United-States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-95/503
April 1999
&EPA ZENON Environmental, Inc
ZenoGem® Biological and
Ultrafiltration Technology
Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY* EVALUATION
-------
-------
EPA/540/R-95/503
April 1999
Zenon Environmental Inc.
ZenoGem® Biological and
Ultrafiltration Technology
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The informadon in this document has been funded by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract No.
68-C5-0037 to Tetra Tech EM Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water
resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to
a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's
research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent
or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and manage-
ment approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of
water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and control of
indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-
effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and
policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is published and made
available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Abstract
Zenon Environmental Inc. (Zenon), of Burlington, Ontario, Canada has developed an innovative wastewater treatment
technology called the ZenoGem® technology. The ZenoGem® technology integrates biological treatment with membrane-
based ultrafiltration to treat wastewater with high concentrations of organic contaminants that cause elevated concentrations of
chemical oxygen demand (COD). The system reduces organic contaminants in wastewater to below regulatory limits,
improves effluent quality, reduces sludge production, resists contaminant shock-loading, and, by maintaining a long sludge
retention time, reduces the size of the bioreactor necessary for performing bioremediation.
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration occurred between September and December 1994 at
the Nascolite Superfund site (Nascolite) in Millville, Cumberland County, New Jersey. In 1985, a remedial investigation and
feasibility study at the Nascolite site revealed that groundwater was contaminated with methyl methacrylate (MMA), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), and heavy metals.
The basic components of the ZenoGem® system are an influent-holding equalization tank, a bioreactor, an air blower, a pH
buffer tank, a nutrient solution tank, an ultrafiltration module, optional off-gas carbon filters, optional permeate carbon filters,
and feed, process, and metering pumps. The system components are computer-controlled and equipped with alarm indicators
to notify the operator of mechanical and operational problems.
During the SITE demonstration, critical and noncritical measurements were evaluated. Critical measurements consisted of
sample analyses and process measurements that directly impacted meeting the project's primary technical objective. Critical
measurements included collection of liquid and air samples for MMA and VOC analyses; liquid samples to evaluate COD; and
flow rate measurements of the influent and effluent liquid streams. Noncritical, or system condition measurements, provided
information on operating ranges, reliability, variability, cost-effectiveness, and full-scale remediation potential of the
technology.
The results of the sample analyses indicated that the technology consistently surpassed the demonstration goal of 95 percent
reduction for MMA (99.99 ± 0.01 percent) and COD (96.8 ± 5.0 percent). The high removal efficiency for MMA and
reduction of COD was maintained after a 3-fold concentration was delivered to the system (shock-loading test), suggesting that
a sudden increase in influent MMA and COD concentration had little noticeable effect on the technology's performance.
Reductions of greater than 97 percent were noted in all VOCs reported (methylene chloride, trichloroethene, benzene, toluene,
and o+p xylenes). Based on extrapolation from the air sample concentration data and the flow meter readings, the total
volatilization of MMA and VOCs from the system calculated less than 0.10 percent of the total MMA and VOC mass treated
during the demonstration. No major operating problems occurred during the SITE demonstration period; no significant
changes in technology performance were observed during the SITE demonstration.
EPA SITE Program personnel prepared this Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER) to present the results of the
SITE Program demonstration. The ITER evaluates the ability of the ZenoGem® technology to treat contaminated groundwater
based on the demonstration results. Specifically, this report discusses performance and economic data collected by SITE
Program personnel, and also presents case studies and additional information about the technology provided by Zenon.
IV
-------
Contents
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols x
Conversion Factors xii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
Acknowledgments xiii
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 6
1.1 Description of SITE Program and Reports 6
1.1.1 Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program 6
1.1.2 Documentation of SITE Demonstration Results 7
1.2 Description of Bioremediation 7
1.3 The ZenoGem® Technology 8
1.4 Overview and Objectives of the SITE Demonstration 11
1.4.1 Description of Nascolite Site 11
1.4.2 SITE Demonstration Objectives 11
1.4.3 Demonstration Procedures 12
1.5 Key Contacts 15
2 Technology Effectiveness Analysis 16
2.1 SITE Demonstration Results 16
2.1.1 Objective P-l: Removal Efficiencies 16
2.1.2 Objective S-2: Total Metals, TSS, VSS, TOC, ORP, sg, DO, Temperature,
pH, Nutrients 21
3 Technology Applications Analysis 30
3.1 Applicable Waste , , 30
3.2 Factors Affecting Performance 31
3.3 Site-specific Factors Affecting Performance 31
3.3.1 Site Area 31
3.3.2 Climate 32
3.3.3 Utilities 32
3.3.4 Maintenance 32
-------
Contents (continued)
3.3.5 Support Systems 32
3.3.6 Personnel Requirements 32
3.4 Material Handling Requirements 33
3.5 Technology Limitations 33
3.6 Potential Regulatory Requirements 33
3.6.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 35
3.6.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 35
3.6.3 Clean Water Act 36
3.6.4 Safe Drinking Water Act 36
3.6.5 Clean Air Act 36
3.6.6 Mixed Waste Regulations 37
3.6.7 Occupational Safety and Health Act 37
3.7 State and Community Acceptance 37
4 Economic Analysis 39
4.1 General Factors Affecting Costs 39
4.2 Overview of Cost Scenarios 41
4.3 Case 1 Analysis 41
4.3.1 Issues and Assumptions 41
4.3.2 Waste Characteristics and Site Features 41
4.3.3 Equipment and Operating Parameters 41
4.4 Case 1 Costs 43
4.4.1 Site Preparation Costs 43
4.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 45
4.4.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs 45
4.4.4 Equipment Costs 45
4.4.5 Labor Costs (Routine Operation Labor) 45
4.4.6 Supply Costs 46
4.4.7 Utility Costs 46
4.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 46
4.4.9 Residual Waste Shipping and Handling Costs 47
4.4.10 Analytical Services Costs 47
4.4.11 Equipment Maintenance Costs 47
4.4.12 Site Demobilization Costs 47
4.5 Case 2 Analysis 48
4.5.1 Issues and Assumptions 48
4.5.2 Waste Characteristics and Site Features 48
vi
-------
Contents (continued)
4.5.3 Equipment and Operating Parameters ; ; 48
4.6 Case 2 Costs 49
4.6.1 Site Preparation Costs 49
4.6.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs 51
4.6.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs 51
4.6.4 Equipment Costs 51
4.6.5 Labor Costs 51
4.6.6 Supply Costs 52
4.6.7 Utility Costs 52
4.6.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 52
4.6.9 Residual Waste Shipping and Handling Costs 53
4.6.10 Analytical Services Costs 53
4.6.11 Equipment Maintenance Costs 53
4.6.12 Site Demobilization Costs 53
4.7 Conclusions of Economic Analysis 53
5 Technology Status and Implementation 4 57
6 References 58
Appendix
A Vendor Claims
B Summary of Field Data
C Summary of Analytical Data
VII
-------
Figures
1-1 ZenoGem® System
1-2 Ultrafiltration Module
1-3 Sampling Locations '.
2-1 Total MMA Concentrations in Influent Stream (SI)
2-2 Removal Efficiency (MMA + VOCs) (S-4)
2-3 MMA in Air (S-7)
2-4 VOCs in Air (S-7)
2-5 Air Flow in Emission Stream (S-7)
2-6 COD Removal Efficiency (S-4)
2-7 COD Removal Efficiency (S-10)
2-8 Distribution of COD Removal Efficiency by Number of Samples (S-4 and S-10)
2-9 Aluminum Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-10 Cadmium Concentration in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-11 Chromium Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-12 Copper Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-13 Iron Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-14 Lead Concentrations i the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-15 Manganese Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-16 Mercury Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-17 Nickel Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-18 Zinc Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-19 TSS Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-20 VSS Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-21 TOC Concentrations in the S-l, S-4, and S-10 Streams
2-22 ORP in the SI, S-4, and S-10 Streams
4-1 Case 1 Fixed Costs
4-2 Case 1 Annual Variable Costs
4-3 Case 2 Fixed Costs •
4-4 Case 2 Annual Variable Costs
...9
.10
.13
.17
.17
.20
.20
.20
.22
.22
.22
.24
.24
.24
.24
.25
.25
,.25
..25
..26
..26
..26
..28
..28
..28
..55
..55
..56
..56
VIII
-------
Tables
ES-l Superfund Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZenoGem Technology 4
1-1 Maximum Concentrations of TCL VOCs Detected in Groundwater at the Nascolite Site 12
1-2 Analytical Measurement Parameters and Relationship to Project Objectives 14
2-1 Measured TCL VOC Reductions 19
2-2 Total Metals Concentrations 23
3-1 Summary of Environmental Regulations 34
4-1 Costs Associated with the ZenoGem Technology - Case 1 44
4-2 Cost Associated with the ZenoGem Technology - Case 2 50
IX
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
AEA
ACL
ARAR
BACT
bgs
BOD
CAA
CERCLA
CFR
COD
CWA
DO
DOE
GC
EPA
gpd
gpm
ITER
kWh
MCL
mg/L
MMA
MS/MSD
NAPL
NAAQS
NJDEP
NPDES
NEL,
NO3-/NO2"
NRC
O&M
ORD
Atomic Energy Act
Alternate concentration limits
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
Best available control technology
Below ground surface
Biological oxygen demand
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical oxygen demand
Clean Water Act
Dissolved oxygen
Department of Energy
Gas chromatography
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gallons per day
Gallons per minute
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
Kilowatt-hour
Maximum Concentration Limit
Micrograms per liter
Milligrams per liter
Methyl Methacrylate
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
Nonaqueous-phase liquid
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Ammonia
Nitrate/nitrite
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Operation and Maintenance
EPA Office of Research and Development
-------
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (continued)
ORP
OSHA
OSWER
POTW
PO/3
PPE
PSD
psi
QAPP
QA/QC
RCRA
RI/FS
RO
SDWA
SARA
scf
scfm
SITE
sg
STP
TCL
TER
TOC
TSD
TSS
UF
VOC
VSS
Zenon
Oxidation reduction potential
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Publicly owned treatment works
Phosphate
Personal protective equipment
Prevention of significant deterioration
Pound per square inch
Quality assurance project plan
Quality assurance/quality control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial investigation/feasibility study
Reverse Osmosis
Safe Drinking Water Act
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Standard cubic feet
Standard cubic feet per minute
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Specific gravity
Standard temperature and pressure
Target compound list
Technical Evaluation Report
Total organic carbon
Treatment storage and disposal
Total suspended solids
Micrograms per liter
Ultrafiltration
Volatile organic compound ;
Volatile suspended solids
Zenon Environmental Systems Inc.
xi
-------
Conversion Factors
To Convert From
To
Multiply By
Length
Area:
Volume:
inch
foot
mile
square foot
acre
gallon
cubic foot
centimeter
meter
kilometer
square meter
square meter
liter
cubic meter
2.54
0.305
1.61
0.0929
4,047
3.78
0.0283
Mass:
pound
kilogram
0.454
Energy:
kilowatt-hour megajoule
3.60
Power:
kilowatt
horsepower
1.34
Temperature: (°Fahrenheit - 32) "Celsius
0.556
xii
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program by Tetra Tech EM Inc. (formerly PRC Environmental Management, Inc.) under the direction and coordination
of Mr. Daniel Sullivan, project manager for the SITE Program in the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Edison,
New Jersey.
Special acknowledgment is given to Mr. F. Anthony Tonelli and Mr. Ake Deutschmann of Zenon Environmental Inc.,
Burlington, Ontario, Canada; Mr. Mike Merdinger of Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (previous SITE Program
contractor for the ZenoGem® demonstration); the site owner; and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for
their cooperation and support during the SITE demonstration and during the development of this report.
XIII
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Zenon Environmental Inc. (Zenon), of Burlington,
Ontario, Canada has developed an innovative wastewater
treatment technology called the ZenoGem® technology.
This technology is designed to treat groundwater, landfill
leachate, industrial effluent, or soil-washing effluent
contaminated with high concentrations of organic
compounds. The ZenoGem® technology uses aerobic
biological treatment to remove biodegradable organic
compounds from the target influent and ultrafiltration to
separate residual suspended solids from the treated
effluent.
The purpose of this Innovative Technology Evaluation
Report (ITER) is to present information that will assist
Superfund decision-makers in evaluating this technology's
suitability for remediating a particular hazardous waste
site. The report provides an introduction to the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program and
the ZenoGem® technology and discusses the demonstration
objectives and activities, evaluates the technology's
effectiveness, analyzes key factors pertaining to
application of this technology, analyzes the cost of using
the technology to treat contaminated groundwater and
leachate, and summarizes the technology's current status.
This executive summary briefly summarizes the
information discussed in the ITER and evaluates the
technology with respect to the nine criteria used in
Superfund feasibility studies.
Technology Description
The ZenoGem® technology integrates biological treatment
with membrane-based ultrafiltration to treat wastewater
with high concentrations of organics contaminants that
cause elevated concentrations of chemical oxygen
demand (COD). Zenon claims that the process reduces
organic contaminants in wastewater to below regulatory
limits, improves effluent quality, reduces sludge
production, resists contaminant shock-loading, and, by
maintaining a long sludge retention time, reduces the size
of the biological reactor (bioreactor) necessary for
performing bioremediation.
This system uses ex-situ bioremediation to treat
contaminated groundwater in an enclosed suspended
growth bioreactor. According to Zenon, the ZenoGem®
process derives an advantage over conventional wastewater
treatment processes due to its membrane-based
ultrafiltration technology. The ultrafilter not only filters
the treated water (permeate) prior to discharge and
recycles the biological solids (concentrate), but also
recovers the higher-molecular-weight soluble materials
that would otherwise pass through conventional clarifiers
and filters. These higher-molecular-weight materials are
returned to the bioreactor for further biodegradation prior
to ultimate discharge. The combination of biological
treatment with ultrafiltration proves to be an effective
means of not only degrading organic compounds, but also
in minimizing the amount of waste solids typically
associated with biological treatment operations.
Overview of the ZenoGem® Technology SITE
Demonstration
The SITE demonstration of the ZenoGem® technology
occurred between September and December 1994 at the
Nascolite Superfund site (Nascolite) in Millville,
Cumberland County, New Jersey. Nascolite manufactured
acrylic plastic sheets at the site from 1953 to 1980. The
company used methyl methacrylate (MMA) monomer as a
raw material and operated a MMA reclamation process.
Solid acrylic, liquids, and resins containing MMA were
purchased from outside sources. This material was
processed through depolymerization, using a molten lead
bath followed by distillation and purification. Waste
residue from the distillation processes was stored in
several underground storage tanks in the northern plant
-------
area. In 1985, a remedial investigation and feasibility
study at the Nascolite site revealed that groundwater was
contaminated with MMA, various other EPA target
compound list (TCL) volatile organic compounds (VOC),
and heavy metals.
For the SITE Program demonstration, a pilot-scale
ZenoGem® system was used to treat groundwater at the
Nascolite site. For the SITE demonstration, the pilot-scale
system was housed in a transportable trailer, which
required a 12-foot by 60-foot area to support the system
and its components' maximum operating weight of 45,000
pounds. Zenon indicated that these measurements are
specific to the trailer used for the SITE demonstration, and
that Zenon's projects usually do not include a trailer-
mounted system.
The basic components of the ZenoGem® system used in
the demonstration include: an influent-holding equalization
tank, a bioreactor, an air blower, a pH buffer tank, a
nutrient solution tank, an ultrafiltration module, optional
off-gas carbon filters, optional permeate carbon filters,
and feed, process, and metering pumps. According to
Zenon, off-gas and permeate carbon filters are not
standard components of the ZenoGem® system; however,
carbon filters may be used depending on site-specific
conditions. The system components are computer-
controlled and equipped with alarm indicators to notify the
operator of mechanical and operational problems. The
entire pilot-scale system, except for the main air blower
and optional carbon filters, is mounted inside the 8-foot by
48-foot trailer. The trailer also is equipped with a
laboratory that enables field personnel to evaluate system
performance.
The primary objective of the SITE demonstration was as
follows:
• Determine if the ZenoGem® treatment system
(integrating the bioreactor and ultrafiltration unit as a
whole) can achieve a 95 percent or greater removal
efficiency for MMA and TCL VOCs and reduce COD
at a 95 percent confidence level
The secondary objectives of the demonstration were as
follows:
• Evaluate system performance by measuring system
parameters that will provide data on operating ranges,
reliability, variability, cost-effectiveness, and full-
scale remediation potential
• Estimate approximate capital and operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs for the demonstration and
for full-scale remediation
During the SITE demonstration, critical and noncritical
measurements were evaluated. Critical measurements
consisted of sample analyses and process measurements
that directly impacted meeting the project's primary
technical objective. Critical measurements included
collection of liquid and air samples for MMA and TCL
VOC analyses; liquid samples to evaluate COD; and flow
rate measurements of the influent and effluent liquid
streams. Flow rate measurements were used during
calculations of the ZenoGem® system's total reduction of
MMA, TCL VOCs, and COD concentrations between the
influent and effluent streams.
Noncritical, or system condition measurements, provided
information on operating ranges, reliability, variability,
cost-effectiveness, and full-scale remediation potential of
the technology. System measurements included sample
collection and laboratory analyses for the following: total
suspended solids, volatile suspended solids, total metals,
total organic carbon, nutrients (ammonia, nitrate/nitrite,
and phosphate), oxygen, and carbon dioxide. System
measurements also included measurements for pH,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, oxidation reduction
potential, and specific gravity.
Samples indicated that influent groundwater during the
demonstration contained MMA concentrations ranging
from 567 to 9,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L); methylene
chloride concentrations ranging from 500 to 15,300
micrograms per liter (ng/L); trichloroethene concentrations
ranging from 852 to 905 u.g/L; benzene concentrations
ranging from 279 to 282 \ig/L (these were the only two
detections of the contaminant in the influent during the
demonstration); and COD concentrations ranging from
1,490 to 19,600 mg/L. Toluene and the o- and p- forms of
xylenes were detected only once during the demonstration
at concentrations of 105 ng/L and 14,400 jig/L,
respectively.
Based on SITE Program data and postdemonstration data
obtained by Zenon, the average flow rates for the pilot-
scale unit ranged between 380 to 620 gallons per day
(gpd). Based on the daily flow rates, the system treated
about 47,200 gallons of contaminated groundwater during
the demonstration.
-------
SITE Demonstration Results
The following items summarize the significant results of
the SITE demonstration:
• The permeate MMA removal efficiencies consistently
surpassed the demonstration goal of 95 percent
reduction. The average removal efficiency for MMA
was greater than 99.98 + 0.01 percent for the 3 month
demonstration. MMA analyses from the treated
effluent stream following the optional permeate
carbon filters improved the average removal
efficiency of the system to 99.99 + 0.01 percent. The
high removal efficiency for MMA was maintained
after a 3-fold concentration was delivered to the
system (shock loading test), suggesting that a sudden
increase in influent MMA concentration had little
noticeable effect on the technology's performance.
• The permeate COD reduction efficiencies varied from
84.7 percent to 95.6 percent, yielding an overall COD
reduction efficiency of 88.6 + 8.4 percent. COD
analyses from the treated effluent stream following
the optional permeate carbon filters improved the
average reduction efficiency of the system to 96.8 +
5.0 percent. The high reduction efficiency for COD
was maintained after the shock loading test,
suggesting that a sudden increase in influent COD
concentration had little noticeable effect on the
technology's performance.
• Due to high MMA concentrations in the influent, the
laboratory was unable to analyze aqueous TCL VOC
samples at a low enough dilution factor to quantify the
low concentrations of TCL VOCs. Therefore,
detection limits were low enough in only five of 71
samples collected to quantify TCL VOC
concentrations. Consequently, removal efficiencies
for individual TCL VOCs could not be calculated for
the majority of the samples collected during the
demonstration. Reductions of greater than 97 percent
were noted in all TCL VOCs reported (methylene
chloride, trichloroethene, benzene, toluene, and o- and
p- xylenes).
• Based on extrapolation from the air sample
concentration data and the flow meter readings, the
total volatilization of MMA and TCL VOCs from the
system calculated was computed to be about 411
grams. This value represent less than 0.10 percent of
the total MMA and TCL VOC mass treated during the
demonstration.
• No major operating problems occurred during the
SITE demonstration period; no significant changes in
technology performance were observed during the
SITE demonstration.
Cost Analysis
Using information obtained from the SITE demonstration,
Zenon, and other sources, a cost analysis examined 12 cost
categories for two different hypothetical applications of
the ZenoGem® technology. Case 1 assumes that a rented,
trailer-mounted system treats groundwater at a rate of
1,400 gpd for a 1-year period. Case 2 assumes that a
modular (skid-mounted) system will be purchased and
used to treat leachate at a rate 1,400 gpd for a 10-year
period. The cost estimate assumed that the site
hydrogeology and the general types and concentrations of
TCL VOCs were the same as those encountered during the
Nascolite demonstration. Based on these assumptions, the
total costs for Case 1 were estimated to be about $0.50 per
gallon of groundwater treated and for Case 2 were
estimated to be $0.22 per gallon of leachate treated. The
estimated Case 1 cost per gallon is approximately 55
percent higher than the cost per gallon in Case 2, primarily
due to the assumed short length of the remediation period
in Case 1, which limits the volume potentially treated.
Costs for actual applications of the ZenoGem® technology
may vary significantly from these estimates, depending on
site-specific factors.
Super-fund Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria
for the ZenoGem® Technology
Table ES-1 briefly discusses an evaluation of the
ZenoGem® technology with respect to the nine evaluation
criteria used for Superfund feasibility studies when
considering remedial alternatives at Superfund sites.
-------
Table ES-1. Superfund Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZenoGem® Technology
Criterion
Discussion
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR)
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,
or Volume Through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
The technology is expected to protect human health and the
environment by degrading organic contaminants in
groundwater to innocuous materials such as carbon dioxide,
methane, water, inorganic salts, microbial biomass, and other
by-products that are less hazardous than parent materials.
The technology's ability to comply with existing federal, state,
or local ARARs should be determined on a site-specific basis.
The treated effluent was accepted for discharge by the local
publicly owned treatment works during the Nascolite
demonstration.
Human health risk can be reduced to acceptable levels by
treating groundwater to site-specific cleanup levels; the time
needed to achieve cleanup goals depends primarily on
contaminant characteristics and system flow rates.
The results of a shock-loading test indicated that the
technology resisted upsets due to instantaneous increases in
MMA and COD concentrations in the influent stream. MMA
and COD removal efficiencies remained greater than 95
percent in the treated effluent.
The mixed liquor is retained in the bioreactor for sufficient time
to allow the microorganisms to degrade the biodegradable
organic contaminants into innocuous materials such as carbon
dioxide, water, inorganic salts, microbial biomass, and other
by-products that are less hazardous than parent materials.
Zenon can reduce the volume of waste sludge for disposal by
continuously recirculating the contents through the
ultrafiltration module. This procedure dewaters and
concentrates the sludge, yielding a smaller volume for
disposal.
The results of the demonstration indicate that the technology
degrades MMA, TCL VOCs, and reduces COD.
-------
Table ES-1. Superfund Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZenoGem® Technology (continued)
Criterion
Discussion
Implementability
Cost
Community Acceptance
State Acceptance
The actual amount of space required for the ZenoGem®
system depends on the size of the system used. For
the Nascolite demonstration, the pilot-scale system was
housed in a transportable trailer. The trailer requires a
12-foot by 60-foot area to support a maximum operating
weight of 45,000 pounds.
The site must be accessible to typical construction
equipment and delivery vehicles.
Additional space (beyond the 720 square feet required
for the treatment technology) is required for optional
untreated and treated groundwater storage tanks, and a
drum staging area for generated wastes. Additionally, a
building or shed is useful to protect supplies. Other
installation and monitoring requirements include
security fencing and access roads for equipment
transport.
The ZenoGem® technology is not designed to operate
at temperatures near or below freezing. If such
temperatures are anticipated, the technology and
associated storage tanks should be installed in a
climate-controlled environment. In addition,
aboveground piping to the technology must be
protected from freezing.
The ZenoGem® technology requires 460-volt, 3-phase,
60-hertz, 30-ampere electrical service.
A rented system operating for a 1-year period results in
total fixed and variable costs of about $263,800. This
total results in a cost of $0.50 per gallon treated. A
purchased system operating for a 10-year period results
in total fixed and variable costs of about $1,200,000.
This total results in a cost of $0.22 per gallon treated.
This criterion is generally addressed in the record of
decision after community responses are received during
the public comment period. However, because
communities are not expected to be exposed to harmful
levels of VOCs, noise, or fugitive emissions, community
acceptance of the technology is expected to be
relatively high.
This criterion is generally addressed in the record of
decision; state acceptance of the technology will likely
depend on the long-term effectiveness of the
technology.
-------
Section 1
Introduction
This section describes the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program and the
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER);
provides background information on bioremediation and
the Zenon Environmental Systems Inc. (Zenon),
ZenoGem® biological and ultrafiltration technology;
provides an overview and objectives of the SITE
demonstration; and provides a list of key contacts.
1.1 Description of SITE Program and
Reports
This section provides information about (1) the purpose,
history, and goals of the SITE Program; and (2) the reports
used to document SITE demonstration results.
1.1.1 Purpose, History, and Goals of the
SITE Program
The primary purpose of the SITE Program is to advance
the development and demonstration, and thereby establish
the commercial availability, of innovative treatment and
monitoring technologies applicable to Superfund and
other hazardous waste sites. The SITE Program was
established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) and Office of Research and Development
(ORD) in response to the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), which recognized
the need for an alternative or innovative treatment
technology research and demonstration program. The
SITE Program is administered by ORD's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. The overall goal of
the SITE Program is to carry out a program of research,
evaluation, testing, development, and demonstration of
alternative or innovative treatment technologies that may
be used in response actions to achieve more permanent
protection of human health and welfare and the
environment.
The SITE Program consists of the following four
programs: (1) the Emerging Technology Program, (2) the
Demonstration Program, (3) the Characterization and
Monitoring Program, and (4) the Technology Transfer
Program. This ITER was prepared under the SITE
Demonstration Program.
The objective of the SITE Demonstration Program is to
provide reliable performance and cost data on innovative
technologies so that potential users can assess a given
technology's suitability for specific cleanups. To produce
useful and reliable data, demonstrations are conducted at
hazardous waste sites or under conditions that closely
simulate actual waste site conditions.
Information collected during the demonstration is used to
assess the performance of the technology, the potential
need for pre- and posttreatment processing of the waste,
the types of wastes and media that may be treated by the
technology, potential operating problems, and the
approximate capital and operating costs. Demonstration
information also can provide insight into a technology's
long-term operating and maintenance (O&M) costs and
long-term application risks.
Each SITE demonstration evaluates a technology's
performance in treating waste at a particular site.
Successful demonstrations of a technology at one site or
on a particular waste does not ensure its success at other
sites of for other wastes. Data obtained from the
demonstration may require extrapolation to estimate a
range of operating conditions over which the technology
performs satisfactorily. Extrapolation of demonstration
data should be based on other information about the
technology, such as information available from case
studies.
-------
Implementation of the SITE Program is a significant,
ongoing effort involving ORD, OSWER, various EPA
regions, and private business concerns, including
technology developers and parties responsible for site
remediation. The technology selection process and the
Demonstration Program together provide objective and
carefully controlled testing of field-ready technologies.
Innovative technologies chosen for a SITE demonstration
must be pilot- or full-scale applications and must offer
some advantage over existing technologies; mobile
technologies are of particular interest.
1.1.2 Documentation of SITE
Demonstration Results
The results of each SITE demonstration are reported in an
ITER and a Technology Evaluation Report (TER).
Information presented in the ITER is intended to assist
Superfund decision-makers evaluating specific
technologies for a particular cleanup situation. The ITER
represents a critical step in the development and
commercialization of a treatment technology. The ITER
report discusses the effectiveness and applicability of the
technology and analyzes costs associated with its
application. The technology's effectiveness is evaluated
based on data collected during the SITE demonstration
and from other case studies. The applicability of the
technology is discussed in terms of waste and site
characteristics which could affect technology performance,
material handling requirements, technology performance,
and other factors for any application of the technology.
The purpose of the TER is to consolidate all information
and records acquired during the demonstration. It contains
both a narrative portion and tables and graphs
summarizing the data. The narrative portion includes
discussions of demonstration activities, as well as
deviations from the demonstration quality assurance
project plan (QAPP). The data tables and graphs
summarize demonstration results relative to project
objectives. The tables also summarize quality assurance
and quality control (QA/QC) data and data quality
objectives. The TER is not formally published by EPA;
instead, a copy is retained as a reference by the EPA
project manager for responding to public inquiries and for
recordkeeping purposes.
1.2 Description of Bioremediation
Bioremediation is the process by which hazardous organic
materials are degraded by microorganisms (typically,
heterotropic bacteria and fungi) to innocuous materials
such as carbon dioxide, water, inorganic salts, microbial
biomass, and other by-products that are usually less
hazardous than parent materials. Biological treatment has
been a major component for many years in the treatment of
municipal and industrial wastewaters. In recent years,
bioremediation concepts have been applied in treating
hazardous wastes and remediating contaminated
groundwater and soils. For example, bioremediation has
been used for degrading creosote in wastes from wood
treatment, as well as petroleum hydrocarbons in refinery
wastes, oil spills, and subsurface material contaminated by
fuels from leaking underground storage tanks.
The two processes associated with bioremediation are
natural and enhanced bioremediation. Natural
bioremediation technologies, sometimes referred to as
intrinsic bioremediation, depend on indigenous microflora
to degrade contaminants using only nutrients and other
factors that are available in situ. Enhanced bioremediation
technologies, such as the ZenoGem® technology,
increases biodegradation rates by supplying nutrients,
oxygen, and other factors that are rate limiting. Examples
of in situ processes include, bioventing, air sparging, and
in-situ biological. Ex situ processes include slurry
reactors and prepared beds for soil and sludges, pile/
composting for soil, and fluidized reactors and wastewater
treatment plants for aqueous wastes.
Generally, the capital and operating costs for actual
applications of bioremediation technologies vary depending
on the types and quantity of organic compounds present,
site conditions, the volume of material to be processed,
and site-specific remediation goals. However, the main
direct costs associated with bioremediation can be
attributed to transferring the contaminated wastewater to
the treatment unit (typically a biological reactor
[bioreactor] or reaction zone) and supplying oxygen and
nutrients to aerobic treatment systems. The estimated
costs associated with the ZenoGem® technology are
presented in Section 4.0. The ZenoGem® technology is
discussed in the following section.
-------
1.3 The ZenoGem® Technology
The ZenoGem® technology integrates aerobic biological
treatment with membrane-based ultrafiltration. This
innovative system uses ex situ bioremediation to treat
contaminated groundwater in an enclosed, suspended
growth bioreactor. The system uses the ZENON
PermaFlow® ultrafiltration cross-flow membrane and
system to seperate virtually all solids from the treated
effluent. The membrane and system are characterized by
a wide-diameter, series flow, tubular construction. The
combination of biological treatment with ultrafiltration
proves to be an effective means of not only degrading
organic compounds but minimizing the amount of waste
solids that are typically associated with biological
treatment. According to Zenon, about 0.1 pound of sludge
is generated per pound of COD removed from the influent
stream. A simplified schematic diagram of the ZenoGem®
system is shown in Figure 1-1.
Zenon claims that the ZenoGem® technology derives an
advantage over conventional wastewater treatment
processes due to its membrane-based ultrafiltration
technology. The ultrafilter not only filters the treated
water prior to discharge and recycles the biological solids,
but also recovers the higher-molecular-weight, soluble
materials that would otherwise pass through conventional
clarifiers and filters. These higher-molecular weight
materials are returned to a bioreactor for further
biodegradation prior to ultimate discharge. Integrated
biological contactor/membrane separator technology has
developed rapidly in recent years as improved membrane
chemistries and configurations produced modules with
higher fluxes and lower potential fouling.
Ultrafiltration is a pressure-driven, cross-flow filtration
process in which the wastewater to be processed flows
tangentially over the surface of a membrane filter capable
of separating both insoluble materials (bacteria, colloids,
suspended solids) and higher-molecular-weight soluble
materials from the treated water. The threshold size above
which organic compounds are retained by the membrane
and below which they pass through the membrane is called
the molecular size cut-off. Zenon claims that the
molecular size cut-off for the ZenoGem® technology
ranges from 0.003 microns (u.) to 0.1 \i and depends on the
specific membrane chemistry. The typical operating
pressure of an ultrafiltration system is 60 to 70 pounds per
square inch (psi). According to Zenon, the UF membranes
require replacement every 3 years and cleaning is required
when the effluent flow rate is reduced about 20 percent
when compared to the design flow rate of the system.
Additional information on replacement cost is provided in
Section 4.0 - Economic Analysis.
The basic components of the ZenoGem® technology are an
influent holding-equalization tank, a bioreactor, an air
blower, a pH buffer tank, a nutrient solution tank, an
ultrafiltration module, optional off-gas carbon filters,
optional permeate carbon filters, and feed, process, and
metering pumps. The technology components are
computer-controlled and equipped with audible alarm
indicators to notify the operator of mechanical and
operational problems. The entire pilot-scale system,
except for the main air blower and optional activated-
carbon filters, is mounted inside an 8-foot by 48-foot
trailer. The trailer also is equipped with a laboratory that
enables field personnel to evaluate technology performance.
Treatment begins by pumping wastewater into a 1,000-
gallon, polyethylene, stirred-tank bioreactor that contains
an acclimated microbial culture maintained under aerobic
conditions. The aerobic, suspended-growth environment
is maintained by diffused aeration, which continuously
mixes the bioreactor's contents, which are known
collectively as mixed liquor. The mixed liquor is retained
in the bioreactor for sufficient time to allow the
microorganisms to metabolize the biodegradable organic
contaminants into innocuous end-products and intermediate
by-products.
The mixed liquor is pumped from the bioreactor into the
pressure-driven ultrafiltration module. The ultrafiltration
module consists of eight 1-inch-diameter tubes connected
in series and contained in a 12-foot by 4-inch-diameter
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) housing (Figure 1-2). The tubes
support the ultrafiltration membrane, which filters some
of the dissolved contaminants and all suspended solids
from the mixed liquor.
The continuous flow of mixed liquor, primarily consisting
of suspended solids, forms a gel layer on the membrane's
surface. Particles from the gel layer are detached by the
cross-flow water movement and recirculated into the
bioreactor. The unfiltered fraction of the mixed liquor (the
concentrate) also is recycled into the bioreactor so that
higher-molecular-weight organic compounds are further
degraded and the necessary microorganism concentration
is maintained for efficient operation. The filtered effluent
(the permeate) flows through optional activated carbon
-------
WASTEWATER
FEED
PUMP
INFLUENT
HOLDING/
EQUALIZATION
TANK
—3-
METERING
NUTRIENT PUMP
SOLUTION
TANK
AIR
VENT
A OPTIONAL
OFF-GAS
CARBON
'' FILTER
INFLUENT
CONCENTRATE RECYCLE
BIOLOGICAL
REACTOR
111111111
METERING
PUMP
pH BUFFER
TANK
BLOWER
AIR
BIOREACTOR
EFFLUENT
PROCESS
PUMP
TREATED
PERMEATE EFFLUENT
PERMAFLOW® °P™™,L
ULTRAFILTRATION
MODULE
TRFATFD
pppmPMT
EFFLUENT
TANK
Figure 1-1. ZenoGem system.
-------
1-INCH-DIAMETER TUBES
ULTRAFILTRATION MEMBRANE
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE HOUSING
INTERNAL SERIES FLOW RETURN IN
FREE-FLOATING HEADER DESIGN
PERMEATE
OUTLET PORT
BIOLOGICALLY
TREATED EFFLUENT
INLET PORT
CONCENTRATE
OUTLET PORT
Figure 1-2. ZENON PermaFlow* ultrafiltration module.
-------
filters to remove any nonbiodegradable and trace organic
compounds before final treated effluent is discharged.
1.4 Overview and Objectives of the
SITE Demonstration
This section provides an overview of the demonstration
site and SITE Program demonstration objectives and
procedures.
1.4.1 Description ofNascolite Site
The SITE Program demonstration of the ZenoGem®
technology was conducted at the Nascolite site in
Millville, Cumberland County, New Jersey. Nascolite
manufactured aery late plastic sheets at the site from 1953
to 1980. The company used methyl methacrylate (MMA)
monomer as a raw material and operated a MMA
reclamation process. Solid acrylic, liquids, and resins
containing MMA were purchased from outside sources.
These materials were processed through depolymerization,
using a molten lead bath followed by distillation and
purification. Waste residue from the distillation processes
was stored in several underground storage tanks in the
northern plant area. In 1985, a remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) at the Nascolite site revealed that
groundwater was contaminated with MMA, various other
target compound list (TCL) volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and heavy metals. Table 1-1 presents
groundwater characterization data for the Nascolite site.
1.4.2 SITE Demonstration Objectives
EPA established primary and secondary objectives for the
SITE demonstration of the ZenoGem® technology. The
objectives were based on EPA's understanding of the
technology, SITE Demonstration Program goals, and
input from Zenon. Primary objectives were considered
critical for the technology evaluation, while secondary
objectives involved collecting additional data considered
useful, but not critical to the process evaluation. The
demonstration objectives were defined in the EPA-
approved QAPP dated November 1994 (EPA 1994). The
objectives were selected to provide potential users of the
ZenoGem® technology with technical information to
determine if the technology is applicable to other
contaminated sites. The SITE demonstration was
designed to address one primary objective and two
secondary objectives for evaluation of the ZenoGem®
technology.
Primary Objective
The following was the primary (P) objective of the
technology demonstration:
• PI - Determine if the ZenoGem® treatment system
(integrating the bioreactor and ultrafiltration unit as a
whole) can achieve a 95 percent or greater removal
efficiency for MMA and TCL VOCs and reduce
chemical oxygen demand (COD) at a 95 percent
confidence level.
The primary objective addressed the biodegradation of
TCL VOCs. For the SITE demonstration, critical TCL
VOCs were MMA, vinyl chloride, benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethene, trichloroethene, acetone, carbon disulfide,
and styrene. These TCL VOCs were chosen as critical
parameters because they have been previously detected in
the Nascolite site groundwater at significant concentrations.
Secondary Objectives
The following were the secondary (Sc) objectives of the
demonstration:
• Scl - Evaluate system performance by measuring
system parameters that will provide data on operating
ranges, reliability, variability, cost-effectiveness, and
full-scale remediation potential.
• Sc2 - Estimate approximate capital and O&M costs
for the demonstration and for full-scale remediation.
Critical measurements consisted of sample analyses and
process measurements that directly impacted meeting the
project's primary technical objective. Critical
measurements included collection of (1) liquid and air
samples for MMA and TCL VOC analyses; (2) liquid
samples to evaluate COD; and (3) flow rate measurements
of the influent and effluent liquid streams. Flow rate
measurements were used to calculate the ZenoGem®
system's total reduction of MMA, TCL VOCs, and COD
concentrations between the influent and effluent streams.
Noncritical, or system condition measurements, provided
information on operating ranges, reliability, variability,
cost-effectiveness, and full-scale remediation potential of
the technology. System measurements included sample
collection and laboratory analyses for the following: total
suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS),
11
-------
Table 1-1. Maximum Concentrations of TCL VOCs Detected in Groundwater at the Nascolite Site
Contaminant
Maximum Concentration
fog/U
MMA
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Total vinyl/methylene chloride
Total xylene
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
Styrene
398,000
400
1,100
7,300
540
540
460
19,200
150
1,900,000
1,200
150
total metals (metals), total organic carbon (TOC),
nutrients (ammonia [Nty, nitrate/nitrite [NO3VNO2-], and
phosphate [PO4'3]), oxygen (O2), and carbon dioxide
(CO2). System measurements also included measurements
for pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, oxidation/
reduction potential (ORP), and specific gravity.
To monitor the ZenoGem® technology, process
measurements were collected from various points in the
system. The process measurements included flow rates of
aqueous and gaseous streams, tank levels within the
system and outside the system, and power consumption
readings. Gaseous and aqueous flow rates were
considered critical parameters. All other process
measurements were considered noncritical. Figure 1-3
presents a schematic showing sampling and measurement
locations for the ZenoGem® technology.
Information regarding the specific purpose of each
demonstration objective, and a summary of the sampling
locations and analytical parameters used to support each
objective, are presented hi Table 1-2.
1.4.3 Demonstration Procedures
The SITE Program evaluated the treatment technology's
effectiveness over a period of about 3 months by collecting
independent data. Data collection procedures for the
demonstration were specified in the EPA-approved QAPP
written specifically for the ZenoGem® technology
demonstration (EPA 1994).
Predemonstration activities included drilling of four soil
borings and subsequent installation of groundwater
recovery wells to pump contaminated groundwater to the
ZenoGem® system. The wells were equipped with
individual peristaltic pumps for evacuating and transferring
groundwater from the wells to a equalization tank.
Groundwater in the equalization tank was periodically
sampled during pumping operations and analyzed for
MMA concentration using an on-site gas chromatograph
(GC). The analytical results were used to determine if the
groundwater required dilution to achieve the influent
target MMA concentration of 2,500 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). When analytical results confirmed that the MMA
concentration was slightly greater than 2,500 mg/L, the
groundwater was pumped to a 5,000-gallon tanker, and
through a piping network into the system for treatment.
After the ZenoGem® system was installed, Zenon
performed a series of technology checks which included
(1) conducting a leak test of technology components and
process pipes, (2) verifying that component safety
switches were operating accurately, and (3) calibrating
flow meters and metering pumps. For the leak test, Zenon
initially filled the bioreactor with about 600 gallons of
potable water which was pumped through the entire
treatment process to ensure the technology was operating
12
-------
AIR
VENT
WASTEWATER
OPTIONAL
OFF-GAS
CARBON
FILTER
CONCENTRATE RECYCLE
INFLUENT
HOLDING/
EQUALIZATION
TANK
METERING
PUMP
BIOLOGICAL
REACTOR
pH BUFFER
TANK
BIOREACTOR
EFFLUENT
PROCESS
PUMP
NUTRIENT PUMP
SOLUTION
TANK
AIR
PERMAFLOWr
ULTRAFILTRATION
MODULE
(S) SAMPLING LOCATION
(M) PROCESS MEASUREMENT LOCATION
TREATED
EFFLUENT
-*
OPTIONAL
CARBON
FILTER
TREATED
EFFLUENT
HOLDING
TANK
Figure 1-3. Sampling locations.
-------
Table 1-2. Analytical Measurement Parameters and Relationship to Project Objectives
Matrix
Sampling
Location
Parameter
Class Objective
Feed Influent S-1
Bioreactor
Effluent
Concentrate
Recycle
Permeate
Effluent
S-2
S-3
S-4
Treated Effluent S-10
Nutrient Feed S-5
Bioreactor Inlet S-6
Gas
Bioreactor S-7
Outlet Gas
Bioreactor S-9
Outlet Gas
(after carbon)
Air Inlet S-8
Critical
TCL VOCs+MMA, COD, Flow Rate Critical
pH, TSS, VSS, DO, temperature,
metals, TOC, ORP, sg, NO3VNO2-,
NH3, P04"3
TCL VOCs+MMA, COD
pH, TSS, VSS, DO, temperature,
metals, TOC, ORP, sg, NO3VNO2-,
NH3, PO^, Flow Rate
TCL VOCs+MMA, COD
pH, TSS, VSS, DO, temperature,
metals, TOC, ORP, sg, NO3VNO2-,
NH3, POf, Flow Rate
P1,Sc1,
Sc2
Noncritical Sc1, Sc2
P1,Sc1
Noncritical Sc1
Critical P1
Critical P1, Sc1
Noncritical Sc1
TCL VOCs+MMA, COD, Flow Rate Critical
pH, TSS, VSS, DO, temperature,
metals, TOC, ORP, sg, NO3YNO2-,
NH3, PO^
TCL VOCs+MMA, COD
pH, TSS, VSS, DO, metals, TOC,
ORP, sg, N03YN02-, NH3, PO/3
NO3YNO2-, NH3, PO4'3, sg, Flow
Rate
TCL VOCs+MMA, Flow Rate
02, C02
TCL VOCs+MMA, Flow Rate
02, C02
TCL VOCs+MMA, Flow Rate
TCL VOCs+MMA, O2, CO2, Flow
Rate
P1,Sc1,
Sc2
Noncritical Sc1
Critical P1,Sc1
Noncritical Sc1
Noncritical Sc1,Sc2
Critical
P1,Sc1
Noncritical Sc1
Critical P1,Sc1
Noncritical Sc1
Critical P1,Sc1
Noncritical Sc1
14
-------
properly. During the test, SITE Program personnel did not
observe any leaks and Zenon confirmed that the
component safety switches were operating correctly.
Zenon seeded the bioreactor by pumping into it 500
gallons of sludge obtained from the local publicly owned
treatment works (POTW). Zenon then added 5 gallons of
MMA-acclimated sludge to the bioreactor. Zenon
cultivated the biomass to obtain a maximum microbial
growth while maintaining a minimum toxic shock to the
microorganisms. In addition, Zenon periodically added
powdered milk and wheat flour as food sources for the
microorganisms until the contaminated groundwater was
available for treatment.
A start-up run was conducted prior to beginning the
demonstration run. The purpose of the start-up run was to
identify and resolve any problems that arose from
technology operation or sampling and field protocols. No
samples were sent for off-site analysis during the start-up
run. The initial effluent flow rate of the treatment system
established for the entire demonstration was 720 gallons
per day.
1.5 KEY CONTACTS
Additional information on the ZenoGem® biological and
ultrafiltration technology, Zenon, the SITE Program, and
the Nascolite site is available from the following sources:
EPA Project Manager
Daniel Sullivan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MS-104)
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
908/321-6677
Technology Developer
F. Anthony Tonelli
Zenon Environmental Inc.
845 Harrington Court
Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7N 3P3
905/639-6320
Information on the SITE program is available through the
following on-line information clearinghouse: the Vendor
Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VISITT) (Hotline: 800-245-4505) database contains
information on 154 technologies offered by 97 developers.
Technical reports may be obtained by contacting U. S.
EPA/NCEPI, P. O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-
2419, or by calling 800-490-9198.
15
-------
Section 2
Technology Effectiveness Analysis
This section addresses the effectiveness of the ZenoGem®
technology for treating groundwater contaminated with
MMA and TCL VOCs. This evaluation of the
technology's effectiveness is based on the results of the
SITE demonstration at the Nascolite site.
Vendor claims and case studies regarding the effectiveness
of the ZenoGem® biological and ultrafiltration technology
are presented in Appendix A. Tables summarizing the
field and laboratory analytical data for samples collected
during the demonstration are included in Appendices B
and C, respectively.
2.1 SITE Demonstration Results
This section summarizes the results from the SITE
demonstration of the ZenoGem® technology for both
critical and noncritical parameters, and is organized
according to the project objectives stated in Section 1.4.2.
Section 2.1.1 addresses the primary objective, and Section
2.1.2 address secondary objectives.
The ZenoGem® technology treated about 47,200 gallons
of groundwater contaminated with MMA, at flow rates
ranging from 380 to 620 gpd. As shown in tables B-4 and
B-5 in Appendix B, the total inflow to the treatment system
was significantly less than the total outflow from the
system. According to Zenon, the difference in these
values may be due to the effluent flow meter recording the
permeate that was at times being recirculated back to the
bioreator. Zenon periodically recirculates the permeate
when making process adjustments prior to discharge from
the system. The demonstration consisted of continuous
operation over a 3-month period, during which influent
MMA concentrations varied from 567 mg/L to
9,500 mg/L.
For the last 3 weeks of the demonstration, the technology
was evaluated under an approximate three-fold increase in
contaminant concentration shock-loading, which increased
the influent MMA concentration from 2,360 mg/L to
7,140 mg/L (Figure 2-1). During the first 4 hours of the
test, the influent MMA concentrations were increased
while the feed rate remained at 720 gpd, creating a short-
term organic shock-load to the microorganisms in the
bioreactor. After 4 hours, the feed flow rate was decreased
to 50 gpd, and then increased to 140 gpd to maintain a
constant volumetric organic loading throughout the
remainder of the demonstration.
2.1.1 Objective P-1: Removal
Efficiencies
This section describes demonstration removal efficiencies
for MMA, TCL VOCs, and COD. Removal efficiencies
for each compound or parameter was evaluated over the 3-
month demonstration (September, October, and
November). In cases where effluent concentrations of a
compound were nondetectable, the detection limit value
(for example 0.01 mg/L for MMA), rather than an
assumed concentration of 0.00 mg/L, was used to calculate
the minimum removal efficiency. This conservative
practice was adopted to ensure that the removal efficiency
would not be overestimated, and assumes that a compound
not detected in the effluent at 0.01 mg/L may have been
present at a concentration between 0.00 mg/L and 0.01
mg/L. For this reason, the removal efficiencies values for
the compounds and parameters are the minimum possible
values and may be lower than the actual removal
efficiencies achieved by the system.
MMA Results
Effluent MMA concentrations during the demonstration
varied from less than the detection limit of 0.01 mg/L to
16.8 mg/L in the permeate stream (S-4). As shown in
Figure 2-2, the permeate MMA removal efficiencies
during the demonstration consistently surpassed the
16
-------
02-Sep 12-Sep 23-Sep 03
-------
and (2) the goal of a 95 perent reduction was maintained by
the system throughout the 3-month demonstration.
TCL VOC Results
TCL VOCs analyzed in samples collected from the
influent and effluent streams during the demonstration
included vinyl chloride, benzene, trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethene,
trichloroethene, acetone, carbon disulfide, ethylbenzene,
toluene, and styrene. The laboratory reported all other
quantified analytes from the TCL; however, tentatively
identified compounds were not reported.
Due to the high MMA concentrations in the influent, the
laboratory was unable to analyze aqueous TCL VOC
samples at a low enough dilution factor to quantify the low
concentrations of TCL VOCs without overloading the GC.
Most TCL VOC detection limits in the influent ranged
from about 2,500 to 500,000 micrograms per liter Og/L),
depending on the dilution ratio. In samples that had
detection limits this high, no targeted TCL VOCs were
above detection limits in the influent stream (S-l).
Detection limits were low enough in only five of the 71
samples collected to quantify TCL VOC concentrations.
Consequently, removal efficiencies for individual TCL
VOCs could not be calculated for the majority of the
samples collected during the demonstration.
Table 2-1 compares the five influent samples with
reportable TCL VOC concentrations in samples collected
from sampling port S-l to the corresponding TCL VOC
concentrations in samples collected from sampling port S-
4. Reductions of greater than 97 percent were noted in all
TCL VOCs reported.
Mass Balance
The primary objective (PI) of the demonstration was to
show that the ZenoGem® process was able to achieve 95
percent removal efficiency of the total influent mass of
MMA and TCL VOCs (EPA 1994), using the following
equation:
%RE =
i - nviMA+voa x 100
(MMA+VOC),
where:
%RE = Removal efficiency
(MMA + VOC),= Total mass in influent stream
(MMA + VOC) = Total mass in effluent stream
Total influent mass was calculated from the daily MMA
and TCL VOC concentrations in the influent stream (S-l)
and the average of the three daily flow measurements,
collected at measurement location M-l, multiplied over a
24-hour period, accounting for periods when the system
was not operating. Effluent mass was calculated from the
S-4 and S-10 streams in the same manner.
The following equation was used to calculate the total
mass of MMA and TCL VOCs for both the influent and
effluent streams:
83
M.
•(MMA+VOC)
where:
M, M4 vnm = Total mass of MMA and TCL VOCs
(MMA+VUCJ
Q.= Average daily flow, in liters
[x] = Daily MMA+TCL VOC
concentration (mg/L)
83 = Number of samples
Based on extrapolation from the sample concentration
data and flow meter readings, the total mass of MMA and
TCL VOCs entering the system during the demonstration
was about 561,000 grams and the mass of MMA and TCL
VOCs leaving the system after treatment was about 196
grams. Therefore, total mass of MMA and TCL VOCs in
the effluent prior to carbon polishing was reduced at least
99.96 percent. The actual mass reduction may have been
greater, but was indeterminable because the total mass of
TCL VOCs entering the system could not be determined
due to the elevated detection limits. Table 2-1 indicates
that the average TCL VOC concentration in the influent
was likely to be several orders of magnitude lower than the
MMA concentration, and thus should have contributed
only a negligible amount to the total influent mass of the
contaminants.
To determine if volatilization to air contributed
significantly to the observed mass reduction efficiency,
the quantity of MMA (Figure 2-3) and TCL VOCs
(Figure 2-4) lost through the emissions stream (S7) were
determined using the daily air flow measurements
(Figure 2-5) collected at measurement location M7 and the
analytical results of the biweekly air sample. As shown in
Figures 2-3 and 2-4, an increase in MMA and TCL VOCs
concentrations occurred on the first day of the shock-
loading test and then decreased throughout the remainder
of the demonstration.
18
-------
Table 2-1. Measured TCL VOC Reductions
Sampling
Date
9/5/94
9/6/94
9/16/94
10/1/94
10/11/94
TCL VOC
Compound
Methylene
chloride
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Methylene
chloride
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
Methylene
chloride
Methylene
chloride
Xylenes
Influent
Concentration
(S-1)
636
852
282J
618
905
279J
105J
500J
15,300
14.400J
Permeate
Concentration
(S-4)
8.85
1.75J
5.0U
11.6
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
11.2
5.0U
5.0U
Percent
Reduction8
98.6
99.8
>98.2
98.1
>99.4
>98.2
>95.2
97.8
>99.3
>99.9
Notes:
a Percent reduction measured from permeate stream prior to carbon polishing.
All concentrations in micrograms per liter (/^g/L).
J = Compound concentration is estimated. Value is below sample detection limit.
U = Compound was not detected. Associated number is the sample detection limit.
83
Figure 2-5 shows that the daily air flow measurement
remained relatively low (less than 5 scfm) during
Sepetember compaired to the remainder of the
demonstration (about 12 scfm). Although the cause of the
fluctuation in air flow is unknown, Zenon has process
capability to control the amount of oxygen supplied to the
bioreactor to maintain organism growth and degradation
of the organic compounds. This finding is not considered
significant since the goal of a 95 perent reduction was
maintained by the system throughout the 3-month
demonstration.
The total mass loss for each compound over the
demonstration was calculated by the following:
where:
22.4
M(x) = Total mass of compound x in grams
Q;=Air flow for i* day, in standard cubic feet (scf)
[x.] = Volumetric concentration of
compound x in liters
mx = Molecular weight of compound x
in grams/mole
k = Conversion factor
83 = number of samples
19
-------
14-Sep-94 28-Sep-94
Figure 2-3. MMA in air (S-7).
12-Oct-94 25-Oct-94
Date
08-Nov-94 21-Nov-94
a
ri
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-•- Acetone
-*- Benzene
-±- Meth. Chloride
-g- Toluene
14-Sep-94 28-Sep-94 12-Oct-94 25-Oct-94 08-Nov-94 21-Nov-94
Date
Figure 2-4. VOCs in air (S-7).
20
15
10
02-Sep-94 ll-Sep-94 20-Sep-94 29-Sep-94 08-Oct-94 17-Oct-94 26-Oct-94 04-Nov-94 13-Nov-94 22-Nov-94
Date
Figure 2-5. Air flow in emission stream (S-7).
20
-------
Mass was computed for an ideal gas at standard
temperature and pressure (STP). Daily flow volume was
determined by using the average of the three daily air
measurements (in standard cubic feet per minute [scfm])
and multiplying over a 24-hour period, accounting for
periods when the system was temporarily shutdown. The
daily volumetric concentration of each compound was
calculated by interpolation from the biweekly analytical
results.
Based on extrapolation from the air sample concentration
data and the flow meter readings, the total volatilization of
MMA and TCL VOCs from the system was calculated at
about 411 grams. This values represents less than 0.10
percent of the total MMA and TCL VOC mass treated
during the demonstration.
COD Results
During the course of the demonstration, influent COD
concentrations varied from 1,490 mg/L to 13,600 mg/L.
COD concentrations in the permeate (S-4) varied from
10.3 mg/L to 1,880 mg/L, and COD concentrations in the
treated effluent stream (S-10) ranged from 56.0 mg/L to
1,090 mg/L. Figure 2-6 shows the removal efficiencies for
the permeate stream (S-4). Based on these data, reduction
efficiencies for COD calculated for the permeate stream
(S-4) varied from 84.7 percent to 95.6 percent, yielding an
overall COD reduction efficiency of 88.6 + 8.4 percent.
Data for the S-10 treated, or final, effluent stream was not
generated until week 7. of the demonstration. Figure 2-7
shows the reduction efficiencies for the treated effluent
stream (S-10). During 4 out of the 5 weeks, the reduction
efficiencies in the effluent were above the 95 percent
demonstration goal and averaged 96.8 + 5.01 percent.
Figure 2-8 compares the reduction efficiencies for the
permeate stream (S-4) with those observed in the treated
effluent stream (S-10).
During the last 3 weeks of the demonstration, the system
was evaluated under an approximate three-fold increase in
contaminant concentration shock-loading, which
instantaneously increased the influent COD concentrations
from 6,400 mg/L to 19,600 mg/L. During the first 4 hours
of the test, the influent COD concentrations were
increased while the feed rate remained at 720 gpd, creating
a short-term, organic shock-load to the microorganisms in
the bioreactor. After 4 hours, the flow rates were
decreased to 50 gpd, and then increased to 140 gpd to
maintain a consistent volumetric organic loading
throughout the remainder of the demonstration. The
treated effluent (S-10) reduction efficiency for COD
following the shock loading was calculated at 98.8 + 0.64
percent.
2.1.2 Objective S-1: Total Metals, TSS,
VSS, TOO, ORP, sg, DO,
Temperature, pH, Nutrients
This section presents the results of measurements for
secondary parameters of interest for the demonstration.
Metals
Table 2-2 summarizes the average aluminum, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,
nickel, and zinc concentrations detected in the influent
(S-1), permeate (S-4), and treated effluent (S-10) streams.
As shown in Figures 2-9 through 2-18, the concentration
of metals in the S-1 stream exhibited substantially higher
concentrations than that detected in the S-4 and S-10
streams, with the exception of some sample results that are
anomalous. Metal concentrations increased throughout
the demonstration in the bioreactor effluent (S-2) and the
concentrate stream (S-3). This indicates that the majority
of metals in the S-1 stream were retained and accumulated
throughout the demonstration with the exception of a
small percentage of the metals that passed through the
ultrafiltration module and were detected in the permeate
and treated effluent streams. At these concentrations, the
metals did not appear to inhibit the microorganisms
degradation rate for MMA and TCL VOCs. Depending on
wastewater characteristics, pretreatment can be
incorporated into the treatment train to reduce metal
accumulation in the system.
TSS
Figure 2-19 shows the TSS concentrations measured in the
influent (S-1), permeate (S-4), and treated effluent (S-10)
streams during the demonstration. The TSS concentration
in the influent stream exhibited higher concentrations than
that detected in the permeate and treated effluent streams.
On November 12, the influent TSS concentration
increased from 43 mg/L to 19,000 mg/L. Although the
cause of this anomalous value is unknown, the increase in
concentration may be due to not thoroughly mixing the
groundwater in the holding tank prior to transferring to the
21
-------
120
§ 100
o: 80
a> 60
Demonstration Goal
;ox
02-Sep-94 15-Sep-94 29-Sep-94 11-Oct-94 24-Oct-94
Date
04-Nov-94 17-Nov-94
Figure 2-6. COD removal efficiency (S-4).
105
100
95
90
85
80
1
75
Demonstration Goal
95%
02-Sep-94
15-Sep-94 29-Sep-94
11-Oct-94
Date
24-Oct-94
14-Nov-94
Figure 2-7. COD removal efficiency (S-10).
i
2
3. o
II 1 1
i i 1 illHmM
i,
In
1
••S-4
S-10
50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
Percent Removal
100.00
Figure 2-8. Distribution of COD removal efficiency by number of samples (S-4 and S-10).
22
-------
Table 2-2. Total Metals Concentrations
to
Metal
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel .
Zinc
Influent Stream
S-1
514
82.7
8.3
6.86
21,400
222
170
0.11
19.3
2,120
Permeate
Stream
S-4
106
1.62
2.9
4.8
149
10.5
32.2
1.18
8.7
131
Treated
Effluent Stream
S-10
65.7
—
—
3.9
28.6
11.1
10.2
—
2.6
29.0
Influent Stream
S-1
Concentration
Range
220-1,100
40-150
3.5-16
3.1-8.5
9800-36,500
110-330
84-290
0.055-0.13
10-31
810-4,100
Permeate
Stream S-4
Concentration
Range
12.8-160
1.1-2.9
0.08-5.6
0.9-9.8
40-220
3.6-16
7.9-60
0.075-3.3
0.04-36
71-240
Treated
Effluent Stream
S-10
Concentration
Range
0.07-120
0.8
5.3
0.01-9.7
0.04-59
9.1-13
0.01-27
0.042
0.01-5.1
0.01-51
-------
(Q
C
3
10
a
i
8
I
1
o
:r
CD
SB
3
a.
CO
o>
en
(Q
i
3
c
8
I
o
en
CD
CO
_4».
0)
a.
£
o
en
en
(Q
ro
O
•8
T3
CD
3
O
CD
3^
21
o'
en
CO
ffl
3
a.
o
en
CD
Q>
en
31
CO*
CD
ro
O
Q>
a.
E'
8
o'
3
en
rr
CD
D>
Q.
CO
O
I
CO
en
-------
100000
10000
1000
g
g .-;. 100
I I 10
« 1
0.1
0.01
_Q
1000
Date
a SI
• b-4
Db-10
02-Sep
9,800
40
NA
16-Sep
17,100
64
NA
30-S«p
15,400
200
NA
14-Oct
21,500
218
NA
20-Oct
NA
NA
0.2
27-Oct
NA
NA
0.04
28-Octj08.Nov
18,60036,500
130 I 160
69 | 46
09-Nov
34,000
63
120
23-NOV
NA
78
NA
28-Nov
NA
NA
600
Date
• S-i
• S-4
OS-It)
02-Sep
140
ND
NA
16-Sep
160
9.4
NA
30-Sep
220
ND
NA
ira«i
200
3.6
NA
20-Oct
NA
NA
NO
27-Oct
NA
NA
ND
2B-Oct
180
16
ND
JB-Nov
300
ND
9.1
99-Nov
330
ND
ND"
23410V
NA
ND
NA
21-Nov
NA
NA
ND
to
Figure 2-13. Iron concentrations in the S-1, S-4, and S-10 streams.
Figure 2-14. Lead concentrations in the S-1, S-4, and S-10 streams.
300
o 200
1?
|f
I 10°
TSafe"
rsr
"RA"
02^ep|16.SeppO.Sep]14Oct|20-Oct|27Oct|28OctBB.Novi09-Novl23-Nov)25.Nov
TR"
TR"
TCT
10
Date
WSFT
•g3~
oS-10
0.01
I
02-Sep
~m
"OJ57B"
T1A~
16-Sep|30-Sep|14-Oct|20gct
0.130
"S/fSS
m
OTW
UD^
"W
0/130
3.300
TOT
•R7T
TCT
~ND'
27-Oct|28-Oct|08-Nov
NA
W
"ND
0.055
Tnr
ND
ND
0;140
0.045
1
|23-Nov|28-Nov
NA
0.052
NA
NA
Figure 2-15. Manganese concentrations in the S-1, S-4, and S-10 streams. Figure 2-16. Mercury concentrations in the S-1, S-4, and S-10 streams.
-------
a ?
c a
8 I
§
,o
2UU
150
100
50
n
-
-
.
B
J
1,
1
1.
L
1
5000
Date
• SI
• 8-4
oS-10
02-Stp
10
ND
NA
1E-S
-------
bioreactor using a submersible pump. This finding is not
considered significant since (1) the temporary increase in
TSS concentration was maintained for only one day, and
(2) the increase in concentration was not reflected in the
effluent stream. TSS concentrations increased throughout
the demonstration in the bioreactor effluent (S-2) and the
concentrate stream (S-3). This indicates that the majority
of suspended solids in the influent stream were retained
and accumulated in the system throughout the
demonstration. The technology demonstrated that the
ultrafiltration module was effective in reducing TSS from
an average concentration in the influent stream of 507
mg/L to less than 2 mg/L (the detection limit) in the
permeate and treated effluent streams, respectively. The
. TSS removal efficiency was calculated to be 99.7 percent.
vss
Figure 2-20 shows the VSS concentrations measured in
the influent (S-l), permeate (S-4), and treated effluent
(S-10) streams during the demonstration. The VSS
concentration in the influent stream exhibited higher
concentrations than that detected in the permeate and
treated effluent streams. On November 12, the influent
VSS concentration increased from 34 mg/L to 17,000
mg/L. Although the cause of this anomalous value is
unknown, the increase in concentration may be due to not
thoroughly mixing the groundwater in the holding tank
prior to transfering to the bioreactor using a submersible
pump. This finding is not considered significant since (1)
the temporary increase in VSS concentration was
maintained for only one day, and (2) the increase in
concentration was not reflected in the effluent stream.
VSS concentrations increased throughout the demonstration
in the bioreactor effluent (S-2) and the concentrate stream
(S-3). This indicates that the majority of VSS in the
influent stream were retained and accumulated in the
system during the demonstration. The technology
demonstrated that the ultrafiltration module was effective
in reducing VSS from an average concentration in the
influent stream of 452 mg/L to less than 2 mg/L in the
permeate and treated effluent streams, respectively. The
VSS removal efficiency was calculated to be 99.7 percent.
TOC
Figure 2-21 shows the TOC concentrations measured in
the influent (S-l), permeate (S-4), and treated effluent
(S-10) streams during the demonstration. The TOC
concentrations in the influent stream exhibited higher
concentrations than that detected in the S-4 and S-10
streams, indicating that the concentration of organic
matter was reduced in the system. The average TOC
concentrations for the S-1, S-4, and S-10 stream was about
1,160 mg/L, 280 mg/L, and 83 mg/L, respectively. The
TOC removal efficiencies was calculated for the permeate
stream to be 75.9 percent and for the treated effluent
stream to be 92.8 percent.
ORP
Figure 2-22 shows the values measured in the influent
(S-l), bioreactor effluent (S-2), concentrate (S-3),
permeate (S-4), and treated effluent (S-10) streams. A
difference in ORP values occurred in the system as
influent groundwater went from an oxidizing to a reducing
environment during treatment. This resulted in positive
values in the influent (S-l), permeate (S-4), and treated
effluent (S-10) streams and negative values for the
biological effluent (S-2) and concentrate (S-3) streams.
Positive values in the influent, permeate, and treated
effluent streams are due to an oxygen rich environment in
the absence of a microorganism population. Negative
values in the bioreactor effluent and concentrate stream
are due to microorganisms consuming the oxygen
necessary to maintain biological degradation.
Specific Gravity
The specific gravity of the groundwater remained
unchanged during the demonstration. The average
specific gravities calculated for the influent (S-l), the
permeate (S-4), and the treated effluent (S-10) streams
were about 1.0. Specific gravity is temperature dependent
and will vary with the concentration of total solids in the
wastewater.
DO
The average concentration of DO in the groundwater
during the demonstration was measured as 3.92 mg/L for
the influent (S-l) stream and 3.12 mg/L for the permeate
(S-4) stream. Data for the treated effluent (S-10) stream
were only sampled during the last month of the
demonstration; the average concentration of DO in this
stream was determined to be 3.93 mg/L.
Temperature
The average temperature of the groundwater during the
demonstration was measured at 24.4° C for the influent (S-
1) stream and 33.6° C for the permeate (S-4) stream. The
27
-------
a
100
90
80
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
9/02/94
SI
9/23/94
10/14/94
Sampling Dates
11/4/94
11/25/94
Figure 2-20. VSS concentrations in the S-1, S-4, and S-10 streams. Sample concentrations for S-1 and S-10 significantly
exceeded the upper limit scale in November. Values are presented in Table B-13 in Appendix B.
1
9/2/94 9/23/94 10/14/94 11/4/94
Date
Figure 2-21. TOG concentrations in the S-1, S-4, and S-10 streams.
11/25/94
600
Date
i S1 c=j S2
i S3
i S4
S10
Figure 2-22. ORP in the five streams.
28
-------
treated effluent (S-10) stream was determined for the last
month of the demonstration; the average temperature was
21.1° C. Optimum temperatures for bacterial activity
range from 25 to 35° C.
PH
The average pH values in the influent (S-l), the permeate
(S-4), and the treated effluent (S-10) streams were
measured at 6.3, 7.0, and 7.9, respectively. The treated
effluent stream was only measured during the final month
of the demonstration. The pH values in the influent (S-l)
are adjusted in the bioreactor and the pH values in the
permeate (S-4) and treated effluent (S-10) streams are
unadjusted values and a function of the biodegradation
process.
Nutrients
Concentrations of NO3-/NO2% NH,, PO4'3, increased
slightly in the system. The average concentration of NR3
increased from 0.13 mg/L in the influent (S-l) stream to
0.34 and 0.59 mg/L for the permeate (S-4) and the treated
effluent (S-10) streams, respectively. The treated effluent
average was calculated with the exclusion of an
anomolous value obtained on November 16.
The average concentration of NO3'/NO2' increased
slightly in the influent (0.48 mg/L) and treated effluent
(1.65 mg/L) streams. However, the average value of the
NO3-/NO2" concentration in the S-4 stream, which was less
than the detection limit (0.05 mg/L), was below the values
collected from the combined S-4 and the S-10 streams.
The two values collected for S-10 were 1 .6 mg/L, and less
than 0.05 mg/L, indicating that the concentration of the
sample was below detection limits.
The average concentration of PO4'3 increased throughout
the system as shown in the treated, permeate, and treated
effluent streams. The average PO4~3 concentration
increased from 0.08 mg/L in the influent, to 0.64 mg/L in
the permeate, to 0.94 mg/L in the treated effluent.
29
-------
Section 3
Technology Applications Analysis
This section discusses applicability of the ZenoGem®
technology, including the following: applicable waste,
factors affecting performance, site characteristics and
support requirements, material handling requirements,
technology limitations, potential regulatory requirements,
and state and community acceptance. The information in
this section is based on the results of the SITE
demonstration, as well as additional information provided
by Zenon and other parties.
3.1 Applicable Waste
Zenon claims that the technology is designed to remove
biodegradable organics from wastewater streams, leachates,
impoundments, and underground storage tanks. The
typical wastewater stream consists of high organic,
biological oxygen demand (BOD), and COD concentrations
that may contain oils, solvents, surfactants, and
detergents. According to Zenon, the feed streams that the
technology has successfully treated contained COD
concentrations of 50,000 mg/L, BOD concentrations of
6,000 mg/L, suspended solids of 4,000 mg/L, and
emulsified grease of 2,500 mg/L. Zenon indicated that the
ideal COD to BOD ratio in the wastewater should be 2 to
1. The effluent stream typically has COD concentrations
of 500 mg/L, BOD concentrations of 15 mg/L, suspended
solid concentrations of 10 mg/L, and emulsified total oil
and grease concentrations of 20 mg/L. The waste sludge
stream from the system typically contains a total solids
concentration of about 30,000 mg/L.
Based on the results of the SITE demonstration, the
ZenoGem® technology is capable of reducing
concentrations of MMA other TCL VOCs, and COD in
contaminated groundwater. Appendix C presents the
influent concentrations for MMA (tables C-l through
C-3), COD (tables C-4 through C-6), and VOCs (C-7
through C-9) for the demonstration.
The permeate MMA removal efficiencies consistently
surpassed the demonstration goal of 95 percent reduction.
The average removal efficiency for MMA was greater
than 99.98 + 0.01 percent for the 3-month demonstration.
MMA analyses from the treated effluent stream following
the optional permeate carbon filters improved the average
removal efficiency of the system to 99.99 + 0.01 percent.
The high removal efficiency for MMA was maintained
after a 3-fold concentration was delivered to the system
(shock loading test), suggesting that a sudden increase in
influent MMA concentration had little noticeable effect on
the technology's performance.
The permeate COD reduction efficiencies varied from
84.7 percent to 95.6 percent, yielding an overall COD
reduction efficiency of 88.6 ±8.4 percent. COD analyses
from the treated effluent stream following the optional
permeate carbon filters improved the average reduction
efficiency of the system to 96.8+ 5.0 percent The high
removal efficiency for COD was maintained after a shock
loading test, suggesting that a sudden increase in influent
COD concentration had little noticeable effect on the
technology's performance.
Due to high MMA concentrations in the influent, the
laboratory was unable to analyze aqueous TCL VOC
samples at a low enough dilution factor to quantify the low
concentrations of TCL VOCs. Therefore, detection limits
were low enough in only five of 71 samples collected to
quantify TCL VOC concentrations. Consequently,
removal efficiencies for individual TCL VOCs could not
be calculated for the majority of the samples collected
during the demonstration. Reductions of greater than 97
percent were noted in all TCL VOCs reported (methylene
chloride, trichloroethene, benzene, toluene, and o+p
xylenes).
30
-------
3.2 Factors Affecting Performance
A
Based on information provided by the developer,
operating parameters that may affect system performance
include (1) temperature, (2) pH, (3) inorganic nutrients,
and (4) oxygen supply.
Temperature
During the SITE demonstration, Zenon used
microorganisms that typically grow best in the
temperature range of 20 to 40° C. A high wastewater
temperature increases biological activity but rarely causes
any severe operating problems. However, the increased
metabolic rate during high contaminant loading periods
with elevated temperature deplete DO, which may inhibit
microorganism growth. A low wastewater temperature
can reduce the microbial reaction rate, resulting in a
slower degradation. In most cases, temperature changes
occur gradually, so modifications in the process operation
can be adjusted accordingly.
PH
The hydrogen ion concentration of the groundwater
influences microbial growth. Based on SITE demonstration
results, the ZenoGem® technology operated best in a
neutral or slightly alkaline pH environment. The optimum
pH range in the bioreactor is typically maintained between
6.5 and 8.5. Treatment effectiveness does not appear to be
affected by changes within this range; however, pH
outside of this range can lower treatment performance.
For example, based on general microbiology, microbial
activity may be inhibited at a pH above 9.0. A pH below
6.5 favors an environment where fungi can overcome
microorganisms for food supply. The effects of varying
pH, and other geochemical parameters (such as DO and
ORP) in the influent groundwater, were not evaluated in
detail during the SITE demonstration, as influent
groundwater pH was relatively constant throughout the
demonstration period.
Inorganic Nutrients
Inorganic nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus,
are essential for the biological process. Insufficient
amounts of nutrients will slow the degradation rate of
organic compounds. Nitrogen may be provided in a
variety of forms, such as nitrate and ammonium salts.
Zenon typically performs treatability studies to determine
the ideal nutrient requirements for treatment. The
ZenoGem® technology typically does not require high
nutrient concentrations since the biomass is recycled and
retained in the system.
Oxygen
An adequate supply of oxygen is critical to an aerobic
environment in which organisms can grow and degrade
the organic contaminants. If the supply of oxygen is
insufficient, it becomes a limiting factor. Zenon supplies
oxygen through air diffusers installed along the bottom of
the bioreactor.
3.3 Site-specific Factors Affecting
Performance
Site-specific factors can impact the application of the
ZenoGem® technology, and these factors should be
considered before selecting the technology for remediation
of a specific site. Site-specific factors addressed in this
section are site area, climate, utilities, maintenance,
support systems, and personnel requirements. This
section presents supportrequirements based on information
collected during the SITE demonstration.
3.3.1 Site Area
The actual amount of space required for a ZenoGem®
system depends on the size of the system used. For the
Nascolite demonstration, the pilot-scale system was
housed in a transportable trailer. The trailer requires a 12-
foot by 60-foot area to support a maximum operating
weight of 45,000 pounds. The trailer also requires 14 feet
of overhead clearance. About 1,000 square feet are
necessary to operate and unload equipment. Once the
trailer is set up, the system can be operational within 2
weeks if all necessary utilities, production wells, feed
lines, and supplies are available.
According to Zenon, the system can be constructed in a 40-
foot internationally accepted container or mounted on a
modular skid. The 40-foot container can be modified to
provide shelter, where the skid-mounted unit needs to be
housed inside a building.
Additional space in a bermed area is required for optional
untreated and treated groundwater storage tanks, and a
drum staging area for generated wastes. Additionally, a
31
-------
building or shed is useful to protect supplies. Other
installation and monitoring requirements include security
fencing and access roads for equipment transport.
3,3.2 Climate
The ZenoGem® system is not designed to operate at
temperatures near or below freezing. If such temperatures
are anticipated, the ZenoGem® full-scale unit and
associated storage tanks should be installed in a climate-
controlled environment (for example, operating the
system in a heated warehouse). In addition, aboveground
piping to the system must be protected from freezing.
3.3.3 Utilities
Use of the ZenoGem® system requires water and
electricity. Water is required for a safety shower, an eye
wash station, personnel decontamination, and bioreactor
cooling. For bioreactor cooling, the water supply must be
capable of providing 60 psi pressure and a flow rate of 30
gpm. According to Zenon, the cooling water is specific to
the trailer mounted unit used for the SITE demonstration
and may not be necessary at all sites. Information such as
degradation rates, influent COD concentrations, bioreactor
size, permeate flow rate, feed flow rate, site location, and
general heat balance are some of the factors Zenon
considers when determining the need for bioreactor
cooling. If water is unavailable, arrangements must be
made to deliver, store, and pump water. In addition, about
200 gallons of water are required for equipment washing
and decontamination.
Electricity is used to run the pumps and blowers, and to
power the computer-controlled operating system.
Electricity is required for heating and air conditioning, and
running on-site analytical equipment. Electrical power for
the ZenoGem® system can be provided by portable
generators or 460-volt, 3-phase, 60-Hz, 30-ampere
electrical service. Based on observations made during the
SITE demonstration and estimates provided by Zenon, the
trailer-mounted unit operating for 24 hours draws about
225 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity; this extrapolates
to annual electrical energy consumption of about
82,000 kWh.
3.3.4 Maintenance
The use of the ultrafiltration module in the system
eliminates problems associated with typical wastewater
treatment systems that rely on settling characteristics to
remove suspended solids from treated effluent. Major
problems associated with conventional wastewater
treatment processes is sludge bulking, sludge rising, and
sludge wasting rate. With the ZenoGem® system, these
problems are eliminated with the addition of the
ultrafiltration module.
Periodic cleaning of the ultrafiltration membrane may be
required when a significant pressure loss (20 percent) is
observed in the ultrafiltration module. The cleaning
procedure requires filling a 50 gallon clean-in-place tank
with clean water, adding a proprietary chemical cleaner,
and recirculating the liquid through the membrane and
back into the clean-in-place tank. The spent liquid is
biodegradable and therefore can be transferred to the
bioreactor for treatment.
During operation, it is typical to remove solids (or sludge)
from the bioreactor when the TSS are in the range of
25,000 to 30,000 mg/L, or the VSS exceed 25,000 mg/L.
Typically, the ZenoGem® system is capable of
maintaining a solids retention time of 50 days. The result
is extended use of the microorganisms and reduced waste
disposal. Solids or sludge are removed by connecting a
hose to an outlet port and removing the desired amount of
waste from the system.
3.3.5 Support Systems
A piping network from the source of the contaminated
groundwater to the ZenoGem® system must be
constructed. However, a tanker truck may be used to
transport contaminated groundwater to the system. The
ZenoGem® system operates in a continuous flow-through
mode during remediation. An equalization tank is usually
required to contain the groundwater if flow rates to the
system are too low.
3.3.6 Personnel Requirements
Once the system is functioning, it generally operates
unattended except for periodic monitoring and routine
maintenance. An on-site operator (trained by Zenon
during the startup phase) should periodically monitor the
system to ensure safe, economical, and efficient operation,
and to conduct sampling activities. Remote monitoring
and alarm systems notify Zenon and the on-site operator of
malfunctions in the system. Under normal operating
conditions, the operator is required to monitor the system
32
-------
for about 7 hours per week. Time for sampling the influent
and effluent, testing the samples for field parameters
(temperature, pH, DO, COD, TSS), and packaging and
shipping samples off site for TCL VOC analyses is
included in this estimate. Zenon performs periodic routine
maintenance activities for the treatment equipment.
3.4 Material Handing Requirements
The primary residual generated by the ZenoGem® system
is biological waste sludge produced as a by-product of the
biological degradation of the waste constituents. The
quantity of sludge varies with the type of waste degraded;
however, typical values are about 0.1 pound of sludge per
pound of COD removed from the influent stream.
Zenon can reduce the volume of waste sludge for disposal
by continuously recirculating the contents through the
ultrafiltration module. This procedure dewaters and
concentrates the sludge, yielding a smaller volume for
disposal. During the SITE demonstration, the
ultrafiltration module reduced the volume of sludge in the
bioreactor from 700 gallons to 400 gallons in about 4
hours. Waste sludge can be stored in 55-gallon drums for
off-site transport and disposal. The waste sludge may be
subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations as a hazardous waste.
Secondary waste streams generated by the ZenoGem®
technology consist of proprietary membrane cleaning
solution, spent carbon filters, and decontamination water.
During the SITE demonstration, Zenon generated about
100 gallons of membrane cleaning solution, which was
treated in the bioreactor near the end of the demonstration.
Spent carbon used for TCL VOC removal in the permeate
and off-gas stream may be disposed of or regenerated.
Decontamination water may be stored in 55-gallon drums
for off-site disposal. Disposal options depend on local
requirements and the presence or absence of contaminants.
Disposal options may range from on-site disposal to
disposal in a hazardous waste or commercial landfill.
Installation of production wells may be necessary to
provide groundwater to the system. During production
well drilling, drill cuttings and well development water are
generated. During the SITE demonstration, four
production wells were drilled to a depth of about 25 feet
which produced drill cuttings and development water. The
drill cuttings can be stored in 55-gallon drums or in lined,
covered, roll-off boxes, or other receptacles. Development
water may be stored in 55-gallon drums. Disposal options
for this waste depend on local requirements and the
presence or absence of contaminants. The options may
range from on-site disposal to incineration.
3.5 Technology Limitations
Elevated oil and grease concentrations, inorganic
suspended solids, and metals may reduce the treatment
efficiency of the system. Elevated oil and grease
concentrations can inhibit the growth of microorganisms,
resulting in a slower contaminant degradation.
Unemulsified oil and grease concentrations may also foul
the ultrafiltration membrane surface, reducing the amount
of permeate discharge from the module.
Inorganic suspended solids that are not degraded in the
bioreactor accumulate in the mixed liquor and may limit
the process pumps' efficiency to recirculate the
concentrate, and may cause fouling of the ultrafiltration
membrane. In addition, metal concentrations can be toxic
to microorganisms, reducing biological growth enough to
interupt treatment.
Depending on wastewater characteristics, pretreatment
can be incorporated into a treatment train to prevent these
problems. Pretreatment options include sedimentation,
flotation, chemical precipitation, and microfiltration.
Zenon manufactures pretreatment systems for any
necessary application.
3.6 Potential Regulatory Requirements
This section discusses regulatory requirements pertinent
to using the ZenoGem® technology at Superfund, RCRA
corrective action, and other cleanup sites. The regulations
pertaining to applications of this technology depend on
site-specific conditions; therefore, this section presents a
general overview of the types of federal regulations that
may apply under various conditions. State and local
requirements also should be considered; because these
requirements vary, however, they are not presented in
detail in this section. Table 3-1 summarizes the
environmental laws and associated regulations discussed
in this section.
33
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of Environmental Regulations
Act/Authority Applicability Application to the ZenoGem® Technology Citation
CERCLA
RCRA
CWA
SDWA
CAA
AEAand
RCRA
OSHA
NRC
Cleanup at
Superfund sites
Cleanups at
Superfund and
RCRA sites
Discharges to
surface water
bodies
Water discharges,
water reinjection,
and sole-source
aquifer and
wellhead
protection
Air emissions
from stationary
and mobile
sources
Mixed waste
All remedial
actions
All remedial
actions
This program authorizes and regulates the
cleanup of releases of hazardous substances.
It applies to all CERCLA site cleanups and
requires consideration of other environmental
laws as appropriate to protect human health
and the environment.
RCRA regulates the transportation, treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
RCRA also regulates corrective actions at
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
NPDES requirements of CWA apply to both
Superfund and RCRA sites where treated
water is discharged to surface water bodies.
Pretreatment standards apply to discharges to
POTWs.
Maximum contaminant concentrations and
contaminant concentration goals should be
considered when setting water cleanup levels
at RCRA corrective action and Superfund sites.
Sole sources and protected wellhead water
sources would be subject to their respective
control programs.
If VOC emissions occur or hazardous air
pollutants are of concern, these standards may
be applicable to ensure that use of this
technology does not degrade air quality. State
air program requirements also should be
considered.
AEA and RCRA requirements apply to the
treatment, storage, and disposal of mixed
waste containing both hazardous and
radioactive components. OSWER and DOE
directives provide guidance for addressing
mixed waste.
OSHA regulates on-site construction activities
and the health and safety of workers at
hazardous waste sites. Installation and
operation of the ZenoGem® biological and
ultrafiltration process must meet OSHA
requirements.
These regulations include radiation protection
standards for NRC-licensed activities.
40 CFR part
300
40 CFR parts
260 to 270
40 CFR parts
122 to 125, part
403
40 CFR parts
141 to 149
40 CFR parts
50, 60, 61, and
70
AEA (10 CFR
part 60) and
RCRA (see
above)
29 CFR parts
1900 to 1926
10 CFR part 20
34
-------
3.6.1 Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended
by SARA of 1986, authorizes the federal government to
respond to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants that may present an imminent and
substantial danger to public health or welfare. CERCLA
pertains to the ZenoGem® technology by governing the
selection and application of remedial technologies at
Superfund sites. Remedial alternatives that significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
substances and provide long-term protection are preferred.
Selected remedies must be cost-effective, protective of
human health and the environment, and must comply with
environmental regulations to protect human health and the
environment during and after remediation.
CERCLA requires identification and consideration of
environmental requirements that are ARARs for site
remediation before implementation of a remedial
technology at a Superfund site. Subject to specific
conditions, EPA allows ARARs to be waived in
accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA. The conditions
under which an ARAR may be waived are the following:
(1) an activity that does not achieve compliance with an
ARAR, but is part of a total remedial action that will
achieve compliance (such as a removal action);
(2) achievement of an equivalent standard of performance
without complying with an ARAR; (3) compliance with
an ARAR will result in a greater risk to health and the
environment than will noncompliance; (4) compliance
with an ARAR is technically impracticable; (5) a state
ARAR has not been consistently applied; and (6)
compliance with the ARAR for fund-lead remedial actions
will result in expenditures that are not justifiable in terms
of protecting public health or welfare, given the needs for
funds at other sites. The justification for a waiver must be
clearly demonstrated (EPA 1988a). Off-site remediations
are ineligible for ARAR waivers, and all applicable
substantive and administrative requirements must be met.
CERCLA requires on-site discharges to meet all
substantive state and federal ARARs, such as effluent
standards. Off-site discharges must comply not only with
substantive ARARs, but also state and federal
administrative ARARs, such as permitting, designed to
facilitate implementation of the substantive requirements.
3.6.2 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Disposal Amendments of 1984, is the primary federal
legislation governing management and disposal of
hazardous waste. Although a RCRA permit is not required
for on-site remedial actions at Superfund sites, the
ZenoGem® technology must meet all substantive
requirements when treating hazardous wastes.
A RCRA hazardous waste maybe defined as a
characteristic or listed waste. Criteria for identifying
characteristic hazardous wastes are listed in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 261 Subpart C.
Listed wastes from nonspecific and specific industrial
sources, off-specification products, spill cleanups, and
other industrial sources are specified in 40 CFR Part 261
Subpart D. Subtitle C of RCRA contains requirements for
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes. Compliance with these
requirements is mandatory for CERCLA sites generating,
storing, or treating hazardous waste on site.
If the influent groundwater to the technology is classified
as hazardous waste, the substantive requirements of a
RCRA Subtitle C treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
permit must be met. If the effluent groundwater is
determined to be hazardous and is shipped off site for
disposal, a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest must
accompany the shipment. Air emissions from operation of
the ZenoGem7 system are subject to RCRA regulations on
air emissions from hazardous waste TSD operations and
are addressed in 40 CFR Part 264 and 265, Subparts AA
and BB. The air emission standards are applicable to TSD
units subject to the RCRA permitting requirements of 40
CFR part 270 or hazardous waste recycling units that are
otherwise subject to the permitting requirements of 40
CFR Part 270.
Transportation of all hazardous material must comply
with U.S. Federal Department of Transportation (DOT)
hazardous waste packaging, labeling, and transportation
regulations. The receiving TSD facility must be permitted
or similarity authorized and in compliance with RCRA
standards. The RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR) in
40 CFR 268 preclude the land disposal of hazardous waste
that fail to meet stipulated treatment standards. The LDR
treatment standards applicable to extracted groundwater,
soil cuttings, and residuals from groundwater treatment
35
-------
depend on the process that generated the waste or on the
types and concentrations of the contaminants present in
these wastes. Wastes that do not meet these standards
must receive additional treatment to bring the wastes into
compliance with the standards prior to land disposal, or be
issued a variance.
3.6.3 Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (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. Treated effluent water from the
ZenoGem® system may be regulated under the CWA if it
is discharged to surface water bodies or a POTW. On-site
discharges to surface water bodies must meet substantive
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements, but do not require a NPDES
permit. Off-site discharges to a surface water body require
an appropriate NPDES permit and must meet NPDES
permit limits. Discharge to a POTW is considered 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 be identified and
satisfied.
3.6.4 Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in
1986, requires EPA to establish regulations to protect
human health from contaminants in drinking water. The
legislation authorizes national drinking water standards
and a joint federal-state system for ensuring compliance
with these standards. The SDWA also regulates
underground injection of fluids and sole-source aquifer
and well head protection programs.
TheNational Primary Drinking Water Standards are found
in 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. SDWA primary or
health-based, and secondary or aesthetic maximum
contaminant levels (MCL), will generally apply as
cleanup standards for water that is, or may be, used for
drinking water supply. 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 in establishing
ACLs.
If treated effluent water from the ZenoGem® technology is
reinjected into the subsurface environment it will be
regulated by the underground injection control program
found in CFR 40 Parts 144 and 145. 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. If the groundwater, after
treatment, still contains hazardous waste, then its
reinjeced into the upper portion of an aquifer would be
subject to 40 CFR Part 144.13, which prohibits Class IV
wells.
The sole-source aquifer and wellhead protection programs
are designed to protect specific drinking water supply
sources. If such a source is to be remediated using the
ZenoGem® system, appropriate program officials should
be notified, and any potential regulatory requirements
should be identified. State groundwater antidegradation
requirements and water quality standards may also apply.
3.6.5 Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, establishes
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
protection of public health and emission limitations for
certain hazardous air pollutants. Permitting requirements
under CAA are administered by each state as part of State
Implementation Plans developed to bring each state into
compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
The ambient air quality standards for specific pollutants
apply to the ZenoGem® technology because of emissions
from a point source to the ambient air. Allowable emission
limits for operating a ZenoGem® system will be
established on a case-by-case basis depending on the type
of waste treated and whether or not the site is in an
attainment area of the NAAQS. Allowable emission
limits may be set for specific hazardous air pollutants,
particulate matter, or other pollutants. If the site is in an
attainment area, the allowable emission limits may still be
curtailed by the increments available under Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations. An air
abatement device, such as a carbon absorption unit, is
typically required to remove VOCs from the process air
stream before discharge to the ambient air.
36
-------
The ARARs pertaining to the CAA can only be determined
on a site-by-site basis. Remedial activities involving the
ZenoGem® technology may be subject to the requirements
of Part C of the CAA for the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality in attainment (or unclassified)
areas. The PSD requirements will be applicable when the
remedial activities involves a major source or modification
as defined in 40 CFR part 2.21. The PSD significant
emission rate for VOCs is 40 tons per year. Activities
subject to PSD review must ensure application of best
available control technologies (BACT) and demonstrate
that the activity will not adversely impact ambient air
quality.
3.6.6 Mixed Waste Regulations
Use of the ZenoGem® system at sites with radioactive
contamination might involve treatment of mixed waste.
As defined by the Atomic Energy Act (ABA) and RCRA,
mixed waste contains both radioactive and hazardous
waste components. Such waste is subject to the
requirements of both acts. However, when application of
both AEA and RCRA regulations results in a situation that
is inconsistent with the AEA (for example, an increased
likelihood of radioactive exposure), AEA requirements
supersede RCRA requirements (EPA 1988a). OSWER, in
conjunction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), has issued several directives to assist in
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 1988b). If the ZenoGem®
technology is used to treat groundwater containing low-
level mixed waste, these directives should be considered.
If high-level mixed waste or transuranic mixed waste is
treated, internal Department of Energy (DOE) orders
should be considered when developing a protective
remedy (DOE 1988). The SDWA and CWA also contain
standards for maximum allowable radioactivity levels in
water supplies.
3.6.7 Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Requirements
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHA requires personnel employed in hazardous waste
operations to receive training and comply with specific
working procedures while at hazardous waste sites.
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective actions
must be performed in accordance with OSHA requirements
detailed in 20 CFR Parts 1900 through 1926, especially
Part 1910.120, which provides for the health and safety of
workers at hazardous waste sites. On-site construction
activities at Superfund or RCRA corrective actions sites
must be performed in accordance with Part 1926 of
OSHA, which provides safety and health regulations for
construction sites. State OSHA requirements, which may
be significantly stricter than federal standards, must also
be met.
All technicians operating the ZenoGem® system are
required to have completed an OSHA training course and
must be familiar with all OSHA requirements relevant to
hazardous waste sites. For most sites, minimum personal
protective equipment (PPE) for technicians will include
gloves, hard hats, steel-toed boots, and coveralls.
Depending on contaminant types and concentrations,
additional PPE may be required. Noise levels should be
monitored to ensure that workers are not exposed to noise
levels above a time-weighted average of 85 decibels over
an 8-hour day.
3.7 State and Community Acceptance
State regulatory agencies will likely be involved in most
applications of the ZenoGem® system at hazardous waste
sites. Local community agencies and citizens' groups are
often actively involved in decisions regarding remedial
alternatives.
Because few applications of the ZenoGem® technology
have been completed, limited information is available to
assess long-term state and community acceptance.
However, state and community are generally expected to
accept this technology, because (1) the technology does
not involve combustion processes, and (2) the system is
capable of significantly reducing concentrations of
hazardous substances in groundwater.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) oversees investigation and remedial activities at
the Nascolite site. State personnel were actively involved
in the preparation of the work plan for the demonstration
of the pilot-scale system and monitored system
installation and performance. NJDEP will also be actively
involved in planning for any full-scale systems installed at
the site. The role of states in selecting and applying
remedial technologies will likely increase in the future as
37
-------
state environmental agencies increasingly assume many
of the oversight and enforcement activities previously
performed at the EPA regional level. For these reasons,
state regulatory requirements that are sometimes more
stringent than federal requirements may take precedence
for some applications. As risk-based closure and
remediation become more common, site-specific cleanup
goals determined by state agencies will drive increasing
numbers of remediation projects, including applications
involving the ZenoGem® technology.
38
-------
Section 4
Economic Analysis
This section presents cost estimates for using the
ZenoGem® technology to treat groundwater contaminated
with VOCs. The cost estimates are based on data compiled
during the SITE demonstration at the Nascolite site and
information obtained from Zenon, independent vendors,
and current environmental restoration cost estimating
guidance.
Costs for actual applications of this technology may vary
depending on the types and concentrations of the
contaminants present, regulatory cleanup requirements,
and other site-specific factors. This section presents costs
for two hypothetical applications of the ZenoGem®
technology to demonstrate how costs may vary between
sites with different design and operating requirements.
The cost estimates required a number of assumptions to
account for variable site- and waste-related parameters,
and to simplify situations that would require complex
engineering or financial functions in actual applications.
Assumptions regarding the type of system used, flow rate,
duration of the remedial project, volume treated, and other
factors significantly affect the total estimated cost and cost
per gallon of water treated in each scenario.
It is also important to note that the system demonstrated at
the Nascolite site was operated at pilot-scale to
demonstrate that the system could remove MMA, TCL
VOCs, and COD from contaminated groundwater. The
cost estimates in this report are partially based on
extrapolation of the pilot-scale data to longer periods and
higher flow rates. Costs for systems designed for optimal
full-scale performance at full capacity may vary
significantly from the cost scenarios in this report.
Section 4.1 discusses general factors affecting costs for
any application of the ZenoGem® technology; Section 4.2
describes the two scenarios. Section 4.3 summarizes the
significant issues and assumptions for the Case 1 analysis,
and Section 4.4 discusses the associated costs, Section 4.5
discusses Case 2, and Section 4.6 presents Case 2 costs,
Section 4.7 presents conclusions of the economic
analyses.
To facilitate comparison with conventional remediation
technologies, costs are distributed among 12 categories
applicable to typical cleanup activities at Superfund and
RCRA sites. These cost categories are (1) site preparation,
(2) permitting and regulatory, (3) mobilization and
startup, (4) equipment, (5) labor, (6) supplies, (7) utilities,
(8) effluent treatment and disposal, (9) residual waste
shipping and handling, (10) analytical services,
(11) equipment maintenance, and (12) site demobilization
(Evans 1990). Costs are rounded to the nearest 100 dollars
and considered order-of-magnitude estimates.
4.1 General Factors Affecting Costs
This economic analysis presents estimated costs for two
scenarios (Case 1 and Case 2) in which the ZenoGem®
system is applied to sites with different characteristics and
operating requirements. The selected system must be
configured to meet site-specific conditions. These
conditions will therefore affect overall costs for any
application of the ZenoGem® system by determining
operating parameters and implementation costs. It is
important to note that the general types of site-specific
conditions discussed below will influence costs for
virtually any type of groundwater or aqueous waste
remediation system.
The regulatory status of the site, which is often determined
by the type of waste management activities that occurred
on site, the relative risk to nearby populations and
ecological receptors, and other factors, affects costs by
mandating ARARs and remediation goals. ARARs and
39
-------
remediation goals ultimately determine the type and
configuration of the system, operating parameters,
duration of the remediation project, effluent management
procedures, and other factors affecting costs. Certain
types of sites may also have more stringent monitoring
requirements than others, depending on regulatory status.
Other site-specific factors affecting costs can generally be
divided into waste-related factors and site features.
Waste-related factors affecting costs include waste
volume, contaminant types and concentrations, and
regulatory agency-designated treatment goals.
Waste volume affects total project costs because a larger
volume takes longer to remediate or requires a higher
treatment system capacity. However, economies of scale
can be realized with a larger-volume project because the
fixed costs, such as equipment costs, are distributed over
the larger volume.
The types and concentrations of contaminants to be treated
and the treatment goals for the site determine the
appropriate size and configuration of the treatment system
components, which affects capital equipment costs.
Contaminant concentrations can also influence costs by
determining the flow rate at which treatment goals can be
met. For example, high concentrations of contaminants or
nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPL) may be toxic to the
microorganisms in the system at high feed rates, and
therefore may require a slower feed rate to the system. The
presence of NAPL may also limit the rate at which
groundwater may be pumped from an aquifer, and require
specialized types of pumps for some applications. Some
types of contaminants may create greater oxygen demand
in the bioreactor, which may result in higher power
consumption and significantly affect electrical costs over
a long-term project. Contaminant characteristics will
affect sampling requirements and analytical costs, and will
determine health and safety procedures and PPE
requirements for all site activities. Overall, higher costs
will be incurred at sites requiring work at higher health and
safety/PPE levels.
Site features affecting costs include site location,
accessibility, and infrastructure; hydrogeologic factors;
and groundwater chemistry. Site location, accessibility,
and infrastructure affect equipment and operating costs,
site preparation costs, and mobilization costs. For sites
posing a significant risk to nearby potential receptors,
remediation goals may be more stringent and require more
aggressive treatment programs than situations where a site
is relatively isolated from potential receptors. High-
visibility sites in densely populated areas may require
higher security and the need to minimize obtrusive
construction activities, noise, dust, and air emissions.
Mobilization and demobilization costs are affected by the
relative distances that equipment must travel to the site.
Site preparation costs are influenced by the availability of
access roads and utility lines and by the need for additional
equipment to withstand freezing temperatures in colder
climates. In cold climates, the system may need to be
housed in a heated structure, and piping may require sub-
grade placement or heat tracing to prevent freezing.
Within the U.S., there can be significant regional
variations in costs for materials and equipment, and
utilities.
Assumptions regarding site hydrogeology are critical in
determining overall project costs. Hydraulic conductivity
and saturated thickness will determine the withdrawal rate
necessary to capture or control the migration of a
contaminant plume, which affects the rate of flow to (and
through) the system and the duration of the remediation
project. These factors in turn determine design parameters
and costs for the ZenoGem® system and the supporting
groundwater extraction and effluent management systems.
For example, higher flow rates may require use of a series
of filtration modules in parallel and increase the amount of
oxygen supplied to the bioreactor. Extraction wells may
provide the desired hydraulic control and flow rate in some
situations; however, for low-yielding, shallow aquifers, a
passive collection system (trench with french drain) may
be more effective and economical to construct and
operate.
In addition to contaminant characteristics, non-contaminant
chemical characteristics of the groundwater or aqueous
waste can affect costs in several ways. Groundwater
temperature, pH, TSS, DO, and inorganic constituents
may impact the metabolic rate within the bioreactor, and
determine the need for pretreatment of influent water.
High concentrations of suspended solids may foul the
filtration membranes. Some soluble metals may be toxic
to the organisms in the bioreactor, necessitating additional
pretreatment to remove the metals or more frequent sludge
disposal. These factors could affect equipment costs,
consumable and time-related variable costs, and
maintenance costs. Groundwater chemistry may also
affect the amount of oxygenation required for feed waste
entering the bioreactor, affecting utility costs, and may
also influence the management of effluent.
40
-------
Electricity consumption can vary considerably depending
on the total number of pumps and other electrical
equipment operating. Treatment systems requiring
extraction wells will operate pumps that will incur slightly
higher electricity costs depending on the pump sizes. Sites
requiring a higher oxygen feed rate for the bioreactor will
incur higher electricity costs.
4.2 Overview of Cost Scenarios
Costs were estimated for cases involving two different
hypothetical applications of the ZenoGem® system. Case 1
assumes that a rented, trailer-mounted system treats
groundwater at a rate of 1,400 gpd for a 1-year period.
Case 2 assumes that a modular (skid-mounted) system will
be purchased and used to treat leachate at a rate 1,400 gpd
for a 10-year period.
Both cases assume a higher flow rate than the 480 gpd rate
used during the SITE demonstration. The higher flow
rates may be more representative of full-scale applications
of the ZenoGem® technology. Based on information
provided by Zenon, the higher flow rates are feasible;
however, system performance at these higher flow rates
was not evaluated during the SITE demonstration. The
timeframes assumed for the cost estimates were selected
for consistency with cost evaluations of other innovative
technologies evaluated by the EPA SITE Program, and
because they facilitate comparison to typical costs
associated with conventional, remedial options. However,
neither timeframe reflects estimates of the time that may
actually be required to remediate groundwater at the
Nascolite site.
Case 1 is based on a system similar to the trailer-mounted
system used during the SITE demonstration, operating for
a relatively short operating period. Renting Zenon's
mobile, trailer-mounted system may be especially
applicable for short-term, aggressive remedial programs
where rapid mobilization and startup with minimal site
preparation are desired. For example, the trailer-mounted
system could be rapidly deployed and set up at a spill site
when a nearby water supply source is threatened.
Depending on the magnitude of the problem, the system
could either be part of the permanent remedial solution, or
an interim measure associated with a containment
program while the scope of the problem and a permanent
solution are determined. The short operating period limits
the total volume of groundwater potentially treated in Case
1, resulting in a higher estimated cost per gallon of water
treated than in Case 2. However, short-term treatment
costs per gallon would be comparatively high (relative to
long-term costs) for many types of groundwater treatment
systems. In emergency response situations, technical
feasibility, proven reliability, and speed of deployment are
often primary considerations.
In Case 2, the ZenoGem® technology is used for a long-
term project to treat landfill leachate containing VOCs and
high BOD. The primary goal of the remedial project in
Case 2 is containment and treatment of leachate as it is
generated, rather than a situation such as Case 1, where an
aquifer is already contaminated and a more aggressive
remedial program is necessary. For this reason, timeframe
for deployment is not assumed to be as critical as in Case
1. Case 2 assumes that time for more extensive site
support facilities (such as a building to house the less-
expensive, skid-mounted system) to be constructed. The
system operates for a 10-year period, and treats a much
larger volume than the system in Case 1. Although total
costs are higher than in Case 1, the estimated cost per
gallon is significantly lower because all costs are
distributed over a larger treatment volume.
4.3 Case 1 Analysis
Case 1 is presented to demonstrate application of the
ZenoGem® system to a short-term groundwater remediation
project requiring a mobile system capable of rapid
deployment with minimal site preparation. Section 4.3.1
presents the key issues and assumptions considered for the
Case 1 cost estimate; Section 4.3.2 discusses waste
characteristics and site features; and Section 4.3.3 presents
equipment and operating parameters.
4.3.7 Issues and Assumptions
This section summarizes major issues and assumptions
regarding site-specific factors and equipment and
operating parameters for Case 1. In general, ZenoGem®
equipment operating assumptions are based on information
provided by Zenon and observations made during the
SITE demonstration. Other assumptions are based on
current engineering cost guidance.
4.3.2 Waste Characteristics and Site
Features
Assumptions regarding waste characteristics and site
features are the following:
41
-------
The site is a Superfund site; site hydrogeology and
contaminant characteristics are well-characterized.
The system will be used as an interim, short-term
containment measure to limit off-site migration of a
small contaminant plume while a permanent remedial
solution is being selected. The project requires
removal and treatment of about 500,000 gallons of
groundwater over a 1 year period.
The influent stream is groundwater contaminated with
MMA at an average concentration of 3,000 mg/L.
All contamination is in dissolved phase (no NAPL is
present).
Level D (minimal) or E (no specific requirements)
health and safety/PPE requirements will apply to all
site activities.
No pretreatment is required.
Contaminated groundwater will be extracted from a
moderate-yielding sand and gravel aquifer. The top of
the sand and gravel zone is about 5 feet bgs. The depth
to water is about 15 feet bgs, and the base of the aquifer
is about 25 feet bgs.
The groundwater plume is relatively small; one
extraction well will provide the desired feed rate to the
system (1,440 gpd total or about 1 gpm).
No sewer lines exist on site, and no POTWs are
located in the area. Because contaminants will be
treated to nondetectable levels, effluent groundwater
can be returned to the aquifer through an injection well
located adjacent to the treatment system, upgradient
from the extraction well.
• The site is located in a rural area in the northeastern
U.S. Regional winter temperatures are below 0° C for
several days in arow, requiring antifreezing measures.
• The site is located in a rural area, but has existing
electrical lines, access roads, and a security fence.
• The ZenoGem® system is mobilized from within 500
miles of the site.
4.3.3 Equipment and Operating
Parameters
Some assumptions regarding the equipment for Case 1 are
based on SITE demonstration data for the system
demonstrated at the Nascolite site, extrapolated to a 1 -year
operating period. Different operating parameters (most
significantly flow rate) were assumed to more closely
approximate operating conditions for full-scale
applications.
Assumptions regarding equipment and operating
parameters for Case 1 are the following:
• The ZenoGem® treatment system is mounted in a
mobile, 46-foot, refrigerated and heated semitrailer.
• The system will be rented for a period of 1 year.
Depreciation and salvage value is assumed to be
incurred by Zenon and reflected in the rental costs.
• The system is mobilized to the site and assembled by
Zenon. Zenon will also perform periodic maintenance
and modification activities paid by the client.
• Groundwater will be treated to meet MCLs.
• The treatment system is operated 24 hours per day, 7
days per week, for 1 year. Downtime for routine
maintenance is assumed to be minimal and is not
considered in this estimate.
• The system operates at a flow rate of 1,440 gpd,
treating a total of 530,000 gallons during the year.
• System effluent will require carbon polishing to
achieve nondetectable target cleanup goals. Air
emissions will also be cleaned by carbon prior to
release to the atmosphere; air discharge permits and
air sampling are assumed to not be required.
• The treatment system operates automatically without
the constant attention of an operator and will shut
down in the event of system malfunction.
• One technician will be needed part time to inspect the
equipment, collect weekly samples, and conduct
routine maintenance on the system. Initial operator
training is provided by Zenon.
42
-------
• Sampling and analytical QA/QC requirements for
system performance monitoring will not be as
stringent as those followed during the SITE
demonstration. One treated and one untreated
aqueous sample will be collected weekly and analyzed
by an off-site laboratory for VOCs. Treated and
untreated aqueous samples will also be collected
periodically and analyzed on site for temperature, pH,
COD, and DO to monitor system performance.
4.4 Case 1 Costs
This section presents the costs associated with Case 1.
Subsections are organized to correspond with the 12 cost
categories typical to Superfund sites. Table 4-1 shows a
breakdown of the Case 1 costs by category, and Figure 4-
1 shows the cost percentage distribution for each category.
4.4.1 Site Preparation Costs
Site preparation costs include a treatability study,
administrative costs, treatment area preparation, and
design costs. For this analysis, administrative costs, such
as costs for legal searches, access rights, and site planning
activities, are estimated to be minimal as the system will
be deployed rapidly and set up at a site that has been
extensively investigated. Total administrative costs are
assumed to be about $10,000.
Zenon will conduct a treatability study to determine if the
ZenoGem® technology is suitable for remediation, and to
determine the design specifications for the site. Zenon
estimates a typical treatability study to cost about $5,000,
including labor and equipment costs.
Treatment area preparation includes constructing an
extraction*well, installing the pump, valves, and piping to
carry the groundwater to the ZenoGem® treatment system,
and constructing an injection well for returning treated
water to the aquifer. This analysis assumes that one 25-
foot-deep, 4-inch-diameter extraction well will be needed,
and that the well can be installed using hollow-stem auger
drilling methods. The well can be drilled, constructed, and
developed for about $70 per foot plus maximum drill rig
mobilization costs of $ 1,000 (assuming driller mobilization
from within 100 miles of the site) for a total estimated cost
of about $2,900. Alternatively, if groundwater monitoring
wells already exist in the plume area, it is possible that they
may modified to serve as extraction wells (provided the
yield is sufficient), eliminating the need to construct a new
extraction well.
A submersible pump will maintain the flow rate necessary
for this case. The estimated pump cost, including
electrical controls and installation, is about $3,000.
Insulated, heat-traced piping and valve connection costs
are estimated to be about $25.00 per foot for a total cost of
$5,000, assuming the well will be located less than 200 feet
from the treatment system. The total costs for pumps and
piping are estimated to be about $8,000.
The system will require continuous management of the
treated groundwater. If groundwater monitoring wells
exist in the treatment area, they may be modified to serve
as injection wells, and construction of a groundwater
recharge system may not be required. This cost analysis
assumes that construction of an injection well will be
required. The ZenoGem® treatment system will be located
upgradient from the extraction well in this case. For this
reason, the injection well could be located adjacent to the
treatment system, allowing injected, treated water to
continuously recirculate through the contaminated zone.
An injection well would have the same general design
specifications as the extraction well, with the exception
that no pump would be required, and could be installed at
the same time as the extraction well, without requiring a
separate mobilization. The cost for this well is estimated
to be $1,500.
Design costs include engineering designs for extraction
and injection well placement and construction, electrical
power supply and piping configurations, site layout, and
any other necessary engineering services. Case 1 assumes
that site hydrogeology and contaminant characteristics
have been defined through RI/FS activities, so the
extraction and injection well designs will require minimal
effort. Treatment equipment design is included in this
calculation to account for any design modifications Zenon
may make prior to mobilizing the system. However,
because the rented, mobile system will be used, treatment
equipment design will generally be limited to determining
optimal operating parameters based on the results of the
treatability study. For these reasons, design costs for Case
1 are assumed to be minimal. Design costs are estimated
to be about 10 percent of the combined costs of
construction (described above) and first-month rental of
the treatment system. Based on these assumptions, total
design costs are estimated to be about $2,500.
Total site preparation costs for this case are estimated to be
about $29,900.
43
-------
Table 4-i. Costs Associated with the ZenoGem® Technology - Case 1
Cost Categories
Itemized Costs
Total Cost
FIXED COSTS: Site Preparation Costs:
Administrative
Extraction and Injection Wells
Pump and Piping
Treatability Study
Design Costs
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Mobilization and Startup Costs:
Treatment Equipment
Labor
Utility Connection
Site Demobilization Costs:
Disassembly and
Treatment Equipment
Site Restoration
Total Estimated Fixed Costs
VARIABLE: Equipment Costs:
Treatment Equipment
Monitoring Equipment
Labor Costs (routine operating labor)
Supply Costs:
Chemical Additives
Carbon Columns
PPE
Sampling Supplies
Utility Costs (electricity)
Residual Waste Treatment and
Analytical Services Costs
Equipment Maintenance Costs:
Equipment
Maintenance Labor
Total Variable Costs
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS"
Total cost per gallon treated"
$29,500
$10.000
4,000
8,000
5,000
2,500
1,400
2,800
2,200
1,700
1,400
2000
159,200
7,000
300
6,000
200
300
4,800
5,200
5,000
6,400
5,100
$46,000
$166,200
12,700
6,800
7,400
4,200
10,100
10,000
$217,400
$263,400
$0.50
Notes:
* Total over a 1-year period.
b Total of 530,000 gallons treated.
44
-------
4.4.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Remedial actions at Superfund sites must be consistent
with ARARs of environmental laws, ordinances,
regulations, and statutes, including federal, state, and local
standards and criteria. In general, permitting and
regulatory costs are highly variable as ARARs must be
determined on a site-specific basis. Remediation at RCRA
corrective action sites requires additional monitoring and
recordkeeping, which can increase regulatory costs. Sites
requiring permits for effluent discharge to sewers or
surface water bodies may incur significant permitting fees
and associated administrative costs.
For estimating purposes, permitting and regulatory costs
for Case 1 are assumed to be minimal since the primary
goal is rapid mobilization and protection of a public water
supply. Permitting costs would primarily be related to
obtaining permits or waivers to allow reinjection of treated
water, and are estimated to be $5,000. No air discharge
permits are assumed to be required.
4.4.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs
Mobilization and startup costs include the costs for
transporting the ZenoGem® system and auxiliary
equipment to the site, assembly and shakedown of the
system, electrical power supply hookup, and connection to
the piping systems.
Transportation costs are site-specific and vary depending
on distance between the site and the point of mobilization.
For this analysis, the ZenoGem® equipment is assumed to
be transported 500 miles. A cartage company will be
retained to transport the trailer-mounted treatment system.
Mobilization and transport costs are about $2.80 per mile,
for a total cost of $1,400. No oversized vehicle highway
permits are assumed to be needed.
Assembly costs include the costs of securing the trailer,
assembling the ZenoGem® system, and connecting
extraction well piping, and hooking up electrical lines.
Zenon provides trained personnel to assemble and
shakedown the ZenoGem® system. Zenon personnel are
assumed to be trained in hazardous waste site health and
safety procedures, so health and safety training costs are
not included as a direct startup cost. A two-person crew
charged at $70 per hour will work five 8-hour days to
assemble the system and perform the initial shakedown.
Electrical connecting costs are assumed to be about
$2,200. The total assembly costs are about $5,000,
including labor and connection costs.
Zenon personnel will also train an on-site operator to
perform routine system monitoring necessary to ensure
optimal performance. The monthly equipment rental
costs include the cost of this training, so no additional
training costs are incurred.
Total mobilization and startup costs for Case 1 are
estimated to be $6,400.
4.4.4 Equipment Costs
Equipment costs include the costs of renting the
ZenoGem® treatment system, auxiliary equipment, and
monitoring equipment. For Case 1, Zenon will provide a
trailer-mounted system that includes the following major
components: an influent holding-equalization tank, a
bioreactor, an ultrafiltration module, an air blower, a pH
buffer tank, a nutrient solution tank, off-gas carbon filters,
permeate carbon filters, and feed, process, and metering
pumps. Zenon will rent the trailer-mounted system for
$13,300 per month. Fora 1-year term, the total ZenoGem®
system rental costs will be $159,200.
Monitoring equipment includes a pH meter,
spectrophotometer, and other miscellaneous analytical
equipment. The assumed cost for renting this equipment is
$7,000 for the remedial effort.
Total equipment costs for Case 1 are $166,200.
4.4.5 Labor Costs (Routine Operating
Labor)
Once the system is functioning, it will generally operate
unattended except for periodic monitoring and routine
maintenance. An on-site operator (trained by Zenon
during the startup phase) should periodically monitor the
system to ensure safe, economical, and efficient operation,
and to conduct sampling activities. Remote monitoring
and alarm systems notify Zenon and the on-site operator of
malfunctions in the system. Under normal operating
conditions, the operator is required to monitor the system
for about 7 hours per week. Time for sampling the influent
and effluent, testing the samples for field parameters
(temperature, pH, DO, COD, TSS), and packaging and
shipping samples for off-site VOC analysis is included in
45
-------
this estimate. Assuming a labor charge of $35 per hour,
total labor costs are estimated to be $12,700 over a 1-year
period.
Zenon performs periodic routine maintenance activities
for the treatment equipment. These activities and
associated costs are discussed hi Section 4.4.11,
Equipment Maintenance Costs.
4.4.6 Supply Costs
Supplies required for this analysis of the ZenoGem®
treatment system include standard operating supplies such
as treatment chemicals, carbon columns, disposable
personal protective equipment (PPE), and sampling
supplies. Treatment chemicals include MC-1 cleaner (to
clean the ultrafiltration membranes), available at $6.89 per
kilogram (kg), and phosphorous nutrient available for
$0.25 per kg. Based on observations made during the
SITE demonstration, about 24 kilogram of MC-1 cleaner
and 465 kilogram of phosphorous nutrient will be required
to treat 530,000 gallons of water. Total treatment
chemical costs are estimated at $300.
The system may require carbon adsorption for final
polishing of treated effluent to achieve nondetectable
contaminant concentrations, and for treating off-gases.
The number of carbon columns required is highly site-
specific and will depend on the flow rate, influent
contaminant concentrations, and other factors. Based on
the results of the SITE demonstration extrapolated to a 1-
year period and a higher flow rate, this estimate assumes
that effluent polishing will require two carbon columns
that will need be replaced every 3 months. Off-gas
treatment will require two additional columns that will
require replacement every 6 months. Based on these
assumptions, a total of 12 carbon columns will be used
during the 1 year-long project. Assuming replacement
columns cost about $500 each, total carbon column costs
are about $6,000.
Supply costs also include costs for Level D disposable PPE
and other sampling supplies. Disposable PPE typically
consists of Tyvek™ suits, latex inner gloves, nitrile outer
gloves, and safety glasses. Disposable PPE for this case is
assumed to cost about $200 for the 1-year period. Other
sampling supplies consist of sample bottles and shipping
containers. For routine monitoring, laboratory glassware
is also needed. The numbers and types of sampling
supplies needed are based on the analyses to be performed.
For this case, sampling supply costs are assumed to be
about $300 for the 1-year period.
Total supply costs for Case 1 are estimated to be $6,800.
4.4.7 Utility Costs
Electricity is the only utility used by the ZenoGem®
system. Electricity is used to run the pumps and blowers of
the treatment system, and to power the computer-
controlled operating system, heating and air conditioning,
and on-site analytical equipment. Electricity costs may
vary considerably depending on the geographic location of
the site and local utility rates. Costs for connection to
existing electrical lines were included under "Site
Preparation."
Based on observations during the SITE demonstration and
estimates provided by Zenon, the trailer-mounted system
operating for 24 hours draws about 225 kWh of electricity;
this extrapolates to annual electrical energy consumption
82,125 kWh. Electricity is assumed to cost $0.09 per
kWh, including demand and usage charges, resulting in
total estimated electricity costs of about $7,400.
4.4.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Costs
Cleanup goals are assumed to be MCLs. Monitoring is
routinely conducted by the operator to ensure that effluent
meets MCL criteria before exiting the system (see
Section 4.4.10). As a result, the effluent can be returned to
the aquifer through an infiltration gallery. Costs for
constructing the infiltration gallery were presented in
Section 4.4.1, Site Preparation Costs. The ZenoGem®
system produces air emissions that pass through a carbon
column prior to release to the atmosphere, and carbon
adsorption is used to polish the effluent water before
discharge. The costs for the carbon columns were
presented hi Section 4.4.6. For these reasons, this estimate
assumes no additional costs will be incurred for the
treatment or disposal of the effluent.
4.4.9 Residual Waste Shipping and
Handling Costs
The only residual waste directly produced by the
ZenoGem® process is a waste sludge, which consists of
microorganisms and unfiltered wastewater from the
46
-------
bioreactor. The sludge generation rate is highly site-
specific; for this reason, costs for residual waste disposal
may vary significantly from estimates presented in this
document. The volume of sludge can be reduced by
continuously recirculating it through the ultrafiltration
module. This procedure which partially dewaters the
sludge, reduced the total sludge volume by about 40
percent during the SITE demonstration. This dewatered
material is assumed to be a hazardous waste and must be
managed in accordance with applicable regulations. For
this analysis, Zenon estimates that about 3.6 wet tons
(about twelve 55-gallon drums) of sludge will require
disposal after the groundwater remediation project has
concluded. Case 1 assumes that this material can be
removed, transported, and disposed of for about $400 per
ton, resulting in a cost of about $1,400.
Peripheral treatment systems may generate residual
wastes. For this cost estimate, carbon polishing of the
effluent and air emissions is assumed to generate about 12
spent carbon canisters over the course of the project.
These canisters require management as potentially
hazardous wastes. Off-site transport and disposal costs for
the spent carbon canisters are assumed to be about $175
per canister, resulting in atotal disposal cost of $2,800 for
the 1-year project. Total costs for disposal of spent carbon
will be highly site-specific, depending on the amount of
carbon required to achieve target cleanup levels.
Total residual waste management costs for Case 1 are
assumed to be about $4,200.
4.4.70
Analytical Services Costs
Sampling frequency and number of samples are site-
specific and will depend on treatment goals, contaminant
concentrations, and ARARs of applicable federal, state,
and local regulations. This analysis assumes that weekly
samples of untreated water and treated effluent will be
analyzed at an off-site laboratory for VOCs by Method
8240 at a cost of $195 per sample. Case 1 assumes that
standard laboratory batch QA/QC samples (laboratory
blanks, trip blanks, blank spike, and matrix spike/matrix
spike duplicate [MS/MSD] samples) will be analyzed at
no additional cost, and therefore no additional QC sample
analytical costs will be incurred. (Cases requiring site-
specific, field-prepared MS/MSD, field duplicate, and
blank samples will incur higher analytical costs. Also -
this cost estimate includes only those samples required for
system performance monitoring. Additional groundwater
samples may be required to monitor the overall
effectiveness of the remedial program, resulting in
additional costs.) Additional on-site analyses
(temperature, pH, DO, COD, and TSS) are performed
using in-line or field instrumentation, and incur no
additional costs other than labor and equipment rental,
which were addressed in other sections. Based on these
assumptions, the analytical costs over a 1-year period are
about $10,100.
4.4.11 Equipment Maintenance
Costs
Zenon will provide periodic routine equipment
maintenance. Annual equipment maintenance costs,
excluding labor, are estimated to be about 3 percent of the
capital equipment costs, for a total of $4,800. Routine
maintenance labor requires about 1 hour per week, and
occasional backflushing maintenance labor requires about
1 day per month. This results in a total of 148 labor hours
per year. Billed at $35 per hour, maintenance labor costs
are about $5,200. Total equipment maintenance costs for
Case 1 are estimated to be about $10,000.
4.4.12
Site Demobilization Costs
Site demobilization includes treatment system shutdown,
disassembly, and decontamination; transportation of the
ZenoGem® equipment and auxiliary equipment off site;
and site cleanup and restoration. A two-person crew
earning a total of $70 per hour will work about three 8-hour
days to disassemble and decontaminate the system. This
labor will cost about $1,700. This analysis assumes that
the ZenoGem® equipment will be transported 500 miles at
$2.80 per mile for a total cost of $ 1,400.
Site cleanup and restoration involves decommissioning
piping and the treatment gallery and optional grading and
reseeding of the treatment area. The extraction well and
the injection well will be left in place for possible
incorporation into long-term monitoring or remediation
programs. The piping between the extraction well and the
treatment system will be decontaminated before the
treatment system is shut down, and will then be removed
and disposed of as nonhazardous material or scrap.
Minimal regrading and reseeding will be required, as no
permanent concrete pads or structures were used. Total
site restoration costs are estimated to be about $2,000.
47
-------
The total assumed cost of demobilization is about $5,100
for Case 1.
4.5 Case 2 Analysis
For Case 2 analysis, the ZenoGem® treatment system is
modular and semipermanent. The system is used to treat
landfill leachate and will be operated for 10 years. Case 2
is presented in order to analyze a purchased system
operating as a long-term wastewater treatment facility.
4.5.1 Issues and Assumptions
This section summarizes major issues and assumptions for
Case 2. Due to the long-term nature of the project, Case 2
required several assumptions to simplify the cost estimate,
consisting of (1) unit variable costs will remain constant
for the 10-year life of the project; (2) costs are not adjusted
for inflation; and (3) depreciation and salvage value were
not included in the cost estimates and do not appear to
significantly affect the overall cost per gallon in this case.
In general, ZenoGem® equipment operating issues and
assumptions are based on information provided by Zenon
and observations made during the SITE demonstration.
4.5.2 Waste Characteristics and Site
Features
Significant assumptions for site-specific conditions in
Case 2 are the following:
• The site is a Superfund site located in the northeastern
U.S.
• The site is a landfill that generates approximately
1,440 gallons of leachate per day.
• A functioning leachate collection system and sump
exist on site; however, no functioning leachate
treatment system exists on site.
• Contaminants in the leachate can be degraded using
the ZenoGem* process but will not be toxic to the
organisms in the bioreactor. Contaminants include
total VOC concentrations of 5,000 mg/L, and COD of
7,000 mg/L. Contaminant characteristics remain
constant over the life of the project.
• Health and safety/PPE Level D (minimal) or E (no
specific requirements) criteria will apply to all site
activities.
• The leachate has an initial pH ranging from 8 to 10 that
needs to be adjusted to 7.5 during treatment.
• No other pretreatment, such as oil separation or solids
removal, is necessary.
• The total volume of leachate to treat is nearly 5.3
million gallons. This volume corresponds to the
volume treated by the modular unit operating
continuously for 10 years at a flow rate of 1,440 gpd.
• The site is located in a rural area.
• Infrastructure existing on or adjacent to the site
consists of electricity lines, access roads, sanitary
sewer lines, water lines, and a security fence.
• The ZenoGem® system is mobilized to the site from
within 500 miles of the site in two semitrailers.
4.5.3 Equipment and Operating
Parameters
Assumptions regarding equipment and operating
parameters for Case 2 are the following:
• The treatment system is operated on a continuous flow
cycle 365 days per year for a period of 10 years.
• The treatment system operates at a flow rate of 1 gpm
for a total of about 1,440 gpd or 530,000 gallons per
year.
• The treatment system operates automatically without
the constant attention of an operator and will shut
down in the event of system malfunction.
• One technician will be needed part time to inspect the
equipment, collect weekly samples, and conduct
routine maintenance on the system.
• Zenon performs additional maintenance and
modification activities paid by the customer.
• Initial operator training is provided by Zenon.
• Sampling requirements include monthly influent and
effluent samples, analyzed at an off-site laboratory for
VOCs, COD, BOD, TOC and metals. DO, pH, and
TSS will be monitored daily through on-site sample
analysis or in-line instrumentation.
48
-------
• The system is mobilized to the site and assembled by
Zenon.
• Air emissions will pass through carbon prior to
discharge to the atmosphere; air discharge permits and
air sampling are not assumed to be required
• Leachate will be treated and discharged to a sanitary
sewer for eventual treatment at a local POTW.
4.6 Case 2 Costs
This section discusses costs associated with Case 2. The
subsections below are organized by the same 12 general
cost categories used in the Case 1 analysis, and correspond
with the 12 general categories in Table 4-2, which
summarizes the cost data.
4.6.1 Site Preparation Costs
Site preparation costs include administrative, permitting,
treatment area preparation, and design costs. For Case 2,
administrative costs will be higher than Case 1 due to the
longer remedial period and scale of the project, more
extensive construction activities, higher contaminant
concentrations, the need for off-site management of
treated effluent, and setting up standard operating
procedures for long-term activities (for example, O&M,
sampling, and recordkeeping). For this reason,
administrative costs related to site preparation for Case 2
are assumed to be $20,000. (Long-term recordkeeping
costs are discussed in Section 4.6.5, "Labor Costs.")
Treatment area preparation includes constructing a
concrete pad and shelter for the unit. It also includes a
leachate collection system, installing piping, a flow meter,
and a sewer box for disposal of treated effluent, as well as
electrical connections.
The skid-mounted system is not housed in a protective
enclosure, so a building with a concrete floor must be
constructed. The building must be large enough to house
the complete system, including the bioreactor, and should
have additional space for storage of treatment chemicals,
sampling equipment, and other items. The building should
be temperature-controlled, and have potable water and
electricity available. This estimate assumes that a 500-
square-foot, prefabricated metal building, equipped with a
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system,
electrical power and water supply, could be constructed on
site for $50 per square foot, not including the concrete pad.
The concrete pad consists of a 500-square-foot, 6-inch-
thick pad sealed with an epoxy coating, and equipped with
berms and sumps to contain potentially hazardous spills.
An unreinforced concrete pad can be built for $25 per
square foot. Based on these unit costs, total cost for the
building and concrete slab is estimated to be $37,500.
State and federal hazardous waste regulations typically
require leachate management systems, where applicable,
for landfills constructed after 1980. Because this cost
estimate assumes that the landfill is relatively new, a
functioning leachate collection system is assumed to
already be present on site. (Costs for leachate collection
systems are highly site-specific and can vary by several
orders of magnitude, depending on the size and depth of
the landfill, volume and characteristics of the leachate to
be managed, applicable regulations, and other factors.)
The system is assumed to consist of a subgrade french
drain and a 2,000-gallon collection sump with a pump and
float-level control at the downstream end. In this case, the
treatment system will be located near the collection sump,
so minimal additional piping (100 feet) is required to
transfer the leachate to the ZenoGem® system. Costs for
piping and configuring the connection to the indoor
treatment system are assumed to be $5,000.
The system will operate continuously, requiring
continuous management of treated effluent. This cost
estimate assumes that injection of the treated effluent is
practical because the feed waste did not originate in an
aquifer. Assuming the effluent will meet criteria for
treatment at a local POTW, discharge to a local sewer
system may prove to be practical and economical if
existing sewer lines and a POTW are nearby. If a sewer
line does not exist near the site, the effluent may be stored
and transported to a POTW in tankers; however, over a
long-term project, this method of effluent management
would incur higher costs. This estimate assumes that the
area near the landfill is serviced by a municipal sanitary
sewer line, and that the line is within 200 feet of the
treatment system, and the local POTW accepts industrial
wastewater into the system. Combined costs for
constructing piping from the system to the sewer line,
constructing a junction box with a manhole and flow
meter, and connecting the effluent line to the sewer line,
are estimated to be about $ 10,000. The local sewer district
may also require a one-time sewer connection fee, which is
included under "Permitting and Regulatory Costs"
(Section 4.6.2).
49
-------
Table 4-2. Costs Associated with the ZenoGem® Technology - Case 2
Cost Categories
Itemized Costs
Total Cost
FIXED COSTS: Site Preparation Costs:
Administrative
Building and Concrete Pad
Connect to Existing Leachate
Effluent Connection to Sewer
Treatability Study
Design Costs
Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Equipment Costs:
Treatment Equipment
Auxiliary Equipment
Monitoring Equipment
Mobilization and Startup Costs:
Treatment Equipment
Labor
Utility Connections
Site Demobilization Costs
Total Estimated Fixed Costs
VARIABLE: Labor Costs (Operating, Admin., and
Supply Costs:
Replacement Membranes
Treatment Chemicals
Carbon Columns
PPE
Sampling Supplies
Utility Costs (electricity)
Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Residual Waste Treatment and
Analytical Services Costs
Equipment Maintenance Costs:
Equipment
Maintenance Labor
Total Annual Variable Costs
TOTAL ESTIMATED FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS*
Total Cost per gallon treated"
$98,900
$20,000
37,500
5,000
10,000
7,500
18,900
136,000
5,300
7,000
2,800
3,900
3,100
800
2,100
2,000
200
300
4,100
5,200
12,900
148,300
9,800
1,700
$271,600
$17,100
5,400
28,000
1,600
12,700
14,300
9,300
$88,400
$1,155,600
$0.22
Notes:
• Total over a 10-year period.
b Total of 5,300,000 gallons treated.
50
-------
As in Case 1, Zenon will conduct a treatability study
before determining the appropriate design specifications.
However, for Case 2, the nature of the feed waste is more
complex than Case 1. For this reason, the treatability study
is assumed to cost $7,500, including labor and equipment
costs.
Design costs include engineering designs for overall site
layout, building and concrete pad specifications, effluent
management system, and any other necessary engineering
services. Treatment equipment design is also included in
this calculation to account for design modifications Zenon
may make prior to mobilizing the system. Total design
costs for Case 2 are estimated to be 10 percent of the
combined treatment area construction costs (described
above) and treatment equipment costs. Total design costs
are estimated to be about $18,900.
Total site preparation costs for this case are estimated to be
$98,900.
4.6.2 Permitting and Regulatory Costs
Assumed site-specific factors that result in higher
permitting costs for Case 2 include more extensive
construction activities and the need for obtaining
discharge permits for treated effluent. For Case 2,
permitting costs are estimated to be 8 percent of the capital
equipment costs (about $10,900), plus a $2,000 sewer
connection fee, for a total of $12,900.
4.6.3 Mobilization and Startup Costs
Mobilization and startup costs include the costs of
transporting the ZenoGem® treatment equipment to the
site, assembling the system, connecting up to the leachate
collection and effluent management systems and
electricity.
For Case 2, the ZenoGem® equipment is assumed to be
transported 500 miles. A cartage company will be retained
to transport the equipment hi two semitrailers.
Mobilization costs are about $2.80 per mile for each
trailer, for a total cost of $2,800. No oversized vehicle
highway permits are assumed to be needed.
As in Case 1, Zenon will provide health- and safety-
trained personnel to unload the equipment, assemble the
ZenoGem® system, connect piping and electricity, and
shake down the system. A two-person crew charged at a
total of $70 per hour will work seven 8-hour days to
assemble the system and perform the initial shakedown.
The total assembly costs are assumed to be about $7,000,
including labor and connection costs.
Total mobilization and startup costs for Case 2 are
estimated to be $9,800.
4.6.4 Equipment Costs
Equipment costs include the costs of purchasing the
ZenoGem® treatment system, auxiliary equipment, and
monitoring equipment. According to Zenon, the skid-
mounted treatment system configured for a 1,440 gpd flow
rate will cost $136,000.
Auxiliary equipment includes a 6,000-gallon reserve
holding tank. This tank will serve as a contingency in the
event that the POTW discharge must be temporarily
discontinued or the leachate holding sump's capacity is
exceeded for several days. The cost of this tank is assumed
to be $5,300.
Monitoring equipment includes a pH meter,
spectrophotometer, and other miscellaneous analytical
equipment. This equipment can be purchased for a total
cost of $7,000.
Total equipment costs for Case 2 are assumed to be
$148,300.
4.6.5 Labor Costs
Routine operating labor requirements for Case 2 are
assumed to be about the same as for Case 1 at 7 hours per
week. As in Case 1, remote monitoring and alarm systems
notify Zenon and the on-site operator of malfunctions in
the system. The more complex nature of the feed waste
and effluent management system in Case 2 may
necessitate more frequent sampling and on-site analytical
activities. This estimate assumes that these activities will
require an additional 8 hours per month. Assuming a labor
charge of $35 per hour, total labor costs for system
operation and sampling are estimated to be $ 16,100 over a
1-year period. Recordkeeping typically associated with
remedial actions and POTW discharge limit reporting is
assumed to require an additional 4 hours per month; these
tasks could be performed by administrative staff, at an
average rate of $20 per hour, yielding a total cost of about
51
-------
$1,000 each year. Based on these criteria, total annual
labor costs are assumed to be about $17,100.
4.6.6 Supply Costs
Supplies required for this analysis of the ZenoGem®
treatment system include replacement filter membranes
for ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmoses (RO) modules
(Case 1 did not require RO modules), treatment chemicals,
carbon columns, disposable PPE, and sampling equipment.
According to Zenon, two UF and four RO membranes will
be replaced every 3 years, equaling a cost of about $550
per year for the UF membranes and $250 per year for the
RO membranes, or a total of $800 per year.
According to Zenon, annual chemical supply requirements
include 500 liters of pH control (acid) at $0.30 per liter and
2,225 kilograms of caustic pH control at $0.42 per
kilogram; 40 kg of MC-1 cleaner at $6.89 per kilogram, 60
kilograms of MC-4 cleaner at $ 12.35 per kilogram, and 54
kilograms of phosphorous nutrient at $0.25 per kilogram.
Total estimated annual treatment chemical costs for Case
2 are about $2,100.
Annual carbon canister requirements for air emission
filtering are assumed to be the same as for Case 1; four
canisters at $500 each, for a total cost of $2,000. The
system demonstrated at the Nascolite site indicated
generally high COD removal efficiency (greater than 85
percent) throughout most of the demonstration without
carbon polishing. For this reason, this cost estimate
assumes that effluent polishing will not be required to
meet POTW discharge standards.
Supplies that will be needed as part of the overall
groundwater remediation project include Level D
disposable PPE and sampling and field analytical supplies.
Disposable PPE typically consists of Tyvek suits, latex
inner gloves, nitrile outer gloves, and safety glasses. This
PPE is needed during periodic sampling and maintenance
activities. Annual disposable PPE costs for this case are
assumed to be about $200.
Sampling supplies consist of sample containers, ice, and
shipping containers. For routine on-site monitoring,
laboratory glassware is also needed. For this case, annual
sampling supply costs are assumed to be $300.
Total annual supply costs for Case 2 are estimated to be
$5,400.
4.6.7 Utility Costs
Electricity is used to run the pumps and blowers of the
treatment system, and for heating, cooling, and lighting in
the treatment system shelter building. Water is used for
routine cleaning, on-site analyses, and other purposes.
This analysis assumes that electrical power lines and water
lines are available at the site.
Electricity costs can vary considerably depending on the
geographical location of the site and local utility rates.
This analysis assumes a constant rate of electricity
consumption based on the electrical requirements of the
pumps, mixer, and blowers. According to Zenon, the
system assumed for Case 2 would typically require about
800 kWh per day, or 292,000 kWh per year. Electricity is
assumed to cost $0.09 per kWh, including demand and
usage charges. The total annual electricity costs
(excluding lighting and HVAC for the building) for Case 2
are about $26,3 00. Lighting, heat, and water costs for the
building are assumed to be about $150 per month, for a
total cost of $1,800 per year. These costs result in total
assumed utility costs of about $28,000.
4.6.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal
Costs
For Case 2, cleanup goals are assumed to be acceptable for
disposal at a POTW without carbon polishing. Based on
data from the SITE demonstration and current engineering
cost guidance, costs for discharge to the sewer and POTW
are assumed to be about $3.00 per thousand gallons.
Assuming a treatment rate of 530,000 gallons per year,
total costs for effluent treatment and disposal are assumed
to be $1,600.
The ZenoGem® system produces air emissions that pass
through a carbon column prior to release to the
atmosphere. The cost of the carbon column was presented
in Section 4.6.6. As a result, no cost for air emissions
treatment is incurred.
4.6.9 Residual Waste Management
Costs
The only residual waste directly produced during
ZenoGem® system operation is a dewatered sludge.
Sludge generation rates are highly site specific, and
management costs can vary significantly depending on
52
-------
frequency of off-site removal, characterization,
transportation costs, disposal requirements, and other
factors. For this reason, costs for residual waste disposal
can vary by orders of magnitude.
Based on data from the SITE demonstration and additional
information provided by Zenon, this estimate assumes that
about 30 tons of dewatered sludge will require disposal
each year. This material may require management as a
hazardous waste. For Case 2, sludge disposal costs are
assumed to be about $400 per ton, assuming that the sludge
can be stabilized and landfilled, for a total cost of $ 12,000
per year.
Treatment of air emissions is assumed to generate four
spent carbon columns per year. As in Case 1, spent carbon
canister disposal costs are assumed to be $ 175 per canister,
resulting in total annual estimated residual waste disposal
costs of $12,700.
4.6.70
Analytical Services Costs
Sampling frequency and number of samples are site-
specific and will depend on treatment goals, contaminant
concentrations, and ARARs of applicable federal, state,
and local regulations. This analysis assumes that weekly
samples of the treated effluent, and monthly samples of the
influent leachate, will be collected and analyzed at an off-
site laboratory. Analyses will include VOCs at a cost of
$180 per sample; total metals at $140 per sample; COD at
$25 per sample; and TOC at $30 per sample. As in Case 1,
Case 2 assumes that standard laboratory batch QA/QC
samples will be analyzed at no additional cost, and
therefore no additional QC sample analytical costs will be
incurred. (If required, additional site-specific QC samples
would incur additional costs.) Additional on-site analyses
(temperature, pH, DO, COD, and TSS) are performed
using in-line or field instrumentation during routine
operations and incur no additional costs other than labor
and equipment rental, which were addressed in other
sections. Based on these assumptions, the annual
analytical costs are estimated to be about $14,300.
4.6.11 Equipment Maintenance
Costs
Annual equipment maintenance costs, excluding labor,
are assumed to be about 3 percent of the capital equipment
costs, for a total of $4,100. Routine maintenance labor is
assumed to requires about 1 hour per week, and occasional
backflushing requires about 1 day per month, yielding a
total of 148 labor hours per year. At a rate of $3"5 per hour,
maintenance labor costs are about $5,200. Total annual
equipment maintenance costs for Case 2 are $9,300.
4.6.12
Site Demobilization Costs
Due to long-term requirements for post-closure care and
monitoring, Case 2 assumes only minimal demobilization
activities. Site demobilization includes treatment system
shutdown, disassembly, and decontamination; treatment
equipment removal; and site cleanup and restoration.
A two-person crew earning a total of $70 per hour will
work about three 8-hour days to disassemble and
decontaminate the system. This labor will cost about
$ 1,700. Case 2 assumes that the equipment has no salvage
value, and no costs for removal or disposal are included.
However, potential options include resale, scrapping, or
long-term storage on site as a contingency for future use, if
the need arises. For example, RCRA post-closure care
requires 30-year site maintenance and monitoring in many
cases. Case 2 also assumes that the influent lines and sewer
discharge lines will be plugged and temporarily
abandoned; however, the lines will be left in place in the
event that they are needed in the future. The building will
be left on site as a staging and storage area for other site
activities, such as long-term monitoring and maintenance
activities.
Based on these criteria, total demobilization costs are
assumed to be about $1,700 for Case 2. Sites requiring
more extensive site restoration could incur significantly
higher demobilization costs.
4.7 Conclusions of Economic Analysis
For Case 1, a rented system operating for a 1 year period
resulted in total fixed and variable costs of about
$263,800, based on the assumptions described in Section
4.3.1. This total results in a cost of $0.50 per gallon of
groundwater treated. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 shows the
distribution of fixed costs and variable cots for Case 1,
respectively.
For Case 2, the total estimated costs for the 10-year
leachate treatment period resulted in total and variable
costs of about $1,200,000, based on the assumptions
described in Section 4.5.1. This total results in a cost of
$0.22 per gallon of leachate treated. Figure 4-3 and Figure
53
-------
4-4 shows the distribution of fixed costs and variable costs
for Case 2, respectively.
For any particular site remediation project, some cost
categories, such as utility and supply costs, are heavily
dependent on the type of remediation system selected.
However, costs for other items (such as groundwater
extraction systems) would be about the same regardless of
the type of system selected. Some site preparation costs
may not be incurred at all sites. Both Case 1 and Case 2
include costs for feed waste retrieval systems (wells or
leachate collection systems); at many sites, these features
may already exist, or alternate collection systems may be
used, resulting in lower costs. For this reason, costs that
are significantly affected by operation and use of the
ZenoGem® technology are shown in bold in Tables 4-1 and
4-2, and are termed direct costs. Costs are bolded in order
to segregate the direct costs of procuring and operating the
treatment equipment from the total costs associated with a
complete groundwater or leachate treatment project.
54
-------
$29,500 (64.1 %) Site Preparation
$5,000 (10.9%) Permitting
$5,100 (11.1 %) Site Demobilization
$6,400 (13.9%) Mobilization and Startup
Total estimated fixed costs are $46,000.
Figure 4-1. Case 1 fixed costs.
$166,200 (76.4%) Equipment
$10,000 (4.6%) Equipment Maintenance
$10,100 (4.6%) Analytical Services
$4,200 (1.9%) Residual Waste Disposal
$7,400 (3.4%) Utilities
$6,800 (3.1%) Supply
$12,700 (5.8%) Labor
Total estimated variable costs for 1-year period are $217,400.
Figure 4-2. Case 1 variable costs.
55
-------
$1,700 (0.6%) Site Demobilization
$148,300 (54.6%) Equipment
$98,900 (36.4%) Site Preparation
$12,900 (4.7%) Permitting
$9,800 (3.6%) Mobilization and Startup
Total estimated fixed costs are $271,600.
Figure 4-3. Case 2 fixed costs.
$9,300 (10.5%) Equipment Maintenance
$14,300 (16.2%) Analytical Services
$12,700 (14.4%) Residual Waste Disposal
$1,600 (1.8%) Effluent Disposal
$17,100 (19.3%) Labor
$5,400 (6.1%) Supplies
$28,000 (31.7%) Utilities
Total estimated variable costs are $88,400 per year, based on an assumed 10-year operating period.
Figure 4-4. Case 2 variable costs.
56
-------
Section 5
Technology Status
Since the development of the ZenoGem® technology in
1987, Zenon has performed pilot tests and implemented
full-scale operational systems for government and private
clients on several different types of wastewater, including
oily wastewater, metal finishing wastes, aluminum die
casting wastewater, circuit board finishing rinse, cleaning
solutions containing detergents, alcohol-based cleaning
solutions, landfill leachate, aqueous paint-stripping
wastes, tannery wastewater, pharmaceutical production
washdown wastewater, chemical and petrochemical
manufacturing and process solution wastewater, industrial
waste transfer station wastewater, glycol deicing fluids,
and beverage bottling production wastewater.
In addition, information is available on two demonstrations
conducted in Canada and the U.S. At the Canadian
Department of National Defense fire fighting school, the
ZenoGem® biological unit was demonstrated on
wastewater containing burned and unburned fuel residue.
The system successfully demonstrated the biodegradation
of aqueous foam formulation compounds (AFFF) and
simultaneous removal of oil and grease, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and suspended solids. The system also was
demonstrated at the Army Material Command Watervliet
Arsenal, where the ultrafiltration module treated oily
wastewater. Results indicated that the ultrafiltration
module reduced waste disposal by 70 percent at a
significant cost savings.
Each of these processes have one common problem; high
strength organic contamination. The technology has been
applied to wastewater streams ranging from 5,000 mg/L
COD to 100,000 mg/L COD, and flows which range from
100 gpd to 250,000 gpd. The effluent from the ZenoGem®
process has met sewer discharge criteria, direct surface
water discharge criteria, and for direct recycle to the plant
in some cases. In instances where direct recycle and reuse
are important and the effluent requires polishing,
additional Zenon technologies can be added to achieve the
specific recycle objectives.
Zenon continues to develop the technology and the
process. Recently, Zenon has developed an innovative
Zee Weed® hollow fiber member as an alternative to the
PermaFlow® tubular membrane. Unlike the conventional
skid mounted PermaFlow® tubular membrane system, the
follow fiber Zee Weed® membrane is designed for direct
installation within existing equalization, aeration or
clarification systems. The elimination of skid mounted
capital equipment reduces capital expenditures as well as
valuable plant floorspace. The Zee Weed® membrane is an
absolute barrier to the passage of biomass and TSS, like
the Zenon PermaFlow® tubular membrane, but requires
only a fraction of the horsepower for the same flowrate.
This membrane has been installed in many industrial and
municipal wastewater treatment plants, providing
significant operational savings. Its ability to be installed
within existing clarification systems and aeration lagoons,
along with it's low power consumption requirements, has
launched its use into large-scale municipal wastewater
treatment plants.
The use of the patented ZenoGem® technology in place of
conventional biological treatment technologies is expected
to increase. The technology has been proven to be
effective, and economically viable in a wide range of
applications and markets. As industry changes to meet
new demands for product, new and more complicated
wastewater treatment problems will continue to emerge.
The ZenoGem® technology with the PermaFlow® or
Zee Weed® membrane is well suited to meet these needs.
57
-------
Section 6
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994.
"ZenoGem® Process SITE Program Final
Demonstration Test Plan." Submitted to EPA ORD,
Cincinnati, Ohio. November.
EPA. 1988a. Protocol for a Chemical Treatment
Demonstration Plan. Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. April.
EPA. 1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other
Environmental Laws: Interim Final. OSWER. EPA/
540/G-89/006. August.
Evans, G. 1990. "Estimating Innovative Treatment
Technology Costs for the SITE Program." Journal of
Air and Waste Management Association. Volume 40,
Number?. July.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1988. Radioactive Waste
Management Order. Department of Energy Order
5820.2A. September.
58
-------
Appendix A
Vendor Claims
(Note: All information in this appendix was provided by
the vendor, Zenon Environmental Inc. Inclusion of any
information is at the discretion of Zenon, and does not
necessarily constitute U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency concurrence or endorsement.)
A.1 Introduction
Zenon Environmental Inc. (Zenon) developed the
ZenoGem® process to remove organic compounds from
wastewater. The ZenoGem® system consists of a
suspended growth, activated sludge system (bioreactor)
integrated with an ultrafiltration (UF) membrane system.
The UF filters the treated water prior to discharge and the
system recycles the biological solids back to the bioreactor
and recovers higher- molecular-weight soluble materials
that would otherwise pass through conventional clarifiers
and filters. These higher-molecular-weight materials are
returned to the bioreactor for further biodegradation prior
to ultimate discharge.
Ultrafiltration is a pressure-driven, cross-flow filtration
process in which water to be processed flows tangentially
over the surface of amembrane filter capable of separating
both insoluble materials (bacteria, colloids, emulsions,
suspended solids) and higher-molecular-weight soluble
materials from the treated water. The filtrate and retentate
are commonly referred to a permeate and concentrate,
respectively. In addition to cross-flow filtration,
alternative vacuum based membrane separation systems
using Zenon's patented Zee Weed® membranes are also
integrated with the bioreactor in the ZenoGem® process
configuration. These Zee Weed® membranes offer
significant economic advantages over the cross-flow
filtration configuration particularly at higher wastewater
flow rates. In addition, since the membrane is installed
directly into the bioreactor, operating facilities may be
expanded by three to six times their original design
loading without significant alterations to the existing civil
works.
The threshold size above which organics are retained by
the membrane and below which they pass through the
membrane is called the molecular weight cut-off. This
value ranges between 0.003 microns to 0.1 microns for
ultrafiltration membranes and depends on the specific
membrane chemistry and pore size. Integrated membrane
bioreactor technology has advanced quickly in recent
years as improved membrane chemistries and
configurations have produced modules with higher fluxes
and lower fouling potential.
A.2 Advantages of the ZenoGem®
Process
The ZenoGem® process has the following specific and
significant technical advantages over alternative oxidation
processes such as activated sludge with clarifiers, fixed
film bioreactors, fluidized bed bioreactors or physical-
chemical treatment.
A.2.1 Process Less Vulnerable to Upsets
The most common problem encountered in conventional
biological systems is the loss of biological solids because
of process upsets or changes in the hydraulic or organic
loading. In a conventional activated sludge system,
clarifier performance depends on the settleability of the
floe. If an upset occurs and a difficult-to-settle "pin floe"
or "filamentous floe" forms, the biological solids can
easily be lost. In the short term, an effluent high in
suspended solids and BOD5 will be produced. The effluent
BOD5 will remain high until the biological population has
been restored. If an upset occurs in a fixed film-type
biological system (rotating biological contractor, fluidized
bed) and sloughing occurs, these solids can be lost from
59
-------
the system resulting in poor quality effluent.
In the ZenoGem® process, the effluent quality does not
depend on the settleability of the biological floe. The
biological solids will be retained even if an upset occurs in
the bioreactor. The UF membranes are very robust and
experience has proven that the risk of failure resulting in
the loss of biological solids is very remote.
A.2.2 Improved Effluent Quality
The ultrafiltratic-n membrane provides virtually absolute
suspended solid-liquid separation, thus preventing the loss
of biological solids in the effluent. Furthermore, certain
organics, including free and emulsified oil and grease, are
retained thereby further improving the effluent quality.
A.2.3 Reduced Sludge Production
In contrast with other biological waste treatment
processes, the volume of sludge produced is significantly
reduced and operation at high solids retention times (up to
100 days) is possible.
A.2.4 Improved Biological Degradation
of Retained Organics
Soluble organics in the wastewater of a size greater than
the membrane molecular weight cut-off are retained in the
bioreactor for a period of 15 to 50 times longer than the
hydraulic retention time of the bioreactor (based on
wastewater flow rate). As a result, the biological
population has a longer time to mineralize the organics and
better degrade them.
A.2.5 Accurate Control of Sludge Age
Because virtually no solids are lost from the permeate
(discharge) stream and the wasting of biological solids is
strictly restricted, the sludge age can be very accurately
controlled, and bioreactor performance can be optimized
to the specific wastewater characteristics. Ammonia also
may be removed through nitrification.
A.2.6 Improved Oxygen Transfer
Efficiency
Oxygen transfer in ZenoGem® systems is improved over
competitive systems because the biological cells in the
bioreactor are more dispersed and oxygen diffuses more
rapidly to all the cells. In competitive systems, oxygen
transfer to the cells at or near the center of a floe or near the
surface of a fixed film system is restricted by the cells in
the immediate vicinity. With improved oxygen transfer
efficiency, less aeration is required and operating costs are
reduced.
A.2.7 Smaller Bioreactor Size
Since settleability of sludge is not a concern in the
ZenoGem® process, high biomass levels can be
maintained within the bioreactor. Whereas conventional
bioreactors cannot maintain higher than 5,000 - 10,000
milligrams per liter (mg/L) of bacteria, measured as mixed
liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), the ZenoGem®
process is operated at 20,000 - 30,000 mg/L MLVSS. This
difference means that the ZenoGem® bioreactor can be
three to six times smaller than a conventional bioreactor,
or the same size bioreactor can handle three to six times
more wastewater provided adequate aeration in supplied.
A.3 Application of ZenoGem7 Process
The ZenoGem® technology has developed quickly in
recent years as improved membrane chemistries and
configurations have produced modules with higher fluxes
and lower fouling potentials. The ZenoGem® process is
ideally suited for anyone or more of the following:
• Wastewater containing significant quantities of
emulsified oil and grease
• Wastewater containing suspended solids that do
not settle easily
• Conventional treatment processes cannot
produce an effluent that consistently meets the
discharge requirements
Sludge disposal costs contribute significantly to
the treatment cost
• Treated water may be reused within the plant as
make-up water
• A long solids retention time is desirable
• Physical retention of certain soluble components
is critical to achieving the treatment objectives
60
-------
• Wastewater contains potentially inhibitory or
complex organic compounds
• The current biological treatment process re-
quires upgrading or expansion
A.4 Case Studies
A.4.1 Landfill Leachate Treatment -
Dectra-Lairnont, France
Dectra-Laimont is a 9-hectare Class I landfill in France
that began operations in 1983. Since 1987, the landfill
received wastes only from local chemical and metal
processing industries. Leachate is pumped from ten shafts
at various locations throughout the site to a 1500 cubic
meters (m3)-capacity aerated holding pond. Each day,
approximately 10 m3 of leachate is produced. Effluent
discharge from the site is direct to surface water and
consequent discharge criteria are strict. In addition, the
leachate composition is variable with frequent fluctuations
in organic strength and other compounds.
A.4.2 GM Mansfield
Zenon installed a ZenoGem® system followed by double-
pass reverse osmosis to treat the leachate and discharge
direct to the environment. The ZenoGem® system
operated at GM's Cadillac Luxury Car Division in
Mansfield, Ohio to treat 40,000 gallons per day of oily
wastewater from tooling, cooling tower blowdown, steam
cleaning booths, baler house, floor washing, and boiler
blowdown. The wastewater contained primarily
emulsified oil and grease, suspended solids, and heavy
metals.
The wastewater is directed through grit screens for gross
solids removal followed by free oil removal by corrugated
plated interceptors. The wastewater then flows to an
equalization tank and finally to the ZenoGem® bioreactor.
Urea and phosphoric acid are added as nutrient
supplements and sodium hydroxide is used to adjust the
PH.
The system was commissioned in 1992 and has
consistently met or exceeded discharge criteria as
illustrated in Table A-l. The ZenoGem® system is
particularly amenable to the treatment of oily wastewater
because the ultrafiltration membrane rejects the high-
molecular-weight oil and grease and keeps the material in
the bioreactor for the entire sludge retention time, not just
the hydraulic retention time like conventional clarifier
based activated sludge systems. This advantage allows
microorganisms more time to mineralize the oil and grease
and leads to an extremely high-quality effluent.
A.4.3 Closed-Loop, Zero-Discharge
ZenoGem7/RO System, Saltillo,
Mexico
Zenon designed, manufactured and installed a closed-
loop, zero-discharge system for Chrysler Mexico's engine
manufacturing plant in Saltillo, Mexico. The plant treats
as much as 40,000 gallons per day of oily wastewater of
sufficient quality that it can be recycled directly within the
plant. The ability to recycle wastewater is extremely
important in Saltillo as the fresh water is limited tp
groundwater. Continued discharge of even mildly
contaminated effluent would eventually seriously impact
the aquifer.
In the process, free oil is removed and the wastewater is
directed to the ZenoGem® system, where the oil and grease
and other organic fractions are removed. The
ultrafiltration permeate is then directed to a reverse
osmosis unit for polishing and removal of dissolved
inorganics and metals. The unit has been operating for
over 1 year, producing high-quality water for reuse in the
engine manufacturing plant.
Based on the performance data presented in Table A-2 the
ZenoGem® unit is extremely effective at the removal of
COD while the RO simply provides final polishing.
A.5 ZenoGem® Installations
The following table presents a summary of some of the
full-scale ZenoGem® installation that are operating on a
variety of different wastewaters worldwide.
61
-------
Table A-1. GM Mansfield ZenoGem® Performance
Parameters
Feed (mg/L)
ZenoGem®
Permeate (mg/L)
Discharge
Criteria (mg/L)
COD
BOD
TO&G
TPH
5539
-
1330
1220
631
91
15
9
200
50
35
Table A-2. Chrysler Mexico ZenoGem8/ RO Performance
Parameter
Feed
ZenoGem®
Permeate
RO
Permeate
COD
3100 mg/L
390 mg/L
7 mg/L
Table A-3. Summary of ZenoGem® Installations
Plant
GM Windsor, Ontario, Canada
GM Mansfield, Ohio, USA
Chrysler Mexico, Saltillo, Mexico
GM Ramos Arizipe, Mexico
Secifarma, Milan, Italy
Ferrero, Milan, Italy
Driesen Tannery, Netherlands
Recept Composting, Netherlands
Dectra Landfill, France
Oriick Industries, Ontario, Canada
IBM, Toronto, Ontario
Wastewater
Oily
Oily
Oily
Oily
Pharmaceutical
Food
Tannery
Leachate
Leachate
Oily
Spent Cleaner
Capacity
fapd)
260,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
32,000
27,000
26,000
7,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
62
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Field Data
63
-------
Table B-1. September Reid Measurements
TEMPERATURE (Degrees Celsius}
02-Sep-94
03-Sep-94
04-Sep-94
05-Sep-94
06-Sep-94
07-Sep-94
08-Sep-94
09-Sep-94
10-Sep-94
11-Sep-94
12-Sep-94
13-Sep-94
14-Sep-94
15-Sep-94
16-Sep-94
17-Sep-94
18-Sep-94
19-Sep-94
20-Sep-94.
21-Sep-94
22-Sep-94
23-Sep-94
24-Sep-94
25-Sep-94
26-Sep-94
27-Sep-94
28-Sep-94
29-Sep-94
26
24
25
26
28
28
27
28
29
27
26
26
28
27
26
26
25
27
24
NA
25
27
25
29
24
25
24
23
31
31
31
31
32
33
32
32
32
31
32
33
35
32
32
32
32
33
33
NA
32
33
31
31
29
30
32
31
30
31
31
31
32
33
32
32
33
32
32
34
35
32
32
32
32
33
33
NA
32
33
31
31
32
32
32
33
34
S4
31
30
31
31
32
33
32
32
33
32
31
33
35
32
33
32
33
33
32
NA
33
34
32
31
31
31
32
33
S1
6.39
6.34
6.41
6.23
6.28
6.27
6.22
6.14
5.92
6.13
6.21
6.28
6.17
6.30
5.86
6.01
5.94
6.17
6.32
NA
6.10
6.09
6.40
6.47
6.45
6.75
6.27
6.34
pH
S2
7.73
7.71
7.70
7.64
7.50
7.26
7.31
7.32
6.80
6.70
6.82
7.07
7.16
7.32
7.00
6.94
6.93
7.21
7.42
NA
7.18
7.14
7.30
7.32
7.22
7.34
7.06
6.94
6.79
S3
7.75
7.80
7.75
7.66
7.51
7.24
7.40
7.31
6.83
6.73
6.72
7.05
7.31
7.42
7.16
7.16
7.44
7.19
7.22
NA
7.33
7.29
7.34
7.45
7.26
7.59
7.16
7.20
6.93
S4
7.98
8.01
7.94
7.85
7.65
7.38
7.72
7.45
6.95
6.88
7.03
7.27
7.91
7.56
7.09
7.32
7.13
7.70
7.40
NA
7.50
7.51
7.44
7.58
7.56
7.84
7.31
7.29
7.04
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/L)
S1 S2 S3
8.10
4.70
2.30
2.80
1.90
1.90
1.90
2.00
2.00
1.40
1.70
2.30
1.60
3.60
3.40
3.80
3.00
3.00
4.50
NA
2.00
3.50
2.40
5.30
2.30
2.70
3.10
5.50
5.80
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.10
0.00
0.10
0.40
1.00
0.70
0.80
1.20
0.10
0.30
NA
0.30
0.90
1.00
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.70
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
2.00
0.50
1.40
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.80
0.80
1.00
0.00
0.50
NA
0.80
1.40
1.20
1.40
1.40
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.80
S4
8.20
5.20
5.60
5.70
5.00
4.00
4.50
4.50
2.50
2.50
3.90
2.30
2.50
6.00
4.60
2.90
4.00
3.20
3.70
NA
3.30
2.80
3.70
7.70
2.90
2.30
3.10
3.90
2.80
S = Sampling Port
-------
Table B-2. October Field Measurements
DATE
01-Oct-94
02-Oct-94
03-Oct-94
04-Oct-94
05-Oct-94
06-Oct-94
07-Oct-94
08-Oct-94
09-Oct-94
10-Oct-94
11-Oct-94
12-Oct-94
13-Oct-94
14-Oct-94
15-Oct-94
16-Oct-94
17-Oct-94
18-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
20-Oct-94
21-Oct-94
22-Oct-94
23-Oct-94
24-Oct-94
25-Oct-94
26-Oct-94
27-Oct-94
28-Oct-94
29-Oct-94
30-Oct-94
TEMPERATURE (degrees Celsius)
S1 S2 S3
24
25
23
23
22
26
28
23
23
23
25
20
22
23
23
21
22
22
23
22
24
24
26
25
24
24
22
22
25
25
32
34
32
31
29
28
31
30
31
31
28
29
31
30
31
34
34
33
33
34
33
32
34
33
31
31
26
27
34
31
33
34
32
32
30
30
31
31
33
32
29
30
32
30
33
35
35
34
35
34
34
32
35
34
35
32
33
34
33
34
S4
33
34
31
32
30
30
32
31
33
32
29
30
31
30
34
34
34
34
35
34
34
32
34
34
34
32
33
33
34
33
S1
6.36
6.48
6.92
6.34
5.76
6.08
6.21
6.08
6.05
6.04
6.28
6.67
6.74
6.62
6.72
6.18
6.42
6.44
6.34
6.44
6.40
-6.42
6.22
6.36
6.44
6.28
6.14
6.08
6.23
6.34
pH
S2
7.10
7.08
7.66
6.99
6.46
6.53
6.47
6.40
6.07
6.09
6.84
6.83
6.98
6.84
6.93
6.94
7.05
7.01
6.93
6.87
6.93
6.89
7.04
7.06
7.14
6.54
6.74
6.82
7.39
7.55
S3
7.10
7.20
7.73
7.32
6.73
6.82
6.93
6.70
6.80
6.92
6.97
6.71
7.08
6.96
7.10
7.00
7.00
7.07
6.99
7.03
7.04
7.01
7.10
7.15
7.26
6.94
7.15
7.12
7.47
7.52
S4
7.25
7.29
7.91
7.24
6.96
7.14
7.21
6.56
6.90
7.03
7.35
7.05
7.42
7.23
7.38
7.06
7.04
7.09
7.14
7.13
7.10
7.14
7.15
7.20
7.22
7.14
7.17
7.20
7.57
7.79
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/L)
3.60
3.10
5.00
4.70
3.90
3.60
3.80
3.50
4.20
3.40
3.20
4.60
3.60
3.60
4.20
5.50
2.70
3.60
3.20
3.60
3.80
2.80
3.70
2.80
5.60
3.30
3.07
3.02
3.30
3.60
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.80
0.70
0,60
0.70
0.00
0.10
0.60
0.80
0.90
0.80
0.00
0.70
0.70
0.40
0.70
0.90
0.70
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.50
0.70
0.10
0.00
0.80
0.60
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.90
1.00
0.60
0.00
0.90
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.60
0.40
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
1.40
2.00
2.50
2.40
4.10
2.90
2.70
2.00
3.20
2.20
1.20
2.50
2.40
4.20
3.20
3.80
0.70
1 10
1 * I v
2.40
4.10
4.10
3.10
2.00
3.20
7.70
3.90
1.22
1.62
5.30
3.50
S = Sampling Port
-------
Table B-3. November Reid Measurements
TEMPERATURE (Degrees Celsius)
PH
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/L)
S3
S4
S10
S1
S2
S3
S4
S10
DATE
OI-Nov-94
02-Nov-94
OS-Nov-94
04-Nov-94
05-Nov-94
OS-Nov-94
07-Nov-94
OS-Nov-94
09-Nov-94
IO-Nov-94
11-Nov-94
12-Nov-94
13-Nov-94
14-NOV-94
15-Nov-94
16-Nov-94
17-Nov-94
18-Nov-94
19-Nov-94
20-Nov-94
21-NOV-94
22-NOV-94
23-NOV-94
S1
23
22
22
28
24
24
21
22
25
23
22
21
24
23
24
23
23
22
24
36
21
22
24
sz
34
31
34
34
33
34
35
36
37
36
38
33
37
39
37
35
33
39
32
32
34
32
33
aj
35
32
34
34
34
35
36
37
37
37
38
36
39
39
40
33
37
39
39
37
38
36
36
39
33
34
34
33
34
36
38
39
37
37
37
39
39
39
38
36
39
39
36
38
36
35
22
• 40
20
32
24
33
10
13
12
5
6.40
6.35
6.45
6.31
6.47
6.50
6.16
6.17
6.15
6.38
6.03
6.14
6.22
6.53
6.61
6.33
6.44
6.36
6.36
6.50
6.46
6.30
6.36
7.37
7.21
7.29
7.58
7.23
7.32
7.29
7.46
7.47
7.76
7.51
7.57
7.67
7.85
7.96
7.92
7.94
7.81
7.41
7.52
7.83
7.28
7.75
7.41
7.21
7.32
7.52
7.25
7.35
7.31
7.50
7.52
7.82
7.54
7.65
7.69
7.79
8.02
8.00
7.98
7.84
7.79
7.72
7.98
7.33
7.80
7.42
7.26
7.44
7.65
7.30
7.35
7.34
7.60
7.59
7.83
7.63
7.66
7.84
7.94
8.03
8.07
8.05
7.98
7.81
7.74
8.05
7.38
7.96
MA
7.74
NA
7.75
NA
NA
7.72
NA
7.61
NA
7.81
NA
NA
7.91
NA
8.09
NA
8.21
NA
NA
8.18
NA
8.00
2.85
2.47
3.67
0.65
4.07
3.83
4.38
4.89
6.14
5.74
10.27
6.48
6.99
3.80
6.15
7.59
6.23
4.50
5.73
4.30
6.47
6.69
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.43
0.56
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.16
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.01
1.05
1.16
2:25
3.75
2.05
2.83
2.04
2.24
4.95
2.83
3.76
2.76
2.75
2.84
2.59
2.63
1.67
0.74
1.55
2.24
2.53
1.18
0.77
NA
1.93
NA
0.66
NA
NA
4.20
NA
6.10
NA
6.74
NA
NA
2.15
NA
5.08
NA
3.24
NA
NA
6.07
NA
3.09
S = Sampling Port
-------
Table B-4. Total Liquid Flow of Influent Stream (M1)
Date
02-Sep-94
03-Sep-94
04-Sep-94
05-Sep-94
06-Sep-94
07-Sep-94
08-Sep-94
09-Sep-94
10-Sep-94
l.l-Sep-94
12-Sep-94
13-Sep-94
14-Sep-94
15-Sep-94
16-Sep-94
17-Sep-94
18-Sep-94
19-Sep-94
20-Sep-94
21-Sep-94
22-Sep-94
23-Sep-94
24-Sep-94
25-Sep-94
26-Sep-94
27-Sep-94
28-Sep-94
29-Sep-94
30-Sep-94
Ol-Oct-94
02-Oct-94
03-Oct-94
04-Oct-94
05-Oct-94
06-Oct-94
07-Oct-94
08-Oct-94
09-Oct-94
10-Oct-94
ll-,Oct-94
12-Oct-94
13-Oct-94
14-Oct-94
15-Oct-94
16-Oct-94
17-Oct-94
Pump Reading (percent gpm)
07:00 am 11:00 am 3:00 am
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.26
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
, 0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Average
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.253
0.250
0.250
0.257
0.260
0.260
0.257
0.260
0.260
0.260
0
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
Calculated Flow Daily Flow
(anm)* (Liters)
0.692
0.692
0.692
0.692
0.692
0.692
0.360
• 0.360
0.360
0.361
0.360
0.360
0.363
0.364
0.364
0.363
0.364
0.364
0.364
0
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
3,772
3,772
3,772
3,772
3,772
3,772
1,961
1,961
1,961
1,969
1,961
1,961
1,977
1,985
1,985
1,977
1,985
1,985
1,985
0
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
1,985
Daily Flow
996
996
996
996
996
996
518
518
518
520
518
518
522
524
524
522
524
524
524
0
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
67
-------
Table B-4. Total Liquid Flow of Influent Stream (M1) (continued)
Pump Reading (percent gpm)
Date 07:00 am 11:00 am 3:00 am
18-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
20-Oct-94
21-Oct-94
22-Oct-94
23-Oct-94
24-Oct-94
25-Oct-94
26-Oct-94
27-Oct-94
28-Oct-94
29-Oct-94
30-Oct-94
31-Oct-94
Ol-Nov-94
02-Nov-94
03-Nov-94
04-Nov-94
05-Nov-94
06-Nov-94
07-Nov-94
08-Nov-94
09-Nov-94
10-Nov-94
ll-Nov-94
12-Nov-94
13-Nov-94
14-Nov-94
15-Nov-94
16-Nov-94
17-Nov-94
18-Nov-94
19-Nov-94
20-Nov-94
21-Nov-94
22-Nov-94
23-Nov-94
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.18
0.18
0.41
0.41
0
16
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.2
0.26
0.18
0.18
0.41
0.41
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.2
0.18
0.18
0.41
0.41
0
0
Calculated Flow Daily Flow Daily Flow
Average (gpm)* (Liters) (gallons)
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.240
0.240
0.1 8Q
0.180
0.410
0.410
0.000
5.333
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.355
0.355
0.329
0.329
0.431
0.431
0.000
2.612
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1937
1937
1792
1792
2347
2347
0
6228
175,831
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
524
512
512
473
473
620
620
0
1645
46,455
68
-------
Table B-5. Total Liquid Flow of Effluent Stream (M4)
Date
02-Sep-94
03-Sep-94
04-Sep-94
05-Sep-94
06-Sep-94
07-Sep-94
08-Sep-94
09-Sep-94
10-Sep-94
ll-Sep-94
12-Sep-94
13-Sep-94
14-Sep-94
15-Sep-94
16-Sep-94
17-Sep-94
18-Sep-94
19-Sep-94
20-Sep-94
21-Sep-94
22-Sep-94
23-Sep-94
24-Sep-94
25-Sep-94
26-Sep-94
27-Sep-94
28-Sep-94
29-Sep-94
30-Sep-94
Ol-Oct-94
02-Oct-94
03-Oct-94
04-Oct-94
05-Oct-94
06-Oct-94
07-Oet-94
08-Oct-94
09-Oct-94
10-Oct-94
ll-Oct-94
12-Oct-94
13-Oct-94
14-Oct-94
15-Oct-94
16-Oct-94
17-Oct-94
Pump
7:00 am
0.5
0.53
0.54
0.53
0.33
0.1
0.1
1.04
1.06
0.88
0.78
0.67
0.69
0.64
0.5
0.58
0.6
0.58
0.52
0
0.5
0.58
0.55
0.53
0.55
0.52
0.43
0.36
0.47
0.47
0.48
0.47
0.52
0.52
0.41
0.42
0.39
0.36
0.39
0.31
0.45
0.45
0.48
0.53
0.57
0.53
Reading
11:00 am
0.51
0.555
0.53
0.5
0.28
0.1
0.1
1.12
0.97
0.89
0.77
0.69
0.64
0.6
0.58
0.6
0.6
0.54
0.5
0
0.49
0.49
0.58
0.56
0.47
0.53
0.4
0.32
0.41
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.48
0.42
0.42
0.38
0.36
0.42
0
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.55
0.53
0.53
(gpm)
3:00 am
0.47
0.52
0.53
0.52
0.26
0.1
0.1
1.06
0.98
0.89
0.69
0.67
0.65
0.65
0.6
0.58
0.6
0.52
0.48
0
0.48
0.48
0.58
0.55
0.54
0.58
0.39
0
0.43
0.47
0.46
0.5
0.42
0.46
0.44
0.46
0.4
0.46
0.43
0.76
0.45
0.58
0.51
0.5
0.54
0.53
Average Flow
(gpm)
0.49
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.29
0.10
0.10
1.07
1.00
0.89
0.75
0.68
0.66
0.63
0.56
0.59
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.00
0.49
0.52
0.57
0.55
0.52
0.54
0.41
0.34
0.44
0.47
0.47
0.48
0.47
0.49
0.42
0.43
0.39
0.39
0.41
0.54
0.45
0.50
0.48
0.53
0.55
0.53
Calculated
Flow (gpm)*
0.485
0.526
0.524
0.508
0.285
0.098
0.098
1.055
0.986
0.872
0.734
0.665
0.649
0.619
0.550
0.577
0.590
0.537
0.491
0.000
0.482
0.508
0.560
0.537
0.511
0.534
0.400
0.334
0.429
0.462
0.462
0.469
0.459
0.478
0.416
0.426
0.383
0.387
0.406
0.526
0.442
0.488
0.475
0.518
0.537
0.521
Daily Flow
(Liters)
2643
2866
2857
2768
1554
536
536
5750
5375
4750
4000
3625
3536
3375
3000
3143
3214
2929
2679
0
2625
2768
3054
2929
2786
2911
2179
1821
2339
2518
2518
2554
2500
2607
2268
2322
2089
2107
2214
2866
2411
2661
2589
2822
2929
2839
Daily Flow
(Gallons)
698
757
755
731
410
142
142
1519
1420
1255
1057
958
934
892
793
830
849
774
708
0
694
731
807
774
736
769
576
481
618
665
665
675
661
689
599
613
552
557
585
757
637
703
684
745
774
750
69
-------
Table B-5. Total Liquid Flow of Effluent Stream (M4) (continued)
Pump Reading (gpm) Average Flow
Date 7:00 am 11:00 am 3:00 am (gpm)
18-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
20-Oct-94
21-Oct-94
22-Oct-94
23-Oct-94
24-Oct-94
25-Oct-94
26-Oct-94
27-Oct-94
28-Oct-94
29-Oct-94
30-Oct-94
31-Oct-94
Ol-Nov-94
02-Nov-94
03-Nov-94
04-Nov-94
05-Nov-94
06-Nov-94
07-Nov-94
08-Nov-94
09-Nov-94
lO-Nov-94
ll-Nov-94
12-Nov-94
13-Nov-94
14-Nov-94
15-Nov-94
16-Nov-94
17-Nov-94
18-Nov-94
19-Nov-94
20-Nov-94
21-Nov-94
22-Nov-94
23-Nov-94
0.45
0.49
0.46
0.49
0.5
0.53
0.5
0.51
0.51
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.54
0.66
0.79
0.8
0.81
0.73
0.78
0.69
0.88
0.95
1
0.97
1.02
1.01
1.02
0.99
0.7
0.95
0.96
1.06
1.02
0.94
0.75
0.7
0.42
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.52
0.51
0.49
0.5
0.5
0.56
0.55
0.59
0.68
0.77
0.8
0.79
0.79
0.77
0.76
0.87
0.97
0.98
0.99
1.01
1.01
1.04
1.03
0.85
0.98
0.92
1.09
0.91
0.9
0.69
0.52
0.41
0.47
0.45
0.44
0.48
0.52
0.51
0.5
0.49
0.5
0.51
0.51
0.54
0.61
0.71
0.8
0.81
0.76
0.73
0.8
0.82
0.91
0.99
1
0
1.03
0.94
1.03
0.92
0.83
1
0.95
1.04
1.01
0.77
0.69
0.4
0
0.47
0.47
0.45
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.53
0.54
0.58
0.68
0.79
0.80
0.79
0.75
0.78
0.76
0.89
0.97
0.99
0.98
1.02
0.99
1.03
0.98
0.79
0.98
0.94
1.06
0.98
0.87
0.71
0.54
0.42
Calculated
Flow (gpm)*
0.459
0.462
0.446
0.472
0.491
0.511
0.495
0.488
0.495
0.495
0.521
0.534
0.570
0.672
0.773
0.790
0.773
0.737
0.770
0.744
0.872
0.953
0.976
0.963
1.003
0.970
1.012
0.963
0.780
0.960
0.927
1.045
0.963
0.855
0.698
0.531
0.408
Daily Flow
(Liters)
2500
2518
2429
2572
2679
2786
2697
2661
2697
2697
2839
2911
3107
3661
4215
4304
4215
4018
4197
4054
4750
5197
5322
5250
5465
5286
5518
5250
4250
5233
5054
5697
5250
4661
3804
2893
2223
270,221
Daily Flow
(Gallons)
661
665
642
679
708
736
712
703
712
712
750
769
821
967
1113
1137
1113
1062
1109
1071
1255
1373
1406
1387
1444
1397
1458
1387
1123
1382
1335
1505
1387
1231
1005
764
587
71,392
70
-------
Table B-6. Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)
Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)
DATE
07-Sep-94
14-Sep-94
05-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
02-Nov-94
09-Nov-94
16-Nov-94
23-NOV-94
S1
530
170
319
335
257
258
NA
330
S2
2
-510
-62.5
NA
-94
NA
NA
195
S3
-37
-470
NA
NA
-101
-108
NA
120
S4
170
230
282
266
252
242
NA
227
S10
NA
NA
NA
NA
246
224
NA
360
S = Sampling Port
71
-------
Appendix C
Summary of Analytical Data
72
-------
Table C-1. MMA Analytical Results - September
DATE
S1
S2
S3
S4
02-Sep-94
03-Sep-94
04-Sep-94
05-Sep-94
06-Sep-94
07-Sep-94
08-Sep-94
09-Sep-94
10-Sep-94
ll-Sep-94
12-Sep-94
13-Sep-94
14-Sep-94
15-Sep-94
16-Sep-94
17-Sep-94
18-Sep-94
19-Sep-94
20-Sep-94
21-Sep-94
22-Sep-94
23-Sep-94
24-Sep-94
25-Sep-94
26-Sep-94
27-Sep-94
28-Sep-94
29-Sep-94
30-Sep-94
1430
NA
1470
1300
1630
1810
1950
1660
NA
1370
1600
1550
1860
2160
567
NA
2250
2580
NA
2340
2740
2300
NA
2450
2080
2460
2290
2890
3630
O.020
NA
NA
O.100
NA
0.009
NA
0.017
NA
NA
15.600
NA
<0.020
NA
<0.100
NA
NA
0.020
NA
NA
NA
<0.020
NA
NA
<0.020
NA
O.020
NA
<0.040
<0.020
NA
NA
O.I 00
NA
0.251
NA
0.325
NA
NA
18.800
NA
<0.020
NA
0.200
NA
NA
O.020
NA
NA
NA
0.020
NA
NA
O.020
NA
0.020
NA
O.040
0.324
NA
0.029
0.062
0.073
0.287
0.086
0.477
NA
11.600
16.800
7.270
0.007
0.015
O.010
NA
0.010
0.010
NA
O.010
O.010
O.010
NA
0.018
0.010
O.010
O.020
0.065
O.010
NA
NA
.NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA •
NA
NA
NA
NA
< = Less than the reported value.
Reported value is the Detection Limit.
S = Sampling Port
73
-------
Table C-2. MMA Analytical Results - October
S1
S2
S3
S4
S10
02-Oct-94
03-Oct-94
04-Oct-94
05-Oct-94
06-Oct-94
07-Oct-94
08-Oct-94
09-Oct-94
10-Oct-94
ll-Oct-94
12-Oct-94
13-Oct-94
14-Oct-94
15-Oct-94
16-Oct-94
17-Oct-94
18-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
20-Oct-94
21-Oct-94
22-Oct-94
23-Oct-94
24-Oct-94
25-Oct-94
26-Oct-94
27-Oct-94
28-Oct-94
29-Oct-94
30-Oct-94
1760
1690
1960
1890
1440
1600
NA
1600
1840
1680
1650
1820
1740
NA
1790
1910
1760
1560
1980
1780
NA
1900
2410
2620
2120
2340
2220
NA
2150
2210
NA
<0.040
NA
<0.040
NA
O.020
NA
NA
<0.020
NA
<0.020
NA
<0.020
NA
NA
O.020
NA
O.020
NA
O.020
NA
NA
<0.020
NA
O.100
NA
<0.020
NA
NA
<0.020
NA
<0.040
NA
<0.040
NA
<0.020
NA
NA
<0.020
NA
O.020
NA-
<0.040
NA
NA
O.020
NA
<0.020
NA
O.020
NA
NA
<0.020
NA
O.100
NA
<0.020
NA
NA
O.040
0.050
<0.010
<0.010
O.010
O.010
<0.010
NA
<0.015
<0.010
O.010
<0.010
<0.007
<0.010
NA
O.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
NA
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
NA
<0.020
<0.020
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.288
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.020
<0.020
NA
NA
<0.020
< = Less than the reported value.
Reported value is the Detection Limit.
S = Sampling Port
74
-------
Table C-3. MMA Analytical Results - November
DATE
TIME*
S1
S2
S3
S4
S10
Ol-Nov-94
02-Nov-94
03-Nov-94
04-Nov-94
05-Nov-94
06-Nov-94
07-Nov-94
08-Nov-94 800
08-Nov-94 1000
08-Nov-94 1200
08-Nov-94 1400
09-Nov-94
10-Noy-94
ll-Nov-94
12-Nov-94
13-Nov-94
14-Nov-94
15-Nov-94
16-Nov-94
17-Nov-94
18-Nov-94
19-Nov-94
20-Nov-94
21-Nov-94
22-Nov-94
23-Nov-94
1890
2060
2120
2220
NA
2050
2360
2020
7480
6500
7140
6220
9240
6480
NA
7110
7420
7830
8640
7470
7690
NA
9450
8420
9500
9090
NA
O.020
NA
<0.100
NA
NA
<0.050
<0.020
<0.020
0.011
<0.050
<0.100
NA
<0.040
NA
NA
<0.200
NA
<0.050
NA
O.020
NA
NA
<0.010
NA
0.011 J
NA
O.020
NA
<0.100
NA
NA
<0.100
<0.020
<0.040
<0.040
<0.400
<0.100
NA
<0.100
NA
NA
0.013 J
NA
0.002 J
NA
O.050
NA
NA
<0.025
NA
<0.006 J
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
NA
<0.010
O.100
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
NA
0.005
<0.010
0.004
<0.010
0.005
<0.010
NA
0.004
0.005
0.123
0.021
NA
O.010
NA
<0.010
NA
NA
<0.010
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.010
NA
<0.010
NA
NA
0.005
NA
<0.010
NA
<0.010
NA
NA
0.005
NA
O.010
< = Less than the reported value.
Reported value is the Detection Limit.
* = Shock Loading
S = Sampling Port
75
-------
Table C-4. TCL VOC Concentrations - September
DETECTED TCLVOC
COMPOUNDS (uolL)
SAMPLING LOCATION SI
Methytone chloride
Trichkxoethylene
Benzen*
Toluene
SAMPLING LOCATION S2
Mettyteoe chloride
Acetone
Trichtoroethylene
MethyHs^butyl ketone
Mettiyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
SAMPLING LOCATION S3
Methytone chloride
Acetone
Tnchtoroethytene
MelhyHso-outyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
SAHPUNQ LOCATION S4
Melhylene chloride
Trichtoroethylene
MethyHso-butyl ketone
Mettiyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
2.500U
2.500U
2.500U
2.500U
4.71J
218
5.0U
SOU
26.1J
S.OU
S.OU
5.40
270
5.0U
SOU
39.4J
S.OU
5.0U
5.50
S.OU
SOU
100U
5.0U
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SET
10.000U
S.OOOU
S.OOOU
S.OOOU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.86
S.OU
SOU
100U
5.0U
5.0U
636
852
282J
500U
25U
591
25U
250U
500U
25U
25U
15.5J
1,070
25U
250U
500U
25U
25U
8.85
1.75J
SOU
1GOU
5.0U
S.OU
618
905
279J
105J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.6
5.0U
SOU
100U
5.0U
S.OU
TOWER
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
14.1
26.3J
3.48J
9.15J
41 .4J
1.85J
1.23J
14.2
28.8J
3.37J
9.88J
38.6J
1.73J
5.0U
16.6
10U
100U
28.2J
10U
10U
OS-Seo.94
100.000U
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.31
5.0U
SOU
100U
S.OU
5.0U
09-S«p-94 10-Sep-M
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
8.87
100U
2.20J
6.S2J
100U
S.OU
0.922J
9.39
21.5J
2.32J
9.30J
100U
S.OU
5.0U
9.61
S.OU
3.4SJ
100U
S.OU
1.41J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11-S«p-94
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.4,1
SOU
500U
1.000U
SOU
SOU
12.Sep.94
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
32.0J
1,OOOJ
50J
soou
67.2J
SOU
SOU
23.6J
1.000U
sou
20.5J
1.000U
SOU
SOU
500U
SOOU
S.OOOU
10.000U
soou
soou
1M»M
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
250U
2SOU
2.500U
S.OOOU
250U
250U
1+Sec-94
10.000U
10.000U
10.000U
10.000U
S.OU
100U
S.OU
10.2J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
6.28
100U
S.OU
4.58J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
9.73
Z07J
SOU
100U
S.OU
•5.0U
IS^ep-94
10.000U
10.000U
10.000U
10.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.22
2.02J
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
J * Estimated Concentration (also used when compound is detected beta* quantitatkm limit)
U « Not Detected (detection «raH reported)
S > Sampling port
-------
Table C-4. TCL VOC Concentrations - September (continued)
SEPTEMBER
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION S1
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
ToHiene
SAMPLING LOCATION S2
Mefliylene chloride
Acetone
Trichloroethylene
MethyMso-butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
SAMPLING LOCATION S3
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Trichloroethylene
Methyl-lso-butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
SAMPLING LOCATION S4
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
MethyHso-butylketona
Methyl ethyl kelone
Benzene
Toluene
SAMPLING LOCATION S10 - Not Analyzed
16-SCP-94
SOOJ
500U
SOOU
SOOU
23.8
SOU
S.OU
4S.OJ
SOU
22U
30U
SOU
1.000U
SOU
SOOU
1.000U
sou
sou
11.2
s.ou
sou
100U
S.OU
S.OU
17-Sep-94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1£Sep-94
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
141
SOU
63.5J
1,00011
SOU
SOU
19-Sep-94
100,0001)
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
8.40
28.9J
S.OU
SOU
toou
5.0U
5.0U
9.14
76.3J
S.OU
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
16.0
3.66J
SOU
100U
0.96 8J
S.OU
20-Ser>-94
100.000U
100.000U
too.ooou
100.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.59
S.OU
SOU
100U
S.OU
5.0U
21-SC0-94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22-Sep-94
S.OOOU
S.OOOU
S.OOOU
S.OOOU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•s.ou
5.DU
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
23-SCP-94
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
3.88J
100U
S.OU
10.3J
100UJ
S.OU
S.OU
5.47
100U
S.OU
12.5J
100UJ
5.0U
S.OU
5.0U
5.0U
SOU
100UJ
5.0U
S.OU
24-Sep-9*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25-S«p.94
100.000U
100.000U
10D.OOOU
100.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.4
5.0U
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
100.000U
100,00011
100.000U
loo.ooou
7.81
10U
1.0U
26.3
10U
4.4U
6.0U
7.36
100U
S.OU
13.1J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
7.60
S.OU
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
100.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.66
5.0U
SOU
100U
5.0U
S.OU
too.ooou
100.000U
100,OOOU
100.000U
3.33J
100U
S.OU
23.3J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
5.41
100U
S.OU
8.79J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
9.90
S.OU
SOU
100U
S.OU
5.0U
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
so.ooou
so.ooou
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.12
S.OU
4.57J
100U
S.OU
5.0U
11.0
74.0J
10U
34.SJ
5.34J
10U
10U
13.1
117J
10U
42.2J
200U
10U
1.54J
11.8
2.65J
SOU
100U
5.0U
1.3BU
J * Estimated Conccntralion (also used whan compound Is delected below quanttafion limn)
U = Not Delected (delection limil reported)
s * Sampling Port
-------
Table C-5. TCL VOC Concentrations - October
DETECTED VOC
COMPOUNDS IJJg/L)
SAMPLING LOCATION SI
Mffthyl cbtoricto
Methytofwchlorfdt
o+p-Xyfenei
SAMPLING LOCATION S2
Melilytow chloride
Acetone
Trichtofoethylene
MethyHso-butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Methyl cWoridfl
SAMPLING LOCATION S3
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Trichkxoettiylene
MethyHso-butylkelone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Mettiyl chloride
SAMPLING LOCATION S4
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Trichloroethylene
MethyHso-butylketona
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
Chloroform
Elhylbenzene
Styrene
SAMPLING LOCATION S10
Methylene Chloride
1.1,2,2-Telrachloroethane
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15,300
25.000U
25.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.93J
100U
S.OU
SOU
1COU
S.OU
0.604J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
SO.OOOU
2S.OOOU
25.000U
5.34J
200U
10U
24.1J
200U
10U
20U
6.6J
52.6J
10U
17.9J
200U
10U
20U
6.49
101
5.0U
14.7J
29.8J
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.08
100U
3.41J
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
OC1
******
50,00011
25,00011
25.000U
"10U
137J
3.13J
17.4J
200U
10U
20U
8.30J
200U
10U
22.3J
200U
10U
2.69J
8.56
100U
2.95J
SOU
1DOU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
NA
NA
[OmSK
c*oct-94
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.6
100U
3.98J
SOU
100U
S.OU
0.744J
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
NA
NA
07-Oet-M Dt-Oct'S4
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
3.07J
29.SJ
5.0U
8.36J
100U
5.0U
3.27J
2.21J
61.2J
S.OU
11.7J
2.20J
S.OU
2.21J
3.35J
100U
S.OU
SOU
100U
5.0U
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
W-Oct-M
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.5
100U
3.14J
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
lrj-Od-J4
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
7.35
83.40
1.91J
SOU
100U
S.OU
10U
6.44
99.3J
2.1 9 J
SOU
100U
5.0U
10U
6.85
100U
233J
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
11-Oet-M
SO.OOOU
25.000U
14,400J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
S.OU
100U
5.0U
SOU
100U
5.0U
1.57J
14.0
5.0U
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
12-Oct-M
SO.OOOU
25.000U
2S.OOOU
7.23
223
4.19J .
6.13J
56.6J
1.44J
10U
7.17
382
4.33J
6.90J
60.SJ
1.47J
10U
7.33
100U
3.95J
SOU
100U
S.OU
1.37J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
IMJct-W
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.14
100U
2.97J
SOU
100U
S.OU
1.01J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
140CH4
SO.OOOU
25,0000
25.0000
5.0U
482
Z70J
13.SJ
82.5J
1.93J
10U
5.03
365
3.13J
9.64J
78.8J
2.05J
20U
4.45J
100U
3.47J
SOU .
100U
S.OU
2.74J
S.OU
2.12J
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
J = Estimated Concentration (also used when compound is detected below quantitatton limit)
U = Not Detected (detection limit reported)
S = Sampling Port
-------
Table C-5. TCL VOC Concentrations - October (continued)
DETECTED VOC
COMPOUNDS (ugll)
DATE
Methyl chloride
Methylene chloride
o»pXylenes
SAMPLING LOCATION S2
Methylene chkxide
Acetone
Trichloroelfiylene
Methyl bo butyl kelone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Methyl chloride
SAMPLING LOCATION 33
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Trichloroethylene
MethyHsWxityl fcetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Methyl chloride
SAMPLING LOCATION 34
Methyfcne chloride
Acetone
Trichloroethylene
MethyHso-butyl kelone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
Chloroform
Bhylbenzene
Slyrene
SAMPLING LOCATION 510
Methylene Chloride
1,1^-TttmcMomthiine
Toluene
1SJM-I4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1«*t-M
50.000U
25.000U
25.0000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.03
100U
5.00
SOU
1000
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
5.00
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
17.0CM4
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
6.11
2,660
4.20J
8.32J
349
5.0U
10U
(.45
1,300
4.66J
10.1J
159
Lew
10U
6.01
100U
4.52J
sou
100U
S.OU
2.03J
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
SO.OOOU
25.000U
25.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.02
100U
4.41J
SOU
100U
S.OU
2.05J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
1l-Oct-l4
100,0000
50,0000
so,ooou
7.40
71.1J
3.61J
4S.7J
1000
2.12J
100
7.03
161
2.96J
30.2J
21.0J
1.85J
100
757
100U
3.51J
SOU
100U
S.OU
3.11J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
— a*_
JB-OCW4
100.000U
50.0000
50.000O
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.06
100U
4.21J
SOU
1000
5.00
2.17J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
7.53
S.OU
S.OU
OCTOBER
100.000U
SO.OOOU
SO.OOOU
6.49
45.2J
2.81J
45.5J
100U
5.0U
10U
5.77
140
2.60J
53.9
100U
2.05J
10U
5.72
100U
2.75J
SOU
1000
S.OU
1.76J
5.00
S.OU
5.00
NA
NA
"*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100,OQOU
50,0000
SO.OOOU
S2
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
4.99J
100U
2.02J
SOU
100U
S.OU
0.770J
5.00
S.OU
5.00
NA
NA
200.000U
100.0000
100,0000
5.10
S5.7J
2.SOJ
27.0J
1000
S.OU
100
5.23
7S.5J
2.73J
31.8J
100U
O.B16J
too
4.62J
1000
2.SSJ
SOU
1000
S.OO
5.00
S.OU
5.00
5.00
NA
NA
200.0000
100,0000
100,OOOU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.4
100U
6.15
SOU
100U
1.30J
2.31J
S.OO
S.OU
2.36J
NA
NA
100.000U
SO.OOOU
50,0000
25U
3,050
250
250U
1,000
250
SOU
250
769
250
250U
500U
25U
SOU
6.68
100U
3.30J
SOU
1000
5.0U
5.00
S.OU
S.OU
5.00
NA
NA
200.000U
100.000U
100.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.9t
100U
3.67J
SOU
100U
S.OU
1.0SJ
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
1.14J
200.000U
100,0000
100.0000
6.18
304
2.SSJ
14.4J
4>.5J
S.OO
10U
6.14
256
2.43J
10.5J
37.4J -
5.00
100
6.16
1000
2.62J
SOU
1000
5.0U
5.00
S.OU
5.00
5.00
S.OU
5.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
200,0000
100,0000
100.000U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.97J
1000
5.0U
SOU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OO
S.OU
NA
NA
S.OU
314
5.00
SOU
62.4J
5.0U
10U
10U
864
10U
100U
200U
2.03J
20U
S.OU
100U
S.OO
SOU
1.33J
SOU
1.58J
S.OU
S.OO
S.OU
5.00
S.OU
J • EsUnuMd Concentntton (also usad whwi
U « Not Detected (dotedton fci* reported)
S « StrnpfcTflPort
compound b dctectod below quinUtUon Hm«)
-------
Table C-6. TCL VOC Concentrations - November
NOVEMBER
DETECTED VOC
COMPOUNDS (M9/L)
SAMPLING LOCATION SI - Not delected
SAMPLING LOCATION S2
MithyHnecHoflde
Acetone
Trichtoreethylene
MilhyHio-butyl ketone
U.Jiyf ethyl ketone
BMIZMM
Ethybenzene
Styrene
Chlorobenzene
Carton d&uWe
SAMPLING LOCATION S3
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Trichkmethylene
MethyHsc-butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Benzene
Stvrene
Carbon dteutfide
SAMPLING LOCATION S4
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Trichtooetfiytena
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
m+p-Xylenes
SAMPLING LOCATION S10
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketorw
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.39J
100U
UOJ
100U
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
02.HOT.M
8.48
130
1.40J
7.S7J
22.5J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
4.25J
171
S.OU
11.4J
100U
SOU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
2.68J
100U
1.45J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
100U
100U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.27
100U
1.76U
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
2SU
1,000
25U
250U
98.9J
25U
25U
25U
ZSU
25U
SOOU
2SU
1,070
ZSU
250U
SOOU
25U
2SU
25U
SOOU
3.16J
100U
S.OU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
s.ou
100U
100U
100U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<*#»**
NA
NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.83J
100U
5.0U
100U
1.01J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
12.3J
873
13U
130U
2SOU
13U
3.I3J
13U
13U
13U
250U
2SU
587
2SU
250U
SOOU
4.S3J
ZSU
25U
SOOU
12.2
100U
5.24
100U
2.93J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
100U
MO
12.0
946
4.15J
SOU
43.8J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
11.3
489
3.83J
8.18J
151
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
11.3
100U
3.89J
100U
2.96J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
100U
OtNov-M TIME4
1000
22.8
115
9.73
SOU
100U
S.OU
ZiSJ
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
25.9
269
11.0
100U
200U
1.89J
10U
10U
200U
22.6
100U
103
100U
2.23J
5.0U
S.OU
5.0U
5.0U
100U
100U
1200
229
10.5J
S7.3J
4.52J
8.09
S.OU
3.68J
S.OU
100U
48.9
207
20.1
100U
200U
6.24J
S.04J
2.08J
200U
46.9
33.2J
19.7
48.8J
6.61
4.61J
S.OU
9.33
5.0U
100U
100U
100U
1400
13.6
878
13U
130U
71.5J
13U
NO
NO
ND
NO
100U
100U
2,100
100U
1.000U
2.000U
100U
100U
100U
2.00U
14.9
100U
3.48J
100U
2.13J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
100U
100U
OWtov-M
ZSU
(48
ZSU
250U
ZSU
ZSU
ZSU
ZSU
ZSU
SOOU
sou
1,450
SOU
SOOU
1.000U
sou
sou
sou
1.000U
4.51J
100U
S.OU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
5.0U
S.OU
100U
100U
100U
10-Nov-M
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.4
100U
5.02
100U
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
s.ou
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
J x Estimated Concentration (also used when compound Is detected betow quantftttion lit*)
U - Not Detected (detection Imtt reported)
• = Shock Load
S * Sampling Port
-------
Table C-6. TCL VOC Concentrations - November (continued)
NOVEMBER
DETECTED VOC
COMPOUNDS (mg/L)
DATE
11-Nov.94
12-NOV-94
13JJOV-94
SAMPLING LOCATION S2
Methytene chloride
Acetone
Trichtoraethylent
MethyHso-butyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Chtorobenzene
Caibon disulfide
SAMPLING LOCATION S3
Methytene chloride
Acetone
Tnchtoroethytene
MettijHso-butyl kclone
Methyl ethyl katona
Tolueno
Benzene
Styrene
Caibon disulflde
SAMPLING LOCATION 54
Methytone chloride
Acetone
Trichtoroethylene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
Benzene
Ethyibenzene
Styrene
m+p-Xytenes
SAMPLING LOCATION S10
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Caibon disulfide
10.9
410
10U
100U
200U
10U
10U
10U
lou
10U
2QOU
25U
771
2SU
•250U
500U
25U
2SU
25U
500U
11.6
100U
3.84J
100U
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
100U
100U
100U
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.3
100U
3.26J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
NA
NA
SOU
2,010
SOU
500U
280J
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
1.000U
8.47
1,160
S.OU
SOU
123
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
1.53J
7.63
100U
S.OU
100U
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
5.0U
S.OU
100U
100U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.7
100U
4.11J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
1.58J
NA
NA
9.61J
541
13U
130U
303
13U
13U
13U
13U
13U
2.19J
11.1
150
3.18J
20.3J
8.91J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
1.9SJ
12.2
100U
3.43J
100U
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.1
ioou
3.S1J
100U
5.0U
5.0U
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
NA
NA
12.6
762
4.11J
SOU
269
1.0(1
2.01
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
3.06J
13.0
794
S.93J
100U
312
1.99J
10U
10U
3.35J
13.6
100U
4.79J
100U
1.S4J
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
100U
100U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.1
100U
4.49J ,
9.58J
1.44J
S.OU
S.OU
5.0U
S.OU
NA
NA
10U
444
10U
100U
200U
10U
2.11J
10U
10U
10U
2.64J
11.4J
690
25U
250U
160J
2SU
2SU
25U
SOOU
8.33
100U
2.57J
4.14J
1.74J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
100U
100U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
60.9
100U
22.9
ioou
7.67
7.54
2.19J
16.4
S.OU
ND
ND
25U
576
2SU
250U
107J
25U
25U
25U
2SU
2SU
2.91J
10U
322
10U
100U
50.7J
10U
10U
10U
3.16J
S.OU
100U
S.OU
29.1J
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
S.OU
29.1J
8.46J
J » Estimated Concentration (also used when compound Is detected below quanetafon limit)
U = Not Detected (detection limit reported)
S = SampBnjPort
-------
Table C-7. COD Analytical Results - September (mg/kg)
S2
S3
S4
S10
02-Sep-94
03-Sep-94
04-Sep-94
05-Sep-94
06-Sep-94
07-Sep-94
08-Sep-94
09-Sep-94
10-Sep-94
ll-Sep-94
12-Sep-94
13-Sep-94
14-Sep-94
15-Sep-94
16-Sep-94
17-Sep-94
18-Sep-94
19-Sep-94
20-Sep-94
21-Sep-94
22-Sep-94
23-Sep-94
24-Sep-94
25-Sep-94
26-Sep-94
27-Sep-94
28-Sep-94
29-Sep-94
4,280
NA
NA
2,750
3,820
2,990
3,970
4,310
NA
3,740
4,140
4,140
3,680
5,380
1,490
NA
6,510
6,890
NA
NA
6,680
7,380
NA
6,920
6,760
6,990
13,600
4,150
7,450
453
NA
NA
95
75
974
NA
812
NA
NA
2,360
NA
2,130
NA
4,010
NA
NA
9,243
NA
NA
NA
6,310
NA
NA
14,100
NA
14,200
NA
8,892
257
NA
NA
367
3,500
1,040
NA
852
NA
NA
2,360
NA
1,810
NA
10,000
NA
NA
746
NA
NA
NA
5,620
NA
NA
13,400
NA
14,000
NA
14,388
84
NA
NA
153
142
550
111
852
NA
809
863
600
501
256
321
NA
120
390
NA
NA
909
1,160
NA
437
444
922
460
470
888
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
S = Sampling Port
82
-------
Table C-8. COD Analytical Results - October (mg/kg)
DATE
S1
S2
S3
S4
S10
02-Oct-94
03-Oct-94
04-Oct-94
05-Oct-94
06-Oct-94
07-Oct-94
08-Oct-94
09-Oct-94
10-Oct-94
ll-Oct-94
12-Oct-94
13-Oct-94
14-Oct-94
15-Oct-94
16-Oct-94
17-Oct-94
18-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
20-Oct-94
21-Oct-94
22-Oct-94
23-Oct-94
24-Oct-94
25-Oct-94
26-Oct-94
27-Oct-94
28-Oct-94
29-Oct-94
30-Oct-94
31-Oct-94
5,183
4,880
4,518
4,497
4,040
2,932
NA
5,380
4,700
4,910
5,170
4,960
5,450
NA
4,500
5,410
4,600
4,830
NA
4,450
NA
2,430
6,060
6,340
6,140
5,820
5,910
NA
5,060
5,200
NA
9,752
NA
11,140
NA
13,740
NA
NA
7,250
NA
15,100
NA
18,800
NA
NA
2,910
NA
19,200
NA
11,300
NA
NA
19,700
NA
20,400
NA
19,400
NA
NA
9,530
NA
11,910
NA
11,850
NA
14,930
NA
NA
8,970
NA
12,400
NA
19,400
NA
NA
2,990
NA
16,500
NA
20,700
NA
NA
20,900
NA
19,200
NA
18,100
NA
NA
18,800
528
14
843
431
771
562
NA
10
362
532
545
447
418
NA
483
469
662
782
NA
566
NA
1,190
1,880
1,620
1,550
1,250
481
NA
351
516
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,090
NA
NA
NA
64
S = Sampling Port
83
-------
Table C-9. COD Analytical Results - November (mg/kg)
TIME*
* = Shock Load
S = Sampling Port
S1
S2
S3
S4
S10
Ol-Nov-94
02-Nov-94
03-Nov-94
04-Nov-94
05-Nov-94
06-Nov-94
07-Nov-94
08-Nov-94 800
08-Nov-94 1000
08-Nov-94 1200
08-Nov-94 1400
09-Nov-94
lO-Nov-94
ll-Nov-94
12-Nov-94
13-Nov-94
14-Nov-94
15-Nov-94
16-Nov-94
17-Nov-94
18-Nov-94
19-Nov-94
20-Nov-94
21-Nov-94
5,230
5,980
5,300
6,140
NA
5,770
6,400
5,910
16,300
19,600
18,500
20,600
20,200
18,100
NA
17,100
19,900
19,200
18,400
16,200
20,700
NA
21,900
21,400
21,400
NA
19,400
NA
18,200
NA
NA
21,500
25,700
17,900
20,000
13,300
22,400
NA
2,590
NA
NA
2,030
NA
18,200
NA
2,380
NA
NA
3,740
3,740
NA
19,800
NA
24,100
NA
NA
11,800
2,770
27,200
21,400
21,100
12,500
NA
13,000
NA
NA
3,690
NA
6,540
NA
2,170
NA
NA
4,170
4,170
513
408
405
405
NA
1,290
1,320
1,170
1,080
1,180
1,260
1,520
1,450
.60
NA
627
1,020
2,140
823
355
860
NA
1,220
1,010
1,010
NA
441
NA
78
NA
NA
75
100
138
121
1,040
93
NA
56
NA
NA
177
NA
218
NA
283
NA
NA
436
436
84
-------
Table C-10. Air Analytical Results
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
VOCsfoBbv)
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butamme(MEK)
Chloiofoim
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
1,1,2,2-Tettachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
Trichloroethene(TCE)
Trichlorofluoromelhane (F-ll)
Trichlorotrifluoroetliane (F-I13)
Xylenes
FIXED GASES/METHANE
Caibon Dioxide
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Methane
Caibon Monoxide
SS
(Inlet Air Strum]
9/28
460
2.0U
5.0
5.0U
ZOU
10U
ZOU
l.OU
l.OU
2.0U
l.OU
3.0
ZOU
2.0U
9/28
0.1U
22.0
78.0
0.005U
0.1U
1
9/14
50.0
120
5.0U
10U
2.0U
320
13.0
31.0
2.0U
66.0
2SO
23.0
16.0
5.0U
9/14
1.6
21.0
77.0
0.005U
0.1U
S6
(Air Recirculnlion Stream)
9/28 10/12 10/25 Ills'
46.0
,1.8
0.2U
0.5U
0.4
4.0
0.2U
O.IU
O.IU
2.3
9.1
0.2U
0.4
0.3
9/28
0.2
22.0
78.0
0.005U
OIU
22.0
9.4
0.5U
3.0
0.2U
52.0
0.5U
0.2U
0.2U
12.0
48.0
0.5U
0.5U
0.5U
10/12
0.5
21.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
1600
28.0
2.0U
5.0U
2.0U
140
2.0U
l.OU
l.OU
34.0
160
2.0U
2.0U
2.0U
10/25
1.3
20.0
79.0
0.005U
O.IU
80.0
81.0
10U
20U
5.0U
520
10U
5.0U
140
130
520
5.0U
10U
300
11/8
1.2
21.0
78.0
0.005U
0.005U
11/21
20U
ZOU
5.0U
10U
ZOU
20U
5.0U
ZOU
2.0U
5.0U
ZOU
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
11/21
0.1U
22.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
9/14
49.0
63.0
0.2U
0.5U
l.OU
0.2U
ZOU
O.SU
0.2U
0.2U
0.5U
0.2U
5.0
1.3
O.SU
9/14
O.IU
22.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
9/28
51.0
0.2U
0.5U
l.OU
0.2U
2.0U
0.5U
0.2U
0.2U
0.5
0.2U
O.SU
0.5U
0.5U
9/58
O.IU
22.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
S7
(Emissions Stream)
10/12 10/25
10U
8.0
ZOU
5.0U
2.00
60.0
2.0U
l.OU
l.OU
14.0
86.0
ZOU
ZOU
ZOU
10/12
0.8
21.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
120
2.0U
2.0U
5.0U
ZOU
120
2.0U
l.OU
l.OU
25.0
ISO
ZOU
ZOU
ZOU
10/25
1.3
20.0
79.0
0.005U
O.IU
11/8*
SOU
380
10U
20U
5.0U
1300
10U
5.0U
5.0U
480
1700
5.0U
10U
IOU
11/8
1.0
21.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
11/21
20U
ZOU
5.0U
IOU
ZOU
100
5.0U
ZOU
ZOU
5.0U
ZOU
5.0U
S.OU
5.0U
11/21
O.IU
22.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
9/14
1.1
13.0
0.2U
O.SU
l.OU
0.2U
ZOU
0.5U
0.2U
0.2U
,0.5U
0.2U
20
0.5U
O.SU
9/14
O.IU
2ZO
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
S9
(Emission Stream After Carbo
9/28 10/12 10/25
ZO
3.0
0.2U
0.5U
l.OU
0.2U
110
OJU
0.2U
0.2U
1.4
3.0
0.5U
0.5U
0.5U
9/28
1.3
21.0
78.0
0.005U
O.IU
15.0
IOU
ZOU
ZOU
S.OU
2.0U
60.0
ZOU
l.OU
l.OU
ZOU
l.OU
2.0U
2.0U
2.0U
10/1J
0.5
21
78
O.OOSU
O.IU
23.0
80.0
2.0U
2.0U
S.OU
ZOU
IOU
ZOU
1.0U
l.OU
zou
28.0
2.0U
ZOU
ZOU
1005
1.3
20.0
79.0
O.OOSU
O.IU
n Filter)
11/8*
ND
50
S.OU
IOU
20U
S.OU
50U
IOU
S.OU
S.OU
IOU
S.OU
S.OU
IOU
IOU
11/8
12
21.0
78.0
O.OOSU
O.IU
7.8
l.OU
0.2U
0.2U
O.SU
0.2U
140
OJU
0.1U
0.1U
0.2U
0.1U
0.2U
0.2U
0.2U
11/21
O.IU
22.0
78.0
O.OOSU
Notes:
'-Shock Load
U - Not detected (value reported is detection limit)
-------
Table C-11. Nutrients
00
Ammonia as Nitrogen (mg/L) Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/L) Phosphate (mg/L)
DATE SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S10 SI S2 S3 S4 SS S10 SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S10
14-Sep-94 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
05-Oct-94 0.11 14 14 0.11 49 NA 0.75 0.4 1.1 0.1 3.9 NA <0.04 83 96 0.14 1300 NA
19-Oct-94 0.14 0.9 3.7 0.28 11 NA 0.41 0.4 0.14 <0.05 12 NA 0.05 120 150 <0.04 1200 NA
02-Nov-94 0.1 29 30 0.78 65 0.59 0.45 0.06 0.64 <0.05 1.5 <0.05 0.19 26 210 1.1 1100 0.94
09-Nov-94 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
16-Nov-94 0.18 84 93 0.2 0.06 710 0.29 0.47 3.6 <0.05 <0.05 1.6 0.07 170 170 1.3 2 540
23-Nov-94 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Notes:
NA-Not Analyzed
< - Corresponding value represents method detection limit; indicates that sample was below detection limit
-------
Table C-12. Metals Concentrations
00
ANALYTE
(uq/U
SAMPLING LOCATION S1
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
SAMPLING LOCATION S2
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Sodium
Nickel
Zinc
SAMPLING LOCATION S3
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
02-Sep-94
220
100U
40
7.8J
10U
9,800
140
84
0.20U
10J
2,780
13,300
100U
100
44
920
23,400
520
350
0.14J
89
8,410
14,500
100U
110
47
990.00
27,200
580
380
0.20U
93
8,920
16-Sep-94
260
100U
74
6.6J
14
17,100
260
150
0.1 3J
19J
4,060
16,400
100U
410
250
1,130
160,000
1,800
988
3.7
230
26,600
16,800
100U
423
250
1,150
160,000
1,900
1,020
3.6
230
27,400
30-S6D-94
290
100U
67
5.7J
8.5J
15,400
220
130
0.11J
22
3,070
20,100
100U
1,130
420
1,370
363,000
4,300
2,100
1.1
390
55,800
18,900
100U
991
380
1,300
296,000
4,100
2,050
1.6
380
49,000
14-Oct-9*
33QJ
100UJ
66.00
3.5J
8.5J
21,500
200
140
0.13J
19J
2,680
15,600
100U
1,400
260
1,090
420,000
3,900
2,570
0.47
410
71,300
46J
100U
1.5J
5.5J
10U
170
45U
43
0.1 5 J
12J
270
20-Oct-94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27-Oct-94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28-Oct-94
270
100U
64
4.1J
10U
18,600
180
140
0.055J
14J
1,400
17,800
100U
2,070
150
1,050
406,000
7,300
3,430
1.3J
NA
398,000
86.70
16,500
100U
1,910
130
1,000
357,000
6,640
3,240
2.4
460
84,500
07-NOV-94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.80
0.14
2.00
0:40
1.10
586
6.88
3.23
NA
0.53
79.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
800
08-NOV-94
340
100U
44
3.7J
4.3J
11,600
110
98
. 0.40U
10J
810
15,300
100U
1,820
130
790
358,000
4,530
3,030
1.7J
430
77,900
15,300
100U
2,000
120
800
296,000
4,790
3,430
0.93J
490
78,000
1000
08-NOV-94
920
100U
110
11
4.6J
29,700
260
230
2.0U
22
1,300
2,400
100U
1,930
89
630
225,000
3,000
31,200
2.2
440
83,700
19,100
100U
2,140
280
990
499,000
5,740
3,630
0.75J
550
93.400
TIME*
1200
1,100
100U
130
16
5.0J
36,500
300
270
2.0U
27
1,400
15,800
100U
1,880
170
850
342,000
4,730
3,210
1.3J
470
76,900
10,000
100U
1,790
50
390
142,000
2,000
3,160
1.6J
450
76,500
1400
Oa-Nov-94
900
100U
150
16
3.1J
32,700
330
290
2.0U
31
1,600
11,500
100U
1,640
100 '
630
244,000
3,400
2,830
0.93J
410
74,200
12,100
100U
1,660
81
630
213,000
3,600
2,890
2.2
420
66,100
740
100U
160
13
2.8J
34,000
330
290
0.14J
29
2,020
22,300
24J
2,260
400
1,150
623,000
7,690
3,650
0.047J
610
95,800
24,400
100U
2,410
470
1,280
717,000
8,400
3,860
0.86
660
101,000
Notes:
*-Shock Load ND - Not Detected
J - Not Detected; Corresponding Value Estimated.
U - Not Detected; Corresponding Value Represents the Detection Limit.
-------
Table C-12. Metals Concentrations (continued)
ANALYTE
SAMPLING LOCATION S4
Aluminurn
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Irnn
iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
NHrkpl
INIUvtfl
Zinc
SAMPLING LOCATION S10
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Irnn
iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
160
100U
1.7J
2.4J
4.5J
40J
45U
7.9
0.075J
20U
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16-SBP-94
120
100U
2.9J
5.6J
9.8J
64J
9.4J
21
0.16J
36
150
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30-SCP-94
86
100U
1.3J
10U
10U
200
45U
21
0.20U
8.8J
240
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14-Oet-94
12.80
100U
1.51
0.08
0.90
218
3.60
2.60
3.3
0.04
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20-Oct-84
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.07
ND
ND
ND
0.01
0.20
ND
0.01
ND
0.01
0.12
27-Oct-94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.14
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.04
ND
0.01
ND
ND
0.01
28-Oct-S4
130
100U
4.0U
3.4B
10U
130
16B
59
0.20U
5.7B
140
88B
22B
4.0U
10U
10U
59B
45U
6.2
0.042B
20U
51
OT-Nov-94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
800
OS-Nov-94
84
100U
4.0U
2.1J
10U
140
13J
35
0.20U
4.3J
100
74
100U
4.0U
10U
9.7J
35J
45U
6.1
0.40U
20U
50
1000
08-NOV-94
76J
100U
1.2J
10U
4.0J
220
45U
43
0.20U
4.6J
140
80J
100U
0.80J
10U
2.0J
30J
13J
14
0.20U
20U
32
Time
1200
OS-Nov-94
S4J
100U
1.1J
3.9J
10U
160
45U
60
0.20U
6.0J
160
120
100U
4.0U
5.3J
10U
46J
9.1J
18
0.40U
S.1J
38
1400
OB-Nov-94
140
100U
1.6J
2.9J
10U
170
45U
40
0.20U
4.3J
110
98J
24J
4.0U
10U
10U
30J
45U
27
0.20U
20U
37
09-NOV-94
160
100U
4.0U
10U
10U
63J
45U
50
0.045J
20U
86
71J
100U
4.0U
10U
10U
120
45U
9.1
0.052J
20U
37
Notes:
•-Shock Load ND - Not Detected
J - Not Detected; Corresponding Value Estimated.
U - Not Detected; Corresponding Value Represents the Detection Limit
-------
Table C-13. TSSandVSS
DATE
02-Sep-94
05-Sep-94
07-Sep-94
09-Sep-94
12-Sep-94
14-Sep-94
16-Sep-94
18-Sep-94
23-Sep-94
23-Sep-94
26-Sep-94
28-Sep-94
30-Sep-94
Ol-Oct-94
05-Oct-94
07-Oct-94
10-Oct-94
12-Oct-94
14-Oct-94
16-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
21-Oct-94
24-Oct-94
26-Oct-94
28-Oct-94
31-Oct-94
02-Nov-94
04-Nov-94
07-Nov-94
08-Nov-94
08-Nov-94
08-Nov-94
08-Nov-94
09-Nov-94
ll-Nov-94
12-Nov-94
16-Nov-94
18-Nov-94
20-Nov-94
23-Nov-94
28-Nov-94
28-Nov-94
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
SI S4 S10
14
9
7
7
19
6
10
9
7
NA
10
5
3
3
3
5
4
16
36
17
10
8
15
14
14
11
10
13
48
18
100
66
71
46
43
19000
39
33
30
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9100
49000
Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/L)
SI S4 S10
~n
14
9
7
6
16
5
9
7
7
NA
9
4
3
3
3
5
4
10
22
9
6
5
10
12
12
9.6
8
9
40
15
72
51
52
38
34
17000
28
30
27
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
NA
im~m —
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6300
39000
Notes:
NA - Not Analyzed
89
-------
Table C-14. TOG (mg/L)
DATE
SI
STREAM
S4
S10
02-Sep-94
16-Sep-94
30-Sep-94
14-Oct-94
28-Oct-94
09-Nov-94
500
900
800
900
800
3100
120
800
120
140
170
340
JNA
NA
NA
NA
26
140
90
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand comer.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE IH;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand comer.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/540/R-95/503
------- |