To: A. Peterson, Executive Vice President and D. DiBiasio, Vice President, Environmental

Consulting Division

From: Ben Drury, Weiran Gao, Natalie Thompson, and Elizabeth Towle on behalf of Stromboli

Environmental Design Teams

Subject: Hazardous Waste Site Remediation Proposal

Date: April 30, 2016

Position Summaries

As this is a large project, there are many stakeholders involved. One of the groups who have

perhaps the most eligible concerns is the mall store owners of the nearby shopping mall. If this

soil is polluted and causing drinking water contamination then there is a serious health risk. No

one will want to come to the mall and thus their specific stores if by drinking from a water

fountain you could get sick. From a purely economic standpoint, the mall store owners support

this decontamination project. Nonetheless, they still want to know more about the project before

they get fully behind it. Information such as, the timeline of the project and the possible

implications on their customers will be crucial to the mall.

Another group that supports this project is the residents of the surrounding area. If it has been

proven that there is drinking water contamination at their local mall, what is to say that their own

homes are not polluted? The residents are also concerned about how this project will affect them

in different ways, whether it be noise during inconvenient hours or simply an eyesore for the

neighborhood.

Meanwhile, the condominium company wants to build as soon as possible so that they can start

renting out the condominiums and making money as soon as possible. Therefore, the

condominium company opposes any delays to their construction, which includes our two year

project to purify the soil. Thusly, they want to know the timeline of the project, if it can be

shortened in any way, and if it would be possible to start building while we are purifying the soil.

The local environmental activists on the other hand, support our project because we are purifying

the soil and making the environment safer and better. They want to know any possible side

effects of our project and where we will put the contaminated water.

The Conservative Commission will be pushing for a company to clean the contaminated area so

that an indirect release into Lake Erie doesn’t occur. We would inform the Conservative

Commission that our new method is the most efficient and will take the least amount of time.

The goals of the EPA encompass those of the Conservative Commission and also include the

safety of the surrounding population and other areas. Informing the EPA of our technology and

the beneficial impact our work will have on the community would convince them of our

potential. The soil will only contain 8 ppm of TCE and 4 ppm of DCE, the water will be sent

offsite for treatment.

The goals of the City Officials and the Mayor are to increase the economic development of the

city and will likely be antagonistic towards our plans if the decontamination process takes too

long, therefore it might be wise to go to them for money to increase either the amount of stages

in the countercurrent device, or the amount of countercurrent systems we use. Discussing the

increase in public approval due to the local government protecting its citizens will assist in

acquiring the bid from them.

Introduction

The old Chase Brass and Copper facility in Euclid, Ohio has contaminated soil that is harming

the surrounding area’s water supply. As a part of the Stromboli Environmental consulting

company, our team performed a technical and economical analysis to determine the mechanisms

of this hazardous waste site remediation proposal, and considered if it is feasible and cost

effective. Our goal was to identify the best design for our extraction unit. Although there are

several groups who are hesitant about our proposed process, we are confident in our

recommendations and our abilities to appease these concerns at the public hearing. The soil

needs to be treated for the safety of the surrounding residents, the local malls, and any future

people who live on this property. Our proposed process, described herein, is the best and

cheapest way to accomplish this goal.

Methodology

This process will be viewed as immiscible, as no soil will be permitted to leave with the water.

Some water may leave with the soil, as this is unavoidable, but should not affect our calculations.

As the water evaporated from the soil, it will lower the concentrations beneath our calculated

values. We will use a countercurrent extraction process, as this will allow us to achieve purity

levels in the soil with less solvent overall and stages than crossflow.

Figure 1: Countercurrent immiscible extraction example

This process was designed to achieve purity specifications of 8 ppm for TCE and 4 ppm for

DCE. This will be an acceptable level for the environment given, where ground water and rain

will dilute these levels further. Further, this extraction is designed to fit within a two year time

frame, including two weeks of setup time and two weeks of take down at the periphery of our

stay in Ohio. We accounted for a 56 hour work week, as we do not want to become a nuisance to

nearby residents by operating at night, leaving us with 8 hours 7 days per week. The variable we

adjusted to suit these needs was the amount of solvent used for the given amount of diluent. This

would in turn affect the number of stages required, and the level of solute in the solvent after it

was used.

Our process optimized these variables to produce the lowest cost possible. Our costs included a

fixed overhead cost of $100,000 to cover permits and other administrative costs. The cost of

leaching itself would include $6,000 per stage, and $1.10 per solvent flow in lb/hr. The solvent

will be sent to an external site afterwards to be treated, and this site will pay $250 per ppm of the

solute in this solvent, which allowed us to subtract that from the leaching cost. Labor costs will

be triple those of leaching costs, and site maintenance will cost an additional 2.5 those of

leaching costs. With this in mind, the cost optimization was a balance between increasing the

cost discreetly as the amount of solvent per diluent decreases and causes the number of stages to

increase, and the continuous decrease of cost as the amount of solvent per diluent decreases and

causes the solvent/hour cost to decrease. Therefore, at any given number of stages, the optimum

amount of solvent per diluent would be the least that could be used and maintain that number of

stages. From there, these optimum values were compared and the design was created to minimize

these costs.

Results and Discussion

Using the equilibrium data provided and the technical data supplied by the field, we were able to

form an X-Y diagram of the soil composition. From there we were able to step off stages and

test out different costs. The equilibrium data and the final stages stepped can be found in

Appendix 4. Based on the following data we have chosen a countercurrent extraction process

with six stages. As can be seen in Table 1, a design with six stages can allow for the lowest

overall cost, $724,720.47. A process with 3, 4, 5, or 7 stages would cost more. A full cost

analysis can be seen in Table 3 later on.

Table 1: Overall cost analysis comparison for 3 through 7 stages

Stages Solute in Solvent (ppm) Optimum Slope Overall Cost

3 25 0.5 $ 905,527.75

4 31.5 0.63 $783,505.16

5 36.5 0.73 $735,107.19

6 40 0.8 $724,720.47

7 42.5 0.85 $732,850.88

Figure 4: Countercurrent extraction process diagram

Above is a general image of our design, containing six countercurrent extraction stages.

Table 2: Leaching calculations for 6 stages

Quantity Unit cost Total

Stages 6 $6,000.00 $36,000.00

Flow (lb/hr) 6.37 x 104 $1.10 $70,110.84

Solute Level (ppm) 40 $250.00 -$10,000.00

Total Leaching $96,110.84

As can be seen above, this design has a flow of 6.37*104 lbs/hr with an output composition of 40

ppm. The details of these calculations can be located in Appendix 3.

Table 3: Full cost calculations for 6 stages

Item Total

Overhead Cost $100,000.00

Leaching $96,110.84

Labor $288,332.52

Preparation and Maintenance $240,277.10

Total Cost $724,720.47

This design will allow us to successfully decrease the concentration of TCE and DCE in the 2.85

x 108 lbs of soil to 8 ppm and 4 ppm respectively within two years.

Conclusion

Though a multitude of interested parties exist in this particular issue, and with different groups

comes different interest, goals, and ideals, our design will be able to address these concerns

while improving the environment of Euclid, Ohio. Groups such as residents, mall store owners

and the Conservative Commission are mostly concerned with soil purification so that the

contamination will not lead to serious consequences and health risks. For groups like the

condominium company and city officials, time is the main concern, as the extraction process will

impede their progress in making profits. By allying ourselves with those who wish to clean the

area and assuring our opposition that it is within their best interests, we are hopeful that

acquiring the bid is both feasible and an eventuality.

Our design addresses these concerns and achieves our goals to assure safety for all involved.

After analyzing the cost of each component during the extraction process, a six stage

countercurrent extraction system was designed to achieve the optimal balance between cost and

efficiency. As the system will run 8 hours per day and 7 days per week, we will be able to

complete the extraction process within two years. The total cost of the system is estimated to be

$724,720.47, and the concentrations of TCE and DCE in the 2.85 x 108 lbs of soil are expected to

be reduced below 8 ppm and 4 ppm respectively. Using our design, Euclid, Ohio will soon be a

safe location once again.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Finding the mass of the soil

Specific gravity of soil = 1.4

Density of water = 62.428

15 ft deep

5 acres of soil = 217800 ft2

Volume of soil = (217800 ft2)x(15 ft) = 3267000 ft3

Mass of soil = (3267000 ft3)*(1.4)*(62.428 lb/ft3) = 285,533,190 lbs

2.85 x 108 lbs / 5600 hrs / 2000 lb/ton ≅ 25 tons/hour (as specified)

Appendix 2: Finding the total mass of the water

Mass of soil = 285,533,190 lbs

Slope = 0.8 = Diluent/Solvent

Solvent = Diluent/0.8 = 285,533,190 lbs/0.8 = 356927917.5 lbs water

Appendix 3: Cost Calculations

Finding the leaching cost:

Leaching cost = (number of stages)F1 + (solvent flow, lb/h)F2 – (solute level in exiting solvent,

ppm)F3

Where:

F1 = $6,000 per stage

F2 = $1.10 per solvent flow in lb/h

F3 = $250 per ppm

6 Stages

356927917.5 lbs water/5600 hours = 6.37*104 lb/he

33.6 ppm TCE + 6.4 ppm DCE = 40 ppm

Leaching cost = (6)($6,000) + (6.37*104)($1.10) + (40)($250)

Leaching cost = $96,110.84

Finding labor cost:

Labor cost = 3*Leaching cost

Labor cost = $288,332.50

Finding cost of site preparation and maintenance:

Cost of site preparation and maintenance = 2.5*Leaching cost

Cost of site preparation and maintenance = $240,277.10

Finding total cost:

Total cost = Overhead cost + Leaching cost + Labor cost + Preparation and maintenance cost

Total cost = $724.720.47

Appendix 4: Equilibrium Data and Stages

Figure 2: Stage stepping for TCE

Figure 3: Stage stepping for DCE

Transcript of our presentation:

Hello! We are here to present to you today about the hazardous waste site remediation project proposed by Stromboli Environmental. Slide 2 Our goal is to purify the soil at the old Chase Brass and Copper facility here in Euclid, Ohio through countercurrent extraction. This soil has been contaminated with tetrachloroethane (on average 50 parts per million) and dichloroethane (on average 12 parts per million) and needs to be treated for the safety of the surrounding residents, the local malls, and any future people who live on this property. These chemicals may go from the soil to the drinking water, threatening the health of those nearby, therefore we seek to act quickly to remedy this situation. Slide 3 We decided to use an Immiscible Counter Current extraction, as not enough soil will be leaving with the water to make the system miscible. This design will allow us to remove the toxins in the most cost effective way possible. Slide 4 Our goal for this two year project is to reduce the amount of TCE to 8 parts per million and DCE to 4 parts per million. This will be an acceptable level for the environment given, where ground water and rain will dilute these levels further. Slide 5 Here we used the following equations for cost optimization. Other than the fixed $100,000 of overhead and administration cost, the additional costs are all related to the leaching cost. This tells us that designing a system that balances stage quantity, solvent flow rate, and solute level in the exiting solvent to achieve optimal leaching cost is important. Slide 6 This table shows the total cost with various stages. At any given amount of stages, the following represents the cheapest possible option, with the least solvent required. We calculated the total cost of extraction system with 3 through 7 stages, and determined 6 stage extraction process is the most cost effective. In other words, we are making sure that you get the most bang for your buck.

Using the equilibrium data provided we were able to determine how many stages were necessary. As you can see, DCE requires fewer stages than TCE. Due to the fact that we will be removing both of these chemicals at the same time, we will need to use however many stages TCE requires. Slide 8 Our design will consist of a countercurrent system with 6 stages, as shown below. A steady stream of soil will enter from the left with water entering from the right. This design will allow us to successfully decrease the concentration of TCE and DCE in the 2.85 x 108 lbs of soil to 8 ppm and 4 ppm respectively within two years. Slide 9 We have broken up the overall cost here to show where the money will be going. The optimal leaching cost using this 6 stages design is $96,110.84, which gives an estimated overall cost of about 7 hundred thousand dollars. Slide 10 We are the most qualified company to complete this task. As you have seen, we understand the cost and how the money needs to be distributed. We have an excellent design that will purify the soil well. As for the timeline, we understand that 2 years sounds like a long time, but we assure you that this time will be a necessary investment in your town’s future safety. Slide 11 Thank you for considering Stromboli Environmental, we won’t let you down! Any Questions?

elizabeth towle hazardous waste site remediation

Documents