a flush of the contaminated area. Concentrations
of contaminants in the influent will decrease as treatment progresses. This decreasing load
would make it necessary to design considerable flexibility of treatment into each unit. For
our purposes, assure that the design of each unit takes this need into account.
PAGE 8
318
ADSORPTION*
(mg compound/g carbon)
Benzene
0.00559
80
Carbon tetrachloride
0.0241
6.2
Chloroform
0.00278
1.6
Degradable
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.00431
1.2
Degradable
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.000978
Degradable
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.0340
3.4
Degradable
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.00656
2.2
Degradable
Methylene chloride
0.00203
0.8
Degradable
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
0.0144
Degradable
Trichloroethylene
0.0091
18.2
Refractory
Toluene
0.00637
50
Degradable
Vinyl chloride
0.0891
Trace
Refractory
NA
100
Degradable
2,4-D
NA
Trace
Degradable
2,4,5-TP
NA
Trace
Refractory
CHEMICAL
BIODEGRADATION
Volatile Organics
Degradable
Refractory/
nondegradable
Extractable Organics
Pentachlorophenol
Pesticides and PCBs
Construction Costs
Pretreatment unit:
$200,000
$500,000
$750,000
$500,000
PAGE 9
319
Pretreatment Unit
Limits:
Efficiency: 99.7%.
Cost per 1000 gallons:
$0.10.
Using aeration, the pretreatment unit oxidizes the groundwater from the on-site collection
system producing insoluble inorganic (metal) solids that may be removed by filtration.
Design features including vessel size, residence time, air injection rate configuration, filter
design, filter type, and filter capacity have been optimized for this problem.
Air Stripping
Limits:
Compounds with a Henrys Law constant greater than 0.003 atm-m3 mole.
Design features such as tower fabrication, media selection, and air-to-water ratio have been
optimized for the problem.
Steam Stripping
Limits:
Organic compounds
Henrys Law constant of 0.0004 atm-m3/mole or greater
Vapor treatment unnecessary
Efficiency:
99%
$8.00
Low solubility
Nonpolar
Adsorptive capacity 50 mg/g carbon
Concentration below 1%
SS less than 50 ppm
Oil and grease less than 10 ppm
Efficiency:
Varies with wastestream for the purpose of this exercise. If the compound
meets the constraints in the limits listed above, the removal rate will be 90%. If
the
compound is below the 50 mg/g carbon limit, removal efficiency rate
will be 30%.
Do not consider regeneration for the exercise.
Cost per 1000 gallons:
PAGE 10
320
R02/03
Biological Treatment
Limits:
Compound degradable
Nontoxic concentrations
BOD greater than 50 mg/L
Efficiency:
If a second or third biological treatment unit is added, the cost per 1,000 gallons increases to
$0.40. The extra cost is to add additional nutrients.
Unit is an RBC and has been sized for the problem. Removal rates of refractory compounds
are arbitrarily selected at 30% for the problem.
Calculations
A. Water content
B. Filling time of holding tank
C. Treatment unit selection
D. Construction cost of treatment
system
E. Annual cost of treatment
PAGE
321 11
EXERCISE WORKSHEET
CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION
Volatile Organics
Benzene
0.1 ppm
Carbon tetrachloride
0.1 ppm
Chloroform
0.08 ppm
1,1-Dichloroethane
0.025 ppm
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.02 ppm
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.2 ppm
1 ppm
0.05 ppm
Trichloroethylene
0.1 ppm
Toluene
0.5 ppm
Vinyl chloride
0.05 ppm
Extractable Organics
Pentachlorophenol
0.2 ppm
2,4-D
0.5 ppm
2,4,5-TP
0.03 ppm
Other
Iron
7-45 ppm
322
absorption coefficient
atomic absorption
Assistant Administrator (EPA)
Ambient Air Quality Criteria Document (EPA, CAA)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
alternate concentration limit (EPA, RCRA)
administrative consent order
acceptable daily intake (EPA)
Atomic Energy Act (NRC, ERDA, DOE)
Attorney General
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (EPA, TSCA)
Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act
acceptable intake for chronic exposure (EPA)
American Industrial Hygiene Association
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
acceptable intake for subchronic exposure (EPA)
action level (EPA)
administrative law judge
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
American National Standards Institute
administrative order
area of contamination
area of concern
Administrative Procedure Act
Acid Precipitation Act
air quality control region
air quality management district
acute aquatic toxicity values database (CIS)
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
averaging time
323
ATSDR
AWQC
AWQCD
B
BACT
BAT(EA)
BCPCT
BCT
BDAT
BLM
BM
BMP
BOD
BPATT
BPJ
BPT(CA)
BRA
BQRA
BTC
BTEX
BTX
C
C
CA
CAA
CA/FO
CAG
CAMU
CAP
CAP
CAPA
CATEX
CCRIS
324
CDC
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERI
CESARS
CEQ
CESQG
CFC
CFR
CHEMID
CHEMLINE
CHEMTRAC
CHEMTREC
CHRIS
CHS
CIL
CIS
CMA
CMI
CMS
CO
CO
COD
COE
CP
CP
CPF
CPSC
CQAP
CRA
CRAVE
CRP
CRS
Toxnet)
Centers for Disease Control (HHS, PHS)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
CERCLA Information System
Center for Environmental Research Information (EPA-ORD,
Cincinnati)
Chemical Evaluation Search and Retrieval System (CIS)
Council on Environmental Quality
conditionally exempt small quantity generator
Chlorofluorocarbon
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical Identification (includes SUPERLIST) (NLM, ELHILL)
Chemical Dictionary Online (NLM, ELHILL)
Chemical emissions toxicity inventory database (EPA)
Chemical Transportation Emergency Center
Chemical Hazard Response Information System (USCG)
CERCLA hazardous substance
Chemical Inventory List (EPA, EPCRA)
Computer Information System (commercial user network)
Chemical Manufacturers Association
corrective measures implementation (EPA, RCRA)
corrective measures study (EPA, RCRA)
compliance order
carbon monoxide
chemical oxygen demand
Corps of Engineers
conventional pollutant (EPA, CWA)
criteria pollutant (EPA, CAA)
cancer (carcinogenic) potency factor
Consumer Product Safety Commission
construction quality assurance plan
classification review area (EPA, SDWA)
carcinogen risk assessment verification endeavor (EPA, ECAO)
community relations plan(ning) (EPA, CERCLA)
Congressional Research Services
325
CSF
CTCP
CWA
CZMA
D
D
D--DAF
DART
DCQAP
DE
DEIS
DERA
DERMAL
DERP
DIRLINE
DMP
DMR
DNFA
DOC
DOD
DOE
DOI
DOJ
DOL
DOR
DOT
DQO
DRE
DW
DWCD
DWHAS
disposer, disposal
dose of a pollutant in a receptor (mg/kg/day)
waste ID for characteristic hazardous wastes (EPA, RCRA)
dilution-attenuation factor (EPA, RCRA)
Development and Reproductive Toxicology (NLM, Toxnet)
data collection quality assurance plan
destruction efficiency
draft environmental impact statement
defense environmental restoration account
dermal absorption and toxicity database (CIS)
defense environmental restoration program
Directory of Information Resources Online (NLM)
data management plan
discharge monitoring report (EPA, CWA)
determination of no further action (EPA, RCRA)
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Labor
Determination of Release (EPA, RCRA)
U.S. Department of Transportation
data quality objective (EPA)
destruction removal efficiency
drinking water
Drinking Water Criteria Document (EPA, SDWA)
Drinking Water Health Advisory Summary (EPA, SDWA)
326
EA
EA
EC50
EcA
ECAO
ED
ED50
EE/CA
EEGL
EEL
EERU
EF
EFD
EHS
EIA
EIES
EIS
EMIC
EMICBACK
327
F--FACA
FCL
FCO
FEIS
FEMA
FEPCA
FFA
FFCA
FFCM
FFSRA
FIFRA
FIT
FLPMA
FOIA
FONSI
FR
FRG
FRL
FRSS
FS
FWPCA
FWS
G
G/Tp
GAC
GACT
GC
GC/MS
GENE-TOX
GIABS
GOCO
GSA
GW
generator
generator/transporter
granular activated carbon
generally available control technology
gas chromatograph(y)
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
genetic toxicology database (NLM, Toxnet)
gastrointestinal absorption database (CIS)
government-owned, contractor-operated facility
Government Services Administration
groundwater
328
GWA
GWPS
GWQA
H
HA
HAD
HAP
HARM
HASP
HAZINF
HAZWOPER
HC
HC
HCh
HEA
HEA
HEAD
HEAST
HEED
HEEP
HH&E
HHS
HHWE
HI
HM
HMTA
HQ
HRS
HS
HSDB
HSWA
HW
HWMF
HWMU
329
I
I
IAG
IARC
ICL
IDLH
IFB
IHCS
ILR
IRIS
IRP
IS
I&SE
ISHOW
IUPAC
K---
LAER
LC50
LD50
LDF
LDU
LEPC
LF
LFD
LLRWPA
LOG P
LOIS
LQG
LT
LTU
LUST
MACT
330
MARPOL
MCL
MCLG
MCS
MEI
MEDLARS
MEP
MF
mg/kg
mg/l
MOA
MOS
MPSRA
MPS
MSDS
MSHA
MTD
MTR
MSW
NAAQS
NAS
NBAR
NCA
NCI
NCP
NEPA
NESHAP(S)
NFPA
NHPA
NIH
NIOSH
NIPDWS
NLM
331
NOAA
NOAEL
NOD
NOEL
NOI
NONC
NOV
NOx
NPDES
NPL
NRC
NRC
NRC
NRDA
NRT
NSF
NSPS
NTIS
NTP
NWPA
O&G
O&M
OE
OECM
OERR
OGC
OHM/TADS
OMB
O&MP
O/O
ORD
OSC
OSHA
332
OSHA
OSM
OSW
OSWER
OTA
OTS
OU
OUST
OWPE
P--PA
PAAT
PAC
PAH
PCBs
PCDD
PCDF
PCP
PDR
PECMT
PEL
PHRED
PSHA
PHYTOTOX
PI
PIAT
PIC
PIG
PIP
PL
PM
PMN
polychlorinated dibenzofurans
pentachlorophenol
Physicians' Desk Reference
preliminary evaluation of corrective measures technology
permissible exposure limit (OSHA)
Public Health Risk Evaluation Database (EPA)
Public Service Health Act
Terrestrial plant toxicology database (CIS)
preliminary injunction
Public Information Assistance Team
product(s) of incomplete combustion
program implementation guidance
public involvement plan
public law
project manager
premanufacture notices
333
PMP
PN
PNA
PNC
POC
POD
POE
POHC
POM
POTW
PP
PP
ppb
PPE
PPIC
ppm
PPP
ppt
PQL
PR
PRAO
PRG
PRP
PSD
q, q*, q1
QAPP
QA/QC
QRA
QSAR
R
R
RA
RA
334
RA
RACT
RAn
RAO
RAP
RBC
RC
RCh
RComp
RCRA
RD
RD&D
RE
REL
REMFIT
RFA
RfC
RfCdt
RfCs
RfD
RfDdt
RfDs
RFI
RFP
RI
RI/FS
RIM
RJ
RM
RME
RMI
RMCL
RN
RO
ROD
Regional Administrator
reasonably available control technology (EPA, CAA)
risk analysis
remedial action objective (EPA, CERCLA)
remedial action plan
rotating biological contactor
risk communication
risk characterization
remedy completion
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
remedial design (EPA, CERCLA)
research, development and demonstration
risk evaluation
recommended exposure limit (NIOSH)
Field Investigation Team for EPA Remedial Action
RCRA facility assessment (EPA, RCRA)
(Inhalation) reference concentration (generic or chronic) (EPA)
reference concentration (developmental/teratogenic) (EPA)
reference concentration (subchronic) (EPA)
(Oral) reference dose (generic or chronic) (EPA)
reference dose (developmental/teratogenic) (EPA)
reference dose (subchronic) (EPA)
RCRA facility investigation (EPA, RCRA)
Request for Proposal
remedial investigation (EPA, CERCLA)
remedial investigation/feasibility study
regulatory interpretative memorandum
risk judgment
risk management
reasonable maximum exposure (EPA)
risk management implementation (EPA, RCRA)
recommended maximum contaminant level (same as MCLG)
risk negotiation
reverse osmosis
record of decision (EPA, CERCLA)
335
RP
RP
RPAR
RPJ
RPM
RQ
RR
RR
RRC
RRS
RRT
RS
RS
RS
RSD
RTECS
RU
RW
RWMU
risk perception
responsible party (EPA, CERCLA)
rebuttable presumption against registration (EPA, FIFRA)
risk perception and judgment
Regional Project Manager
reportable quantity (EPA, CERCLA)
residual risk
risk reduction
Regional Response Center
risk reduction studies
Regional Response Team
regulated substances (EPA, UST)
remedy selection
risk substitution
risk specific dose (EPA)
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (NLM, Toxnet)
regulated unit (EPA, RCRA)
remediation waste
remediation waste management unit (EPA, RCRA)
S
SAB
SARA
SC
SDWA
SERC
SES
SF
SF
SHPO
SI
SI
SI
SIC
SIP
storer, storage
Science Advisory Board
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
specific conductance
Safe Drinking Water Act
State Emergency Response Commission (EPA, EPCRA)
Senior Executive Service
safety factor (EPA)
slope factor (EPA)
State Historic Preservation Officer
sampling inspection (EPA, RCRA)
site inspection (EPA, CERCLA)
surface impoundment
standard industrial classification (cede)
state implementation plan (EPA, CAA)
336
SITE
SMCL
SMCRA
SNARL
SNC
SNUR
SOLUB
SPCC
SQG
SSC
SW
SWDA
SWMF
SWMU
T
T
TA
TAG
TAR
TAT
TBC
TC
TCA
TCE
TCh
TC50
TCDD
TCL
TCL
TCLP
TD50
TDS
T&E
TEGD
337
THM
TIP
TLV
TLV-C
TLV-STEL
TLV-TWA
TMV
TOC
TOX
TOXLINE
TOXLIT
TOXNET
Tp
TP
TPQ
TRI
TRIFACTS
TRO
TS
TSCA
TSCATS
TSD
TSDF
TSP
TSS
TSS
TU
TUHC
TV
trihalomethane
Toxicology Information Program (NLM)
threshold limit value (ACGIH)
TLVceiling (ACGIH)
TLVshort-term exposure limit (ACGIH)
TLVtime-weighted average (ACGIH)
toxicity, mobility, and volume
total organic carbon
total organic halogen
Toxicology Information Online (NLM, ELHILL)
toxicology literature from special sources (NLM, ELHILL)
Toxicology Data Network (NLM, MEDLARS)
transporter
toxic pollutant (EPA, CWA)
threshold planning quantity (EPA, EPCRA)
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (EPA, EPCRA, NLM, Toxnet)
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Fact Sheets (NLM, Toxnet)
temporary restraining order
toxic substance (EPA, TSCA)
Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act submissions
treatment, storage, or disposal
treatment, storage, or disposal facility
total suspended particulates
total suspended solids
total settleable solids
temporary unit (EPA, RCRA)
total unburned hydrocarbons
toxicity value
U--UF
UIC
ur3
USC
338
USCA
USCG
USDW
USGS
UST
VOA
VOC
VSI
W
WHO
WL
WP
WQA
WQC
WQS
WWTU
weight of receptor
World Health Organization
warning letter
waste pile
Water Quality Act
water quality criterion (EPA, CWA)
water quality standard (EPA, CWA)
wastewater treatment unit (EPA, RCRA)
339