C3 Technology - When and How to Use

Vapor Extraction/Treatment with
Cooling-Compression &
Condensation (C3 Technology)
When and How?
Presented by: Grant Geckeler, Principal
www.georemco.com

Agenda
 What is C3 Technology and who is GEO?
 How does C3 Technology work?
 When should I consider using C3 Technology?
 When has C3 Technology been used in the past?
 How can I use C3 Technology to benefit my project?

History of GEO
 Woman owned small business
 Offices in California and Maine
 Vapor condensation developed in 1989
 First model was 100 cfm
 2000 cfm systems operating since 2008
 100% SUCCESS in Condensation of VOCs
 Repeat clients include Honeywell, Boeing,
Hewlett Packard, Northrop Grumman
4

Off-Gas Treatment
 Soil venting and
groundwater remediation
 Industrial process air
treatment

C3 Technology
 Refrigerated cooling compression and
condensation combined with
regenerative adsorption
 NO UPPER LIMIT of VOC concentration
 NO INLET DILUTION!
 >60 projects completed
 >15,000,000 pounds
of VOCs treated

C3-Technology (cont)
 VOC contaminants recovered as a non-
aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
 > 99.9% removal efficiency

Extraction Well Manifold
8,000 lb
GAC
8,000 lb
GAC
TI
ATMOSPHERE
DISCHARGE TO
Roots Type
Blower
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
EXTRACTION WELLS
CAM LOCK CONNECT
FLEX HOSEFLEX HOSE
CAM LOCK CONNECT
SKID MOUNTED UNITS (two)
ENCLOSURE FENCE
BV-3
AIR/WATER
SEPARATOR
FLOW
CONTROL
TRANSFER
PUMP
~10 GPM
H2O
VESSEL
Aftercooler
REFRIGERATED
HEAT
EXCHANGERS
(12)
REGENERATIVE
ADSORBER
(3)
6,000 gallon or larger
Chemical and Condensate
Recovery Tank
OVA
RootsType
Blower
BYPASS FLOW
CONTROL
540 SCFM
COMPRESSOR
540 SCFM
COMPRESSOR
Vapor phase granular activated
carbon for polishing
Vent stack
15 ft
Sample Ports
TI Gauges
Legend
Aftercooler
DRAINS
W/FLOAT
SWITCHES
RECEIVER
TANK
CONDENSER
507a
(3)
RECEIVER
TANK
ENCLOSED TRAILER
COMPUTER
PLC
FLOW METER
Stainless
Steel Drain
C3-Technology Process Flow
Diagram
Pressurized to
150 psi
Cooled to -40
Degrees F
Chemical
Collected
GAC
seldom
replaced
1,000 SCFM
System

When Should I Consider Using
C3 Technology?
 High Concentrations of VOCs
 Expedited Vapor Mass Removal Desired
 Replacement of Carbon or ThermOx Systems
 Off-Gas Treatment of Thermal Remediation Systems
 Recycling, Reuse of Chemical May Offset Costs

G.E.O. Inc - Copyright 2010
Vapor Treatment Options - Fuel
LowFlow
50-5001,000
<500 2,000 >10,0005,000
VOC concentrations in PPMV
FlowRateinCFM
HighFlow
>>5,000
C3
Refrigerated
Condensation
Internal Combustion
Engine (ICE)
Zeolite
Catalytic
Oxidation Thermal
Oxidation
Granular
Activated
Carbon
(GAC)
FUEL Sites

G.E.O. Inc - Copyright 2010
Off-Gas Treatment Space
LowFlow
50-5001,000
<500 2,000 >10,0005,000
VOC concentrations in PPMV
FlowRateinCFM
HighFlow
>>5,000
C3
Refrigerated
Condensation
Zeolite
Catalytic
Oxidation
Thermal
Oxidation
Granular
Activated
Carbon
(GAC)
Chlorinated
Solvent Sites

Cost Per Pound Comparison
 PCE, TCE and BTEX
Cost rises due to air
dilution, decreased
uptime and increase in
time of remediation
*Inclusive of all labor, materials, equipment, expendables, consulting
fees, reporting, and permits.
*Greater than 90% uptime

Cost Per Pound Comparison
 PCE, TCE and BTEX
At 500-600 ppmv consider
performance optimization or planned
transition to alternative technology
*Inclusive of all labor, materials, equipment, expendables, consulting fees,
reporting, and permits.

Expedited Vapor Mass Removal
 At a SVE/MPE project, 80% to 90% of COC mass might be
extracted during the first 3 to 12 months of the project.
 Goal: Maximize performance and cost-effectiveness of this
important “mass removal” phase of SVE/MPE operations.
 Solution: Use a Flexible Two-Staged Approach 
1. Begin with C3 Technology for economic and fast
(no dilution) mass removal and treatment.
2. Use a vGAC (carbon) based system for longer term SVE
“polish” treatment. This module of the C3 Technology
may be used (i.e. you simply remove the condensing
portion of the unit, preventing any site delays).

Expedited Vapor Mass Removal
 Example 1: 400 cfm C3
Technology unit used for 9
months to remove TCE,
Methylene Chloride
vapors. Beginning vapor
concentrations were >
3,000 ppmV. When vapor
concentrations were <
300 ppmV, a change to
vGAC was used
(additional 30 months of
treatment with vGAC).
 Example 2: 500 cfm C3
Technology unit used for 6
months to remove BTEX,
PCE vapors. Beginning
vapor concentrations were
> 4,000 ppmV. When
vapor concentrations were
< 250 ppmV, a change to
vGAC was used
(additional 24 months of
treatment with vGAC).

Replacement of Existing System

Replacement of Existing System
 Typical Situations:
 Higher-than-expected COC vapor concentrations;
 Vapor mass does not quickly reduce (i.e. NAPL present?);
 Maintenance costs of existing system are high (i.e. corrosion
and/or frequent carbon changeouts and/or dilution with fresh air
is needed to for “rich” vapor extraction streams).
Example: 250 cfm thermal oxidizer for chlorinated ethane and
ethane treatment was replaced with C3 Technology. The
switch saved over $30,000/year by reducing O&M costs, and
increased runtime from 68% to 97%.

Off-Gas Treatment of
Thermal Remediation Systems
 More than ten projects completed using C3 Technology
for off-gas treatment from in situ and ex situ thermal
remediation applications (GEO, Mc-Millan McGee, and
past projects with TRS, TerraTherm).
Why?:
 Large amounts of mass removed in short duration = high
concentrations of COCs in off-gas = C3 Technology
 C3 Technology is “insensitive” to fluctuations in both
contaminant concentrations and humidity of vapor
 Lease of system  no capital purchase to amortize
 USEPA technical and “green practices” guidance

Off-Gas Treatment of
Thermal Remediation Systems
>99.9% VOC reduction for permitting in even the
most stringent regulatory environments.

Recycling, Reuse of NAPL to Offset Costs
 Recovered, condensed COCs (as NAPL) may – in many
scenarios – be reused onsite or recycled offsite.
 Derived revenues may significantly reduce, offset costs
of C3 Technology operations.
 Applicable to petroleum hydrocarbons, CFCs, and
chlorinated solvents. Other or ‘exotic’ contaminants are
also possible.
Rule of thumb: if it is recoverable as an off-gas (via SVE
or thermal remediation), then C3 Technology can
condense and recover it as a NAPL!

Fuel Recovery Economics
 500 SCFM Fuel Recovery System
 $1.00 per gallon after market value
Value vs. Influent Concentration
500 SCFM FUEL RECOVERY MODEL
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
Influent Concentration in ppmV
Monthly Operational Cost Monthly Recovered Fuel Value
c

Fuel Recovery Economics
 What is possible?:
Over 200,000
gallons of
petroleum
hydrocarbons
extracted as off-
gas, condensed
as LNAPL, and
recycled at one
site alone!

When Has C3 Technology
Been Used in the Past?
Chlorinated Ethenes
PCE (Perchloroethene)
TCE (Trichloroethene)
DCE (Dichloroethene)
VC (Vinyl Chloride)
Chlorinated Ethanes
TCA (Trichloroethane)
DCM (Methylene Chloride)
CT (Carbon Tetrachloride)
CF (Chloroform)
CFCs (Freons)
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Fuels
Simple Aromatics (BTEX)
4-Ethyltoluene
Naphthalene

Representative Projects Started
FY 2015
 Replacement of vGAC system: Georgia (USA). 500 cfm.
Recovery of BTEX and TCE. Existing blowers retained for
vapor extraction purposes.
 SVE: Victoria (Australia). 300 cfm. Extraction, treatment of
petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated ethenes.
 ISTR (Thermal): 500 cfm for treatment of BTEX,
Naphthalene, PCE (California, USA)
 Replacement of vGAC system: New Hampshire (USA).
200 cfm. TCE (NAPL present).
 SVE: 1,300 cfm for treatment of TCE, DCE, Vinyl Chloride
(California, USA)

$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
AverageCostPerKilogramRemoved(One
YearofOperation)
Influent Concentration of Solvent Mix in ppmV
Activated Carbon (GAC) C3 Technology
…To Realize Cost Savings
At 100-200 ppmV consider rebound
performance optimization or planned
transition to vGAC
 Methylene or Vinyl Chloride or Freon

Pilot Test with BTEX, TPH, &
TCE (now going to full scale)

Pilot Test with BTEX, TPH, &
TCE (now going to full scale)
Day
(1,300 gallons/32 days)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Gallons/Day
Concentrations on
Startup = 26,000ppm v
 ~14,000 pounds
 32 days
 200 SCFM system

Small Applications - Drycleaners
 50 – 250 cfm mobile units.
 Mobilization possible through
standard size personnel doors.
 Permitted in most stringent
AQMDs (SCAQMD, BAAQMD).
 Small footprint, Big results.
 Typically operational for 3 – 12
months, then switch to vGAC.
 Partner firms can handle offsite
recycling or disposal of PCE, for
“cradle to grave” management.

Larger Applications, Remote Sites
 500 – 2,000 cfm units.
 Proven in hot, arid + cold, winter environments.
 Long-term lease options facilitate competitive budgeting.

To Attain Best Or Competitive
“Carbon Footprint” Metrics
# 1
 C3 has lowest
footprint
# 3
 C3 has lowest
footprint
 Thermal system
oversized to 600
scfm
# 2
 C3 and TO
have
equivalent
footprint
*Annual footprint (metric tons CO2) estimates do not
include equipment and component manufacturing
System CO2
Footprint
CFM
CO2
Footprint
CFM Footprint CFM
GAC 400 100 1300 200 1800 200
Therm-Ox
200 100 300 200 800 600
C3-Tech 150 100 300 200 600 200

Best Available Control Technology
 Selected as BACT in several USEPA RODs.
 No onsite creation of acid gases.
 Complex mixtures of contaminants.
 Sensitive locations – i.e. next to schools, residences.
 No guessing: easy to quantify mass of recovered NAPL.

…For Cost Certainty, Cost Control
 When mass to-be-removed is uncertain, but high off-gas
concentrations are expected.
 When thermal remediation might cause very high
concentrations of COCs in off-gas.
 For rapid mass removal with guaranteed results.
 For flexible “price per pound” vapor treatment situations.

Thank you!
References
 AFCEE, 1996. A General Evaluation of Bioventing for Removal Actions at Air
Force / Department of Defense Installations Worldwide: General Engineering
Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA). June.
 Downey, D.C., Pluhar, C.J., and Archabal, S.R., A Performance and Cost
Evaluation of Purus Padre® Regenerative Resin for Treatment of Hydrocarbon
Vapors from Fuel-Contaminated Soils. Prepared for AFCEE.
 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Version 3.0, The Global Reporting
Initiative, The Netherlands. 2000-2006.
 U.S. EPA, 2006. Off-Gas Treatment Technologies for Soil Vapor Extraction
Systems: State of the Practice, March.
 U.S. EPA, 2004. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status
Report. 11th Edition. EPA-542-R-03-009. February.
 U.S. EPA, 2004 Introduction to Energy Conservation and Production at Waste
Cleanup Sites. Engineering Forum Issue Paper. Document 542-S-04-001.
Michael Gill and Katarina Mahutova. May
 U.S. EPA, 2001. Remediation Technology Cost Compendium-Year 2000.
Document EPA-542-R-01-009. September.
 EPA.GOV, Climate Leaders Reporting- Inventory Management Plan Checklist.
Version 03/10/2005

Questions
GEO Environmental
Remediation Company
Exclusive provider of
patented C3 Technology
ask@georemco.com
OR
grant@georemco.com
www.georemco.com

C3 Technology - When and How to Use

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to C3 Technology - When and How to Use

Similar to C3 Technology - When and How to Use (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

C3 Technology - When and How to Use

Editor's Notes