EPA/540/AR-93/520

May 1994

CAV-OX Cavitation Oxidation Process

Magnum Water Technology, Inc.

Applications Analysis Report

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

@ Printed on Ret ycled Paper
Notice

The information in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program under Contract No. 68-CO-0047. This

document has been subjected to EPA’s peer and administrative reviews, and approved for publication as

an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement

or recommendation for use.

ii
Foreword

The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program was authorized in the 1986

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. The program is a joint effort between the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development and Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response. The purpose of the program is to assist the development of innovative

hazardous waste treatment technologies, especially those that offer permanent remedies for contamination

commonly found at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. The SITE Program evaluates new

treatment methods through technology demonstrations designed to provide engineering and cost data for

selected technologies.

A field demonstration was conducted under the SITE Program to evaluate the ability of the CAV-OX”

process to treat groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The demonstration took place

at Edwards Air Force Base Site 16, California. The demonstration was directed toward obtaining

information on the performance and cost of the technology and assessing its use at this and other hazardous

waste sites. Documentation consists of a technology evaluation report, which describes field activities and

laboratory results, and this applications analysis report, which interprets the data and discusses the potential

applicability of the technology.

A limited number of copies of this report will be available at no charge from EPA’s Center for

Environmental Research Information, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513)

569-7562. Requests for copies should include the EPA document number found on the report’s cover.

When this supply is exhausted, additional copies can be purchased from the National Technical Information

Service, Ravensworth Building, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4600. Reference copies will be

available at EPA libraries in the Hazardous Waste Collection.

E. Timothy Oppelt, Director

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Abstract

This report evaluates the ability of the CAV-OX cavitation oxidation process to remove volatile

organic compounds (VOC) present in aqueous wastes. This report also presents economic data based on

the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program demonstration and nine case studies.

The patented CAV-OX’ process was developed by Magnum Water Technology (Magnum) to destroy

organic contaminants in water. The process uses hydrodynamic cavitation, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and

hydrogen peroxide to oxidize organic compounds in water at or below milligrams-per-liter levels. This

treatment technology produces no air emissions and generates no sludge or spent media that require further

processing, handling, or disposal. Ideally, the end products are water, carbon dioxide, halides, and in

some cases, organic acids. The process uses mercury vapor lamps to generate UV radiation. The principal

oxidants in the process, hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals, are produced by hydrodynamic cavitation and

direct photolysis of hydrogen peroxide at UV wavelengths.

The CAV-OX process was demonstrated under the SITE Program at Edwards Air Force Base

(Edwards) Site 16, California. Over a 4-week period in March 1993, about 8,500 gallons of VOCcontaminated grotmdwater was treated with both the CAV-OX I low-energy process and the CAV-OX

II high-energy process. For the SITE demonstration, some configurations of the CAV-OX process

achieved trichloroethene (TCE) and benzene removal efficiencies of greater than 99.9 percent. Likewise,

some configurations of the CAV-OX process met State of California drinking water action levels and

federal drinking water maximum contaminant levels for TCE and benzene at the 95 percent confidence

level. Influent concentrations of TCE and benzene ranged from 1,500 to 2,000 and 250 to 500 micrograms

per liter, respectively. No scaling was observed on any of the UV tubes. Magnum reports that scaling

does not occur in the CAV-OX process.

Potential sites for applying this technology include Superfund and other hazardous waste sites that have

grotmdwater or aqueous wastes contaminated with organic compounds. Economic data indicate that

groundwater remediation costs could range from about $13 to $31 per 1,000 gallons, depending on

individual site characteristics. Of these costs, CAV-OX process direct treatment costs could range from

about $5 to $11 per 1,000 gallons.

The document includes three appendixes. Appendix A describes Magnum’s experience in developing

and applying the principles of hydrodynamic cavitation in combination with advanced oxidation for the

treatment of industrial effluents and groundwater. Appendix B briefly describes Edwards Site 16 and

summarizes the SITE demonstration activities and demonstration results. Appendix C summarizes nine

case studies provided by Magnum.

I”
Contents

Section Page

Notice .......................................................... ii

Foreword ...................................................... i i i

Abstract ....................................................... iv

Contents.. ....................................................... v

Figures ....................................................... ix

Tables .......................................................... ix

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols ................................... xi

Conversion Factors ................... , .............................xiii

Acknowledgements ................................................ xiv

1. Executive Summary .............................................. 1

Overview of the SITE Demonstration ................................... 2

Results from the SITE Demonstration ....................................2

Vendor-Provided Results from Case Studies ................................ 3

Waste Applicability .............................................. 3

Economics.. ................................................... 3

2. Introduction .................................................... 5

Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program ........................... 5

Documentation of the SITE Demonstration Results ............................ 6

Purpose of the Applications Analysis Report ............................... 6

Technology Description ........................................... 6

Treatment Technology .......................................... 6

Process Components and Function ................................... 8

Innovative Features of the Technology ................................ 8

Key Contacts .................................................. 10

3. Technology Applications Analysis ..................................... 11

Effectiveness of the CAV-OX@ Process .. : .............................. 11

Results of the SITE Demonstration ................................. 11

Results of Other Case Studies .................................... 12

Factors Influencing Performance ...................................... 12

Influent Characteristics ........................................ 12

Operating Parameters ......................................... 13

Maintenance Requirements ....................................... 13

Site Characteristics ............................................. 14

Support Systems ............................................ 14

Site Access.. ............................................... 15

Climate ................................................... 15

Utilities ................................................... 15

Services and Supplies .......................................... 15

V
1 Y
Technical Data and Cost Comparisons ........................................................................................... 33

SITE Demonstration Results ................................................................................................ 33

Cavitation Chamber Only ..................................................................................................... 33

Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 39

Results .............................................................................................................................. 39

Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 39

References.......... ; ............................................................................................ 39

Appendix B - SITE Demonstration Results ................................................................................ 43

Site Description ........................................... 43

Site Contamination Characteristics ................................. 46

Review of SITE Demonstration .................................. 46

Site Preparation ......................................... 46

Major Support Equipment ................................... 46

On-Site Support Services ................................... 46

Utilities .............................................. 46

Technology Demonstration ............................................ 46

Operational and Equipment Problems ........................... 46

Health and Safety Considerations ..............................48

Site Demobilization ...................................... 48

Experimental Design ........................................ 48

Testing Approach ........................................ 48

Sampling and Analytical Procedures ............................ 50

Review of Treatment Results ...................................... . 50

Summary of Results for Critical Parameters ........................... 52

Summary of Results for Noncritical Parameters .......................... 52

Hydrogen Peroxide Effects ............................. 52

pH Effects ....................................... 57

Vendor-Selected Conditions ............................ 57

Additional Noncritical Parameters ............................. 60

Conclusions ............................................; ...... 60

References .................................................... 6 1

Appendix C - Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 6 . . . . . . . .3

Introduction ..................................................

CASE STUDY C-l : Wood Treating Superfund Site, Pensacola, Florida ....................................

Introduction ...............................................

Equipment ................................................

Methodology ...............................................

Results ....................................................

CASE STUDY C-2: Chevron Service Station, Long Beach, California ......................................

Introduction ...............................................

Equipment .............................................

Methodology .............................................

Operations .............................................

Results ...............................................

CASE STUDY C-3: Presidio Army Base, San Francisco, California ................................ .

Introduction ............................................

Equipment .............................................

Results ...............................................

CASE STUDY C-4: Chemical Plant, East Coast U.S. .......................

Introduction .............................................

Equipment ..............................................

Me*hodology ............................................

. . 63

. . . . 64

. 64

. . 64

. 65

65

. . . 65

. . . 65

. . . . 65

. * . . 65

. . . . 67

. . . . 67

. . . . 67

. . . . 67

. . . . 67

. . . . 67

. . . . 67

. . . . 67

. . . . 68

. . . . 68

vii
Results ................................................... 68

CASE STUDY C-5: Mannesmarm Anlagenbau, Salzburg, Austria .................. 68

Introduction ................................................ 68

Equipment .................................................. 68

Methodology ................................................ 68

Results ................................................... 68

CASE STUDY C-6: Steel Mill, South Korea .............................. 68

Introduction ................................................ 68

Equipment ................................................. 68

Methodology.. .............................................. 69

Results ................................................... 69

Cyanide Tests ........................................... 69

Phenol Tests .......................................... 69

Combined Cyanide and Phenol Tests ........................... 69

CASE STUDY C-7: Perdue Farms, Bridgewater, Virginia ...................... 69

Introduction ................................................ 69

Equipment ................................................. 71

Methodology ................................................ 71

Results ................................................... 71

CASE STUDY C-8: Southern California Edision, Los Angeles, California ............ 71

Introduction ................................................ 71

Equipment ................... . . ............................ 71

Methodology ................................................ 71

Results ................................................... 72

CASE STUDY C-9: Corporation Mexicana de Investigation en Materials,

S.A. de.C.V. (CMIMSA) ........................................ 72

Introduction ................................................ 72

Equipment ................................................. 72

Methodology.. .............................................. 72

Results ..... . . ............................................ 72

. . .
Figures

Fimre 

1

A-l

B-l

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

C-l

The CAV-OX Process as Demonstrated .............................. . 9

CAV-OX Process Used at Edwards Air Force Base ....................... 34

Edwards Site Location .......................................... 44

Site 16 Layout ............................................... 45

CAV-OX Process Sample and Measurement Locations ..................... 47

Influent Concentrations - Primary Contaminants .......................... 51

Influent Concentrations - Secondary Contaminants ........................ 51

Trichloroethene Removal Efficiency Comparison ......................... 55

Benzene Removal Efficiency Comparison .............................. 56

Comparison of 95 Percent UCLs for Effluent VOC Concentrations

with Demonstration Target Levels (Run 12) ............................ 57

CAV-OX I Flow Variations on Trichloroethene Removals ................... 58

CAV-OX I Flow Variations on Benzene Removals ....................... 58

CAV-OX II Flow Variations on Trichloroethene Removals ................. . 59

CAV-OX II Flow Variations on Benzene Removals ...................... . 59

Photograph of CAV-OX Process ................................... 66

Tables

Table

1

2

3

4

5

A-l

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

CAV-OX Process Cost Summary ................................... 3

Comparison of Technologies for Treating VOCs in Water .................... 10

Regulations Summary .......................................... 17

Costs Associated with the CAV- OX I I Low-Energy Process .................. 22

Costs Associated with the CAV-OX II High-Energy Process ........ 1 ......... 23

Desirable Influent Characteristics ................................... 32

Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/24/93 .................... 35

Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/24/93 .................... 35

Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/24/93 .................... 36

Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/24/93 .................... 36

Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/25/93 .................... 37

Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/26/93 .................... 38

Developer-Generated SITE Demonstration Results (Percent Reduction),

CAV-OX Cavitation Chamber Only ................................. 40

Economic Comparisons for Groundwater Treatment Process .................. 41

Economic Comparison Between a Carbon Adsorption System and

CAV-OX I Low-Energy Process .................................... 41

B-1 Experimental Conditions ........................................ 49

ix
B-2

B-3

B-4

C-l

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-7

Target Levels for Critical Analytes in Effluent Samples ..................... 50

Contaminant Removal .......................................... 53

Contaminant Removal Efficiency ................................... 54

Case Study Summary .......................................... 64

Groundwater Sampling Results, August 20, 1990 ......................... 67

Cyanide Removals ............................................ 70

Phenol Removals ............................................. 70

Combined Cyanide/Phenol Removals ................................. 70

Salmonella Study Results ........................................ 71

Phenol Removal Comparison ...................................... 72
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols

AAR

ACL

AEA

ARAR

BOD

BTEX

*C

CERCLA

CFR

CFU

Ciba

CWA

DOE

Edwards

EPA

FIFRA

“F

GC

gpd

;*,

hv

kW

kWh

“K

Magnum

Mannesmann

MCL

MEK

MIBK

ug/L

mg/L

nm

NPDES

NTU

OH*

O&M

ORD

OSHA

OSWER

PCB

PCP

POC

POTW

Applications Analysis Report

Alternate concentration limit

Atomic Energy Act

Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

Biochemical oxygen demand

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene

Degrees Celsius

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Code of Federal Regulations

Colony-forming unit

Ciba-Geigy Corporation

Clean Water Act

U.S. Department of Energy

Edwards Air Force Base

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

Degrees Fahrenheit

Gas chromatography

Gallons per day

Gallons per minute

Hydrogen peroxide

Ultraviolet radiation

Kilowatt

Kilowatt-hour

Degrees Kelvin

Magnum Water Technology

Mannesnnum Anlagenbau

Maximum contaminant level

Methyl ethyl ketone

Methyl isobutyl ketone

Micrograms per liter

Milligrams per liter

Nanometers

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Nephelometric turbidity unit

Hydroxyl radical

Operation and maintenance

Office of Research and Development

Occupational Safety and Health Act

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Polychlorinated biphenyl

Pentachlorophenol

Purgeable organic carbon

Publicly owned treatment works

xi
PPE

psi

QA

QC

RCRA

RFP

RREL

SARA

SDWA

SITE

SVOC

TC

TCE

TCU

TER

TIC

TOC

TPH

TRPH

TSCA

UCL

U V

VOC

Personal protective equipment

Pounds per square inch

Quality assurance

Quality control

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Request For Proposal

Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory

Superftmd Amendments and Reauthorization Act

Safe Drinking Water Act

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation

Semivolatile organic compound

Total carbon

Trichloroethene

Total color units

Technology Evaluation Report

Tentatively identified compound

Total organic carbon

Total petroleum hydrocarbons

Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons

Toxic Substances Control Act

Upper confidence limit

Ultraviolet

Volatile organic compound

xii
Conversion Factors

Measurement To Convert From To Multiply By

Area

Length

Mass

Energy

Power

Temperature

VP_

inch

foot

mile

square foot

acre

gallon

cubic foot

pound

megajoule

horsepower

( o Fahrenheit - 32)

centimeter

meter

kilometer

square meter

square meter

liter

cubic meter

kilogram

kilowatt-hour

kilowatt

0 Celsius

2.54

1.61

0.0929

0.0283

0.454

0.2776

0.7457

0.556

~~

. . . x111
Acknowledgements

This report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Mr. Richard G. Eilers, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Supe rfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program

Project Manager in the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio. Contributors

and reviewers for this report were Mr. Richard G. Eilers, Mr. Albert Venosa, Ms. Norma Lewis, and Mr.

Gordon Evans of EPA RREL, Cincinnati, Ohio; and Mr. Dale Cox and Mr. Jack Simser of Magnum

Water Technology.

The cooperation and participation of the Edwards Air Force Base personnel throughout the

demonstration is gratefully acknowledged.

This report was prepared for EPA’s SITE Program by PRC Environmental Management, Inc., under

Contract No. 68-C0-0047.

xiv
Section 1

Executive Summary

The patented CAV-OX cavitation oxidation process,

developed by Magnum Water Technology (Magnum), was

demonstrated under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)

Program. The CAV-OX process demonstration was conducted

over a 4-week period in March 1993, at Edwards Air Force

Base (Edwards) Site 16, California.

The CAV-OX process is designed to destroy dissolved

organic contaminants in water. The process uses hydrodynamic

cavitation, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and hydrogen peroxide

to oxidize organic compounds in water. This treatment process

produces no air emissions and generates no sludge or spent

media that require further processing, handling, or disposal.

Ideally, end products are water, carbon dioxide, halides (for

example, chloride), and in some cases, organic acids. In the

process a cavitation chamber induces hydrodynamic cavitation,

which occurs when a liquid undergoes a dynamic pressure

reduction while under constant temperature. The pressure

reduction causes gas bubbles to explosively develop, grow, and

then collapse. Cavitation decomposes water into extremely

reactive hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals, which recombine

to form hydrogen peroxide and molecular hydrogen (Suslick

1989). The process also includes hydrogen peroxide and UV

radiation generated by mercury vapor lamps. The principal

oxidants in the process, hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals,

are produced by both hydrodynamic cavitation and direct

photolysis of hydrogen peroxide at UV wavelengths.

The skid-mounted CAV-OX process consists of the

cavitation chamber, UV reactor, and control panel unit.

Contaminated water is pumped through the cavitation chamber

where hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals are produced. The

water then either enters the UV reactor or is recycled through

the cavitation chamber; the rate of recycle determines the

hydraulic retention time. Magnum recycles water through the

cavitation chamber to continue generation of hydroxyl and

hydroperoxyl radicals. Hydrogen peroxide is usually injected

into the process, in-line, between the cavitation chamber and

the UV reactor. In the UV reactor, the water flows through the

space between the reactor wall and a UV-transmissive quartz

tube in which a UV lamp is mounted. The treated water exits

the UV reactor through an effluent line.

For the demonstration, groundwater from Edwards Site 16

monitoring wells was pumped into an equalization tank. From

this tank, the water was pumped to an influent holding tank.

Hydrogen peroxide was added to the water in the influent holding

tank. Water was then pumped through a flow indicator and

past an influent sample port, then through the cavitation chamber

andUV reactor.

Three configurations of the CAV-OX process were

demonstrated: the CAV-OX I low-energy process; the

CAV-OX II high-energy process operating at 5 kilowatts (kW);

and the CAV-OX II high-energy process operating at 10 kW.

The CAV-OX I process contained six 60-watt UV lamps in

one reactor, and the CAV-OX@ II process contained two UV

reactors with one UV lamp each operating at 2.5 or 5 kW.

The CAV-OX I and the CAV-OX II processes were operated

simultaneously. Flow for the CAV-OX I process varied from

0.5 to 1.5 gallons per minute @pm). Flow for the CAV-OX II

process varied from 1 to 4 gpm.

Primary objectives for the demonstration were to:

* Determine trichloroethene (TCE) and benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) removal efficiencies

under different operating conditions

* Determine whether TCE and BTEX levels in treated

groundwater meet applicable discharge limits to the

sanitary sewer at the 95 percent confidence level

* Compare TCE and BTEX removal efficiencies among

the three process configurations

Secondary objectives for the demonstration were to:

* Collect information, including process chemical dosage

and utility requirements, needed to estimate treatment

costs

* Assess the presence of degradation by-products in the

treated water

* Collect groundwater characterization data for both

influent and effluent streams
This report presents information from the SITE

demonstration and several case studies that will be useful for

implementing the CAV-OX process at hazardous waste sites

regulated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Section 2 presents

an overview of the SITE Program, discusses the purpose of

this report, describes the CAV-OX process, and lists key

contacts. Section 3 discusses information relevant to the

process’s application, including pretreatment and posttreatment

requirements, site characteristics, operating and maintenance

requirements, potential community exposures, and potentially

applicable environmental regulations. Section 4 summarizes

the costs associated with implementing the technology.

Appendixes A through C include the vendor claims for the

process, a summary of the demonstration results, and summaries

of nine case studies, respectively.

Overview of the SITE Demonstration

Shallow groundwater at Edwards Site 16 was selected as

the waste stream for evaluating the CAV-OX process. About

8,500 gallons of groundwater contaminated with volatile organic

compounds (VOC) was treated during the demonstration. The

principal groundwater contaminants were TCE and BTEX,

which were present at concentrations of up to 2,100 micrograms

per liter (@L). Groundwater was pumped from three monitoring

wells into a 7,500~gallon equalization (bladder) tank to minimize

variability in intluent characteristics. Treated groundwater was

stored in a 21,000-gallon steel tank to await disposal.

The CAV-OX equipment was transported in and operated

from the bed of a 1 -ton stake body truck. The process equipment

functioned as planned after completing electrical and plumbing

connections. Equipment did not malfunction or require

maintenance during the 2-week demonstration.

The demonstration consisted of 15 planned runs for each

CAV-OX configuration. Each run varied the operating

parameters of the CAV-OX process. Samples from all three

configurations for one run were collected before the next run

began. The runs were conducted to demonstrate each

configuration under different operating conditions and to

compare the operation of the configurations.

The principal operating parameters for the CAV-OX

process, hydrogen peroxide dose, hydraulic retention time

(determined by flow rate), and UV output, were varied to allow

observation of treatment process performance under different

operating conditions. Three hydrogen peroxide dosages were

demonstrated over three flow rates. UV output varied with the

three configurations. The process was also operated under

additional conditions as determined by Magnum. Groundwater

pH was lowered during two runs while operating under these

conditions. Although Magnum does not consider intluent pH to

be a principal operating parameter and reports that pH has only

a minimal effect on the CAV-OX process, influent pH was

varied in two runs because of its impact on other UV treatment

systems.

During the demonstration, samples were collected from the

influent and effluent lines of the CAV-OX I and CAV-OX II

processes. Influent and effluent samples were analyzed for

TCE, BTEX, other VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds

(SVOC), total organic carbon (TOC), total carbon (TC),

purgeable organic carbon (POC), metals, pH, alkalinity,

hardness, temperature, total recoverable petroleum hydmcarbons

(TRPH), specific conductance, hydrogen peroxide, and turbidity.

These samples were also analyzed for acute toxicity to freshwater

organisms using Ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea) and Pimephales

promelas (fathead minnow) as the test organisms.

Results from the SITE Demonstration

The following preferred operating conditions (those

conditions that reduced effluent VOCs to below target levels)

were determined for the CAV-OX I configuration: an influent

hydrogen peroxide concentration of 23.4 milligrams per liter

(mg/L) and a flow rate of 0.6 gpm. At these conditions, the

effluent TCE and benzene levels were generally below target

levels (5 pg/L and 1 &L, respectively). The average removal

efficiencies for TCE and benzene were about 99.9 percent.

The following preferred operating conditions were

determined for the 5-kW CAV-OX II configuration: an influent

hydrogen peroxide concentration of 48.3 mg/L and a flow rate

of 1.4 gpm. At these conditions, the effluent TCE and benzene

levels were generally below target levels. Average removal

efficiencies for TCE and benzene were about 99.8 percent.

The following preferred operating conditions were

determined for the lo-kW CAV-OX II configuration: an

infhrent hydrogen peroxide concentration of 48.3 mg/L and a

flow rate of 1.4 gpm. At these conditions, the effluent TCE

and benzene levels were generally below target levels. Average

removal efficiencies for TCE and benzene were about 99.7 and

99.8 percent, respectively.

While operating under the preferred conditions, all

CAV-OX configuration effluents met State of California

drinking water action levels and federal drinking water maximum

contaminant levels (MCL) for BTBX at the 95 percent confidence

level. Effluent from the CAV-OX I process met the State of

California drinking water action level and federal drinking water

MCL for TCE at the 95 percent confidence level.

Bioassay analyses showed that intluent was generally toxic

to both the fathead minnow and the water flea, and that the

CAV-OX process efnuent from runs without hydrogen peroxide

was nontoxic to the fathead minnow but moderately toxic to the

water flea. Bioassay analyses also showed that the CAV-OX

2
process effluent from runs with hydrogen peroxide was toxic to

both the fathead minnow and the water flea. Comparison of

effluent toxicity data with that of hydrogen peroxide

concentration in the effluent indicates that effluent toxicity may

be due partially to hydrogen peroxide rather than CAV-OX

treatment by-products. Additional studies are needed to draw

definitive conclusions on effluent toxicity.

One change in groundwater characteristics was temperature.

In the CAV-OX I configuration, the water temperature increased

at an average rate of about 0.26 OF per minute of UV exposure.

In the 5-kW CAV-OX II process, the water temperature

increased at an average rate of about 2.36 OF per minute of UV

exposure. In the lo-kW CAV-OX II process, the water

temperature increased at an average rate of 4.29 “F per minute

of UV exposure. Since the equipment was exposed to the

surrounding environment, the temperature increase may vary

with the ambient temperature or other atmospheric conditions.

Vendor-Provided Results From Case Studies

Nine case studies provided by Magnum are included in

Appendix C as additional performance data for the CAV-OX

process. These cases involve both pilot- and full-scale units

treating contaminated groundwater and industrial wastewaters.

The contaminants of concern include pentachlorophenol (PCP),

total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), BTEX, biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD), TOC, atrazine, cyanide, and the

bacterium Salmonella.

Waste Applicability

Potential sites for applying the CAV-OX process include

Superftmd and other hazardous waste sites where groundwater

or aqueous wastes are contaminated with organic compounds

at mg/L levels or less. The process has been used to treat

groundwater and industrial wastewater containing a variety of

organic contaminants including phenols, herbicides, polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons, and petroleum hydrocarbons. During

the demonstration, influent concentrations of TCE and benzene

ranged from 1,500 to 2,000 and 250 to 500 ug/L, respectively.

Magnum reports that the CAV-OX process has also treated

cyanidecontaminated wastewater and drinking water infected

with the bacterium Salmonella.

Economics

Using information from the SITE demonstration, 12 separate

cost categories for CAV-OX treatment of contaminated

groundwater at a Superfund site were analyzed. This analysis

examined costs for the CAV-OX I low-energy configuration

and the CAV-OX II high-energy configuration using flow

rates of 10 and 25 gpm. Costs (in October 1993 dollars) for

each configuration are summarized below.

For the CAV-OX I low-energy process, capital costs are

estimated to be about $3 14,500 for the IO-gpm process, of which

the CAV-OX I process direct capital cost is $48,000. For the

25-gpm process, capital costs are estimated at about $342,500,

of which the CAV-OX I process direct capital cost is $64,000.

Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated

to be about $71,000 for the lo-gpm process and $78,000 for

the 25-gpm process. Groundwater remediation costs are

estimated to be about $30 per 1,000 gallons for the I0-gpm

process, of which CAV-OX I process direct costs are $10. For

the 25-gpm process, grotmdwater remediation costs are estimated

to be about $13 per 1,000 gallons, of which CAV-OX I process

direct costs are $5.

For the CAV-OX II high-energy process, capital costs are

estimated to be about $3 14,500 for the lo-gpm process, of which

the CAV-OX II process direct capital cost is $48,000. For the

25-gpm process, capital costs are estimated at about $342,500,

of which the CAV-OX II process direct capital cost is $64,000.

Annual O&M costs are estimated to be about $75,000 for the

I0-gpm process and $86,000 for the 25-gpm process.

Groundwater remediation costs are estimated to be about $3 1

per 1,000 gallons for the I0-gpm process, of which CAV-OX

II process direct costs are $11. For the 25-gpm process,

groundwater remediation costs are estimated to be about $14

per 1,000 gallons, of which CAV-OX II process direct costs

are $5. Table 1 summarizes CAV-OX process costs.

For the case studies provided by Magnum, costs ranged from

$1.62 to $1.93 per 1,000 gallons of water containing organic

contaminants. For one case study, the cost to reduce BOD using

only the cavitation chamber was $0.13 per 1,000 gallons.

Table 1. CAV-Op Process Cost Summary

~l~-~-_ll_l_l~~~~~“~~~~~~~~~~~-~~”””” II_(__~-l~_*-“ll”-~~-~ ~

CAV-OP I CAV-OX’= II

Low-Energy High-Energy

Process Costs (t) Process Costs (S)

10 gpm 25 gpm 10 gpm 25 gpm

--*_-I^~ “-111111111” 1_~~,1~__(11”_1_111111 ~,~“.lol*lll^__l__*~_,-~~~~,~~~~~”,”~~~~~-~

Capital 314,500 342,500 314,500 342,500

CAV-OX’ Process

Direct Capital

48,000 64,000 48,000 64,000

Annual O&M 71,000 78,000 75,000 86,000

Groundwater

Remediation per

1,000 gallons

30 13 31 14

CAV-OX” Process 10 5 11 5

D0 Directper 1000 

gallons
Section 2

Introduction

This section describes the SITE Program, the purpose of

this report, and the CAV-OX cavitation oxidation process

developed by Magnum. The CAV-OX process is designed to

treat waters contaminated with low concentrations of organic

compounds. For additional information about the SITE

Program, the CAV-OX process, or the demonstration site, key

contacts are listed at the end of this section.

Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA) of 1986 mandates that EPA select, to the maximum

extent practicable, remedial actions at Superfund sites that create

permanent solutions (as opposed to land-based disposal) for

contamination that affects human health and the environment.

In doing so, EPA is directed to use alternative or resource

recovery technologies. In response, EPA’s Office of Research

and Development (ORD) and Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (OSWER) established four programs: (1)

one program to accelerate the use of new or innovative

technologies to clean up Super-fund sites through field

demonstrations, (2) one to foster the further research and

development of treatment technologies that are at the laboratory

or pilot scale, (3) one to demonstrate and evaluate new or

innovative measurement and monitoring technologies, and (4)

one to disseminate technical information to the user community.

Together, these four programs make up the SITE Program.

The primary purpose of the SITE Program is to enhance

the development and demonstration, and thereby establish the

commercial availability, of innovative technologies applicable

to Superfund sites. The SITE Program has established the

following goals:

* Identify and remove impediments to the development

and commercial use of alternative technologies

* Demonstrate promising innovative technologies to

establish reliable performance and cost information that

can be used for site characterization and remediation

decisions

* Develop procedures and policies that encourage the

selection of alternative treatment remedies at Superfund

sites

* Develop a program that promotes and supports

emerging technologies

EPA recognizes that several factors inhibit the expanded

use of new and alternative technologies at Superfimd sites. The

SITE Program’s goals are designed to identify the most

promising new technologies, develop pertinent and useful data

of known quality about these technologies, and make the data

available to Superfund decision-makers. An additional goal is

to promote the development of emerging innovative technologies

from the laboratory-, pilot-, or bench-scale stage to the fullscale stage.

Implementation of the SITE Program is a significant ongoing

effort involving ORD, OSWER, various EPA Regions, and

private businesses, including technology developers and parties

responsible for site remediation. The technology selection

process and the field demonstration together provide objective

and carefully controlled testing of field-ready technologies.

Through government publications, the SITE Program

disseminates testing results to Superfund decision-makers for

use in evaluating the applicability of technologies to sites

requiring remediation.

The demonstration process collects the following information

for Superfund decision-makers to consider when matching

technologies with wastes, media, and sites requiring remediation:

* The technology’s effectiveness based on field

demonstration sampling and analytical data collected

during the demonstration

* The potential need for pretreatment and posttreatment

of wastes

* Site-specific wastes and media to which the

technology can be applied

5
* Potential site-specific process operating problems as

well as possible solutions

* Approximate capital, operating, and maintenance costs

* Projected long-term operating and maintenance costs

Innovative technologies chosen for a demonstration must

be pilot- or full-scale applications and must offer some advantage

over existing technologies. Mobile technologies are ofparticular

interest. Cooperative agreements between EPA and the

developer determine responsibilities for demonstrating and

evaluating the technology. The developer is responsible for

operating the technology at the selected site and is expected to

pay the costs to transport, operate, and remove the equipment.

EPA is responsible for project planning, sampling and analyses,

quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC), report preparation,

and technology transfer. Each year the SITE Program sponsors

demonstrations of approximately 10 technologies.

Documentation of the SITE Demonstration Results

The results of each SITE demonstration are reported in two

documents: the Applications Analysis Report (AAR) and the

Technology Evaluation Report (TER). The AAR is intended

for decision-makers responsible for implementing specific

remedial actions and is primarily used to assist in screening the

demonstrated technology as an option for a particular cleanup

situation. The purpose of the AAR is discussed in more detail

in the following section.

The TER is published separately from the AAR and provides

a comprehensive description of the demonstration and its results.

A likely audience for the TER includes engineers responsible

for evaluating the technology performance for specific sites

and wastes. These technical evaluators seek to thoroughly

understand the performance of the technology during the

demonstration as well as advantages, disadvantages, and costs

of the technology for a specific application. The report also

provides a detailed QA/QC discussion. This information is

used to produce conceptual designs in sufficient detail to develop

preliminary cost estimates for the demonstrated technology. If

the candidate technology appears to meet the needs of site

engineers, it will be analyzed more thoroughly using the TER

the AAR, and other site-specific information obtained from

remedial investigations.

Purpose of the Applications Analysis Report

Information presented in the AAR is intended to assist

Superfimd decision-makers in screening specific technologies

for a particular cleanup situation. The report discusses

advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of the technology.

Costs of the technology for different applications are estimated

on the basis of available data for pilot- and full-scale applications.

The report discusses factors that have a major impact on cost

and performance, such as site and waste characteristics. In

addition, EPA evaluates the applicability of each technology for

specific sites and wastes, other than those already tested, and

studies the estimated costs of the applications. These results are

also presented in the AAR.

Each demonstration evaluates a technology’s performance

in treating an individual waste type at a particular site. To

obtain data with broad applicability, priority is given to

technologies that treat wastes frequently found at Superfund

sites. In many cases, however, wastes at other sites will differ

in some way from the waste treated at the demonstration site.

Therefore, the successful demonstration of a technology at one

site does not ensure its success at others. Data obtained from

the demonstration may require extrapolation to estimate total

operating ranges over which the technology performs

satisfactorily. Any extrapolation of demonstration data should

also be based on other available information about the

technology.

The amount of available data for the evaluation of an

innovative technology varies widely. Data may be limited to

laboratory tests on synthetic wastes or may include performance

data on actual wastes treated by pilot- or full-scale treatment

systems. In addition, only limited conclusions regarding

Superfund applications can be drawn from a single field

demonstration. A successful field demonstration does not

necessarily ensure that a technology will be widely applicable

or that it will be fully developed to commercial scale.

This AAR synthesizes available information on Magnum’s

CAV-OX process and draws reasonable conclusions regarding

its range of applicability. This AAR will be useful to decisionmakers considering using the CAV-OX process. It represents

a critical step in the development and commercialization of this

treatment technology.

Technology Description

In February 1992, Magmun responded to EPA’s request

for proposal (RFP) for participation in the SITE Program.

Magnum proposed demonstrating the CAV-OX process to treat

contaminated groundwater at Edwards under the SITE Program.

EPA subsequently accepted the CAV-OX process into the SITE

Program. Through a cooperative effort among EPA ORD,

EPA Region 9, the State of California, Edwards, and Magnum,

the CAV-OX process was demonstrated at Edwards Site 16.

Treatment Technology

The CAV-OX process was developed by Magnum to

destroy dissolved organic contaminants in water. Two United

States patents and two U.S. patents pending protect the

CAV-OX process.

6
The process uses hydrodynamic cavitation, UV radiation,

and hydrogen peroxide to oxidize organic compounds present

in water at mg/L levels or less. Oxidation is a chemical change

in which electrons are lost by an atom or a group of atoms.

Oxidation of an atom or group of atoms is always accompanied

by the reduction of another atom or group of atoms. Reduction

is a chemical change in which electrons are gained by an atom

or group of atoms. The atom or group of atoms that has lost

electrons has been oxidized, and the atom or group of atoms

that has gained electrons has been reduced. The reduced atom

or group of atoms is called an oxidant. Oxidation and reduction

always occur simultaneously, and the number of electrons lost

in oxidation must equal the number of electrons gained in

reduction. In the CAV-OX process, organic contaminants in

water are oxidized by hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals,

produced by hydrodynamic cavitation, UV radiation, and

hydrogen peroxide. Subsequently, the organic contaminants

are broken down into carbon dioxide, water, halides, and in

some cases, organic acids.

A variety of organic contaminants can be effectively oxidized

by the combined use of (1) UV radiation and hydrogen peroxide,

(2)UV radiation and ozone, or (3) ozone and hydrogen peroxide.

The principal oxidants in the CAV-OX process, hydroxyl and

hydroperoxyl radicals, are produced by either hydrodynamic

cavitation or directUV photolysis of hydrogen peroxide that

has been added to contaminated water.

In principle, the most direct way to generate hydroxyl

radicals is to cleave hydrogen peroxide through photolysis.

Photolysis of hydrogen peroxide occurs when UV radiation is

applied, as shown in the following reaction:

where:

HO2 + hv + 2 OHOH =

hydrogen peroxide

UV radiation

hydroxyl radicals

Thus, photolysis of hydrogen peroxide results in a quantum

yield of two hydroxyl radicals formed per quantum of radiation

absorbed. This ratio of hydroxyl radicals generated from the

photolysis of hydrogen peroxide is high. Unfortunately, at 253.7

nanometers (mn), the dominant emission wavelength of lowpressureUV lamps (CAV-OX I), the absorptivity (or molar

extinction coefficient) of hydrogen peroxide is only 19.6 liters

per mole-centimeter. This absorptivity is relatively low for a

primary absorber in a photochemical process. Because of the

low absorptivity value for hydrogen peroxide, a high

concentration of residual hydrogen peroxide must be present in

the treatment medium to generate a sufficient concentration of

hydroxyl radicals.

The hydroxyl radicals formed by photolysis react rapidly

with organic compounds, with rate constants on the order of

lo8 to lOlo liters per mole-second; they also have a relatively

low selectivity in their reactions (Glaze and others 1987).

However, naturally occurring water components, such as

carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, and some oxidizable species,

act as free radical scavengers that consume hydroxyl radicals.

Free radical scavengers are compounds that consume any species

possessing at least one unpaired electron. In addition to naturally

occurring scavengers, excess hydrogen peroxide can itself act

as a free radical scavenger, decreasing the hydroxyl radical

concentration and thus slowing reaction rates.

Magnum adds the component of hydraulic cavitation; that

is, the expansion and activity of bubbles generated by static or

dynamic pressure reductions in a liquid. Boiling, a similar and

more familiar event, is the expansion and activity of bubbles

generated by temperature increases in a liquid. Cavitation can

be induced by several means. For example, sound waves can

cause pressure reductions resulting in acoustic cavitation. Also,

the flow path of a liquid can be manipulated to reduce pressure,

resulting in hydrodynamic cavitation. The CAV-OX cavitation

chamber is designed to generate hydrodynamic cavitation by

manipulating the flow path of water. The bubbles produced in

cavitation may contain gas, vapor, or a mixture of gas and

vapor. Bubbles explosively develop, grow, and then collapse

at a microscopic level. Research of acoustical cavitation reports

the temperature of the bubble collapse to be about 5,000 degrees

Kelvin (Flint and Suslick 1991). Additional research has shown

that acoustical cavitation decomposes water into extremely

reactive hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals, which recombine

to form hydrogen peroxide and molecular hydrogen (Suslick

1989). Numerous reduction or oxidation reactions may occur

under these conditions. The rate at which cavitation decomposes

water into hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals is not known.

Reaction with hydroxyl radicals is not the only removal

pathway possible in the CAV-OX process; hydraulic cavitation

destruction and direct photolysis by UV radiation of organic

compounds also provide a removal pathway for contaminants.

With these factors affecting the reaction, the proportion of

oxidants required for optimum removal is difficult to

predetermine. Instead, the proportion for optimum removal

must be determined experimentally for each waste type.

The principal operating parameters for the CAV-OX process

are hydrogen peroxide dose, hydraulic retention time (determined

by flow rate), and UV output. Typically, during treatability

studies, initial values of these parameters are selected based on

Magnum's experience and the anticipated effects of the operating

parameters on treatment process performance. These operating

parameters are discussed briefly below. Their effects on

performance are discussed in detail in Section 3.
Process Components and Function

Each CAV-OX process consists of a portable, truck- or

skid-mounted module, with the following components: cavitation

chamber, cavitation pump, UV reactor, and control panel unit.

The control panel unit includes electrical switches, indicator

lamps, circuit breakers, and UV ballasts. In addition to these

main process components, other equipment is used to address

site-specific conditions or requirements, including contaminated

water characteristics and effluent discharge limits. Figure 1

illustrates the main and ancillary components of the CAV-OX

technology demonstrated at Edwards Site 16.

For the SITE demonstration, groundwater was pumped from

three monitoring wells into a 7,500-gallon equalization (bladder)

tank to minimize variability in influent characteristics.

Groundwater was primarily contaminated with VOCs, including

TCE and BTEX. Treated groundwater was stored in a 2 1 ,OOOgallon steel tank to await disposal.

Both the CAV-OX I low-energy process and the CAV-OX

II high-energy process were demonstrated at Edwards. Three

contigurations of the CAV-OX process were demonstrated. One

configuration was the CAV-OX I process, which contained one

reactor with six 60-watt low-pressure UV lamps and operated at

360 watts. The second and third configurations were the

CAV-OX II process which operated at 5 and 10 kW,

respectively. The CAV-OX II process contained two UV

reactors with one high-pressure UV lamp operating at 2.5 or 5

kW each. The CAV-OX process generates UV radiation by

mercury-vapor lamps. Each UV lamp is housed in a UVtransmissive quartz tube, mounted entirely within the UV reactor.

The low-energy reactor has a volume of about 10 gallons and

each high-energy reactor has a volume of about 6 gallons. Water

flows through the space between the reactor wall and the quartz

tube.

Contaminated water is pumped to the treatment process

and enters the cavitation chamber through a section of pipe also

containing a flow meter and an intluent sampling port. Inside

the cavitation chamber, the contaminated water undergoes

extreme pressure variations resulting in hydrodynamic cavitation.

Hydrogen peroxide is usually added to the contaminated water

in-line between the cavitation chamber and the UV reactor.

However, for the demonstration, hydrogen peroxide was added

to the influent holding tank. Inside the UV reactor, photolysis

of hydrogen peroxide by UV radiation results in additional

formation of hydroxyl radicals; these free radicals then react

rapidly with the organic contaminants. Treated water exits the

UV reactor through an effluent pipe equipped with a flow gauge

and effluent sample port.

Innovative Features of the Technology

Common methods for treating groundwater contaminated

with solvents and other organic compotmds include air stripping,

steam stripping, carbon adsorption, chemical oxidation, and

biological treatment. As compliance with regulatory

requirements for secondary wastes and treatment by-products

has become more stringent and expensive, oxidation technologies

have been known to offer a major advantage over other treatment

techniques: chemical oxidation technologies destroy

contaminants rather than transferring them to another medium,

such as activated carbon or the ambient air. ‘Also, chemical

oxidation technologies offer faster reaction rates than other

technologies, such as some biological treatment systems.

However, the oxidation of organics by ozone, hydrogen

peroxide, or UV radiation alone has kinetic limitations, thus

restricting its applicability to a range of contaminants. Because

of these limitations, conventional chemical oxidation

technologies have been slow to become cost-competitive

treatment options.

A combination of oxidative forces generally increases

destruction efficiency, allowing more contaminants to be treated.

In the CAV-OX process Magnum combines hydrodynamic

cavitation, UV radiation, and hydrogen peroxide. Hydroxyl

and hydroperoxyl radicals formed by hydrodynamic cavitation

and UV photolysis of hydrogen peroxide rapidly oxidize the

contaminants and exhibit little contaminant selectivity.

The CAV-OX process produces no air emissions and

generates no sludge or spent media that require further

processing, handling, or disposal. Ideally, end products include

water, carbon dioxide, halides, and in some cases, organic acids.

However, other oxidizable species present in the water (including

metals in reduced form, cyanides, and nitrites) may also be

oxidized in the process and can exert an additional oxidant

demand. In other UV systems, after oxidation, metals tend to

precipitate as suspended solids resulting in UV lamp scaling.

However, Magnum reports that scaling does not occur in the

CAV-OX process.

Hydrogen peroxide is inexpensive, easy to handle, and

readily available. As a result, its use with hydrodynamic

cavitation and UVradiation in the CAV-OX process offers

considerable advantages over expensive and difficult-to-handle

chemicals.

Table 2 compares several treatment options for water

contaminated with VOCs. Similar comparisons can be made

for SVOCs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and pesticides,

although air stripping is not generally applicable to these types

of contaminants.

8

Table 2. Comparison of Technologies for Treating VOCs in Water

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Air stripping

Steam stripping

Air stripping with carbon adsorption of

vapors

Air stripping with carbon adsorption of

vapors combined with spent carbon

regeneration

Carbon adsorption (liquid phase)

Biological treatment

Other enhanced oxidation processes

CAV-OX” process

Effective at all concentrations;

mechanically simple; relatively inexpensive

Effective at all concentrations; removes a

wide variety of VOCs

Effective at a// concentrations

Effective at all concentrations; no carbon

disposal costs; can reclaim the product

Effective at all concentrations; low air

emissions; relatively inexpensive

Low air emissions; relatively inexpensive;

low energy requirements; VOCs destroyed

Effective at low concentrations; no air

emissions; no secondary waste; VOCs

destroyed

High energy consumption; not cost

effective at high concentrations

Effective at low concentrations; no air High energy consumption; not cost

emissions; no secondary waste; VOCs effective at high concentrations; process

destroyed mechanisms not well documented

lnefficient at low concentrations; VOCs

discharged to air

VOCs discharged to air; high energy

consumption

inefficient at low concentrations;

generates large volumes of spent

carbon requiring disposal or

regeneration

inefficient at low and high

concentrations; high energy

consumption

lneficient at low concentrations;

requires disposal or regeneration of

spent carbon

inefficient at high concentrations;

generally not effective for chlorinated

aliphatic compounds; slow rates of

removal; sludge treatment and disposal

required

Key Contacts

Additional information on the CAV-OX process, the SITE

Program, and Edwards Site 16 can be obtained from the

following sources:

The CAV-OX Process

Dale Cox

President

Magnum Water Technology

600 Lair-port Street

El Segundo, CA 90245

(310) 640-7000

Edwards Air Force Base

John Haire

Environmental Coordinator

AFFTC/Public AtTairs

2 S. Rosamond Boulevard

Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93524-1225

(805) 277-3510

The SITE Program

Richard G. Eilers

EPA Project Manager

EPA SITE Program

26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268

(513) 569-7809

10
Section 3

Technology Applications Analysis

This section addresses the applicability of the CAV-OX

process for treatment of water contaminated with organic

compounds. Magnum’s claims regarding the applicability and

performance of the CAV-OX technology are included in

Appendix A. Because results from the SITE demonstration

provided an extensive database, evaluation of the technology’s

effectiveness and its potential applicability to contaminated sites

is mainly based on these results, which are presented in

Appendix B. The SITE demonstration results am supplemented

by results from nine case studies, which are presented in

Appendix C.

This section summarizes the effectiveness of the CAV-OX

process and discusses the following topics in relation to its

applicability: effectiveness of the process, factors influencing

performance, site characteristics, material handling

requirements, personnel requirements, potential community

exposures, and potential regulatory requirements.

Effectiveness of the CAV-OX Process

This section discusses the effectiveness of the CAV-OX

process based on results from the SITE demonstration and nine

other case studies.

Results of the SITE Demonstration

The SITE demonstration was conducted at Edwards Site 16

in California over a 4-week period in March 1993. During the

demonstration, both the CAV-OX I low-energy process and

the CAV-OX II process treated about 8,500 gallons of

groundwater contaminated with VOCs, mainly TCE and BTEX.

Other VOCs (methylene chloride, acetone, and 1,2-

dichloroethene) were present at low levels. Groundwater was

pumped from three monitoring wells into a 7,500-gallon

equalization (bladder) tank to minimize variability in influent

characteristics. Treated groundwater was stored in a 21,000-

gallon steel tank to await disposal. During the demonstration,

flow for the CAV-OX I process varied from 0.5 to 1.5 gpm.

Flow for the CAV-OX II process varied from 1 to 4 gpm.

These pilot-scale flow rates are directly applicable to a fullscale process.

The CAV-OX process demonstration had both primary and

secondary objectives. Primary objectives were considered critical

for the technology evaluation. Secondary objectives provided

additional information that was useful but not critical. The

primary demonstration objectives were to:

* Determine TCE and BTEX removal efficiencies in the

treatment process under different operating conditions

* Determine whether TCE and BTEX levels in treated

groundwater meet applicable discharge limits to the

sanitary sewer at the 95 percent confidence level

* Compare TCE and BTEX removal efficiencies among

the three process configurations

Secondary objectives for the demonstration were to:

* Collect information, including process chemicaldosage

and utility requirements, needed to estimate treatment

costs

* Assess the presence of degradation by-products in the

treated water

* Collect groundwater characterization data for both

influent and effluent streams

The demonstration consisted of 15 planned runs for each

configuration. The first run was conducted using the operating

conditions recommended by Magnum. For subsequent runs,

operating parameters were varied, as discussed in Appendix B,

to allow observation of each treatment process performance

under different operating conditions.

During the demonstration, samples were collected from the

main feed line from the influent holding tank and the effluent

lines from the CAV-OX I and CAV-OX II UV reactors.

Influent and effluent samples were analyzed for TCE, BTEX,

other VOCs, SVOCs, TOC, TC, POC, metals, pH, alkalinity,

hardness, temperature, TRPH, specific conductance, hydrogen

peroxide, and turbidity. These samples were also analyzed for

acute toxicity to freshwater organisms.
Appendix B summarizes (1) the site description, (2) the site

contamination characteristics, (3) the SITE demonstration, (4)

the experimental design, and (4) the treatment results. Key

findings of the demonstration are as follows:

. The following preferred operating conditions were

determined for the CAV-OX I contiguration: an influent

hydrogen peroxide level of 23.4 mg/L and a flow rate of

0.6 gpm. At these conditions, the effluentTCE and benzene

levels were generally below target levels (5 ug/L and 1 ug/L,

respectively). The average removal efficiencies for TCE and

benzene were about 99.9 percent.

* The following preferred operating conditions were

determined for the CAV-OX II configuration: an

influent hydrogen peroxide level of 48.3 mg/L and a

flow rate of 1.4 gpm. At these conditions, the effluent

TCE and benzene levels were generally below target

levels. The average removal efficiencies for TCE and

benzene were about 99.7 and 99.8 percent,

respectively.

* While operating under the preferred conditions,

effluents from all CAV-OX configurations met State

of California drinking water action levels and federal

drinking water MCLs for BTEX at the 95 percent

confidence level. Effluent from the CAV-OX I process

met State of California drinking water action levels and

federal drinking water MCLs for TCE at the 95 percent

confidence level.

* Bioassay analyses showed that untreated influent was

generally toxic to both the fathead minnow and the

water flea and that the CAV-OX process effluent from

runs without hydrogen peroxide was nontoxic to the

fathead minnow but moderately toxic to the water flea.

Bioassay analyses also showed that the CAV-OX

process effluent from runs with hydrogen peroxide was

toxic to both the fathead minnow and the water flea.

Comparison of effluent toxicity data with that of

hydrogen peroxide concentration in the effluent

indicates that effluent toxicity may be due partially to

hydrogen peroxide rather than CAV-OX treatment

by-products. Additional studies are needed to draw

definitive conclusions on the effluent toxicity.

* One change in groundwater characteristics was

temperature. In the CAV-OX I configuration, the

water temperature increased at an average rate of about

0.26 “F per minute of UV exposure. In the 5-kW

CAV-OX II process, the water temperature increased

at an average rate of about 2.36 OF per minute of W

exposure. In the lo-kW CAV-OX II process, the water

temperature increased at an average rate of 4.29 “F per

minute of UV exposure. Since the equipment was

exposed to the surrounding environment, the

temperature increase may vary with the ambient

temperature or other atmospheric conditions.

* No scaling was observed on any of the tubes. Magnum

reports that scaling does not occur in the CAV-OX

process. Scaling increases maintenance costs and

decreases efficiency.

* Electricity is the only utility requirement for the

CAV-OX process. Electricity demand was 2.2 kW

for the CAV-OX I process, 6.4 kW for the 5-kW

CAV-OX11 process, and 13 kW for the lo-kW

CAV-OX II process.

Results of Other Case Studies

Results of nine case studies provided by Magnum

(Appendix C) are included as additional performance data for

the CAV-OX process. These claims and interpretations are

those made by Magnum and have not necessarily been

substantiated by test data. These cases involve both pilot- and

full-scale units treating contaminated groundwater and industrial

wastewaters. Contaminants of concern included PCP, TPH,

BTEX, BOD, TOC, atrazine, cyanide, phenol, and the

bacterium Salmonella.

Factors Influencing Performance

Several factors influence the effectiveness of the CAV-OX

process. These factors can be grouped into three categories:

(1) influent characteristics, (2) operating parameters, and (3)

maintenance requirements. Each of these is discussed below.

Infuent Characteristics

The CAV-OX process uses chemical oxidation to destroy

organic contaminants; therefore, other species in the influent

that consume oxidants present an additional load for the process.

These species are called scavengers. A scavenger may be

described as any species in water, other than the target

contaminants, that consumes oxidants. Common scavengers

include anions such as bicarbonates, carbonates, sulfides,

nitrites, bromides, and cyanides. Metals present in reduced

states, such as trivalent chromium, ferrous ion (Fe’Z),

manganous ion (lvlnz), and several others, are also likely to be

oxidized. In addition to acting as scavengers, these reduced

metals can cause concerns under alkaline conditions. For

example, trivalent chromium can be oxidized to hexavalent

chromium, which is more toxic. Ferrous ion and manganous

ion are converted to less soluble forms, which precipitate in the

reactor, creating suspended solids that can build up on the quartz

tubes housing the UV lamps. Natural organic compounds, such

as humic acid (often measured as TOC), are also potential

scavengers that can affect treatment efficiency.

12
The concentrations of carbonate and bicarbonate influence

the performance of the CAV-OX process. These ions exert an

oxidant demand on the process by absorbing UV light and

scavenging hydroxyl radicals. However, in&rent pH can be

adjusted to minimize these effects.

Metals present in a reduced state (such as iron or manganese)

are oxidized by the UV process. Conversion of metals to forms

that are less soluble at higher oxidation states (for example,

Fe+z to Fe+3) may result in coating of the quartz tubes housing

the UV lamps; this would cause poor UV transmission and

therefore interfere with contaminant destruction. However,

Magnum reports that scaling of this nature has never occurred

with the CAV-OX process.

The CAV-OX process can treat water containing a variety

of VOCs, such as TCE and BTEX. Under a given set of

operating conditions, contaminant removal efficiencies depend

on the chemical structure of the contaminants. Removal

efficiencies are high for organic contaminants with double bonds

(such as TCE and vinyl chloride) and aromatic compounds (such

as phenol, benzene, toluene, and xylene), because these

compounds are easy to oxidize. Organic contaminants without

double bonds (such as chloroform) are not easily oxidized and

are thus more difficult to remove.

Contaminant concentration is a major factor affecting

treatment process effectiveness. The CAV-OX process is most

effective in treating water with contaminant concentrations

present in water at mg/L levels or less. If contaminant

concentrations are greater, the CAV-OX process may be used

in combination with other treatment technologies such as air

stripping. For highly contaminated water, Magnum increases

the flow of water recycled through the cavitation chamber for

continued production of hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals.

Operating Parameters

Operating parameters are those procedures that can be varied

during the treatment process to achieve desired removal

efficiencies. The principal operating parameters for the

CAV-OX process are hydrogen peroxide dose, hydraulic

retention time, and UV output. During the demonstration, each

of these parameters was varied to observe each treatment process

performance under different operating conditions.

The hydrogen peroxide dose is based on treatment process

configuration, contaminated water chemistry, and contaminant

oxidation rates. Under ideal conditions, hydrogen peroxide is

photolyzed to hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl radicals, which oxidize

contaminants in the groundwater. Direct photolysis of each

molecule of hydrogen peroxide results in a yield of two hydroxyl

radicals. The molar extinction coefficient of hydrogen peroxide

at 253.7 mn, the dominant emission wavelength of low-pressure

UV lamps, is only 19.6 liters per mole-centimeter, which is

low for a primary absorber in a photochemical process (Glaze

and others 1987). Therefore, although the yield of hydroxyl

radicals from hydrogen peroxide photolysis is relatively high,

the low molar extinction coefficient requires a relatively high

concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the water. However,

because excess hydrogen peroxide is also a hydroxyl radical

scavenger, hydrogen peroxide levels that are too high could

result in a net decrease in treatment efficiency. Thus, an

optimum concentration of hydrogen peroxide must be maintained

at all times.

Flow rate through the treatment process determines UV

reactor retention time. Increasing or decreasing the flow rate

will affect the treatment efficiency by changing the time available

for hydroxyl radical formation and contaminant destruction.

During the demonstration, flow for the CAV-OX I process

varied from 0.5 to 1.5 gpm. Flow for the CAV-OX II process

varied from 1 to 4 gpm. These pilot-scale flow rates are directly

applicable to a full-scale process.

UV output varies with the type of CAV-OX process being

operated. The CAV-OX I low-energy process has a UV output

of 360 watts, while the CAV-OX II high-energy process can

operate at 2.5, 5, 7.5, or 10 kW.

Influent pH is a critical operating parameter in other UV

systems. It controls the equilibrium among carbonate,

bicarbonate, and carbonic acid. This equilibrium is important

to treatment efficiency because carbonate and bicarbonate ions

are hydroxyl radical scavengers. If the inlluent carbonate and

bicarbonate concentration is greater than about 400 mg/L as

calcium carbonate, the pH should be lowered to between 4 and

6 to improve the treatment efficiency. At low pH, the carbonate

equilibrium is shifted to carbonic acid, which is not a scavenger.

However, Magnum does not consider influent pH a principal

operating parameter for the CAV-OX process.

Maintenance Requirements

The maintenance requirements for the CAV-OX process

are based on discussions with Magnum during and after the

SITE demonstration. Magnum bases its information on (1)

production units operating in the field, (2) the SITE

demonstration at Edwards, and (3) research and development

testing performed by Magnum over several years. Regular

maintenance by trained personnel is essential for the successful

operation of the CAV-OX process. However, the only major

process component that requires regular maintenance is the W

lamp assembly.

Regular UV lamp assembly maintenance includes periodic

cleaning of the quartz tubes housing the UV lamps. Eventually,

the lamps may need to be replaced. The frequency of quartz

tube cleaning depends on the type and concentration of suspended

solids present in the influent or formed during treatment. UV

lamp assemblies can be removed from the oxidation unit to

13
provide access to the quartz tubes, which can then be cleaned

manually. Magnum recommends cleaning the quartz tubes by

wiping them monthly with a clean cloth, although at existing

CAV-OX operations, this maintenance is performed once every

3 months.

The life of UV lamps used in the CAV-OF process normally

cited by most manufacturers is 7,500 hours, given a use cycle

of 8 hours, which represents the length of time the UV lamp is

operated between shutdowns. Decreasing the use cycle or

increasing the frequency at which a UV lamp is turned on and

off can lead to early lamp failure.

A number of factors contribute to UV lamp aging. These

factors include plating of mercury to the interior lamp walls, a

process called blackening, and solarization of the lamp enclosure

material, which reduces its transmissibility. These factors cause

steady deterioration in lamp output at the effective wavelength

and may reduce output at the end of a lamp’s life by 40 to

60 percent. This reduction in lamp output requires more frequent

replacement of the UV lamps. According to Magnum, based

on lamp specifications, UV lamp output does not decline

significantly until after about 10,000 hours of operation for the

CAV-OX I process and 3,000 hours of operation for the

CAV-OX II process. Therefore, Magnum recommends

replacing the UV lamps after about 7,500 hours and 2,000 hours,

respectively.

During and after the demonstration, no scaling was observed

on any of the UV tubes. Magnum reports that scaling does not

occur in the CAV-OX process. The equipment functioned as

planned after completing electrical and plumbing connections.

No equipment malfunctioned or required maintenance during

the 2-week demonstration.

The CAV-OX process requires little attention during

operation and can be operated and monitored remotely, if

needed. Remotely monitored systems can be connected to

devices that automatically dial a telephone to notify responsible

parties at remote locations of divergent operating conditions in

the CAV-OX equipment. Remotely operated and monitored

systems are hard-wired into central control panels or computers

through programmable logic controllers.

Other components of the CAV-OX process, such as valves,

flow meters, tanks, piping, and the hydrogen peroxide feed

module should be visually checked for leaks once a week.

Monthly maintenance includes inspection of all electrical

components, pumps, and the UV reactor. Monthly maintenance

of the UV reactor includes removing aluminum seals and

removing, inspecting, and wiping the quartz tubes. Ammal

maintenance (or more frequent if indicated by monthly

inspections) should include replacement of UV lamps and quartz

tubes. Magnum reports that corrosion of the cavitation chamber

due to cavitation does not occur.

Site Characteristics

In addition to influent characteristics and effluent discharge

requirements, site characteristics are important when considering

the CAV-OX process. Site-specific factors can impact the

CAV-OX process, and should be considered before selecting

the technology for remediation of a specific site. Site-specific

factors include support systems, site access, climate, utilities,

and services and supplies. Section 4 identifies examples of

categories that are specific to the CAV-OX process and to a

hazardous waste remediation site.

Support Systems

To clean up contaminated groundwater, extraction wells

and a groundwater collection and distribution system must be

installed to pump grotmdwater to a central facility. Because

the CAV-OX process is normally operated as a continuous flowthrough process, it may be necessary to install several extraction

wells in order to provide a continuous supply of groundwater.

An equalization tank may be required if flow rates from the

groundwater wells fluctuate or if contaminant concentrations

vary. When installing a groundwater collection and distribution

system, preventive measures should be considered to reduce

volatile contaminant losses.

Before choosing the CAV-OX process, the location, design,

and installation of tanks, piping, and other equipment or

chemicals associated with any pretreatment systems should be

considered. Pretreatment is often desired to remove oil and

grease, suspended solids, or metals. Any tauks that are part of

pretreatment or other support systems should be equipped with

vapor control devices (for example, floating lids) to prevent

VOC losses.

If on-site facilities are not available for office and laboratory

work, a small building or shed may be required near the

treatment process. The on-site building should be equipped

with electrical power to run laboratory equipment and should

be heated or air conditioned, depending on the climate. The

on-site laboratory should contain equipment needed for simple

analyses of the physical and chemical water characteristics

required to monitor performance. Such characteristics may

include pH, hydrogen peroxide dose, and temperature.

The CAV-OX process is available in many sizes. During

the SITE demonstration, a 2,000~square-foot area was adequate

for both CAV-OX configurations, support facilities,

nonhazardous and hazardous waste storage containers, and the

office and field laboratory trailer. A larger process may require

a slightly larger area, depending on the required support

facilities. Areas required for influent and effluent storage tanks

or pretreatment equipment, if needed, will depend on the number

and size of the tanks. Also, a lo-by-40-foot area may be required

for an office or laboratory building.

1A
The area containing the CAV-OX process and tanks should

be relatively level and should be paved or covered with

compacted soil, gravel, or a concrete pad.

Site Access

Site access requirements for treatment equipment are

minimal. The site must be accessible to tractor-trailer trucks

of standard size and weight. The roadbed must be able to

support such a vehicle delivering the CAV-OX equipment and

tanks.

Climate

According to Magnum, sub-freezing temperatures and heavy

precipitation do not affect the operation of the CAV-OX process.

The process is designed to withstand rain and snow and does

not require heating or insulation because the chemical oxidation

process generates heat, increasing the water temperature.

However, if sub-freezing temperatures are expected for a long

period of time, chemical and influent storage tanks and associated

plumbing should be insulated or kept in a heated shelter, such as

a building or shed. Housing the process also facilitates regular

process checks and maintenance. The CAV-OX process

requires a high-voltage power supply, which should also be

protected from heavy precipitation.

Utilities

Operation of the CAV-OX process requires water and

electricity. Water is required for personnel and equipment

decontamination. The CAV-OX I process requires 230~volt,

3-phase, 30-ampere electrical service. The CAV-OX II process

requires 480~volt, single-phase, 30-ampere electrical service.

Additional 120~volt, single-phase, lo-ampere electrical service

is needed for UV power supply controls. The office and

laboratory trailer used for the SITE demonstration required 220-

volt, 3-phase, 50-ampere electrical service.

A telephone connection or cellular phone is required to order

supplies, contact emergency services, and provide normal

communications.

Services and Supplies

A number of services and supplies are required for operating

the CAV-OX process, most of which can be readily obtained.

During the demonstration, subcontractors, off-site facilities, or

Edwards furnished the required major services.

An adequate on-site supply of spare parts is needed for

malfunction of UV lamps, pumps, flow meters, or piping. If

an on-site parts inventory is not an option, proximity to an

industrial supply center is an important consideration. In

addition, an adequate supply of chemicals, such as hydrogen

peroxide, or proximity to a supply center carrying this chemical,

is essential.

Complex laboratory services, such as VOC and SVOC

analyses that cannot usually be performed in an on-site field

laboratory, will require that a local analytical laboratory be

contracted with for ongoing monitoring.

Material Handling Requirements

The CAV-OX process does not generate treatment residuals,

such as sludge or spent filter media, that require further

processing, handling, or disposal. The cavitation chamber, UV

reactor, control panel unit and other components of the process,

such as the chemical feed units, are air tight and produce no air

emissions that require special controls. Material handling

requirements for the CAV-OX process include those for (1)

pretreatment materials and (2) treated water. These are described

below.

Pretreatment Materials

In general, pretreatment requirements for contaminated

water entering the CAV-OX process are minimal. Depending

on the intluent characteristics, pretreatment may involve one

or more of the following: oil and grease removal, suspended

solids removal, metals removal, or pH adjustment to reduce

carbonate and bicarbonate levels. These pretreatment

requirements are discussed below.

Water containing visible, free, or emulsified oil and grease

requires pretreatment to separate and remove the oil and grease.

If not treated, oil and grease will scale UV lamps and reduce

UV transmission, which adversely affects the oxidation process.

Separated oil and grease should be collected and analyzed to

determine disposal requirements.

Because suspended solids can also reduce UV transmission,

water containing more than 30 mg/L of suspended solids should

be pretreated. Depending on the concentration, cartridge filters,

sand filters, or settling tanks may be used to remove suspended

solids. Solids removed from the inf’luent by pretreatment

precipitation, filtration, or settling should be dewatered,

containerized, and analyzed to determine whether they should

be disposed of as hazardous or nonhazardous waste.

Pretreatment also may be necessary for water containing

dissolved metals, such as iron and manganese. These metals

are likely to be oxidized in the CAV-OX process and are less

soluble at higher oxidation states under alkaline conditions. After

oxidation, the metals will tend to precipitate as suspended solids

in the CAV-OX process, resulting in UV lamp scaling.

Removing these metals is often advised; however, removal may

depend on the concentration of oxidizable metals in the

contaminated water. The economics of metals removal should

15
be compared to predicted decreases in contaminant removal

efficiency without metals removal and the economics of more

frequent UV lamp cleaning or replacement. Metals removed

from the influent by precipitation should be containerized and

analyzed to determine whether they should be disposed of as

hazardous or nonhazardous waste.

If the contaminated water contains bicarbonate and carbonate

ions at levels greater than 400 mg/L as calcium carbonate, pH

may be adjusted in line. Carbonate and bicarbonate ions act as

oxidant scavengers and present an additional load to the treatment

process. The only material handling associated with pH

adjustment involves chemicals such as acids and bases; pH

adjustment will not create any additional waste streams requiring

disposal.

Treated Water

Treated water can be disposed of either on or off site.

Examples of on-site disposal options for treated water include

groundwater recharge or temporary on-site storage for sanitary

usage. Examples of off-site disposal options include discharge

into surface water bodies, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers.

Bioassay tests may be required in addition to routine chemical

and physical analyses before treated water is disposed of.

Depending on permit requirements and treatment process

operating conditions, treated water may require pH adjustment

before discharge. .

Personnel Requirements

Personnel requirements for the CAV-OX process are

minimal. Generally, one operator, trained by Magnum, conducts

a weekly 30-minute process check. The operator should be

able to: (1) fill the hydrogen peroxide feed tank and adjust

flow rates to achieve desired doses, (2) operate the control panel,

(3) collect liquid samples and perform simple physical and

chemical analyses and measurements (for example, pH,

hydrogen peroxide concentration, temperature, and flow rate),

(4) troubleshoot minor operational problems or conduct monthly

maintenance, and (5) collect samples for off-site analyses.

Analytical work requiring more technical skills, such as VOC

analyses and interpretation, can be performed by a local

laboratory. The frequency of sample collection and analysis

will depend on site-specific permit requirements.

Magnum reports that initial instruction to operate the

CAV-OX process requires about 8 hours of training and 8 hours

of hands-on operation. The unit operator should also have

completed an Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) initial 40-hour health and safety training course and an

annual 8-hour refresher course, if applicable, before operating

the CAV-OX process at hazardous waste sites, and should

participate in a medical monitoring program, as specified under

OSHA requirements.

Potential Community Exposures

The CAV-OX process generates no chemical or particulate

air emissions. Therefore, the potential for on-site personnel or

community exposure to airborne contaminants is very low. If

the process malfunctions, alarms will sound, and all process

components will shut off automatically. Contaminated-water

pumps can be hard wired to the control panel so that alarms

automatically stop flow through the unit, reducing the potential

for a contaminated water release.

Hydrogen peroxide solution, which is a rea‘ctive substance,

presents the greatest chemical hazard associated with the process.

However, when handled appropriately, the potential for exposure

to hydrogen peroxide by on-site personnel is low. Hydrogen

peroxide required for the CAV-OX process is typically stored

in polyethylene totes housed in metal frames or cages. The

relatively small volumes of hydrogen peroxide that are used by

the process and secure chemical storage practices result in a

low potential threat of community exposure to hydrogen

peroxide.

Potential Regulatory Requirements

This subsection discusses regulatory requirements pertinent

to site remediation using the CAV-OX process. Regulations

applicable to a particular application of this process will depend

on site-specific remediation logistics and the type of contaminated

water to be treated. Table 3 summarizes the potentially

applicable regulations that are discussed below.

Depending on the characteristics of the water to be treated,

pretreatment or posttreatment may be required for the successful

operation of the CAV-OX process. For example, solids may

require prefiltering using cartridge filters, sand filters, or settling

tanks. Metals, such as iron and manganese, may require removal

by precipitation. Each pretreatment or posttreatment process

may have additional regulatory requirements that need to be

determined prior to use. This subsection focuses only on

regulations for the CAV-OX process itself

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act

CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes the federal

government to respond to releases into the environment of

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that may

present an imminent and substantial danger to public health or

welfare (Federal Register 1990a). Remedial alternatives that

significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of

hazardous materials and provide long-term protection are

preferred. Selected remedies must also be cost effective and

protective of human health and the environment.

16
Table 3. Regulations Summary

-~--~,~*_,,-~ ---~ II _~~-II ~I__

Act Applicability Application to the CAV-OS’ Process Citation

Superfund sites

Superfund and RCRA sites

Clean Water Act

(CWA)

Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA)

Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA)

Atomic Energy Act

(AEA) and RCRA

Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA)

Occupational Safety

and Health Act

(OSHA)

Discharges to surface

water bodies

Water discharges, water

reinjection, and sole-source

aquifer and wellhead

protection

Polychlonnated biphenyl

(PCS) contamination

Mixed wastes

Pesticides

All remedial actions

The Superfund program authorizes and

regulates the cleanup of environmental

contamination. It applies to all CERCLA

site cleanups.

RCRA defines and regulates the treatment,

storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

RCRA also regulates corrective action at

generator, treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

Sysem (NPDES) requirements of CWA

apply to both Superfund and RCRA sites

where treated water is discharged to

surface water bodies. Pretreatment

standards apply to discharge to publicly

owned treatment works.

Maximum contaminant levels and

contaminant level goals should be

considered when setting water cleanup

levels at RCRA corrective action and

Superfund sites. (Water cleanup levels are

also discussed under CERCLA and

RCRA). Reinjection of treated water would

be subject to underground injection control

program requirements, and sole-source

and protected wellhead water sources

wou/d be subject to their respective control

programs.

If PCS-contaminated wastes are treated,

TSCA requirements should be considered

when detenninng cleanup standards and

disposal requirements. RCRA also

regulates solid waste containing PC&.

AEA and RCRA requirements apply to the

treatment, storage, and disposal of mixed

waste containing both hazardous and

radioactive components. Directives from

the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response and the U.S. Department of

Energy provide guidance for addressing

mixed waste.

FIFRA regulates pesticide manufacturing

and labeling. However, if pesticidecontaminated water is treated, RCRA

regulations apply.

OSHA regulates on-site construction and

the health and safety of workers at

hazardous waste sites. Installation and

operation of the process at Superfund or

RCRA sites must meet OSHA

requirements.

40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Pan 300

40 CFR Parts 260 to 270,

Part 280

40 CFR Parts 122 to 125,

Part 403

40 CFR Part 141

40 CFR Part 761

AEA and RCRA

40 CFR Part 165

29 CFR Parts 1900 to 1926

20 CFR Part 1910.120

(hazardous waste

operations and emergency

response)

17
Contaminated water treatment using the CAV-OX process

will generally take place on site, while treated water may be

discharged either on site or off site. On-site actions must meet

all substantive state and federal applicable or relevant and

appropriate requirements (ARAR). Substantive requirements

pertain directly to actions or conditions in the environment (for

example, effluent standards). Off-site actions must comply

with legally applicable substantive and administrative

requirements. Administrative requirements, such as permitting,

facilitate the implementation of substantive requirements.

EPA allows an ARAR to be waived for on-site actions. Six

ARAR waivers are provided by CERCLA: (1) interim measures

waiver, (2) equivalent standard of performance waiver, (3)

greater risk to health and the environment waiver, (4) technical

impracticability waiver, (5) inconsistent application of state

standard waiver, and (6) fund-balancing waiver. Justification

for a waiver must be clearly demonstrated (EPA 1988). Qffsite remediations are not eligible for ARAR waivers, and all

substantive and administrative applicable requirements must be

met.

Additional regulations pertinent to using the CAV-QX

process are discussed below. No air emissions or residuals

(such as sludge or spent filter media) are generated by the

CAV-OX process. Therefore, only regulations addressing

contaminated water treatment and discharge are presented.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984, regulates management and disposal of

municipal and industrial solid wastes. The EPA and RCRAauthorized states (listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

Part 272) implement and enforce RCRA and state regulations.

The CAV-OX process has been used to treat water contaminated

with a variety of organic materials, including solvents, herbicides,

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and petroleum

hydrocarbons. Contaminated water treated by the CAV-OX

process will most likely be hazardous or sufficiently similar to

hazardous waste so that RCRA standards will be requirements.

Criteria for identifying hazardous wastes are included in 40 CFR

Part 261. Pertinent RCRA requirements are discussed below.

If the contaminated water to be treated is determined to be

a hazardous waste, RCRA requirements for storage and

treatment must be met. The CAV-OX process may include

tank storage. Tank storage of contaminated and treated water

(if the waters are hazardous under RCRA) must meet the tank

storage requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 or 265, Subpart J.

Although air emissions are not associated with the CAV-OX

process, any fugitive emissions from storage tank vents would

be subject to forthcoming RCRA regulations (see 40 CFR Part

269) on air emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facilities. When promulgated, these requirements

will include standards for emissions from equipment leaks and

system vents. Treatment requirements included in 40 Part 265,

Subpart Q (Chemical, Physical, and Biological Treatment) would

also apply. This subpart includes requirements for automatic

influent shut-off, waste analysis, and trial tests.

The CAV-OX process could also be used to treat

contaminated water at RCRA-regulated facilities. Requirements

for corrective action at RCRA-regulated facilities will be

included in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F (Regulated Units) and

Subpart S (Solid Waste Management Units), as well as 40 CFR

Part 280 (Underground Storage Tanks). These subparts also

will generally apply to remediation at Superfund sites. The

regulations include requirements for initiating and conducting

RCRA corrective actions, remediating groundwater, and

ensuring that corrective actions comply with other enviromnental

regulations (Federal Register 1990b).

Water quality standards included in RCRA (such as

groundwater monitoring and protection standards), the Clean

Water Act (CWA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

would be appropriate cleanup standards and would apply to

discharges of treated water or reinjection of treated groundwater

(EPA 1989). The CWA and SDWA are discussed below.

Clean Water Act

The CWA is designed to restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological quality of navigable surface waters by

establishing federal, state, and local discharge standards. If

treated water is discharged to surface water bodies or publicly

owned treatment works (POTW), CWA regulations will apply

to the discharge. On-site discharges to surface water bodies

must meet substantive National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) requirements, but do not require an NPDES

permit. off-site discharges to a surface water body require an

NPDES permit and must meet NPDES permit limits. Discharge

to a PQTW is considered to be an off-site activity, even if an

on-site sewer is used. Therefore, compliance with substantive

and administrative requirements of the national pretreatment

program is required. General pretreatment regulations are

included in 40 CFR Part 403. Any local or state requirements,

such as state antidegradation requirements, must also be

identified and satisfied.

Safe Drinking Water Act

The SDWA, as amended in 1986, requires EPA to establish

regulations to protect human health from contaminants in

drinking water. EPA has developed the: (1) drinking water

standards program, (2) underground injection control program,

and (3) sole-source aquifer and wellhead protection programs

to achieve this objective.

18
Under the SDWA, primary (or health-based) and secondary

(or aesthetic) MCLs and used as cleanup standards for water

that is, or may be, used for drinking water. In some cases,

such as when multiple contaminants are present, alternate

concentration limits (ACL) may be used. CERCLA and RCRA

standards and guidance should be used to establish ACLs (EPA

1987a).

Water discharge through injection wells is regulated by the

underground injection control program. Injection wells are

categorized as Class I through V, depending on their construction

and use. Reinjection of treated water involves Class IV

(reinjection) or Class V (recharge) wells and should meet

requirements for well construction, operation, and closure.

The sole-source aquifer protection and wellhead protection

programs are designed to protect specific drinking water supply

sources. If such a source is to be remediated using the CAV-OX

process, appropriate program officials should be notified, and

any potential regulatory requirements shouldbe identified State

groundwater antidegradation requirements and water quality

standards may also apply.

Toxic Substances Control Act

Testing, premanufacture notification, and recordkeeping

requirements for toxic substances are regulated under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA also includes storage

requirements for PCBs (40 CFR Part 761.65). The CAV-OX

process may be used to treat water contaminated with PCBs;

PCB storage requirements would apply to pretreatment storage

of PCBcontaminated water. The SDWA MCL for PCBs is

0.5 &I.,; this MCL would generally be the treatment standard

for groundwater remediation at Superfund sites and RCRA

corrective action sites. RCRA land disposal requirements for

PCBs (see 40 CFR Part 268) may also apply, depending on

PCB concentrations. For example, liquid hazardous waste

containing PCB concentrations between 50 and 499 mg& treated

by incineration or an equivalent method must meet the

requirements of 40 CFR Part 761.70.

Mixed Waste Regulations

Mixed waste contains both radioactive and hazardous

components, as defined by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and

RCRA, and is subject to the requirements of both acts. When

the application of both regulations results in a situation that is

inconsistent with the AEA (for example, an increased likelihood

of radioactive exposure), AEA requirements supersede RCRA

requirements. Use of the CAV-OX process at sites with

radioactive contamination might involve the treatment or

generation of mixed waste.

The EPA OSWER, in conjunction with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, has issued several directives to assist

in the identification, treatment, and disposal of low-level

radioactive, mixed waste. Various OSWER directives include

guidance on defining, identifying, and disposing of commercial,

mixed, low-level radioactive and hazardous waste (EPA 1987b).

Ifthe CAV-OX process is used to treat low-level mixed wastes,

these directives should be considered. If high-level mixed waste

or transuranic mixed waste is treated, internal orders from the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) should be considered when

developing a protective remedy (DOE 1988).

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

The CAV-OX process can treat water contaminated with

pesticides. EPA regulates pesticide product sale, distribution,

and use through product licensing or registration under the

authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) (see 40 CFR Part 165). Use of a pesticide product

in a manner inconsistent with its labeling violates FIFRA.

Compliance with FIFRA by following labeling directions may

not be required at Superhmd or RCRA corrective action sites

because the pesticide may be a RCRA hazardous waste at that

point. In such cases, requirements for hazardous wastes

containing pesticide constituents must be met.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHA regulations, contained in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through

1926, are designed to protect worker health and safety. Both

Superfund and RCRA corrective actions must meet OSHA

requirements, particularly Part 1910.120, Hazardous Waste

Operations and Emergency Response. Part 1926, Safety and

Health Regulations for Construction, applies to any on-site

construction activities. For example, electric utility hookups

for the CAV-OX process must comply with Part 1926, Subpart

K, Electrical. Product chemicals used with the CAV-OX

process, such as hydrogen peroxide, must be managed in

accordance with OSHA requirements (for example, Part 1926,

Subpart D, Occupational Health and Environmental Controls,

and Subpart H, Materials Handling, Storage, and Disposal).

Any more stringent state or local requirements must also be

met.

19
Section 4

Economic Analysis

This section presents cost estimates for using the CAV-OX

process to treat groundwater containing VOCs. These cost

estimates are based on data compiled during the SITE

demonstration and provided by Magnum. Costs have been

placed in 12 categories applicable to typical cleanup activities

at Superlund and RCRA sites (Evans 1990). Costs are presented

in October 1993 dollars and are considered to be order-ofmagnitude estimates with an accuracy of plus 50 percent and

minus 30 percent.

Table 4 lists the costs associated with operating the

CAV-OX I low-energy process. Table 5 lists the costs

associated with operating the CAV-OX II high-energy process.

The tables present a breakdown of costs for the 12 cost categories

and compare the costs between high-energy and low-energy

configurations operating at flow rates of 10 and 25 gpm. Both

tables show (in boldface type) the costs directly associated with

using the CAV-OX process. The tables also present total onetime costs and total annual O&M costs; the total costs for a

hypothetical, 5-year groundwater remediation project; the net

present values of the project; and the costs per 1,000 gallons of

water treated. Each table concludes with a presentation of total

CAV-OX direct one-time and ammal O&M costs and the direct

costs per 1,000 gallons of water treated.

Basis of Economic Analysis

Several factors affect the estimated costs of treating

groundwater with the CAV-OX process, including flow rate,

type and concentration of contaminants, groundwater chemistry,

physical site conditions, geographical site location, contaminated

groundwater plume size, and treatment goals.

The CAV-OX process can treat several types of aqueous

wastes, including contaminated groundwater and industrial

wastewater. Contaminated groundwater was selected for this

economic analysis because it is commonly found at Superfund

and RCRA corrective action sites and because this waste

treatment scenario involves most of the cost categories. The

following discussion presents the assumptions and conditions

used in this analysis.

This analysis assumes that the CAV-OX process will treat

contaminated groundwater continuously, 24 hours per day, 7

days per week. Based on this assumption, during a l-year

period, the lo-gpm unit will treat about 5.3 million gallons,

and the 25-gpm unit will treat about 13.1 million gallons. This

analysis assumes that the treatment project will last 5 years for

both flow rate scenarios. In both configurations, the IO-gpm

flow rate will treat a total of 26.3 million gallons and the 25-

gpm flow rate will treat 65.7 million gallons of water. While it

is difficult in practice to determine both the volume of

groundwater for treatment and the actual duration of a project,

these figures are used in this economic analysis. In addition, a

5-year period was chosen for each flow rate scenario in order

to highlight the operating parameters and costs specific to treating

groundwater. It also shows the differences in the total volume

of water treated by using each flow rate. Standardizing the

time factor also standardizes all time-based costs (such as rental

equipment).

The total costs for a groundwater remediation project are

presented as future values. Using the period described above,

this analysis assumes a 5 percent inflation rate when calculating

ammal O&M costs in order to estimate the total costs. The

future values are then presented as a net present value using a

discount rate of 5 percent. A higher discount rate will make

the initial costs weigh more heavily in the calculation, and a

lower discount rate will make the future operating costs weigh

more heavily. Because the costs of demobilization will occur

at the end of the project, the appropriate future values of those

costs presented in the tables were used in calculating the final

values. The costs per 1,000 gallons treated are derived from

the net present values. Capital equipment is not depreciated in

this economic analysis.

Assumptions about groundwater conditions and treatment

for both configurations and flow rate scenarios include the

following:

* Any suspended solids present in groundwater are

removed prior to entering the CAV-OX process.

* Hydrogen peroxide is the only feed chemical needed

and is used at a rate of 30 mg/L.

21
Table 4. Costs Associated with the CAV-Op I Low-Energy Process

Cost Categories Estimated Costs (1993 S)

Site Preparation (b)

A&ninistratibt?

Treatability Study

S@emDe.sign

Mobil&don

PemmWng and Regulatwy Reqwimmenk (b)

Capital Equipment(b)

Exbacticm wells

StN?lk?&CoIKmtetW

TmabnentEquipment

AuxiYlary Equipment

Sk_ @I

Labcf(cJ

Operations Staff

Heah and Safe Rekiher Course

Consumabks and Sup+&.5 (c)

Hydrogen Penxdde

UVLamps

CaMcQe Filters

Cartxm Colums

Personal Pm&b& E@/xnent

Disposal Drums

Sawing Suppries

UtiKies (c)

Treatnent Pmcess

Auxiliary Equi~t

Effluent Tt&nient and Disposal (d)

Rest&al and Wad? Sh&in9 and Hanoling (c)

Analytical Serkes (c)

Maintenance and Akxkikabbns (c)

TreatmentPmcess

Auxiliary Equipment

Defr&/izabbn (b)

Trwenent Pmcess

All other

Total OneTine casts

To&J Annual O&U Casts

GmmhvatwRemediafkn

Total Costs (e,(g)

Net Present Value (h)

Costs per 1,000 Gal/ons (g)

Totd CAV-OX direct one-time cork

Totd CAV-OX direct O&M cask 0

s69,OOO

$35,160

._.~.......~~~_.~~__,___-.~_~_.~~.__-~-__-~~~- ,... EL_. Costs Per 1 Ooo Gallons-Direct Cosk

woo0

3.000

1,300

130

960

1.960

15,725

314,500

0

4.000

24,OtW

2,920

$853,904

$799,595

$30

NOTES:

Items in bold denote CAV-OF process direct costs

a

b

C

d

e

During a l-year period, it is assumed the lo-gpm unit will treat about 5.3 million gallons,

and the 25gpm unit will treat about 13.1 million gallons

One-time costs

Annual operation and maintenance costs

Not applicable

Future value

Total for a 5year project

9

h

i

158,ooo

22,500

Yooo

98,ooO

31,00o

3.ooo

3.600

360

1,260

I.960

10,ooo

30,ooo

17,125

342,500

8,760

3,960

0

4ooo

24,ooO

3,240

SW,725

877960

$923,555

$864,014

$13

S85,ooO

s41,780

-~-_35

To complete a project within 5 years, it is assumed that the IO-gpm flow rate will treat a total

of 26.3 million gallons, and the 25gpm flow rate will treat a total of 65.7 million gallons

Annual discount rate of 5 percent

Administrative, permitting, etc. are not considered a direct O&M cost for the process

22
Table 5. Costs Associated with the CAV-Ok? II High-Energy Process

NOTES:

Items in bold denote CAV-Op process direct costs

a

b

:

e

9

h

j

During a l-year petiod, it is assumed the lo-gpm unit will treat about 5.3 million gallons,

and the 25gpm unit will treat about 73.1 million gallons

One-time costs

Annual operation and maintenance costs

Not applicable

Future value

Total for a Syear project

To complete a project within 5 years, it is assumed that the 70-gpm flow rate will treat a total

of 26.3 million gallons, and the 25gpm flow rate will treat a total of 65.7 million gallons

Annual discount rate of 5 percent

Administrative, permitting, etc. are not considered a direct O&M cost for the process
* Alkalinity is not a concern because scaling does not

occur within the CAV-OX process.

* The treated effluent has a pH between 6.5 and 8.5 and

will not require posttreatment to meet discharge

Standards.

* The groundwater contains negligible amounts of iron

and manganese and will not require pretreatment for

metals.

This analysis assumes that treated water will be discharged

to surface water, and that the MCLs specified in the SDWA

are the treatment target levels. Based on results of the SITE

demonstration, the CAV-OX process should achieve these

levels.

On the basis of the demonstration, VOCs in the groundwater

are assumed to be TCE at 1,100 ug/L and benzene at 250 ug/L.

Cost Categories

Cost data associated with the CAV-OX process have been

assigned to the following 12 categories: (1) site preparation,

(2) permitting and regulatory requirements, (3) capital

equipment, (4) startup, (5) labor, (6) consumables and supplies,

(7) utilities, (8) effluent treatment and disposal, (9) residuals

and waste shipping and handling, (10) analytical services,

(11) maintenance and modifications, and (12) demobilization.

Costs associated with each category are presented in the sections

that follow. All direct costs associated with operating the

CAV-OX process are identified as CAV-OX direct costs; all

costs associated with the hypothetical remediation and auxiliary

equipment are identified as groundwater remediation costs.

The following assumptions were also made in this analysis:

Site Preparation Costs

* The site is a Superfund site in a semirural area of

California.

* Contaminated water is in an aquifer requiring 150-foot

extraction wells.

* Suitable site access roads exist.

* All required utility lines (such as electricity and

telephone) exist on site.

* A 900-square-foot concrete pad with an awning will

be needed to site and shelter the treatment process and

auxiliary equipment for both configurations and both

flow rate scenarios.

* The treatment process operates automatically.

* One technician will be required to operate the

equipment, collect all required samples, and maintain

and repair equipment.

* Labor costs associated with major repairs are not

included.

* Treated and untreated water samples will be collected

monthly and analyzed off site for VOCs.

* Disposal costs for spent UV lamps from the CAV-OX

process are incurred by the customer.

Estimates of the chemical feed rates and the hydraulic

retention time required to meet treatment goals, which are listed

in Appendix B, are based on the CAV-OX process’s

performance during pilot tests, and on discussions withMagnum.

Site preparation costs include administrative, treatability

study, process design, and mobilization costs. For this analysis,

administrative costs, such as legal searches, access rights, and

other site planning activities, are associated with a groundwater

remediation project and are estimated to be $35,000.

A treatability study will be needed to determine the

appropriate specifications of the CAV-OX process for the site

as well as the amounts of chemicals and reagents needed for

optimal performance. Magnum, which will perform this study,

estimates that a typical study will cost about $2,000.

Process design costs include those for the site layout and

the treatment process operations, and are associated with a

groundwater remediation project. Design costs are typically

20 percent of the total construction cost. Construction costs

include constructing a concrete pad and shelter for the treatment

and auxiliary equipment and installing extraction wells and piping

(see Capital Equipment Costs). Construction costs are about

$168,500 for the IO-gpmflow rate scenario and about $180,500

for the 25-gpm flow rate scenario for both configurations.

Therefore, design costs would be about $34,000 for the logpm flow rate and about $36,000 for the 25-gpm flow rate for

both configurations.

Mobilization involves transporting all equipment to the site,

assembling the equipment, performing optimization and

shakedown activities, and training an operator. Transportation

costs are site-specific and will depend on the location of the site

in relation to all equipment vendors. The CAV-OX process is

delivered to each site in one semitrailer from El Segundo,

California, and is estimated to cost $1,000. Magnum will position

the process, but the customer is responsible for making all

necessary connections and performing all optimization and

shakedown activities. Initial operator training is needed to ensure

24
safe, economical, and efficient operation of the process.

Magmtm estimates that training will require about 1 day. Total

mobilization costs are estimated to be about $4,000, and

mobilization is estimated to take about 5 days to complete,

regardless of flow rate or treatment process size.

For both configurations, total site preparation costs are

estimated to be about $75,000 for the I0-gpm flow rate scenario

and $77,000 for the 25-gpm flow rate scenario.

Permitting and Regulatory Requirements Costs

Permitting and regulatory costs depend on whether treatment

is performed at a corrective action site regulated under Superfund

or RCRA and disposal methods for treated effluent and solid

waste. Superfund sites require remedial actions to be consistent

with ARARs of environmental laws, ordinances, regulations,

and statutes, including federal, state, and local standards and

criteria. In general, ARARs must be determined on a sitespecific basis. RCR4 corrective action sites require additional

monitoring records and sampling protocols, which can increase

the permitting and regulatory costs by an additional 5 percent.

Permitting and regulatory costs associated with a

groundwater remediation project are assumed to be about 5

percent of the total capital equipment costs for a treatment

operation that is part of a Super-fund site remediation project.

This estimate does not include annual discharge permit costs,

which may vary significantly depending on state and local

requirements.

For both configurations, permitting and regulatory costs

are estimated to.be $16,000 for the lo-gpm flow rate scenario

and $17,000 for the 25-gpm flow rate scenario.

Capital Equipment Costs

Capital equipment costs include installing extraction wells;

constructing a concrete pad and shelter for the treatment and

auxiliary equipment; and purchasing all treatment and auxiliary

equipment.

Extraction well installation costs are associated with a

groundwater remediation project and include installing the well

and pump and connecting the pumps, piping, and valves from

the wells to the CAV-OX process. This analysis assumes that

four, 150-foot extraction wells will be required to maintain the

flow rate in each scenario. Extraction wells can be installed at

about $150 per foot per well. Total well construction costs for

both configurations and flow rate scenarios will be about

$90,000.

Pumps, piping, and valve connection costs are associated

with a groundwater remediation project and will depend on the

number of extraction wells needed, the flow rate, the distance

of the extraction wells from the treatment process, and the

climate of the area. This analysis assumes that four extraction

wells are located about 200 feet from the CAV-OX process.

Four 2.5~gpm pumps will be required to maintain a lo-gpm

flow rate. The total cost for four 2.5~gpm pumps is about

$8,000. Four 6.25~gpm pumps will be required to maintain a

25-gpm flow rate; the total cost of four 6.25~gpm pumps is

about $20,000. Piping and valve connection costs, including

installation, are about $60 per foot. Therefore, total piping

costs are estimated to be an additional $48,000.

The total cost of constructing extraction wells and all

connections will be about $146,000 for the lo-gpm flow rate

scenario and $158,000 for the 25-gpm flow rate scenario for

both configurations.

A concrete pad with an awning will need to be constructed

to shelter the CAV-OX process and all auxiliary equipment.

The concrete pad will measure about 900 square feet and will

cost about $25 per square foot, including construction and

materials, for a total cost of $22,500. Costs associated with

designing the concrete pad are included in the process design

costs (see Site Preparation Costs). Total construction costs for

both configurations will be about $168,500 for the lo-gpm flow

rate scenario and about $180,500 for the 25-gpm flow rate

scenario for both conligurations.

Treatment equipment typically consists of the CAV-OX

process and a 500-gallon hydrogen peroxide chemical feed

module equipped with two feed pumps. The cost of the hydrogen

peroxide module is included in the cost of the treatment process

equipment. The cost of the CAV-OX process will vary

depending on the size of the required unit. Magnum identifies

unit sizes by UV lamp kW demand. The wattage required

depends on flow rates and the contaminants present in the water.

For this analysis, the CAV-OX I low-energy process operating

at 10 gpm will require a unit with twelve 60-watt lamps available

at a cost of $48,000. The CAV-OX I process operating at 25

gpm will require a unit with forty-eight 60-watt lamps available

at a cost of $64,000. The CAV-OX II high-energy process

operating at 10 gpm will require a unit with one 7.5-kW lamp

available at a cost of $48,000. The CAV-OX II process

operating at 25 gpm will require a unit with one 20-kW lamp

available at a cost of $64,000. Lamp wattage is estimated based

on the flow through the process.

For this analysis, auxiliary equipment associated with a

groundwater remediation project includes one sedimentation

tank, two equalization tanks, two cartridge filters, and one filter

press. This auxiliary equipment will be the same for both flow

rate scenarios and treatment process configurations. One 2,000-

gallon sedimentation tank will be located downstream of the

extraction wells and upstream of the cartridge filters to allow

solids to settle out before treatment. This tank costs about

$5,000. Two 5,000-gallon equalization tanks are needed to

minimize fluctuations in VOC concentrations. While one tank

is being filled, the other will be emptied. These tanks will be

25
located downstream of the cartridge filters. Both equalization

tanks will cost a total of about $14,000. All tanks used during

the remediation are assumed to have closed tops with vents. A

venting process that includes ductwork and carbon columns will

be needed to eliminate fugitive emissions from the tanks. This

venting process will cost about $25,000.

For this analysis, filtration will be required to remove any

suspended solids from the sedimentation tank effluent. Two

cartridge filters will be installed on the CAV-OX feed line.

Cartridges cost about $2,000 each for the lo- and 25-gpm flow

rate scenarios, for a total cost of $4,000. The costs of

replacement filters are included in Consumables and Supplies

costs.

A filter press will be needed to dewater the sediment

collected in the sedimentation tank and any other tanks that

may accumulate sediment. The size of the filter press will be

determined after a bench-scale study is performed. This analysis

assumes that a 4-cubic-foot filter press will be used, at a cost of

about $50,000.

Total auxiliary equipment costs, including venting ductwork

for both configurations and both flow rate scenarios will be

about $98,000.

Startup Costs

Startup costs include the cost of developing a health and

safety program, which will also include providing a 40-hour

health and safety training course. The startup cost associated

with a groundwater remediation project is estimated to be about

$5,000 for both flow rate scenarios and both configurations.

Labor Costs

Labor costs include the total staff needed for operating and

maintaining the CAV-OX process, conducting an annual health

and safety refresher course, and medical monitoring. The labor

wage rates provided in this analysis do not include overhead or

fringe benefits. Once the process is functioning, it is assumed

to operate continuously at the designed flow rate, except during

routine maintenance. One operator will monitor the equipment,

make any required hydrogen peroxide dose adjustments, and

perform routine maintenance, monitoring, and sample analysis.

Magnum estimates that under normal operating conditions, an

operator will be required to spend only 100 hours per year at

the treatment site, excluding travel time. However, because

finding a person willing to work for this short period may be

difficult, this analysis assumes that the operator will work 8

hours during the weekdays. Annual labor costs for each

treatment process and flow rate scenario are calculated using a

52-week year at a rate of $15 per hour for a total of about

$31,000. An annual health and safety refresher course and

medical monitoring are associated with a groundwater

remediation project and will cost about $3,000 per person. Total

annual labor costs will be about $34,000.

Consumables and Supplies Costs

Consumables and supplies costs fall into two major

categories: (1) consumables and supplies associated with the

operation of the CAV-OX process (hydrogen peroxide,

cartridge filters, activated carbon columns, and UV lamps) and

(2) consumables and supplies associated with personal protective

equipment (PPE), waste disposal, and sampling supplies.

Hydrogen peroxide is commercially available in solutions

of 30 to 50 percent by weight. It can be purchased in bulk,

delivered to the site when needed, and stored in a 500-gallon

tank (see Capital Equipment Costs). Hydrogen peroxide has a

shelf life of over 1 year and a density of about 10 pounds per

gallon. The quantities of hydrogen peroxide consumed depend

on the process flow rate and the waste characteristics. A 50

percent solution can be purchased for about $0.33 per pound

including delivery. For this analysis, the hydrogen peroxide

dose for both configurations and both flow rate scenarios will

be 30 mg/L. This dosage requires 2,630 pounds of 50 percent

hydrogen peroxide solution ammally for the lo-gpm flow rate

scenario for both configurations for a total cost of about $900.

Annual hydrogen peroxide solution consumption for the 25-

gpm flow rate scenario for both configurations would be 6,570

pounds for a total cost of about $2,200.

This analysis assumes that two cartridge filters capable of

screening material larger than 3 microns will be installed

upstream of the CAV-OX unit and downstream of the

sedimentation tank. The dual filter process allows one filter to

be used while the other is replaced. These filters should remove

any suspended solids prior to treatment Replacement frequency

depends on the quality of the groundwater to be treated and the

flow rate. This analysis assumes that one replacement filter

will be needed every 3 months. For both configurations and

both flow rate scenarios, replacement filters will cost about

$50 each or $200 per year.

Activated carbon columns on the venting system for the

sedimentation and equalization tanks are assumed to require

replacement every 6 months and are associated with a

groundwater remediation project. Replacement columns cost

about $500 each, for a total of $1,000 per year. The actual rate

at which these carbon columns will need replacement depends

on the concentrations of VOCs in the water being treated.

Mercury-vapor UV lamps are used in the CAV-OX process.

Magnum recommends replacing UV lamps after every 7,500

hours of use in the CAV-OX I low-energy process and every

2,000 hours of use in the CAV-OX II high-energy process. At

this rate, lamps in the CAV-OX I process will need to be changed

about every 10 months, and those in the CAV-OX II process

will need to be changed every 3 months. The CAV-OX I process

uses 12 UV lamps in the 10-gpm flow rate unit and 48 UV

26
lamps in the 25gpm flow rate unit. Low-energy UV lamps cost

$65 each. Therefore, the annual cost of UV lamps for the

CAV-OX I process will be about $1,000 for the lo-gpm flow

rate scenario and $3,700 for the 25-gpm flow rate scenario.

The CAV-OX II process uses one 7.5kW lamp in the lo-gpm

flow rate unit, which costs $120, and one 20-kW lamp in the

25-gpm flow rate unit, which costs $350. Total lamp costs for

the CAV-OX II process will be about $500 for the IO-gpm

flow rate scenario and $1,400 for the 25-gpm flow rate scenario.

PPE associated with a groundwater remediation project

typically consists of nondisposable and disposable equipment.

Nondisposable equipment consists of steel-toe boots and a fullface air respirator. Disposable PPE includes latex inner gloves,

nitrile outer gloves, and safety glasses. Disposable PPE is

assumed to cost about $600 per year for the operator, for both

configurations and both flow rate scenarios.

Used UV lamps and disposable PPE are assumed to be

hazardous and will need to be disposed of in 24-gallon drums.

Any other potentially hazardous non-liquid wastes will also be

disposed of in these drums. One drum is assumed to be filled

every 3 months regardless of configuration or flow rate. Drums

cost about $15 each, bringing the total annual drum cost to

about $60.

Sampling supplies are associated with a groundwater

remediation project and consist of sampling bottles and

containers, ice, labels, shipping containers, and laboratory forms

for off-site analyses. For routine monitoring, laboratory

glassware will also be needed. The number and types of

sampling supplies will be based on the analyses to be performed.

For this analysis, the cost of sampling supplies is assumed to be

$1,000 per year. Costs for laboratory analyses are presented in

the Analytical Services Costs section.

Utilities Costs

Total utility costs are based on the electrical power used to

operate the entire treatment process and all auxiliary equipment.

The mercury-vapor UV lamps and pumps draw the majority of

electricity used by the CAV-OX process; that usage is presented

in this analysis, which assumes that electricity costs about $0.07

per kW hour (kWh), inclusive of usage and demand charges.

This analysis also assumes that all auxiliary equipment will draw

an additional 10 percent of the total electrical power of the

CAV-OX process being used.

The CAV-OX I low-energy process operating at 10 gpm

draws about 2.2 kW, for a total annual cost of about $1,300.

Operating at 25 gpm, it draws about 5.9 kW for a total ammal

cost of about $3,600. The CAV-OX II high-energy process

operating at 10 gpm draws about 9 kW, for a total ammal cost of

about $5,500. Operating at 25 gpm, it draws about 21.5 kW for

a total annual cost of about $13,200.

Auxiliary equipment usage will cost an additional $130 for

the lo-gpm CAV-OX I process; $360 for the 25-gpm CAV-OX

I process; $550 for the lo-gpm CAV-OX II process; and $1,300

for the 25-gpm CAV-OX II process.

Electrical costs can vary by as much as 50 percent depending

on the geographical location and local utility rates. A dieselpowered generator can also be used as a backup or alternate

source of electric power, but it will cost considerably more

than similar power supplied by local utilities.

Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs

The CAV-OX process does not generate sludge or spent

carbon that requires further processing, handling, or disposal.

Ideally, the products of the process are water, carbon dioxide,

and sometimes organic acids. Effluent will be monitored

routinely by the operator (see Labor Costs), and can be

discharged directly to a nearby surface water body or POTW,

assuming that the appropriate permits have been obtained (see

Permitting and Regulatory Requirements Costs). This analysis

assumes that no effluent treatment and disposal costs are

incurred.

Residuals and Waste Shipping and Handling Costs

Spent cartridge filters, disposable PPE, and used UV lamps

are generated from using the CAV-OX process. These wastes

are considered hazardous and will require disposal at a permitted

facility. This analysis assumes that about four drums will be

disposed of annually for both configurations, regardless of flow

rate. The cost of shipping, handling, and transporting drums to

a hazardous waste disposal facility are assumed to be $1,000

per drum. Total drum disposal costs will be about $4,000.

In addition, filter cake from the filter press is considered a

hazardous waste and will require disposal at a permitted facility.

Because the amount of filter cake generated will vary greatly

from site to site, this analysis does not present the costs of filter

cake disposal.

Analytical Services Costs

Analytical costs associated with a groundwater remediation

project include laboratory analyses, data reduction and

tabulation, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), and

reporting. This analysis assumes that one sample of untreated

water and one sample of treated water will be analyzed for

VOCs each month along with trip blank, duplicate, and matrix

spike/matrix spike duplicate samples. Monthly laboratory

analyses will cost about $1,250; data reduction, tabulation, QA/

QC, and reporting is estimated to cost about $750 per month.

Total ammal analytical services costs are estimated to be about

$24,000 for both configurations and both flow rate scenarios.

27
Maintenance and Modifications Costs

Annual repair and maintenance costs apply to all equipment

involved in every aspect of groundwater remediation with the

CAV-OX process. No modification costs are assumed to be

incurred. Magnum estimates that total annual maintenance costs

will be about 2 percent of treatment process and auxiliary

equipment costs. Maintenance costs are estimated at $3,000

for both configurations and both flow rate scenarios.

Demobilization Costs

This analysis assumes that site demobilization will include

shutdown, disassembly, transportation, and disposal of

CAV-OX equipment and auxiliary equipment at a licensed

hazardous waste disposal facility. This analysis also assumes

that the CAV-OX process will have no salvage value at the end

of the project. Site clean up and restoration are also included in

demobilization costs. This analysis assumes that the costs from

shutdown to disposal for all activities associated with a

groundwater remediation project will be about $30,000,

including site clean up, restoration, and equipment

decontamination. All disposal activities associated with

operating the CAV-OX process are estimated to cost an

additional $10,000. Demobilization is estimated to take about

1 week to complete and to cost about $40,000.

The costs of demobilization, however, will be incurred at

the end of the remediation project. This analysis assumes that

the equipment will be used for 5 years, regardless of flow rate.

Assuming an annual inflation rate of 5 percent, the net future

value of this cost is estimated to be about $51,051. This figure

was used to calculate the total costs presented in Tables 4 and 5.

References

Evans, G. 1990. “Estimating Innovative Technology Costs for

the SITE Program.” Journal of Air and Waste

Management Association. Volume 40, No. 7. July.

Federal Register. 1990a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan. Final Rule. Volume 55, No. 46.

March 8.

Federal Register. 1990b. EPA Proposed Rules for Corrective

Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous

Waste Management Facilities, Volume 55, No. 145.

July 27.

Flint, E. B. and Suslick, K. S. 1991. “The Temperature of

Cavitation.” Science. Volume 253. September 20.

Glaze, W., and others. 1987. “The Chemistry of Water

Treatment Systems Involving Ozone, Hydrogen

Peroxide, and Ultraviolet Radiation.” Ozone Science

and Engineering. Vol. 9.

Suslick, K. S. 1989. “The Chemical Effects of Ultrasound.”

Scientific American. February.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1988. Radioactive Waste

Management Order. DOE Order 5820.2A. September

26.

U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987a. Alternate

Concentration Limit (ACL) Guidance. Part 1: ACL

Policy and Information Requirements. EPA/53O/SW871017.

EPA. 1987b. Joint EPA-Nuclear Regulatory Agency Guidance

on Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous

Waste. OSWER Directives 9480.00-14 (June 29),

9432.00-2 (January 8), and 9487.00-g (August 3).

EPA. 1988. “Protocol for a Chemical Treatment Demonstration

Plan.” Cincinnati, Ohio.

EPA. 1989. EPA Memorandum from OSWER to Waste

Management Division and office of Regional Counsel.

Applicability of Land Disposal Restrictions to RCRA

and CERCLA Groundwater Treatment Reinjection.

Super-fund Management Review: Recommendation

No. 26. December 27.

28
Appendix A

Vendor’s Claims for the Technology

Note: This appendix to the report is provided entirely by

Magnum Water Technology (Magnum). Claims and

interpretations are made by Magnum and have not

necessarily been substantiated by test data. This appendix

has been edited only so that format is consistent with the

document.

Introduction

Advanced oxidation systems have been used in various forms

for many years to treat both industrial waste effluents and

groundwater. A major benefit of advanced oxidation over

conventional water treatment methods is its ability to reduce a

variety of contaminants without producing by-products or

transferring the contaminants to another medium requiring

additional treatment or disposal.

In the past, ultraviolet (UV) radiation was combined with

other oxidants, such as ozone, to achieve efficient reduction of

contaminants at a more reasonable operating cost. The

CAV-OX process combines a patented cavitation chamber with

hydrogen peroxide and UV radiation. The cavitation chamber

is designed based on the principle of hydrodynamic cavitation,

making the advanced oxidation process low maintenance and

more cost-effective.

This appendix describes Magnum’s experience in developing

and applying the principles of hydrodynamic cavitation in

combination with advanced oxidation for the treatment of

industrial effluents and grotmdwater.

Hydrodynamic Cavitation

Physical Process

When a body of liquid is heated under constant pressure, or

when its pressure is reduced at constant temperature by static

or dynamic means, vapor-filled microbubbles (vapor and gas),

or cavities, grow and ultimately become visible. This condition

is called “boiling” if it is caused by temperature rise and

“cavitation” if it is caused by dynamic pressure reduction at

constant temperature. Cavitation involves the entire sequence

of events beginning with bubble formation through cavity

collapse.

Cavitation is very useful in the breakdown of organic

chemicals and living organisms. In cavitated water, the heat

from cavity implosion decomposes water into extremely reactive

hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals. During the immediate

cooling phase, hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals (Om)

recombine to form hydrogen peroxide, YO,, and molecular

hydrogen, $. If other compounds are added to the water, a

wide range of secondary reactions can occur. Organic

compounds are highly degraded in this environment, and

inorganic compounds can be oxidized or reduced (&slick 1989).

Recent experiments have shown the temperature and pressure

of the bubble collapse to be 5,000 degrees Kelvin (“K) and

1,000 atmospheres, respectively.

Cavitation is thus a result of pressure reductions in liquid

and can be affected by controlling the pressure reduction. If

the pressure is reduced and maintained long enough below a

certain critical pressure, determined by the physical properties

and conditions of the liquid, cavitation will result.

Dwell time is an integral part of cavitational flow,

particularly for cavitation only operation. Dwell time is the

period of time which the contaminant flow from the cavitation

chamber is allowed to pause in dwell tanks, thereby enabling

the micro bubble collapse process and the chemical dissociation

mechanism to continue toward completion. After the dwell

tank, the fluid stream is pumped back through the cavitation

chamber for recycling, or is pumped forward into further

processing. When the processing includes a UV reactor, then

the process stream is pumped into the downstream UV reactor

for further oxidation. Dwell tank time delay is a function of (1)

the volume of the dwell tank, (2) the flow rate, and (3) the

proportion of flow through the dwell tank.

29
The residence time of the process stream in the UV reactor

is also a parameter in the management of the process stream.

Residence time is the period required for a specific component

of the contaminant stream to move into and out of the UV

reactor. Residence time directly affects the amount of UV

radiation receivedby each specific component of the contaminant

stream. Residence time is allowed to vary from 1 minute to 20

minutes in the operating protocols. Generally, residence time

is a direct function of the volume of the UV reactor divided by

the flow in gallons per minute. Residence time can be directly

affected by the amount of cavitation recycle being used, which

is controlled by the recycle valve setting.

Chemical Process

The chemistry involved in the CAV-OX process is based

on the formation of hydroxyl radicals. The hydroxyl radical,

OI+, one of the simplest diatomic radicals, is a powerful

oxidizing agent as well as an excellent initiator for chain

reactions. The standard oxidation electrode potential for the

hydroxyl radical is 2.8 volts, while that of ozone is 2.18 volts,

and that of chlorine is 1.68 volts. As a result, the hydroxyl radical

more efficiently and rapidly oxidizes organics in water thau either

ozone or chlorine.

A hydroxyl radical initiates a chain reaction through many

paths. The predominant route is the removal of an unstable

hydrogen atom from an organic molecule. The attack on a

glucose molecule by a hydroxyl radical is a typical example of

these mechanics. The conversion of a glucose molecule into

carbon dioxide and water begins when a hydroxyl radical

removes a hydrogen atom from a glucose molecule. In the

presence of air, the resulting glucose radical readily combines

with an oxygen molecule to form a peroxy-glucose radical that

in turn removes a hydrogen atom from another glucose molecule.

This reaction results in a new glucose radical and a hydrogen

peroxide molecule. The hydrogen peroxide molecule

disassociates easily into an oxy-glucose radical, and a hydroxyl

radical is regenerated. In the presence of oxygen, the oxy-glucose

radical leads to the formation of a smaller organic radical, which

continues to break down into oxalic acid and eventually to carbon

dioxide and water.

With more complex molecules, competing reactions occur

between the attack on the unstable hydrogen atom and the

addition of the double bond. For example, minor amounts of

intermediate molecules, such as catechol, hydroxyquinone,

muconic acid, maleic acid, and oxalic acid are produced during

the photo-oxidation of phenol. Reactions producing these

molecules are typical of compounds that are diIIicult to oxidize.

The sonochemistry resulting from optimum cavitation is

disclosed in the following articles: “Sonochemistry,” K. S.

Suslick, Science, March 23, 1990, Volume 247, pages 1439-

1445, and an article entitled “The Temperature of Cavitation,”

E. B. Flint and K. S. Suslick, Science, September 20, 1991,

Volume 253, pages 1397-1399.

Technology Description

The CAV-OX process is a synergistic combination of

hydrodynamic cavitation and UV radiation that oxidizes

contaminants in water. It is a cost-effective method of removing

organic contaminants from aqueous waste streams or

groundwater without releasing volatile organic compounds

(VOC) or producing material requiring further treatment. The

process can reduce contaminant levels to meet discharge

requirements for most aqueous solutions.

The complete CAV-OX process consists of either the

CAV-OX I lowenergy process or the CAV-OX II high-energy

process. The CAV-OX I process effectively treats contaminants

such as gasoline or trichloroethene, while more complex wastes,

such as pentachlorophenol (PCP), require the use of the

CAV-OX II process.

The CAV-OX process generally reduces contaminant levels

by 95 to 99.99 percent. It cannot treat free product nor badly

turbid waste streams because the UV reactors are less efficient

because of lowered UV transfer to the waste stream; however,

free product or turbid waste streams do not affect the cavitation

chamber.

The CAV-OX process oxidizes organic wastes into carbon

dioxide through a free radical mechanism. Free radicals are

generated and maintained by the combination of cavitation,

seeding with hydrogen peroxide, metal catalysts, and ultraviolet

light excitation. If required, reaction initiators are added to the

water before entering the cavitation chamber. The oxidation

process begins in the cavitation chamber; it continues in the UV

reactor and persists long after the treated water leaves the process

until there is no surplus of oxidants. Part or all of the waste

streams can be recycled after cavitation, after UV oxidation, or

after a combination of the two.

During oxidation, organic carbon is converted to carbon

dioxide and sulfides are converted to sulfates. No solids are

generated. The treated waste stream is low in organics and is

disinfected by the UV light and carbon transition. It can be

reused, discharged into local sewage facilities, or discharged

directly into local waterways, depending on local discharge

requirements and process design.

Operational parameters are varied during the treatment

process to achieve desired treatment efficiencies. Such

parameters include hydraulic retention time, hydrogen peroxide

dose, UV lamp intensity, and influent pH. PH. In general, increasing

retention time increases treatment efficiency.

30
If present in excess, hydrogen peroxide can act as a free

radical scavenger, decreasing the hydroxyl radical concentration.

Therefore, the minimum dose of hydrogen peroxide that achieves

the required treatment is preferred.

The CAV-OX process tends to oxidize metallic salts;

however, both the CAV-OX I and CAV-OX II UV lamps

generate minimal heat and have shown no scaling tendencies.

Contaminants Treated by the CA V-OX Process

The CAV-OX process has been used to treat the following

contaminants:

Atrazine

Chlorinated organics

Halogenated organics

Petroleum hydrocarbons

Pesticides and herbicides

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX)

Cyanides

Phenol

Bacteria

Viruses

The CAV-OX process can treat the following contaminants in

industrial wastewater:

Amines

Aniline

Chlorinated solvents

Chlorobenzene

Complex cyanides

Creosote

Hydrazine compounds

Isopropanol

Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)

Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)

Methylene chloride

PCBs

PCP

Pesticides

Polynitrophenols

Cyclonite

2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene

Toluene

Xylene

The CAV-OX process can treat the following contaminants in

groundwater:

Bis(2chloroethyl)ether

Creosote

1,2-Dichloroethane

Dichloroethene

Dioxins

Dioxanes

Freon 113

MEK

MIBK

Methylene chloride

PCBs

PCP

Pesticides

PAHS

Tetrachloroethene

1 , 1,l -Trichloroethane

Trichloroethene

Tetrahydrofuran

Vinyl chloride

Triglycol dichloride ether

The cavitation process alone reduces contaminant

concentrations by about 20 to 50 percent. The synergistic

combination of cavitation and UV radiation can reduce

contaminant concentrations from 95 to 99.99 percent.

Treatment By-Products

The CAV-OX process produces no air emissions and

generates no residue, sludge, or spent media that require further

processing, handling, or disposal. If contaminants are reduced

to nondetectable levels, the effluent consists of water with some

dissolved carbon dioxide gas, halides (for example, chloride),

and in some cases organic acids. No VOCs are released to the

atmosphere. Any remaining contaminants remain in the effluent

The CAV-OX process can break down single- and multiple

bond organic compounds, aliphatics, aromatics, heterocyclics,

and related chemicals. Pure benzene, for example, is transformed

into carbon dioxide and water, while the breakdown of

trichloroethane would probably result in residual chlorides.

The CAV-OX process does not treat metals. It may,

however, oxidize metallic ions or reduce metallic salts in the

process of destroying organic contaminants.

Operating Modes

The CAV-OX process can be operated in one of three

modes:

Cavitation chamber only

Cavitation chamber with low-energy UV radiation and

hydrogen peroxide

Cavitation chamber with high-energy UV radiation and

hydrogen peroxide

31
Applications Table A-l. Desirable lnfluent Characteristics

The CAV-OX process has the following applications:

* Treatment of groundwater, wastewater, industrial

process water, and drinking water, or generation of

ultrapure water, either as a stand-alone process or as

part of a treatment train

* Pretreatment of industrial effluent prior to discharge to

a publicly owned treatment works

* Final polishing prior to reuse or discharge to a receiving

water body

Treatment Capacity

Theoretically, a CAV-OX process of any given size can be

constructed and operated. The design is modular; for example,

groups of 250~gpm units can be operated together in parallel.

The smallest CAV-OX unit operated to date is a I-gpm

unit. This unit was built for a distributor to carry in the trunk

of his car to demonstrate to customers. Several mid-size units

(lo- to 20-gpm capacity) are operational. A 50-gpm unit has

been built and delivered to a major soft drink company.

Pretreatment Requirements

In general, advanced oxidation systems require influent

characteristics that may necessitate some pretreatment. Table

A-l lists desirable influent characteristics for the CAV-OX

process.

The cavitation chamber is not affected by the quality of the

influent or the type of contaminants. The specifications provided

above are intended to limit suspended solids, which absorb UV

energy and decrease effective UV energy.

Typically, the only pretreatment equipment required for

the CAV-OX process is a holding tank to ensure a constant

stream flow to the process. In cases of high turbidity or other

interfering agents, filtration equipment may also be required.

Transportation to Site

A CAV-OX process is very compact and easily transported

to the installation site. A skid-mounted lo-gpm CAV-OX unit

measures 5-foot by 4-foot by 7-foot and weighs about 600

pounds.

Characteristic _~ ~~__-

Turbidity

Iron salts

Color

Suspended matter

Free product -I

Value

I**IxI-““l*--

< 25 NTU

< 5 mglL

< 25 TCU

C 10 microns

C 25 mg/L

Installation

A CAV-OX unit is very easy to install and generally has a

small footprint relative to the process flow rate. For example, a

20-gpm unit needs a 6-foot by 6-foot area and has a shipping

weight of about 800 pounds. Each process is skid-mounted and

transportable, and requires only the connection of l-inch unions

to complete the process flow. Construction materials are stainless

steel and quartz glass with VitonTM rubber seals.

Power Requirements

The CAV-OX I low-energy process requires a 230~volt, 3-

phase, 30-ampere power supply. An internal transformer

supplies 120~volt, single-phase, lo-ampere power for the

chemical feed pump and control panel.

The CAV-OX II high-energy process requires a 480~volt,

single-phase, 30 ampere power supply, and a separate 120-

volt, single-phase, lo-ampere power supply for the chemical

feed pump and control panel.

Installation Time

A CAV-OX unit can be placed on an existing concrete pad,

wired to an existing disconnect box, and made operational in

about 4 hours.

Permanent Installation

Permanent installation requires a concrete pad, security fence,

open air metal roof, electric power, and inlet and outlet fluid

lines. Additional requirements include a holding tank (about

250 to 500 gallons), located above the centrifugal pump inlet

line to ensure adequate head, and a hydrogen peroxide

subassembly. If a carbon polishing unit is used for post

treatment, additional space for the carbon canisters must be

provided. The CAV-OX unit should be oriented so that

hydrogen peroxide tanks can be easily exchanged as needed.

32
Portable Units

A CAV-OX process is easily moved and can be mounted

on either a truck bed or a trailer. One consulting firm has

moved its lo-gpm CAV-OX process to three different customer

locations, obtaining rental fees many times the initial cost of

the unit.

Hydrogen Peroxide Supply

A chemical pump for hydrogen peroxide is installed

downstream of the cavitation chamber and before the UV

reactors. The pump can be either hard wired to the control

panel or operated with a utility power cord plugged into the

120~volt outlet on the side of the control panel. A circuit breaker

inside the control panel provides a safety disconnect for the

hydrogen peroxide supply.

The chemical pump is usually placed on top of the hydrogen

peroxide tank so that the suction line is as short as possible for

best pump performance.

As an alternative, hydrogen peroxide can be mixed with

the influent in the holding tank. Suitable mixing and control

methods must be provided.

Personnel Requirements

Training to operate the CAV-OX equipment can be

completed in about 8 hours. Personnel may also need the OSHA

40-hour health and safety training. Magnum recommends an

additional 8 hours of “hands-on” operation to enable any

personnel to become proficient with the equipment.

The CAV-OX process requires little attention during

operation and can be operated and monitored remotely, if

needed. Remotely monitored systems can be connected to

devices that automatically dial a telephone to notify responsible

parties at remote locations of divergent operating conditions in

the CAV-OX equipment. Remotely operated and monitored

systems are hard-wired into centrally located control panels or

computers through programmable logic controllers.

Comparison with Other Advanced Oxidation

Technoiogies

The CAV-OX process generates hydroxyl radicals at almost

no cost. By comparison: ozone is not only expensive and

hazardous, but must be added using a method that ensures no

ozone is released to the atmosphere.

Other systems use multiple medium-energy UV lamps to

photolyze hydrogen peroxide. Generally, UV tubes exposed to

contaminants with this methodology become scaled, reducing

UV transmission. To avoid this problem, a complicated wiper

process is provided to clean the scale from the tubes. This, in

turn, requires careful maintenance to monitor the output

efficiency of the overall process.

The CAV-OX process is free from such scaling problems.

It generates hydroxyl radicals primarily from the cavitation

process and secondarily from photolyzation of hydrogen

peroxide. The hydroxyl radicals resulting from the cavitation

process react with the dissolved gases, and the associated

hysteresis effect reduces, if not eliminates, the scaling effect

common to most UV systems. Furthermore, the gases and

residual microbubbles dissolved in the fluid lower its density,

thereby enhancing the ability of the process to oxidize organic

contaminants. This effect also increases the synergistic effect

between cavitated flow and UV radiation, improving the

efficiency of the process.

Technical Data and Cost Comparisons

This section presents technical data collected by Magnum

at Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards) independently of the

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)

demonstration of the CAV-OX process. This includes data for

the use of cavitation alone, and economic comparisons with

conventional groundwater treatment systems and carbon

adsorption systems.

Figure A-l is a photograph of the CAV-OX process used

at Edwards.

SITE Demonstration Results

During the SITE demonstration at Edwards, Magnum

collected additional samples following Magnum’s sampling

matrix and sampling protocols. These additional samples were

independent of samples collected for the SITE Program

evaluation of the CAV-OX technology. The results of these

additional samples were not considered when developing

conclusions for the SITE Program evaluation. Filly- four samples

were collected and analyzed on site in a mobile laboratory. The

samples were analyzed using a Shimadzu GC-14A gas

chromatograph and a modified EPA Method 802 1. Results were

available in 2 to 4 hours. Tables A-2 through A-7 present data

from Magnum collected during the demonstration.

Cavitation Chamber Only

In a limited number of situations, a CAV-OX cavitation

chamber and ancillary equipment can be used as a stand-alone

process to reduce contaminant concentrations by 50 to 80 percent

This operating mode is the least expensive; however, it normally

is not effective for contaminants requiring high percentage

reductions.

33

Table A-2. Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3124B3 (&L)

SanpleDesuipfkm Swce &nzwe TaE Tdmne EfW-=n== XI ~WFF

(ma9 -

lxx Iv4 1 0.40 1 1 3 N4

lnfluent Process 226 2OrO 3563 3 5 86.47 0

in fluent

036kMYl.5gpn H@-enwgy 210 1,360 28.2 4.07 66.1 0

O@ H,O,

ement

lOMN/l.Sgpm H@-energy 87 15.4 6.63 1.15 8.84 0

o@H&J

ement

Notes:

-11 ~_ ~I~~

PQL = Practical qoantitation limit

NA = Not Applicable

Table A-3. Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3124B3 (pgl_)

Sample Description Benzene TCE Toluene Efhy/benzene Xylems HWwn

(tota!) Peroxide

- - -~c

PQL 1 0.40 1 1 3 Al4

lnfluent 88.4 1,180 1.90 NI AD’ 0

5 kW15 gpnv0 mg4 H202

0 holding time 50.2 128 1.71 /w

2.5 kW/.5 gpnvD mg’L H202

0 holding time 67.5 155 2.91 1.00 3.90 0

OkW/l.5gpnvUtnq’L H,O,

0 holding time 250 1,670 7.16

0

Notes: * = Sample diluted to a ratio of 1:lO. PQLs for ND compounds should be raised I:10 to account for dilution

NA = Not Applicable

35

Table A-6. Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/25/93 t&l_)

Sample Description Benzene TCE Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Hydrogen

(total) Peroxide

0 kW/l gprrV0 rn&VL H,O,

24 hour holding time

lnfluent

0 kW/l gpnV0 mql H,O,

0 holding time

0 kW/lO gpnV0 mgL H,O,

0 holding time

0 kW/l gpnv0 rnfl H202

0 holding time/i hour recycle

through chamber

0 kW/l gpm70 rng’l H202

1 hour holding time

lnfluent with 90 rn@ H,O,

0 holding time

0 kW/l gpmB0 mgL H,O,

0 holding time

0 kW/l gpnv90 ms/L H202

1 hour holding time

2.5 kW/5 gpnv90 rn@ H202

0 holding time

10.0 kW/2 gpnv90 rn& H,O,

0 holding time

5.0 kW/5 gpm/90 mg/L H,O,

0 holding time

2.5 kW/0.5 gpnv90 m@L H20,

0 holding time

70.0 kW/8+ gpnv90 mgIL H,O,

0 holding time

0 kWY0.25 gpmI0 mgL H202

30 min. holding time

1 3

229 986 25.1 8.37 N D

388 1,860 5 5 6.79 2 4

314 1,510 40.7 3.22 15.6

321 1,450 40.6 2.69 74

298 1,410 38.2 3.09 14.8

229

381

247

305

114

N D

31.3

N D

3.89

165

1,030

1,850

1,110

1,430

673

11

311

14

66.30

658

27.8

55.2

30.8

42.5

16.9

N D

3.12

N D

N D

34.5

1.94

7.15

2.19

5.65

3.73

N D

N D

N D

N D

6.05

9.94

24.9

6.93

19.3

8.82

ND

N D

N D

N D

27.3

NA

0

0

0

0

0

0

9 0

9 0

9 0

9 0

9 0

9 0

9 0

9 0

0

Notes: PQL = Practical quantitation limit

N A = Not applicable

N D = Not detected

37
Table A-7. Mobile Laboratory Results for Samples Collected 3/26/93 (&)

I -

Sample Description Benzene

-

TCE Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Hydrogen

(totar) Peroxide

~~ ~~*,

PQL 1 0.40 1 1 3 N A

0 kW!l gPnV0 m@ H,O,/o

0 holding time/lhour recycle

through cavitation chamber

154 668 21.3 4.22 14.2

lnfluent 381 1,350 109 8.78 68.1

0 kWB. 15 gpnV0 mg5 H202

0 holding time

357 1,280 104 10.9 63.8

10 kW/2 gPnVU m@ H,o,

0 holding time

81.5 34.6 12.5 1.19 3.3

5.0 kW/4 gpm/l20 mgL H202

0 holding time

26.4 179 5.25 N D N D

70 kW/4 gpm/120 ms/LH,O,

0 holding time

14.9 113 283 N D N D

70 kWY8 gpnv90 m@. HzO,

0 holding time/pH 5.5

4.19 52.6 N D N D N D

0 kW0.5 gpm 190 mgL H201

0 holding time

29.01 70.6 6.02 N D N D

0 kW/l gpnv0 mg5 H202

70 min. holding time/pH 5.0

265 1,010 67.7 3 35.6

0 kW72 gpnV0 rn@ H202

10 min. holding time/pH 5.0

267 1,020 69.4 3.02 36.3

lnfluent - pH 5.0 423 1,620 110 5.37 57.5

0.36 kW/1.5 gpnv90 mqlLH,O,

0 holding time 31.3 320 5.51 N D ND

lnfluent - normal pH - 90 msJL H202

0 holding time

418 1,610 102 3.43 44.3

10 kWI4.0 gpnv90 rn@ H202

0 holding time

16.2 126 2.4 N D N D

0

0

0

0

120

120

9 0

9 0

0

0

0

9 0

9 0

9 0

Notes: PQL = Practical quantitation limit

N A = Not applicable

ND = Not detected

38
Case Study C-8 in Appendix C provides an example of

using the CAV-OX cavitation chamber only. In this case study,

a CAV-OX process capable of processing 3,900 gallons per

hour was designed for Southern California Edison Company to

treat 3 million gallons of contaminated seawater with a high

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). This section discusses

procedures and results for using the cavitation chamber only,

without W radiation or hydrogen peroxide.

Procedure

The influent to the CAV-OX process is drawn from a

holding tank. A positive head from the holding tank is necessary

for the centrifugal pump inlet.

The centrifugal pump releases fluid at about 70 pounds per

square inch (psi). This 70-psi fluid flows directly into the

cavitation chamber, where the pressure is made to drop suddenly

to near vacuum. The sudden drop in pressure causes the aqueous

molecules to dissociate, forming hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl

radicals. Any organic contaminants in the fluid are likewise

forced to undergo a sudden pressure drop, breaking weak bonds.

These contaminants are also attacked by the atomic hydrogen

and hydroxyl radicals from the dissociation of the fluid.

In certain applications, compounds in the fluid leaving the

cavitation chamber not have time to react completely. In these

cases, a dwell tank is used so that the flmd reaction can continue

for as long as 15 minutes.

Results

Table A-8 presents selected results from the SITE

demonstration for use of the cavitation chamber only.

Economic Analysis

Typical operating costs (presented in October 1993 dollars)

for the CAV-OX process are as follows:

* CAV-OX cavitation chamber only-- about $0.50 per

1,000 gallons of treated water

* CAV-OX cavitation chamber with low-energy UV

radiation and hydrogen peroxide - about $2 per 1,000

gallons of treated water

* CAV-OX cavitation chamber with high-energy UV

radiation and hydrogen peroxide - about $4 per 1,000

gallons of treated water

Table A-9 presents cost data for three groundwater treatment

methods: a filter carbon process, an air carbon process, and

UV radiation plus hydrogen peroxide. The contaminant of

concern was benzene, and the treatment goal was to reduce its

concentration from 50,000 micrograms per liter @g/L) to 50

rig/L.. The results of this comparison were as follows: the

filter carbon process cost $11.07 per 1,000 gallons; the air carbon

process cost $14.07 per 1,000 gallons; and W radiation plus

hydrogen peroxide cost $8.22 per 1,000 gallons.

Table A-10 presents cost data for a lo-gpm CAV-OX I

low-energy process and a conventional carbon adsorption process

to treat two sites contaminated with BTEX, trichloroethene

(TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and chloroform. The annual

cost of operating the carbon adsorption process was $22,648

for the first site and $13,855 for the second site, while the

annual cost of operating the CAV-OX process was $10,964 for

the first site and $7,468 for the second site.

References

Flint, E. B. and Suslick, K. S. 1991. “The Temperature of

Cavitation.” Science. Volume 253. September 20.

Suslick, K. S. 1989. “The Chemical Effects of Ultrasound.”

Scientific American. February.

Suslick, K. 1990. “Sonochemistry.” Science. Volume 247.

March 23.

39
Table A-8. Developer-Generated SITE Demonstration Results, (Percent Reduction), CAV-OF’ Cavitation Chamber Only

Sample Description Date Benzene Ethylbenzene Toiuene Xylene TCE TCE

fW fW fW W fug/L) iW

frotocd A

0 kWB.25 gp&I mgL H&

30 min. holding time

0 kW71 gpm70 mq/L ~~0~.

0 holding time/l hour cavrtation chamber

0 kW/l gprM mgIL H202

1 hour holding time

0 kW/l gpm/O mg5 H,O,

24 hour holding time

Protocd B

0 kW/l gpntlo mg/L ti202

10 min. holding time/pH 5

0 kW/l gpm/O mg/L H202

IO min. holding time/pH 5

0 kW/l gpm /O mgA H202

45 min. holding time

Protocol c

0 kW/l gpm/o mq/L H202

0 holding time/7 hour cavitation chamber

0 kW/lO gpnvU mgiL HzOz

0 holding time

0 kW/l gprnI0 mgL H2O2

0 holding time

0 kW/i gpm/O m@L H,O,

10 min. holding time

03kw3 67 11 37 ND 1,850 65

oXMv93 54 40 53 51 1,680 60

03Q543 41 71 49 59 I, 860

1,680

45

OX%93 32 20 43 ND 41

oxxf93 37 44 38

ox%93 37 43 37

ox?303 40 ND 55

38

37

ND

0x543 23 54 31 38

03Q5J93 17 60 26 42

‘Oxzi#3 19 53 26 35

03f2593 16 24 20 23

1,620

1,620

993

1,860

1,860

1,860

1,680

38

37

33

24

22

19

ia

Notes: Neither hydrogen peroxide nor UV radiation was

used in these tests.

ND = Not detected

40
Table A-9. Economic Comparisons for Groundwater Treatment Process ($) eb

Item Filter Carbon Air Carbon W/Hydrogen

Peroxide

CAV-OJf’I

Low-Energy

Process

Capital Cost

Equipment 150,000 195,000 115,000

installation 20,000 30,000 20,000

Total 170,000 225,000 135,000

Annual Operating Costs

Power ($O.OantWh) 0 11,700 62,200 3,592

Carbon 108,000 108,000 0 0

Chemicals 0 0 12.100 1,741

Maintenance 7,500 11,250 6,750

Amortization (20% per year) 30,000 45,000 27,000 11,600

Labor (air monitonng) 0 9,000 0 0

Total 145,500 184,950 108,050 22,047

Cost per 1,000 gallons 11.07 14.07 8.22 1.67

Notes: il

h

All treatment processes had a flow rate of 25 gpm and were used to treat 50 mg/l_

benzene in groundwater to 50 pgL.

Cost data provided by Magnum

Table A-10. Economic Comparison Between a Carbon Adsorption System and CAV-Op I Low-Energy Process ($) a

Site Cost Per 1,000 Gallons Annual Cost

Carbon Adsorption System

1 4.3b 22,646

2 2.64’ 13,855

CAV-OIP I Low-Energy Proces&

1 2.08 10,964

2 1.46 7,468

Notes: il

b

c

d

This analysis assumes a flow rate of 10 gpm and the following contaminant concentrations (in pgIL):

Site 1: benzene, 350; toluene, 340; ethylbenzene, 34; xylenes, 270; TCE, 33; PCE, 33; and chloroform, 10

Site 2: benzene, 2; toluene, 2; ethylbenzene, 40; xylenes, 82; TCE, 33; PCE, 10; and chloroform, 5

Assumes 42.5 pounds of carbon per day at 81.46 per pound

Assumes 26 pounds of carbon per day at $1.46 per pound

Includes all operating costs amortized over a 5-year period

41
Appendix B

SITE Demonstration Results

In February 1992, Magnum Water Technology (Magnum)

responded to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)

annual solicitation for proposals to participate in the Superfund

Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. At that time,

Magnum discussed the possibility of demonstrating the

CAV-OX process’s treatment of contaminated groundwater at

Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards) under the SITE Program.

EPA subsequently accepted the CAV-GX process into the SITE

Program. Through a cooperative effort among the EPA o&ce

of Research and Development (ORD), EPA Region 9, State of

California Department of Toxic Substance Control, State of

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Edwards,

the CAV-OX process was demonstrated at Edwards Site 16

under the SITE Program. This appendix briefly describes

Edwards Site 16 and summarizes the SITE demonstration

activities and demonstration results.

Site Description

Edwards is a 300,000-acre U.S. Air Force base about 75

miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. The base is located

on and adjacent to Rogers Dry Lake, a basin of internal drainage

(Figure B-l) (Engineering-Science, 1988). Operations at the

base began in the 1940s. Primary physical structures throughout

the base include runways, buildings, and hangars housing aircraft,

support equipment, and personnel.

The CAV-OX process was demonstrated at Site 16, a

military-grade jet fuel (JP-4) spill site located between Wolfe

Avenue, Taxiway D, and Buildings 1810 and 1820 (Figure B-2).

Site 16 occupies about 12 acres in an area that includes taxiways,

hangars, office buildings, outside storage, and open fields. Other

features at Site 16 include parking areas, a security station,

equipment and supply storage yards, and sewer lines.

A shallow aquifer underlies Site 16. This aquifer is generally

encountered between 8 and 20 feet below ground surface and

occurs mainly in weathered granite, with some areas occurring

in the overlying alluvium (Engineering-Science 1988).

Groundwater flow in the shallow aquifer is to the east-northeast

with a hydraulic gradient of less than 1.5 x 1O-2.

The JP-4 release was originally attributed to a leaking fuel transfer

line that runs along the western boundary of Site 16. The leak

began about September 1983 and contaminated about 12 acres.

A measurable floating layer of fuel currently covers about 7 acres.

The total quantity of free-floating fuel is estimated to be between

250,000 and 300,000 gallons (Engineering-Science 1988).

The State of California Regional Water Quality Control

Board, Lahontan Region issued a Clean-Up and Abatement Order

(No. 84-10) for Site 16 on November 13, 1984. This order was

followed by remedial actions including pipeline replacement and

monitoring well installation. Further investigation included a

feasibility study and remedial design for cleanup of the fuel spill.

The remedial action combined a recovery well process, a

recovery fuel storage process, and a fuel-water separator process.

Discharge water from the process was routed to the base sanitary

sewer process, and the fuel was collected for reuse. However,

dissolved trichloroethene (TCE) was later detected in the water

above discharge limits. Because TCE could not be discharged

to the sanitary sewer process, the recovery well process ceased

operation in December 1987 (Engineering-Science 1988).

Contaminated groundwater for the demonstration was

obtained from Site 16. The contaminated groundwater contains

volatile organic compounds (VOC), primarily TCE; benzene,

toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); and low levels of

carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; 1, ldichloroethane; 1,2-

dichloroethane; 1,l dichloroethene; trans- 1,2dichloroethene;

tetrachloroethene (PCE); 1, 1, l-trichloroethane; and 1,1,2-

trichloroethane.

A site assessment was completed in June 1989 through the

Department of Defense Installation Restoration Program. A pilot

plant study was completed for the site in May 1990. This study

proposed a treatment process that included an ultravioletoxidation unit and air stripping to treat contaminated groundwater

from recovery wells at Site 16.

43
44
Source: Engineering-Science 1988 1” - 350’

APPROXIMATE SCALE

~gures-2 Site 16Layout

45
Site Contamination Characteristics

In October and November 199 1, Edwards sampled

monitoring wells at Site 16 and analyzed the samples for VOCs,

semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), metals, and a variety

of other parameters including pH and alkalinity.

VOCs present in high concentrations included TCE

(nondetectable [ND] to 3,100 micrograms per liter [pg/L]),

benzene (ND to 1,800 pg/L), toluene (ND to 3,100 pg/L),

ethylbenzene (ND to 1,300 ug/L), and p- and m-xylene (ND to

3,300 ug/L). Other contaminants with concentrations above

detection limits were 1,ldichloroethane (ND to 154 ug/L); 1,2-

dichloroethane (ND to 7 pg/L); trans-1,2dichloroethene (ND

to 1.7 pg/L); PCE (ND to 3.3 pgL); l,l,l-trichloroethane(ND

to 270 clgn); and dichloromethane (ND to 230 pg/L). Other

sampling parameters included pH of 7.4 and alkalinity (as

calcium carbonate) at 450 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Review of SITE Demonstration

Three configurations of the CAV-OX process were

demonstrated: the CAV-OX I low-energy process operating at

360 watts and the CAV-OX II high-energy process operating

at either 5 kilowatts (kW) or 10 kW. The CAV-OX I process

contains six 60-watt lamps per reactor. The CAV-OX II process

contains two ultraviolet (UV) reactors with one UV lamp each;

it can operateat 2.5,5,7.5, or 10 kW. Flow capacity is estimated

to be less than 3 gallons per minute (gpm) for the CAV-OX I

process and less than 5 gpm for the CAV-OX II process as

demonstrated. Groundwater from monitoring wells 16-4, 16-

17, and 16-49 was used for the demonstration. The demonstration

consisted of 15 planned runs for each configuration of the

CAV-OX process over a 4-week period. The following sections

describe the demonstration and review the CAV-OX process’s

performance during the demonstration.

Site Preparation

A 2,000 square-foot area was used for both CAV-OX

configurations, support facilities, nonhazardous and hazardous

waste storage containers, and the office and field laboratory

trailer. Site preparation included setting up major support

equipment, on-site support services, and utilities. A schematic

of the process is shown in Figure B-3.

Major Support Equipment

Support equipment for the CAV-OX process demonstration

included storage tanks for untreated and treated groundwater, a

solid waste dumpster for disposal of nonhazardous wastes, 55-

gallon drums for storage of decontamination rinse water, a forklift

for unloading and loading support equipment, three submersible

positive displacement pumps with gasoline-powered generators,

sampling and analytical equipment, and health and safety

equipment.

On-Site Support Services

A lo-foot by 40-foot air-conditioned office trailer containing

furniture and filing cabinets was used to complete and file daily

oversight and data collection reports, house laboratory equipment

for field analyses, and store small equipment and supplies.

Rooms within the trailer were used to separate administrative

and laboratory activities. Edwards provided access to restrooms

in Building 1820 for use by demonstration personnel.

Utilities

Utilities required for the demonstration included water,

electricity, and telephone service. Water was required for

equipment and personnel decontamination. Edwards provided

about 20 to 50 gallons per day of potable water for

decontamination Drinking water was available inside the office

and laboratory trailer in 1 -gallon containers.

Operation of the CAV-OX process requires electricity. At

Edwards, the CAV-OX I process used a 220~volt, 3-phase, 30-

ampere electrical service. The CAV-OX II process used a 480-

volt, single-phase, 20-ampere electrical service. Additional 1 lovolt, single-phase, lo-ampere electrical service was needed for

UV power supply controls and chemical feed pumps. The office

and laboratory trailer required 220~volt, 3-phase, 50-ampere

electrical service.

Two cellular telephones in the office and laboratory trailer

were used for ordering equipment, parts, reagents, and other

chemical supplies, and for scheduling deliveries.

Technology Demonstration

This section discusses (1) operational and equipment

problems, (2) health and safety considerations, and (3) site

demobilization associated with the SITE demonstration.

Operational and Equipment Problems

Hydrogen peroxide is usually injected in-line with a small

chemical feed pump; however, for the demonstration it was added

directly to the influent holding tank. In normal field operations,

treatability studies would be conducted to determine preferred

operating conditions; the CAV-OX process would then be

adjusted until preferred conditions were achieved. Because the

chemical feed pump is highly influenced by the pressure of the

CAV-OX process, optimization of the process often requires

numerous chemical feed pump adjustments, with hydrogen

peroxide analyses following each adjustment. Usually, this

optimization process would be done only one time for the desired

flow rate at the preferred hydrogen peroxide injection level.

However, during the demonstration three hydrogen peroxide

concentrations were examined at three flow rates, and operating

conditions changed several times each day. Therefore, adding

hydrogen peroxide in-line would have required continuous

46
SAMPLE COLLECTION (S) OR LOCATlON

MEASUREMENT (M) LOCATION IDENTIFIER SAMPLE

PARAMETERS

I MEASUREMENT

MAIN FEED UNE FROM Sl

INFLUENT HOLDING TANK Ml TCE, BTEX,

HYDROGEN PEROXIDE, TOC,

EFFLUENT LINE FROM

CAV-OX 0 I UV REACTOR

TC, POC, METALS, ALKALINITY,

HARDNESS, TRPH, VOCS (GC/MS),

SVOC, TURBIDITY, BIOASSAY

PH. ;ft;Eg;;RE,

SPECIFIC CONDUdTANCE

EFFLUENT UNE FROM S3

CAV-OX . II UV REACTOR M 3

0

S - Sample Location w

0

M - Measurement Location

Flgure B-3. CA V-O* Pnxess Sample end Measurement Lccetions

47
adjustment of the chemical feed injection rate. Because of the

time required with in-line adjustment, hydrogen peroxide was

added directly to the influent holding tank until the desired

concentration was reached.

Health and Safety Considerations

In general, potential health hazards resulted from possible

exposure to contaminated groundwater and hydrogen peroxide

solution. Although the treatment process was entirely closed,

potential routes of exposure during the demonstration included

inhalation, ingestion, and skin and eye contact from splashes

or spills during sample collection.

All personnel working in the demonstration area had, at a

minimum, 40 hours of health and safety training and were under

routine medical surveillance, in compliance with federal OSHA

regulation 29 CFR 1910.120. Appropriate personal protective

equipment (PPE) was used for each activity being performed.

Steel-toe boots were required in the exclusion zone. Personnel

working in direct contact with contaminated groundwater and

process chemicals wore modified Level D protective equipment,

including safety shoes, latex inner gloves, nitrile outer gloves,

and safety glasses.

Site Demobilization

After the demonstration was completed and on-site

equipment was disassembled and decontaminated, equipment

and site demobilization began. Equipment demobilization

included loading the support equipment, transporting it off site,

returning rented support equipment, and disconnecting utilities.

The CAV-OX contigurations remained mounted on a flat-bed

truck so that they could be transported off site after the intluent

line, effluent line, and electricity were disconnected.

Decontamination was necessary for the bladder tank,

effluent storage tank, sampling equipment, pumps, mixers,

valves, and nondisposable PPE. Magnum was responsible for

decontaminating the CAV-OX equipment and its health and

safety equipment.

The effluent was disposed of off site, in accordance with

Edwards base regulations. Total liquid wastes were about 8,500

gallons. The demonstration evaluated runs with numerous

operating conditions, not all of which resulted in an effluent

that met discharge limits; also, untreated groundwater was used

for daily calibrations of flow meters with the UV reactor off.

Therefore, the discharge water collected during the

demonstration did not meet State of California drinking water

action levels and federal drinking water maximum contaminant

levels (MCL) for TCE and BTEX. The collected water could

not be discharged to the sanitary sewer and was disposed of off

site in accordance with arrangements made among EPA,

Edwards, EPA Region 9, and the State of California.

Other liquid and solid wastes generated during the

demonstration included (1) washwater from decontaminating

personnel and equipment; (2) disposable PPE, such as Tyvek

suits, gloves, and boot covers; and (3) disposable laboratory

supplies, such as spent vials, empty reagent containers, and paper

towels. Solid wastes were collected in plastic bags, 55-gallon

drums, and dumpsters. All liquid and solid wastes were disposed

of in accordance with disposal arrangements made among EPA,

Edwards, EPA Region 9, and the State of California.

Experimental Design

The demonstration’s objectives were to: (1) determine TCE

and BTEX removal efficiencies in the treatment process under

various operating conditions, (2) determine whether TCE and

BTEX levels in treated groundwater met applicable discharge

limits to the base sanitary sewer at the 95 percent confidence

level, and (3) compare TCE and BTEX removal efficiencies

among the three treatment process configurations. Secondary

objectives for the technology demonstration were to (1) collect

information, including process chemical dosage and utility

requirements, needed to estimate treatment costs, (2) assess the

presence of degradation by-products in the treated water, and

(3) collect characterization data for both the irrlluent and effluent

streams. The sections that follow describe the testing approach

and sampling and analytical procedures used to accomplish these

objectives.

Testing Approach

Water from monitoring wells 16-4, 16-17, and 16-49 was

pumped through a common manifold into a 7,500-gallon

equalization (bladder) tank. The combined flow from the three

wells was about 4 gpm. An equalization tank was used to

minimize any variability in the irrlluent characteristics (primarily

VOCs), and to provide a steady water supply to the CAV-OX

process. The bladder tank was made of heavy duty,

polyurethanecoated nylon fabric and was rated for potable water.

Before the demonstration began, approximately 7,500 gallons

of water were collected in the equalization tank. Water was

collected simultaneously from the wells to obtain a representative

mix of the contaminant plume. To minimize volatilization of

VOCs, water in the equalization tank was not mixed by any

other means. A separate pump transferred water from the

equalization tank to an influent holding tank, mounted on

Magnum’s truck.

Operations followed the schedule shown in Table B-l. The

CAV-OX I low-energy process was operated simultaneously

with the CAV-OX II high-energy process. The CAV-OX II

high-energy process operated with the UV reactor at 5 kW and

then at 10 kW. From the equalization tank, the water was

transferred to an intluent holding tank, where hydrogen peroxide

was added. The influent holding tank maintained a positive head

for the centrifugal pump. The water was then pumped through

48
Table B-l. Experimental Conditions

L

1 7.2

2 22

3 7.2

Medium HJ&XJWI Box&? Dose

4 7.2

5 712

6 712

7 7.2

8 712

9 7

High H@mgen Rnxide Dose

IO 7

11 6.9

1 2 Zl

V~~condiiions

7 3 z7

14 ’ 5

15 ’ 5.5

0 016 2 2

0.4 1.5 1.6 1.6

0.4 1.5 3.9 4

49 1.5 4 3.9

4.9 7.5 3.9 3.4

5.9 05 1.5 1.4

59 0.7 1.9 2

6 0.7 1.9 1.9

6.1 1.5 4 4

23.4 016 2 21

337 0.5 1.6 1.5

48.3 0.6 7.4 1.4

1.8 IlAb 1.9 1.9

9.7 iwb Mb 7.9

1 Mb /VI6 0.8’

Notes: l lnfluent pH adjusted

b CAV-OP’I and 5kW CAV-OP II not

considered a preferred condition in this case

c CAV-OP II operated at 2.5 kW

NA = not applicable mg/L = milligrams per liter

gpm = gallons per minute kW = kilowatts

49
the cavitation chamber. After exiting the cavitation chamber,

the water flowed to either the UV reactors, or back to the

cavitation chamber through a recycle line. The water flowing

to the UV reactors was split between the CAV-OX I and the

CAV-OX II reactors. Treated groundwater was stored in an

effluent storage tank for off-site disposal.

The CAV-OX I process was operated unchanged while

the CAV-OX II process was operated first at 5 kW and then at

10 kW.. Sampling of all three CAV-OX configurations was

completed for one run before the next run began.

Operating parameters, including hydrogen peroxide dose,

hydraulic retention time (flow rate), and UV output were varied

to observe how the process performed under different operating

conditions. The initial flow rate was based on known

groundwater contaminant concentrations and Magnum’s

professional judgment and experience. Preferred operating

conditions were then determined by Magnum as those that

reduced effluent VOCs to below target levels. Table B-2 shows

VOC target levels for the demonstration.

Table B-2. Target Levels for Critical Analytes in Efhent Samples

The first test run was preceded by a preliminary run.

Operating parameters for the preliminary run were identical to

those of the first test run, including the use of contaminated

groundwater. The purpose of the preliminary run was to identifl

and resolve any problems in the sampling and field analysis

protocols and to remove any residual contaminants from previous

use. Only field analyses (such as temperature and flow rate)

were performed during the preliminary run. Steady state

conditions (a stable flow rate) were achieved for the preliminary

run after approximately three hydraulic retention times.

Sampling and Analytical Procedures

Figure B-3 shows the three locations where samples were

collected and measurements taken during the demonstration.

Treated water was sampled and measured only after steady

state was attained (after three hydraulic retention times).

Before each run, hydrogen peroxide in the in&rent was

measured to determine concentrations. In addition, the intluent

flow rate was adjusted before each run to provide the desired

hydraulic retention time.

VOC concentrations and flow rate were considered critical

parameters for evaluating the technology. VOCs were measured

by both gas chromatography (GC) and GC/mass spectrometry

(MS) methods. Only GC measurement of VOCs was considered

critical because GC data were planned for quantitative use;

GUMS data were planned for qualitative use providing data on

degradation products or other contaminants.

Because the CAV-OX process was developed to treat

organics, and because VOCs were the principal contaminants

in groundwater, four replicate samples were collected for GC

analysis of VOCs to increase accuracy and precision. For other

analytes, the number of samples was based on the (1) intended

use of the data, (2) analytical costs, (3) sampling time, and (4)

analytical laboratory discretion. EPA-approved sampling,

analytical, and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)

procedures were followed to obtain reliable data. QA/QC

procedures are detailed in the Technology Evaluation Report.

Review of Treatment Results

This section summarizes the results of both critical and

noncritical parameters for the CAV-OX demonstration, and

evaluates the technology’s effectiveness in treating groundwater

contaminated with VOCs. Data are presented in graphic or

tabular form. For samples with analyte concentrations at

nondetectable levels, one-half the detection limit was used as

the estimated concentration. However, if more than one replicate

sample had concentrations at nondetectable levels, using onehalf the detection limit as the estimated concentration for all

such replicable samples would significantly reduce the standard

deviation of the mean and would affect the statistical inferences

made. For this reason, 0.5, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.4 times the detection

limit were used as estimated concentrations for the first, second,

third, and fourth replicate samples, respectively.

Throughout the demonstration only two contaminants, TCE

and benzene, were detected in the influent at levels well above

target levels. Figure B-4 shows the influent concentrations of

benzene and TCE. Figure B-5 shows the influent concentrations

of ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. Toluene, ethylbenzene,

and xylene were present in the influent; however, because these

VOCs were present in relatively low levels compared to TCE

and benzene, the discussion of the CAV-OX technology’s

effectiveness pertains only to TCE and benzene.

50
Ethylbenzene

&l/L

Benzene

La1

IO-- lO-- IP- 1VI-

*-

I

oa- I

(D- IsA4- I

Toluene, Xylene

!-4/L

TCE

i-a-
Summary of Results for Critical Parameters

Critical parameters are those used to meet primary project

objectives. Table B-3 compares TCE and benzene removals

among the three treatment process configurations. Table B-4

compares TCE and benzene removal efficiencies among the

three treatment process configurations. Figure B-6 compares

the TCE removal efficiency of the three configurations. Figure

B-7 compares the benzene removal efficiency of the three

configurations. The major differences among the three

configurations involveUV output and flow rate. In general,

contaminant removal increased with UV output and with

decreased flow rates. However, the choice of a process depends

on site specific characteristics. For the conditions at Edwards,

the CAV-OX I low-energy process would be adequate for a

desired flow rate of 0.6 gpm. Likewise, if a greater flow rate

is required, a 5-kW or lo-kW process may be preferable.

While operating under the preferred conditions, all

CAV-OX process effluents met State of California drinking

water action levels and federal drinking water MCLs for BTEX

at the 95 percent confidence level. Effluent from one

configuration of the CAV-OX I process met State of California

drinking water action levels and federal drinking water MCLs

for TCE at the 95 percent confidence level. In addition, average

effluent contaminant values from the CAV-OX II process, while

operating under the preferred conditions, met State of California

drinking water action levels and federal drinking water MCLs

for TCE. However, because of data variability, the effluent

did not meet the 95 percent confidence level for TCE. The

demonstration evaluated numerous operating conditions; not all

conditions meet these discharge limits. Figure B-8 summarizes

these results.

Figure B-9 shows the effects of flow rate variations on the

CAV-OX I process for TCE removals. Figure B-10 shows

the effects of flow rate variations on the CAV-OX I process

for benzene removals. Figure B-l1 shows the effects of flow

rate variations on the CAV-OX II process for TCE removals.

Figure B-12 shows the effects of flow rate variations on the

CAV-OX II process for benzene removals. Overall contaminant

removal efficiency increased with a decrease in flow rate.

However, the choice of a CAV-OX configuration depends on

site specific characteristics.

Summary of Results for Noncritical Parameters

The technology demonstration also evaluated analytical

results for several noncritical parameters, which are those used

to meet secondary project objectives. These results are

summarized below.

Hydrogen Peroxide Effects

A secondary objective of the demonstration was to examine

the effects of different hydrogen peroxide doses on the efficiency

of the treatment process. To meet this goal, hydrogen peroxide

was added to the influent holding tank to achieve concentrations

of 0, 30, 60, and 90 mg/L. For runs 10, 11, and 12, Magnum

added a calculated hydrogen peroxide dose to the holding tank.

The hydrogen peroxide concentration was then measured using

a titanium complexary method (Boltz and Howell 1979).

Magnum then added more hydrogen peroxide or water to the

holding tank as necessary to reach the desiredconcentration.

However, because Magnum distrusted titanium complexary

method results, Magnum purchased a test kit based on a ferric

reaction and used it for runs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14. Hydrogen

peroxide was not added for runs 1, 2, 3, 13, and 15.

Results obtained using the Boltz and Howell method better

reflect the actual available hydrogen peroxide in each sample

for two reasons. First, the Boltz and Howell method is

straightforward. Titanium and peroxide ion form stable peroxo

complexes with a typical structure of [Ti(O,)OHNO)]+. The

overall ferric reaction is also simple:

50, + 2Fe2+ + 2OH-+2F$+

The mechanism of this reaction is not simple, however,

because it involves free radicals. Therefore many other reactions

may occur. One well known reaction occurs in the presence of

oxygen and organics. The oxygen reacts with the organic free

radical to create organic peroxide radicals (Roe); these radicals

oxidize ferrous iron to make a hydroperoxide (ROOI-I), which

will react with more ferrous iron. The overall reaction, which

results in a falsely high analysis result, is shown below.

02 + 4FeZ+ + 4H+ -_) 4Fti+ + 2I-$O

Second, hydrogen peroxide was added to the intluent holding

tank during the demonstration. The water in the tank not only

contained organic matter and some metal ions, but also was

exposed to air. Therefore, the actual hydrogen peroxide content

of the influent began declining upon contact. The rate of decline

of hydrogen peroxide depends on the rate of the free radical

generation, which is influenced by many factors. Therefore,

the possibilities for side reactions in the ferric reaction are much

greater than those with the Boltz and Howell method.

Also, the chemistry involved in the CAV-OX process is

not at equilibrium. The composition of the water in the process

continuously changes; therefore, peroxide measurements taken

at different times, and possibly from different places within

the tank, will differ. There is no direct correlation of the time

and location of samples analyzed by the two methods.

52

Table B-4. Contaminant Removal Efliciency

I

0

56
Benzene

ND = Non detect

TL = Target level

UCL = Upper confidence level

TOkAle Ethylbenzene

TL=20 TL = 680 TL= 1750

TL = 5

Hydqen Peroxide

Concentration - 48.3 mg/L

The demonstration results show that removal efficiency

increased with the addition of hydrogen peroxide. However,

Magnum reports that this increase in efficiency is limited and

that efficiency decreases beyond some level of hydrogen peroxide

addition. The demonstration did not fully evaluate enough

hydrogen peroxide levels to determine the concentration at which

efficiency decreases with additional hydrogen peroxide. Table

B-4 shows the increase in removal efficiencies with increased

hydrogen peroxide dose.

pH Effects

For runs 14 and 15 (in which pH was varied) only acid

addition is considered because of the high bicarbonate levels in

the groundwater. Because carbonate and bicarbonate scavenge

hydroxyl radicals, acid addition may improve process

performance by shifting the carbonate equilibrium to carbonic

acid. However, during the two runs in which pH was varied,

other parameters were also varied; therefore, definitive

conclusions cannot be drawn about the effects of PH.

Vendor-Selected Conditions

Runs 13,14, and 15 were conducted under conditions chosen

by Magmun. For these nms Magnum chose not to operate the

CAV-OX I low-energy process.

L”x’ q Low Energy 0.6 gpm

n 5-kW High Energy 1.4 gpm

q IO-kW High Energy 1.4 gpm

Figure B-8. Comparison of 95 Percent UCLs for Effluent VOC Concentrations with Demonstration Target Levels (Run 12)

Run 13 repeated the conditions of Run 1 (a previous run

with no hydrogen peroxide added). The results of these runs

agree and show that although some contaminants are removed,

hydrogen peroxide is vital to achieve high removal efficiencies.

For Run 14, Magnum chose to operate with a hydrogen

peroxide concentration of 9.1 mg/L and a flow rate of 8 gpm.

Results of this run showed that the increased hydrogen peroxide

levels did not compensate for the increased flow rate (and

therefore decreased retention time) in the process. Also, since

the pH of the influent was lowered, definitive conclusions cannot

be based on this run.

For Run 15, Magnum chose to operate the CAV-OX II

reactor at 2.5 kW with no added hydrogen peroxide and a flow

rate of 1 gpm. The purpose of performing this run under these

operating conditions was to examine the effects of the cavitation

chamber. Samples were collected from three locations: (1) at

the intake to the process, (2) after the cavitation chamber but

before the UV reactor, and (3) after the UV reactor. Run 15

results indicated no immediate decrease in contamination in the

water exiting the cavitation chamber. Magnum reports that a

holding time of about 1 hour after the water exits the cavitation

chamber is optimal for removal of contaminants in the cavitation

chamber. However, the equipment demonstrated at Edwards

57
1.5 gpm

0.7 gpm

0.5 gpm

Figure B-9. CA V-OX@ I Flow Variations on Tkhloroethene Removals

il 211 411 60 80 1 (.I :I!

Benzene

iisIL

Figure B-10. CA V-OX@ I Flow Variations on Benzene Removals

5 8
4.0 gpm

2.0 gpm

1.6 gpm

4.0 gpm

2.0 gpm

1.6 gpm

Run 3, 65.8% RJmoval Efficiency

1 Run 1, 68.1% Rjmoval Efficiency

/!:I, 98.6% Re/movaI Efficiency

1 Run 2, 94.1% R/+movaI Efficiency

118

Run 2, 99.2% R moval Efficiency

I ,I

H ydroger

Concentr

0 200 400 600 8

TCE

PSR

Figure E-l 1. CAV-OX@ II Flow Variations on Trichloroethene Removals

Run 1, 63.7% Re oval Efficiency

Run 2, 49.1% Re oval Efficiency

100 1

Benzene

P@-

Hydrogen wixide

Concentr6 n --Omg/L

leroxide

ion = 0 mg/L

)O(

223

I :

Legend

n 5kW High Energy

q lo-kW High Energy

Legend

n 5-kW High Energy

Q lo-kW High Energy

Figure B-12. CA V-OX@ II Flow Variations on Benzene Removals

59
The focus of a SITE demonstration is to examine a

technology in its entirety, not to study its individual components.

The effects of cavitation alone, therefore, were not fully evaluated

during the CAV-OX demonstration. Results of other studies

conducted by Magnum concerning the effects of cavitation alone,

independent of the SITE demonstration, are included in Appendix

A and Appendix C.

Additional Noncritical Parameters

Additional analytical results for several noncritical

parameters are summarized below.

In general, GC/MS analysis of influent and effluent samples

for VOCs indicated that several new target compounds or

tentatively identified compounds (TIC) were formed during the

treatment. Acetone and 2-butanone concentrations were

generally higher in the effluent than in the influent. Also, several

unknown TICS were identified in both the influent and effluent

samples. However, vinyl chloride and 1, ldichloroethane were

not formed during treatment.

GC/MS analysis of irrlluent and effluent samples for SVOCs

revealed only phenol, 2-methylphenol, and bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate. The highest concentration found was 11

pg/L, and these compounds were found in both the influent and

effluent samples in similar concentrations. As with the VOC

analysis, several unknown TICS were identified in both the

intluent and effluent samples.

During Runs 13, 14, and 15, bioassay tests were performed

to evaluate the acute toxicity of influent and effluent samples.

Two freshwater test organisms, a water flea (Cerioduphnia

dubia) and a fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas), were used

in the bioassay tests. Toxicity was measured as the lethal

concentration at which 50 percent of the organisms died (LC,,)

and was expressed as the percent of effluent (or influent) in the

test water. One influent and one effluent sample was tested in

each run. Bioassay analyses showed influent and effluent from

Run 13 to be nontoxic to the fathead minnow and moderately

toxic to the water flea. Bioassay analyses also showed influent

and effluent from Run 14 to be toxic to both the fathead minnow

and the water flea, and that intluent from Run 15 was nontoxic

to the fathead minnow and toxic to the water flea. Effluent

from Run 15 was toxic to both the fathead minnow and the

water flea. Bioassay analyses of water from runs with low

levels of hydrogen peroxide (Run 13) showed that the CAV-OX

process eMuent was nontoxic to the fathead minnow but

moderately toxic to the water flea, while bioassay analyses of

water from runs with hydrogen peroxide (Run 14) showed that

the CAV-OX process effluent was toxic to both the fathead

minnow and the water flea. Comparison of effluent toxicity

data with that of hydrogen peroxide in the effluent (10 mg/L)

indicates that effluent toxicity may be due partially to hydrogen

peroxide rather than CAV-OX treatment by-products.

Additional studies are needed to draw any conclusion on any

effluent toxicity related to hydrogen peroxide.

Samples were also analyzed for iron and manganese. Iron

concentrations in the irrlluent ranged from 180 to 462 pg/L, while

concentrations in the effluent ranged from 217 to 512 pg/L.

Manganese concentrations in the influent ranged from 662 to

694 pg/L, while concentrations in the effluent ranged from 686

to 740 pg/L. These results indicate that the CAV-OX process

did not remove iron or manganese because these metals were

present at similar levels in the influent and the effluent.

No signiticant changes in pH, alkahnity, hardness, or specific

conductance were observed during treatment.

Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) were

found in the influent at concentrations of 0.64 to 1.15 mg/L.

TRPH concentrations in the effluent ranged from below detection

limits to 0.78 mg/L.

Turbidity readings for the influent samples ranged from 2.97

to 3.58 nephelometric turbidity units 0). Readings for the

effluent samples ranged from 2.07 to 3.3 8 NTUs.

In the CAV-OX I process, the water temperature increased

at a rate of about 0.26 OF per minute of UV exposure. In the 5-

kW CAV-OX II process, the water temperature increased at a

rate of about 2.36 OF per minute of UV exposure. In the lokW CAV-OX II process, the water temperature increased at a

rate of 4.29 “F per minute of UV exposure. Since the equipment

was exposed to the surrounding environment, the temperature

increase may vary depending upon the ambient temperature or

other atmospheric conditions.

Electricity is the only utility required for the CAV-OX

process. The electricity demand was 2.2 kW for the CAV-OX

I process, 6.4 kW for the 5-kW CAV-OX II process, and 13

kW for the lo-kW CAV-OX II process.

Hydrogen peroxide, the only process chemical used in the

CAV-OX process, was used at a rate of between 0 and 48.3

mg/L.

After operating about 2 weeks, no scaling was observed on

any of the UV tubes at the end of the demonstration. Magnum

reports that scaling is not a concern for the CAV-OX process.

Conclusions

The following preferred operating conditions were

determined for the CAV-OX I low-energy process: (1) an

i&rent hydrogen peroxide level of 23.4 mg/L and (2) a flow

rate of 0.6 gpm. At these conditions, TCE and benzene levels

in the effluent were generally below target levels (5 ug/L and 1

ug/L, respectively). The average removal efficiencies for TCE

and benzene were both greater than 99.7 percent.

60
The following preferred operating conditions were

determined for both the 5-kW and lo-kW CAV-OX II

configurations: (1) an intluent hydrogen peroxide level of 48.3

mg/L and (2) a flow rate of 1.4 gpm. At these conditions, TCE

and benzene levels in the effluent were generally below the

target level. The average removal efficiencies for TCE and

benzene were about 99.7 and 99.8 percent, respectively.

While operating under the preferred conditions, all

CAV-OX process effluents met State of California drinking

water action levels and federal drinking water MCLs for BTEX

at the 95 percent confidence level. One configuration of the

CAV-OX I process effluents met State of California drinking

water action levels and federal drinking water maximum

contaminant levels for TCE at the 95 percent confidence level.

In the CAV-OX I lowenergy process, the 5-kW CAV-OX

II high-energy process, and the IO-kW CAV-OX II highenergy

process, water temperature increased at an average rate of about

0.26 “F, 2.36 *F, and 4.29 OF per minute of UV exposure,

respectively. Since the equipment was exposed to the

surrounding environment, the temperature increase may vary

depending upon the ambient temperature or other atmospheric

conditions.

After operating about 2 weeks, no scaling was observed on

any of the tubes at the end of the demonstration.

References

Boltz, D.F., and J.A. Howell. 1979. Calorimetric

Determination ofNon44etals. John Wiley & Sons, New

York, New York.

The Earth Technology Corporation. 1992. “Benzene Plumes,

Fall 1991”. Prepared for Edwards Air Force Base,

California. October.

Engineering-Science. 1988. “Phase IV - Installation Restoration

Program Assessment of Site 16 Recovery Well Process Final

Quality Control Plan and Sampling Plan.” Prepared for

Edwards Air Force Base, California. December.

61
Appendix C

Case Studies

Note: This appendix presents nine case studies provided by

Magnum Water Technology (Magnum) on the application

of the CAV-OX process to contaminant streams. Claims

and interpretations of results in this appendix are made by

Magnum and may not be substantiated by test or cost data.

This appendix has been edited only so that format is consistent

with the document.

Introduction

Table C-l summarizes the results of nine case studies

provided by Magnum involving both pilot- and full-scale units

treating contaminated groundwater and industrial wastewaters.

Magnum provided all case studies as additional performance

data for tbe CAV-OX process. Contaminants of concern

included pentacbloropbenol (PCP), total petroleum hydrocarbons

(TPH), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX),

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total organic carbon (TOC),

atrazine, cyanide, phenol, and tbe bacterium Salmonella.

In case studies involving PCP, TPH, and BTEX, the

CAV-OX process reduced tbe levels of these contaminants in

various aqueous phases by 96 to 99.94 percent.

Two case studies investigated BOD removal. In tbe first of

these, tbe CAV-OX process reduced BOD in resin plant’effluent

by 94.1 percent. In tbe second, BOD in contaminated seawater

was reduced by 83.3 to 88.4 percent. In tbe first case study

hydrogen peroxide was added; in tbe second hydrogen peroxide

was not added and ultraviolet (UV) treatment was not used.

One case study involved groundwater contaminated with

tbe herbicide atrazine. Tbe CAV-OX process reduced atrazine

levels from 1,000 micrograms per liter @g/L) to 200 pg/L, a

reduction of 80 percent. Although atrazine could have been

reduced further, tbe customer in tbis case determined tbat 200

pg/L was acceptable.

The CAV-OX process has also been used to treat

wastewater contaminated with potassium cyanide. In tbis case

study, tbe process consistently oxidized potassium cyanide to

nondetectable levels with retention times of less tban 4 minutes

and hydrogen peroxide levels as low as 20 milligrams per liter

(mg/L). Using cavitation and UV radiation only, without adding

hydrogen peroxide, potassium cyanide levels were reduced by

46 percent.

In another case study, tbe CAV-OX process reduced levels

of Salmonella in city water from 2,000,00 0 colony-forming uuits

per milliliter (CFUhL) to 0.8 CFU/mL without hydrogen

peroxide addition. After injecting the water with 80 mg/mL

hydrogen peroxide, Salmonella levels were reduced from

1,900,000 CFUhL to 0.01 CFUhL.

In tbe final case study phenol was reduced from 20 parts

per million (ppm) (with 60 ppm hydrogen peroxide) to

nondetectable levels at a flow rate of 2 gallons per minute (gpm)

and to 0.8 ppm at a flow rate of 6 gpm.

Some case studies identify tbe cost (in October 1993 dollars)

to treat 1,000 gallons of influent, an industry-standard method

of presentation. Magnum’s method accounts for tbe following

operating costs:

* Operating chemical usage

* Power consumption by ultraviolet (UV) lamps and

centrifugal pump

* Maintenance allowance costs

* Amortization of capital equipment over 5 years

The cost per 1,000 gallons is tbe total of these costs. Costs

from tbe case studies ranged from $1.62 to $1.93 per 1,000

gallons of water containing organic contaminants. For one case

study, tbe cost to reduce BOD using only tbe cavitation chamber

(no UV and no hydrogen peroxide) was $0.13 per 1,000 gallons.

63
Table Cl. Case Study Summary

Case Study Facility Contaminants Results

C-7 Wood-treating Superfund

site, Pensacola, Florida

C-2 Chevron service station,

Long Beach, California

C-3 Presidio Army Base, San

Francisco, California

Pentachlorophenol (PCP),

polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH)

Total petroleum

hydrocarbons (TPH);

benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and xylenes

(S TEX)

TPH, BTEX

C-4

C-5

Chemical plant, East Coast Biochemical oxygen

U.S. demand (BOD)

Mannesmann Anlagenbao, Atrazine

Salzburg, Austria

C-6 Steel mill, South Korea Cyanide, phenol

C-7 Chicken farm, Virginia Salmonella

c-a Southern California

Edison, Los Angeles,

California

BOO BOD reduced by 83.3 to

88.4 percent using

cavitation only

C-9 Corporation Mexicena de Phenol, pharmaceuticals At high flow rates phenol

lnvestigacion en Materials, was reduced to

S.A. de C.V. (CMIMSA) nondetectable levels

PCP reduced by 96

percent

TPH reduced by 99.94

percent

Ethylbenzene and TPH

reduced to nondetectable

levels

BOO reduced by 94.1

percent

Atrazine reduced from

1,000 micrograms per liter

(ugfl.) to 200 UqL

Cyanide reduced by 55

percent using cavitation

only and greater than 99.9

percent using cavitation

and UV radiation

Samonella reduced from

2,000,OOO colony forming

units per milliliter

(CFU/mL) to 0.8 CFU/mL

without hydrogen peroxide

addition,. reduced to 0.01

CFU/mL after hydrogen

peroxide addition

CASE STUDY C-l: Wood Treating Superfund Site,

Pensacola, Florida

Introduction

In mid-1992, Magnum was asked to supply a CAV-OX

process to reduce PCP in a leachate discharged from a soil

washing process. The soil washing process was part of a

demonstration sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) to evaluate the remediation of this site, which

had been in operation for more than 40 years before it was

designated a Super-fund site.

Equipment

Magnum delivered both a CAV-OX I low-energy unit and

a CAV-OX II high-energy unit. The units could be nm in series,

parallel, or independently through suitable valving.

The CAV-OX I low-energy unit consisted of a 2-

horsepower centrifugal pump, cavitation chamber, recycle loop,

six 60-watt lamps in a 6-foot stainless steel reactor and associated

controls, UV ballasts, function lamps, and circuit breakers. The

CAV-OX II high-energy unit used the same centrifugal pump,

cavitation chamber, and recycle loop but had an independent

power supply for the 5-foot high-energy reactor with its 2.5- or

5kilowatt (kw) lamp.

64
The equipment was shipped using a common carrier and

delivered to the site over a weekend. It was installed and tested

the following Monday. The next 5 days were full test days lasting

from 8 to 12 hours. The CAV-OX equipment was operable

100 percent of the time and had no failures of any kind.

Methodology

The customer decided that the leachate would receive

minimal pretreatment, to develop a’worst-case scenario for

evaluating the technology. Because the leachate was a thin slung

instead of a contaminated water stream, it was treated with high

levels of hydrogen peroxide (2,000 to 4,000 mgL), followed by

treatment in the CAV-OX II high-energy process. Minimum

pretreatment on future test runs, if needed, would consist only

of pH adjustment, followed by minimal cartridge filtration using

swimming pool filters.

A 500-gallon polyethylene holding tank was used to collect

leachate from the soil washing process (without pretreatment)

and served as a recycle vessel for the batch process test.

Preliminary tests were run to evaluate process efficiency in

reducing PCP and to determine optimal operating parameters.

The initial runs showed that little UV was being transmitted

and that most PCP destruction was taking place in the cavitation

chamber, aided by hydrogen peroxide addition. PCP was

generally reduced by 22 to 50 percent in the initial runs.

However, for runs in which flow-through was reduced or

recycling increased, increasing the UV intensity raised the

effluent temperature from 100 “F to 150 “F and above. The

temperature rise caused the PCP concentration in the effluent to

increase dramatically, often doubling or tripling in the influent.

The higher concentrations resulted from the shtrry releasing

additional contaminants as the temperature rose.

A series of tests on the process stream, without pretreatment,

was made with recycle times of 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 90

minutes. On the basis of these tests, it was decided that adjusting

the pH of the process stream from 9 to 5.5 would cause

flocculation and sedimentation in the holding tank, resulting in

a clearer influent to the CAV-OX process.

Results

After adjusting the pH of the process stream, one subsequent

test nm showed a 96 percent reduction in PCP levels. It is

important to note that while PCP levels in the influent varied

from 900 to 15,000 ug/L, an additional load of polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) ranging from 16,000 to 128,000

ug/L was also present in the inlluent.

CASE STUDY C-2: Chevron Service Station, Long

Beach, California

Introduction

In late 1990, a CAV-OX I low-energy process was installed

at a former Chevron service station to remediate groundwater at

the site. Gasoline storage tanks at the site had leaked for several

years, resulting in a groundwater contaminant plume that was

migrating toward adjoining commercial property.

Since the plume had spread over a large area, 12 wells

were drilled at its periphery to feed the overall treatment process

and prevent the plume from spreading further. The CAV-OX

I process was to operate at 10 gpm, in order to reduce TPH

from 200 mg/L to a level that met local regulations.

Equipment

The CAV-OX I low-energy process used for this project

was rated at 10 gpm and included a cavitation chamber, a

centrifugal pump, a hydrogen peroxide injection process, and

twelve 60-watt UV lamps housed in two stainless steel reaction

chambers. A control panel housed the necessary wiring, UV

ballasts, circuit breakers, and control switches. Figure C-l is a

photograph of the process.

Magnum worked closely with the site consultant and the

client to design the pretreatment process. The final pretreatment

process system consisted of a closed, pressurized design,

preventing volatile organic compounds (VOC) from being

released to the environment. The entire unit was housed in a

15-foot-by-12-foot enclosure at the comer of the property.

Methodology

Influent was drawn from the 12 wells using bladder pumps

driven by an on-site compressor, which also supplied air to

maintain 4 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure on the sealed

holding tank. Influent was pumped through two 3.5-cubic-foot

media filters and forwarded to the holding tank The liquid level

in the holding tank was maintained by a level-control process,

which was coordinated with an on-off control valve to the

centrifugal pump. This centrifugal pressure pump developed

64 psi in the cavitation chamber. Groundwater was fed from the

cavitation chamber at about 8 psi to the UVreactors, A recycle

process allowed the groundwater to be returned upstream for

additional treatment and functioned as a flow control for process

throughput.

65
Figure C-l. Photograph of CAV-OX o Process

66
Operations

During the 2 years required to remediate the site, the

CAV-OX I low-energy process was maintained by the site

consultant’s technical staff After process start up, a trained

technician collected effluent samples and serviced the process

every 20 to 30 days. The CAV-OX I low-energy process was

operational 99.9 percent of the time over the 2-year period.

Initial problems with components in the air pressure process

prevented the process from maintaining consistent operating

conditions during the Iirst few months. These problems were

eventually solved.

Because of potential variations in intluent quality, 400

pounds of activated carbon was included in the process to handle

free product that might pass through the CAV-OX I low-energy

process. The carbon was replaced once during the 2-year period.

The UV lamps were replaced twice during the 2-year period.

In addition, one quartz tube was broken when it was removed

to be examined for exterior fouling, and was replaced The quartz

tubes never showed any indication of scaling, although the

influent quality varied widely and appeared black at times

because of apparent biological activity.

In early 1992, the 20 mg/L hydrogen peroxide injection

before the centrifugal pump inlet was discontinued because tests

indicated that it was unnecessary.

Results

As of late 1992, when the CAV-OX I low-energy process

was shut down, the influent TPH level had been reduced from

190,000 ug/L to 120 pg/L, a reduction of 99.94 percent. The

overall cost was $1.62 for every 1,000 gallons of groundwater

treated.

CASE STUDY C-3: Presidio Army Base, San Francisco,

California

Introduction

A 20-gpm CAV-OX I low-energy process was installed to

remove VOCs from groundwater at a service station on the

Presidio Army Base in San Francisco, California.

Equipment

The Model 2662.5 CAV-OX I low-energy process installed

at the site consisted of the cavitation chamber, a centrifugal

pump, a hydrogen peroxide injection process, thirty-six 60-watt

UV lamps housed in six stainless-steel reactors, a control panel

with UV ballasts, and necessary switches, relays, and indicator

lamps.

The CAV-OX I low-energy process was combined with

other equipment, including a vacuum extraction process for

soil remediation, groundwater pumps and manifold, an influent

holding tank with level controls, and the necessary electrical

process and interlocks.

Table G2. Groundwafer Sampling Results, August 20, 1990 (p@)

~~~~~

Sample Benzene Toluene Xylenes Ethyl- TPH

Point benzene

1_~~-11~ _I~

lnfluent 450 44 100 25 80

Effluent 6 1.9 1.5 ND ND

*__INotes: ND = Not detected

Results

Results of samples collected after installation, start up, and

training are shown in Table C-2.

Tests performed in 1993 show that contaminants in

groundwater at the site have been reduced dramatically.

However, contaminant levels in soil require further remediation

using the vacuum extraction process in conjunction with the

CAV-OX I low-energy process. The CAV-OX I low-energy

process may need to be operated intermittently if contaminants

in the soil are further released into the groundwater.

The CAV-OX I low-energy process was not installed under

a protective cover at this site and has been exposed to the

elements for the last 3 years. The UV components and parts not

made of stainless steel have deteriorated somewhat; however, a

protective cover will prevent this deterioration.

The overall cost was $1.75 for every 1,000 gallons of

groundwater treated.

CASE STUDY C-4: Chemical Plant, East Coast U.S.

Introduction

In 1992, a major U.S. resin manufacturer contracted with

Magnum to conduct a pilot study for remediating its plant

effluent. This waste stream was common to several of the

manufacturer’s facilities on the east coast of the United States.

Plant procedures required that the effluent be shipped off site

for treatment, resulting in high costs and potential liabilities.

The customer agreed that the effluent was not suitable for

treatment by standard advanced oxidation systems because of

the type of contaminants and the high contaminant levels. The

purpose of the pilot study was to determine how the CAV-OX

process could reduce contaminant levels in order to reduce

overall disposal costs.

67
Equipment Equipment

A CAV-OX II high-energy pilot unit was used for this study

because of the types and concentrations of contaminants in the

effluent. The unit consisted of a double reactor with a total UV

output of 10 kW.. Each 5-foot reactor had a 2.5- or 5-kW UV

lamp and an independent power supply. The unit also included

a 2-horsepower centrifugal pump, a cavitation chamber, a recycle

loop, and a control panel with associated switches, indicator

lamps, and circuit breakers.

Because the CAV-OX II high-energy pilot unit consists of

full-scale modules operating at 3 gpm, results from this study

can be directly extrapolated to full-scale IO-gpm or 25-gpm

industrial processes.

Methodology

First, 250 gallons of efnuent was placed in a holding tank.

The effluent was clear, somewhat viscous, and irritating to

mucous membranes, with a strong odor. Next, hydrogen

peroxide was added to the holding tank to achieve a concentration

of 100 mg/L, resulting in an opaque, beige colored solution.

Because this would decrease transmission of the UV radiation,

most of the contaminant destruction would have to occur in the

cavitation chamber. The test procedure was altered to allow

maximum flow through the cavitation chamber; the flow was

then directed through the UV reactors at 0.75 gpm.

A CAV-OX I low-energy process with a 3-gpm flow was

used for these tests. The process consisted of nine 45-watt

lamps contained in three stainless steel reactors, a hydrogen

peroxide injection unit, a centrifugal pump, and the cavitation

chamber.

Methodology

The atrazine solution was mixed according to Ciba’s

recommendations and to Mamiesmarm’s recommended level of

1 mg/L. The mixture was fed to the CAV-OX I low-energy

process from a 150-gallon holding tank.

The solution was processed using various protocols.

Different flow rates and treatment levels were tested to determine

an ideal protocol. However, the cost of laboratory analyses

limited further optimization.

Results

Samples were sent to a local certified laboratory chosen by

Mannesmamr Although atrazine could have been reduced to

nondetectable levels, Mannesmann decided that the 200 ug/L

achieved in the first test, a reduction of 80 percent, was

acceptable.

CASE STUDY C-6: Steel Mill, South Korea

Results

Introduction

BOD was the primary parameter of concern; however, the

CAV-OX II high-energy process treated all constituents in the

influent. Although nontargeted contaminants absorbed a

significant amount of energy from the cavitation chamber and

UV lamps, BOD in the treated effluent was reduced by 94.1

percent.

CASE STUDY C-5: Mannesmann Anlagenbau,

Salzburg, Austria

Introduction

Mannesmann Anlagenbau (Marmesmann) of Salzburg,

Austria, contracted with Magnum to treat groundwater

contaminated with the herbicide atrazine. Atrazine is

manufactured and sold worldwide by Ciba-Geigy Corporation

(Ciba). Tests were conducted at Magnum’s El Segundo,

California, facility using atrazine samples supplied by Ciba. Ciba

also provided technical support.

A major steel mill in South Korea had been disposing of

wastewater contaminated with phenol and cyanide by discharging

it to holding ponds. South Korean government regulations now

prohibit this disposal method. Tests were conducted at

Magnum’s El Segundo, California, facility to demonstrate the

CAV-OX process’s ability to remove these contaminants. In

addition, a pilot-scale CAV-OX unit was purchased and installed

at the steel mill to demonstrate the technology on site.

Equipment

Three configurations of CAV-OX equipment were tested

A CAV-OX I low-energy laboratory-scale unit

A CAV-OX I low-energy pilot-scale unit

A CAV-OX II high-energy unit

68
The laboratory-scale unit consisted of a 55-gallon, stainless

steel holding tank, a 1.5-horsepower centrifugal pump, and

plumbing and bypass lines into three UV reactors. Each reactor

was 3 feet long with three 45-watt lamps, for a total UV output

of 405 watts. The reactors were plumbed in series. Effluent

from the reactors flowed through the discharge lines.

The Model 3162 pilot-scale unit, with a rated capacity of 3

gpm, consisted of the same holding tank, a 2-horsepower

centrifugal pump, and one 6-foot, low-pressure UV reactor with

six 60-watt lamps, for a total UV output of 360 watts. The unit

also included a control panel with the necessary electrical and

electronic circuits and electronic ballasts. Effluent from the

reactors was either directed to the discharge lines or to the

CAV-OX II high-energy unit.

The CAV-OX II high-energy unit was operated either in

series with the output from the CAV-OX I units or

independently. In the latter case, it consisted of a cavitation

chamber, centrifugal pump, and control panel. It also had an

independent power supply for operating the high-energy lamps.

Its UV reactor held one UV lamp rated at 2.5 or 5 kW.

Methodology

Wastewater from the steel mill was stored in the holding

tank prior to entering the CAV-OX unit. Potassium cyanide

powder was added to the holding tank to introduce the desired

concentration of cyanide. Three concentrations of potassium

cyanide were used: 0.65 mgiL, 1 mg/L, and 50 mg/L. Phenol

was also added to the holding tank, resulting in an inlhrent

concentration of 11 mg/L. One test treated 20 mg/L phenol,

while other tests treated 200 mg/L phenol.

Finally, hydrogen peroxide was added to the holding tank.

The tank contents were then thoroughly mixed with a motorpowered propeller.

Samples were collected at three points: the influent, the

first effluent sample from each unit, and the last effluent sample

from each unit. A Chemetrics K-8012 test kit was used to

measure phenol, and a Chemetrics K-38 10 test kit was used to

measure cyanide. Tests for cyanide were run first, followed

by tests for phenol and then by tests for cyanide and phenol

combined. In addition, pH was measured using au EXTECH

pH meter, and flow rate was measured with a GPI electronic

digital flow meter. The first cyanide tests were conducted with

the CAV-OX I low-energy unit.

Results

Cyanide Tests

The CAV-OX II high-energy process consistently oxidized

potassium cyanide to nondetectable levels with retention times

of less than 4 minutes and hydrogen peroxide levels as low as

20 mg/L. Using only cavitation and UV radiation, without

hydrogen peroxide, potassium cyanide levels were reduced by

46 percent. The effluent met discharge standards.

The CAV-OX I low-energy pilot-scale unit oxidized

1 mg/L potassium cyanide to nondetectable levels under the

following conditions: 40 mg/L hydrogen peroxide, 0.75 gpm

flow rate, and 13 minutes retention time. Using 50 mg/L

hydrogen peroxide, a flow rate of 1 gpm, and a retention time of

10 minutes, 1 mg/L of cyanide was reduced by 70 percent.

Table C-3 lists additional representative results for the

CAV-OX II high-energy and CAV-OX I low-energy units.

The CAV-OX I low-energy laboratory-scale unit showed

similar results. The total UV output of the laboratory unit was

360 watts instead of 405 watts.

Previous tests for another foreign customer, using the

CAV-OX I low-energy pilot-scale unit but with sodium cyanide

as the contaminant, had similar results.

Phenol Tests

Table C-4 lists representative results of the phenol tests.

Combined Cyanide and Phenol Tests

Table C-5 lists representative results of the combined

cyanide and phenol tests.

Operating costs for the CAV-OX I low-energy pilot-scale

unit are estimated at $1.93 per 1,000 gallons.

CASESTUDY C-7: Perdue Farms, Bridgewater, Virginia

Introduction

Chickens contaminated with the bacterium Sulmonella are

a serious problem at U.S. chicken farms. Magnum conducted

tests in cooperation with Silliker Laboratories, a national

microbiology company, to demonstrate the CAV-OX process’s

ability to eliminate pathogens associated with chicken farming.

The test results were presented to several of the nation’s largest

chicken farms.

Cyanide, phenol, and combined cyanide/phenol tests were

run to determine the effectiveness of the CAV-OX process in

destroying each contaminant.

69

Equipment Table C-6. Salmonella Study Results

The tests were conducted using a CAV-OX I low-energy

pilot-scale unit in parallel with a CAV-OX II high-energy pilotscale unit. The CAV-OX I low-energy tit consisted of a 2-

horsepower centrifugal pump, a cavitation chamber, a recycle

loop, a low-energy UV reactor with six 60-watt lamps, and a

control panel with the necessary electronics, UV ballasts,

switches, indicator lamps, and circuit breakers. The CAV-OX

II high-energy unit used the same pump, cavitation chamber,

recycle loop, and control equipment. It also included an

independent power supply and a 5-foot UV reactor with a 2.5-

or 5-kW lamp.

Sample

No.

Location

1 Untreated water from the %-gal/on

drum

2 Water exiting the cavitation chamber

at 1 gpm

3 Water exiting the high-energy, 5kW

reactor

4 Hydrogen peroxide-treated water from

the 55gallon drum

Methodology 5 Hydrogen peroxide-treated water 1,900,000

exiting the cavitation chamber

Several strains of Salmonella were grown at 35 “C for 24

hours on Standard Methods agar and harvested using a sterile

Butterfield’s buffer. Each strain was then held at 4 “C for 1

hour and inoculated into a purged and rinsed 55-gallon drum

filled with city water. The initial concentration was adjusted to

obtain a final concentration in the drum of about 1 million cfu/

mL. The influent was also injected with 220 mL of 10 percent

sodium thiosulfate. An electric mixer thoroughly homogenized

the mixture in the drum. A flow rate of 1 gpm was used.

6 Hydrogen peroxide-treated water

exiting the CAV-OX 1 UV reactor

7 Hydrogen peroxide-treated water

exiting the CAV-OX 11 UV reactor

Next, the inoculated water was injected with 80 mg/L

hydrogen peroxide and processed through the CAV-OX units.

Seven samples were collected as shown in Table C-6.

emulsions. The water consisted of reverse osmosis reject water

and hydrotest discharge water that was methylene blue-reactive,

indicating the presence of detergent compounds. The water also

contained oxidized iron, which caused scaling at the liquid

surface.

All Salmonella enumeration was performed using Hektoen

Enteric agar.. A 0.45~micronMill&ore filter was used for all

filtration analysis. Serial IO-fold dilutions were carried out to

six orders of magnitude ( 106) using sterile Butterfield’s buffer

dilution blanks.

Southern California Edison preferred not to use UV radiation

or hydrogen peroxide injection, since these were considered

treatment systems under existing regulations. Transferring the

water with a pump through a cavitation chamber was not

considered a treatment process.

Equipment

Results The seawater was fed into a high-volume cavitation chamber

using a 2-horsepower centrifugal pump.

Salmonella concentration was cumulatively reduced a total

of eight orders of magnitude by the CAV-OX process. Table

C-6 lists the results of this study.

Methodology

CASE STUDY C-8: Southern California Edison, Los

Angeles, California

Introduction

Southern California Edison, a major U.S. utility company,

contracted with Magnum to conduct a treatability study using

the CAV-OX process to treat 3 million gallons of seawater

contaminated with fluorescent dyes, lubricating oil, and detergent

The centrifugal pump transferred the process seawater into

the cavitation chamber at 65 psi. The cavitation chamber vacuum

was maintained at 27 inches of mercury, and effluent line

pressure at 6 psi. The flow rate varied between 2 and 4 gpm.

A 15-m-l ratio was recycled to the cavitation chamber for further

treatment. Discharge from the cavitation chamber flowed to a

holding tank. Samples were collected from the holding tank

and sent to a laboratory for analysis.

Concentration

(CFU/mL)

2,000,000

1,600,OOO

0.8

3,000,000

1,900,000

500

0.01

71
Results

Treatment in the cavitation chamber reduced BOD in

effluent samples by 83.3 to 88.4 percent. The average cost to

treat 1,000 gallons of seawater was $0.13.

CASE STUDY C-9: Corpora&on Mexicana de Investigation

en Materials, S.A. de C. K (CMIMSA)

Introduction

In the spring of 1993, CMIMSA contacted Magnum about

process effluents from a pharmaceutical plant and a petroleum

plant. Magnum conducted a pilot-scale study of the

pharmaceutical plant effluent.

Equipment

Six different process lines generated the pharmaceutical

plant eftluent. To accomplish the desired contammant reduction,

Magnum modified and increased the efficiency of the CAV-OX

II process. Two changes were made to the equipment design

used for the SITE demonstration:

1. UV window ports allowed UV output to be monitored

with an optical monitor 3 1 inches from the top of the reactor

2. Engineering modifications substantially

UV lamp efficiency

 improved the

Methodology

Phenol was selected as a test contaminant. Phenol is an

excellent test chemical for advanced oxidation systems since it

is stable, diflicult to break down, and accurate phenol test kits

are readily available.

Results

Table C-7 shows the results of the pilot-scale study. Data

from previous pilot studies (Case Study C-6) are also shown for

comparison. For both studies, inguent contained 20 pg/L phenol,

and the process was operated with the addition of 60 mg/L

hydrogen peroxide.

Based on these and other results, the CAV-OX IIA

modifications increase the reduction efficiency two to four times.

The CAV-OX IIA modifications allow the measurement and

comparison of UV flux over different operating protocols.

Table G7. Phenol Removal Comparison

Test No. Flow (wm) Percent Method

Reduction

CA V-Op II (Case Study C-6)

1 1 95 Protocol A

2 2 55 Protocol IB

3 4 45 Protocol c

4 6 39 Protocol D

CAV-Op II A (Modified CAV-Op Process, Case Study G9)

1 2 100 Protocol I9

2 4 99 Protocol C

3 6 96 Protocol D

72