United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
Office of Research and
Development;
Washington DC 20460
EPA/540/R-95/511
December 1998
&EPA    ZENON Environmental, Inc.

          Cross-Flow Pervaporation
          Technology

          Innovative Technology
          Evaluation Report
                SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
                TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

-------

-------
                                  EPA/540/R-95/511
                                   December 1998
  ZENON Environmental, Inc.


   Cross-Flow Pervaporation
            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

-------

-------
                                                 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

-------
                                                 Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has focused on policy, technical, and informational issues related to
exploring and applying new technologies to Superfund site remediation. One EPA initiative to accelerate the development,
demonstration, and use of innovative technologies for site remediation is the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program.
The SITE Program evaluated the ZENON Environmental, Inc. (ZENON), Cross-Flow Pervaporation technology, a membrane-
based process that removes volatile organic compounds (VOC) from aqueous matrices. The ZENON technology provides an
alternative approach to treating organic-contaminated water at sites where conventional treatment technologies are used, such
as air stripping or carbon adsorption.  A full-scale demonstration of the technology was performed during February 1995 at a
former waste disposal area (Site 9) at Naval Air Station, North Island (NASNI), in Coronado, California.  Groundwater at the
site contains a variety of contaminants, mainly trichloroethene (TCE).

The primary objectives of this demonstration were to (1) determine if the technology could remove TCE in groundwater to
below the federal maximum contaminant levels (MCL) at varying flow rates, and (2) to determine the removal efficiency for
TCE. A number of secondary objectives were also included in the demonstration, including the amount of TCE released from
the technology to the outside air, the amount of concentrated waste (permeate) generated by the technology, and the costs
associated with its use. To achieve the demonstration objectives, samples of untreated influent, treated effluent, and vapor
were  taken from the  technology.  Sampling  and analytical procedures and quality assurance (QA)  objectives  for  the
demonstration were specified in an EPA-approved quality assurance project plan (QAPP).

Lowering TCE concentrations to below MCLs may require multiple passes through the pervaporation module, which can
prove impractical when compared to other technologies. The SITE evaluation demonstrated that the ZENON technology is
best suited for  reducing high concentrations of VOCs to  levels that can be  reduced further and more economically by
conventional treatment technologies.
                                                        IV

-------
                                        Contents
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols	jx
Conversion Factors	xj
Acknowledgments	         xii
Executive Summary	1
1   Introduction	g
    1.1  The SITE Program	6
    1.2  Innovative Technology Evaluation Report	6
    1.3  ZENON Cross-Flow Pervaporation Technology	7
    1.4  Pilot-Scale Demonstration	10
    1.5  Full-Scale Demonstration	IQ
    1.6  Key Contacts	  10
2   Technology Applications Analysis	H
    2.1  Key Features of the ZENON Treatment Technology	11
    2.2  Technology Applicability	 11
    2.3  Technology Limitations	11
    2.4  Process Residuals	12
    2.5  Site Support Requirements	12
    2.6  Availability and Transportability of Equipment	13
    2.7  Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria	13
        2.7.1   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment	13
        2.7.2   Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements	13
        2.7.3   Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence	13
        2.7.4   Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment	13
        2.7.5   Short-Term Effectiveness	16
        2.7.6   Implementability	16
        2.7.7   Cost	16
        2.7.8   State Acceptance	16
        2.7.9   Community Acceptance	16
    2.8  Technology Performance Versus ARARs	17
        2.8.1    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act	17
                                              v

-------
                               Contents (continued)
        2.8.2   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act	17
        2.8.3   Clean Water Act	22
        2.8.4   Safe Drinking Water Act	23
        2.8.5   Clean Air Act	23
        2.8.6   Occupational Safety and Health Act	24
3   Economic Analysis	25
    3.1  Issues and Assumptions	25
        3.1.1   Site-Specific Factors	-.	25
        3.1.2   Equipment and Operating Parameters	26
        3.1.3   Miscellaneous Factors	26
    3.2  Cost Categories	27
        3.2.1   Site Preparation	27
        3.2.2   Permitting and Regulatory Costs	27
        3.2.3   Mobilization and Startup	29
        3.2.4   Equipment Costs	29
        3.2.5   Labor	29
        3.2.6   Supplies	29
        3.2.7   Utilities	30
        3.2.8   Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs	30
        3.2.9   Residual Waste Shipping and Handling	30
        3.2.10 Analytical Services	31
        3.2.11  Equipment Maintenance	31
        3.2.12  Site Demobilization	31
    3.3 Conclusions of Economic Analysis	31
4  Treatment Effectiveness	33
    4.1 Background	33
        4.1.1   Naval Air Station North Island	33
        4.1.2   Site 9 Features	33
        4.1.3   Bench-Scale Study	36
        4.1.4   Demonstration Objectives and Approach	38
    4.2 Demonstration Procedures	39
        4.2.1   Demonstration Preparation	39
        4.2.2   ZENON System Configuration	39
        4.2.3   Demonstration Delays	40
        4.2.4   Demonstration Design	40
        4.2.5   Analytical Methodology	43
                                               vi
                                                                                                        _

-------
                               Contents (continued)
        4.2.6   Quality Assurance and Quality Control Program	44
    4.3  Demonstration Results and Conclusions	44
        4.3.1   Operating Conditions and Parameters	44
        4.3.2   System Maintenance	45
        4.3.3   Results and Discussions	45
        4.3.4   Data Quality	,	54
        4.3.5   Conclusions	56
5   ZENON Technology Status	58
6   References	59
Appendix
A   Analytical Data Tables	61

                                        Figures


1-1     ZENON Cross-Flow Pervaporation Module	8
1-2     ZENON Cross-Flow Pervaporation System	9
3-1     Fixed Costs	32
3-2     Annual Variable Costs	32
4-1     NASNI and Site 9 Location Map	34
4-2     Site 9 Demonstration Area	35

                                         Tables


ES-l    Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZENON Technology	4
2-1     Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZENON Technology	14
2-2     Federal and State ARARS	18
3-1     Costs Associated with the ZENON Treatment Process	28
4-1     Analytical Results for Site 9 Groundwater	37
4-2     Sampling Overview	42
4-3     Analytical Methods	43
4-4     Trichloroethene Concentration Summary	47
4-5     Mass Balance Figures	48
4-6     Estimated Permeate Generation	51
4-7     TCE Concentrations in Vented Vapor	52
                                             VII

-------
          Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
ARAR
BACT
bgs
CAA
CERCLA
CERI
CFR
CWA
DNAPL
EPA
gpm
GC
ITER
kWh
LDR
LNAPL
MCL  .
MDL
mg/L
MS
MSD
NELP
NPDES
ORD
OSHA
PPE
PVC
ppm
psi
psia
POTW
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Best Available Control Technologies
Below ground surface
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Center for Environmental Research Information
Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gallons Per Minute
Gas Chromatograph
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
Kilowatt-Hour
Land Disposal Restrictions
Light Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid
Maximum Contaminant Level
Method Detection Limit
Milligrams Per Liter
Matrix Spike
Matrix Spike Duplicate
Naval Environmental Leadership Program
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Personal Protective Equipment
Polyvinyl Chloride
Parts Per Million
Pounds Per Square Inch
Pounds Per Square Inch-Absolute
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
                                    viii

-------
  Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (continued)
QA
QAPP
QC
RCRA
SARA
SDWA
SITE
SWDIV
SVOC
TCE
TER
TRPH
TSS
ULC
VISITT
VOC
"Hg
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (of 1986)
Safe Drinking Water Act
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Southwest Division
Semivolatile Organic Compound
Trichloroethene
Technical Evaluation Report
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Total Suspended Solids
Micrograms Per Liter
Upper Confidence Limit
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
Volatile Organic Compounds
Inches of Mercury
                                   IX

-------
                              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

-------
                                        Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Ron Turner and Leland Vane, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program project managers at the EPA Office of Research and
Development in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Contributors and reviewers for this report were Mr. Chris Lipski and Mr. Mike Benson of
ZENON Environmental, Inc. EPA and its contractor for this project, PRC Environmental Management, Inc. wish to thank the
staff of the Naval Environmental Leadership Program and the Naval Public Works Commission for their assistance in
performing the demonstration at Naval Air Station North Island.
                                                    XI

-------

-------
                                      Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the
cross-flow  pervaporation  technology developed  by
ZENON Environmental, Inc. (ZENON). This evaluation
was conducted under the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency  (EPA)  Superfund  Innovative  Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program. The ZENON pervaporation
technology was demonstrated over a 5-day period in
February 1995 at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI)
in Coronado, California.

The purpose of this Innovative  Technology Evaluation
Report (ITER) is to provide information from the SITE
demonstration of the  pervaporation  technology  that is
useful for remedial managers, environmental consultants,
and other potential technology users implementing  the
technology at Superfund and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste sites.  Section 1.0
of the ITER presents an overview of the SITE Program,
describes the ZENON technology, and lists key contacts.
Section 2.0  discusses  information relevant  to   the
technology's application, including an assessment of the
technology related to the nine feasibility study evaluation
criteria, potential applicable environmental  regulations,
and operability and limitations of the technology. Section
3.0 summarizes the costs associated  with implementing
the technology.    Section  4.0   presents  the  site
characterization, demonstration approach, demonstration
procedures,  and the  results  and  conclusions  of  the
demonstration.  Section 5.0 summarizes the technology
status, and  Section  6.0 contains  a  references  list.
Appendix A presents the analytical data tables.

The Cross-Flow Pervaporation Technology

According to ZENON, the pervaporation technology is a
membrane-based process that removes volatile organic
 compounds (VOC) from aqueous matrices. The ZENON
 cross-flow pervaporation technology uses an organophilic
 membrane made of nonporous silicone rubber, which is
 permeable to organic compounds but highly resistant to
 degradation.  The composition of the membrane causes
 organics in solution to adsorb to it; the organics then
 diffuse through the membrane by a vacuum and condense
 into a highly concentrated liquid called permeate.  The
 permeate separates into aqueous and organic phases. The
 organic phase can either be disposed of or sent off site for
 further processing to recover the organics. The aqueous
 phase  is  sent back  to   the pervaporation  unit  for
 retreatment, where remaining VOCs  are removed along
 with those in untreated water.

 The  ZENON  pervaporation  technology  effectively
 removes most VOC contamination from groundwater and
 other aqueous waste streams. It is best suited for reducing
 high concentrations of VOCs to levels that can be reduced
 further and more economically by conventional treatment
 technologies, such as carbon adsorption.  The technology
 is not practical for reducing VOC concentrations to most
 regulatory  limits,  notably drinking water standards.
 According to the developer, once the ZENON technology
 is installed and equilibrated, it requires minimal support
 from on-site personnel.

 Demonstration Objectives and Approach

 The SITE demonstration for the ZENON technology was
 designed with two primary and eight secondary objectives
to provide  potential users of the technology with the
necessary information to assess the applicability of the
pervaporation technology at other contaminated sites. The
 following primary and secondary objectives were selected
to evaluate the technology:

-------
Primary Objectives:

PI)    Determine   if  the  system  can   remove
trichloroethene (TCE) in groundwater to below federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCL) at varying flow
rates, at the 95 percent confidence level

P2)    Determine the removal efficiency of the system
for TCE

Secondary Objectives:

SI)    Assess  the  pervaporation system's ability to
remove nontarget VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOC), and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
(TRPH) from contaminated groundwater

S2)    Determine   the  volume  of  recovered  liquid
permeate generated during each run

S3)    Measure VOC emissions from the pervaporation
system

S4)     Determine requirements for anti-scaling additions,
and  monitor the potential scaling  of  the system by
identifying reductions in total suspended solids (TSS) and
concentrations  of  carbonate, fluoride,  sulfate, silica,
strontium,  calcium,  barium,  magnesium,  and iron  in
treated and untreated water

S5)     Determine  if the  technology's efficiency  in
removing VOCs, SVOCs, and TRPH is reduced, and if
scaling due to the precipitation of the analytes listed under
secondary objective S4 occurs after a 3-week period

S6)     Determine  the  physical  effects  the  ZENON
system has on treated groundwater

S7)     Document  the operating conditions of  the
ZENON system

S 8)     Estimate the capital and operating costs of treating
contaminated groundwater atNASNI Site 9 with full-scale
ZENON pervaporation systems

The demonstration program  objectives were achieved
 through  the  collection   of untreated   and  treated
 groundwater samples, as well  as air  samples from a
 vacuum vent of the system, over four  8-hour sampling
runs, and one 4-hour run. The fifth day run was shortened
because a seal on the pervaporation  module failed and
could not be replaced in the field. To meet the objectives,
samples were collected at set times throughout each run.
Each day, the flow rate of the system and TCE influent
concentrations were changed to present a variety of
operating conditions.

Demonstration Results

Based on the ZENON SITE demonstration, the following
conclusions may be drawn about the  applicability of the
ZENON technology:

 •  The system significantly reduced TCE concentrations
    in the groundwater from an average of 125 milligrams
    per liter (mg/L) to an average of 1.49 mg/L (1,490
    micrograms per liter [ ng/L]); however, the federal
    MCL of 5 ng/L was not achieved. From the limited
    number of sampling runs, the  technology appeared
    most efficient when operating at lower flow rates (2.1
    gallons per minute [gpm] to 5 gpm).

 •  Removal efficiencies for TCE averaged about 97.3
    percent. Sixteen of 18 comparisons of treated  water
    samples to untreated samples showed 'average TCE
    removal efficiencies of 99.3 percent. Generally, the
    technology presented higher reduction percentages as
    the concentration of TCE in the untreated groundwater
    increased.

 •  For other VOCs present in the groundwater at Site 9,
    the removal efficiency for the technology ranged from
    an  overall average for the demonstration  of 96.5
    percent for 1,1-dichloroethene to 16.0 percent for 2-
    butanone. Because of data quality flaws, namely VOC
    presence in trip blanks and SVOC MS/MSD results
    outside of QA objectives, the usefulness of the VOC
    and SVOC results is considered limited.

  •   Because of the failure of a condensate pump, the
    amount of permeate generated by a typical ZENON
     system could  only be  estimated.   At  NASNI, the
     system generated an average of about 2.9 gallons per
   ,  hour (gph), totaling 23 gallons per 8-hour run. The
     average  amount of untreated groundwater passed
     through the system was 441 gph.

  •  VOC releases from the vacuum vent of the system,
     which allows the discharge of volatilized organic
     compounds from the pervaporation module, increased

-------
     with higher VOC  concentrations in the  untreated
     water.  The average concentration of TCE in vapor
     vented from the module was 53,889 milligrams per
     cubic  meter.  As   a  percentage  of  total  TCE
     contaminant load, TCE in vapor discharged from the
     module averaged 21.9 percent.

  •  No notable reductions of inorganic parameters occur-
     red during the treatment process.  TSS appeared to
     deposit onto the pervaporation membranes. Scaling of
     the membranes  proved to  be a continual problem
     during the demonstration.   The     addition   of
     antiscaling chemicals appeared effective in reducing
     this; however, no long-term effects of scaling of the
     membranes or long-term success of antiscalents could
     be determined.

  • The system's VOC removal efficiency, and the effects
     of scaling on treatment efficiency, were to  be
     monitored after allowing the technology to operate
     continuously for a 3-week period; however, because
     the technology failed during the fifth run, these factors
     could not be evaluated.

  •  The average change in temperature between untreated
    groundwater (before entering the system) and treated
    groundwater (discharged groundwater) was 4.0 °C.
    The pH of the groundwater increased 0.56 by passing
    through the system.

  •  Estimated cost for operating a ZENON system at
    NASNI Site 9 at 8 gallons per minute for a period of 15
    years, treating 63  million gallons of groundwater, is
    $ 1,961,000. The total cost per 1,000 gallons of treated
    groundwater is $31, or roughly 3 cents per gallon. If
    operational   problems   experienced  during  the
    demonstration are not addressed  by ZENON, these
    costs could rise dramatically.

Technology Evaluation Summary

The technology was  analyzed to assess its advantages,
disadvantages, and limitations, and was then evaluated
based on the nine criteria used for decision-making in the.
Superfund feasibility study process (see Table ES-1). This
evaluation is presented in Section 2.0 of the ITER. The
technology as demonstrated is  limited to treatment of
VOCs in the saturated zone. During  the demonstration
sampling runs at NASNI, the pervaporation technology
proved  to  be  effective  in removing  VOCs  from
contaminated groundwater.   The demonstration results
 indicate  that the overall  effectiveness  of the  system
 depends  on a number of factors, including the influent
 flow   rate  through  the   system,  the  contaminant
 concentrations, the volatility of the organics present in the
 water, and the potential for scaling and fouling  of the
 system based on the water characteristics. The technology
 mainly  employs  readily  available  equipment  and
 materials.   Material  handling  requirements and  site
 support requirements are minimal.

Although the technology was able to remove VOCs at a
high rate during the sampling runs,  continual failures of
various components of the system occurred throughout the
demonstration, eventually causing an early termination of
sampling.    Modifications  of  equipment  used  in
conjunction with the pervaporation modules, including
seals, filters, pumps,  and  various  valves  is necessary
before the  technology can be readily applied at other
remote groundwater sites. The remote location of Site 9,
along  with occasional  severe  weather,  also caused
logistical problems during the demonstration.

-------
Table ES-1. Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZENON Technology
                            Criteria
                                                                                    ZENON Technology Assessment
   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
    Compliance with Federal and State ARARs
    Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
    Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
    Short-Term Effectiveness
The technology reduces contaminants in the groundwater and prevents further
migration of those contaminants with minimal exposure to on-site workers and
the community.

Compliance with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs must be
determined on a site-specific basis. The technology is not suited for removing
contaminants to maximum contaminant level (MCL) and may require additional
treatment to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards depending on (1) influent contaminant concentrations, and
(2) treatment efficiency of the ZENON technology.

Contaminants are permanently removed from the groundwater. Treatment
residuals (concentrated permeate) require proper off-site recycling, treatment or
disposal.
Contaminants are removed from the groundwater, thus reducing its toxicity. The
radius of influence of wells used to pump influent to the system, the pumping
rate, and the time-frame of pumping will determine the mobility of contaminants
in the groundwater over the treatment period. Treatment followed by discharge
to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or surface water prevents further
migration of contaminants and reduces the volume of contaminated media.

During site preparation and installation of the treatment system, no adverse
impacts to the community, workers,  or the environment are anticipated.  Risks to
workers involve the movement of containerized permeate and possible venting of
contaminants from the system. The time requirements, for treatment using the
ZENON system is dependent on site conditions and may require several years.

-------
Table ES-1.  Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZENON Technology (continued)
                           Criteria
                                                                                     ZENON Technology Assessment
  Implementability
 Cost
 Community Acceptance
 State Acceptance
 The site requires a hard surface such as concrete or packed soil to support the
 system and associated tanks, which require about 120 square feet. A large
 capacity bulk tank is recommended for the equalization of contaminated water
 before it is pumped into the system. Services and supplies required include
 laboratory analyses  and electrical utilities.

 For use of the technology at NASNI Site 9 for a 15-year period treating a total of
 63 million gallons of groundwater, total fixed costs are $189,500. Equipment
 costs comprise 79 percent of the total fixed costs. Total annuarvariable costs are
 $118,000.  Total cost for treatment is $1,961,000.

 The small risks to the community and permanent removal of the contaminants
 make public acceptance of this technology likely.

 State acceptance is anticipated to be favorable because the ZENON system
generates a low volume of waste in relation to treated groundwater, and air
emissions are negligible. State regulatory agencies may require permits to
operate the treatment system, for air emissions, and to store concentrated
permeate for greater than 90 days.

-------
                                             Section 1
                                           Introduction
This section provides background information about the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund
Innovative  Technology Evaluation (SITE)  program,
discusses the purpose  of this Innovative Technology
Evaluation  Report (ITER) and  describes the ZENON
cross-flow  pervaporation   technology.    Additional
information about  the  SITE program, the ZENON
technology, and the demonstration is available from the
key individuals listed at the end of this section.

1.1   The Site Program

The SITE program  is a formal program established by
EPA's Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response
and Office of  Research and Development  (ORD) in
response  to  the  Superfund   Amendments   and
Reauthorization  Act  of 1986  (SARA).   The  SITE
program's  primary  purpose is to maximize the use of
alternatives in  cleaning up  hazardous waste sites by
encouraging the development, demonstration,  and use of
new or innovative treatment and monitoring technologies.
It has four major goals:

  •  Identify and remove obstacles to the development and
    commercial use of alternate technologies

  •   Structurea  development program  that  nurtures
     emerging technologies

  •   Demonstrate promising innovative technologies to
     establish reliable performance and cost information
     for site characterization and cleanup decision-making

  •   Develop procedures and policies that encourage the
     selection of available alternative treatment remedies
     at Superfund sites, as well as other waste sites and
     commercial facilities
Technologies are selected for the SITE Demonstration
Program through annual requests for proposals. ORD staff
review the  proposals to  determine which technologies
show the most promise for use  at  Superfund sites.
Technologies chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale
stage, must be innovative, and must have some advantage
over existing technologies. Mobile technologies are of
particular interest.

Once  EPA  has  accepted  a   proposal,  cooperative
agreements between EPA and  the developer establish
responsibilities  for  conducting the demonstration and
evaluating the technology.  The developer is responsible
for demonstrating the technology at the selected site and is
expected to pay any costs for transport, operations, and
removal of the equipment. EPA is responsible for project
planning, sampling  and  analysis, quality  assurance and
quality  control,  preparing   reports,   disseminating
information, and transporting and disposing of treated
waste materials.

The results of the demonstration are published in two
documents: the Technology Capsule and the ITER. The
Technology Capsule provides relevant information on the
technology, emphasizing key features of the results of the
SITE demonstration. Both the Technology  Capsule and
the  ITER are intended  for use by remedial managers
making  a  detailed  evaluation of the technology for a
 specific site and waste.

 1.2   Innovative Technology Evaluation
        Report

 The ITER  provides   information   on  the   ZENON
 technology and includes a comprehensive description of
 the demonstration and its results. The ITER is intended for
 use by EPA remedial project managers, EPA on-scene
 coordinators, contractors, and other decision-makers for

-------
 implementing specific remedial actions.  The ITER is
 designed to aid decision-makers in  evaluating specific
 technologies for further consideration as  an applicable
 option in a particular cleanup operation.

 To  encourage   the   general   use   of  demonstrated
 technologies, the ITER provides information regarding
 the applicability of each technology to specific sites and
 wastes. The ITER includes information on cost and site-
 specific characteristics.  It also discusses advantages,
 disadvantages, and limitations of the technology.

 Each SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a
 technology  in  treating a specific material.    The
 characteristics of materials at one site may differ from the
 characteristics of materials at another site.  Therefore,
 successful field demonstration of a technology at one site
 does not necessarily ensure that it will be applicable at
 other sites. Data from the field demonstration may require
 extrapolation for estimating the operating ranges in which
 the technology will perform satisfactorily.  Only limited
 conclusions  can  be   drawn  from  a  single  field
 demonstration.

 1.3    ZENON Cross-Flow Pervaporation
        Technology

 The ZENON pervaporation technology is a membrane-
 based process that removes VOCs from aqueous matrices.
 The ZENON cross-flow pervaporation technology uses an
 organophilic  membrane  made of nonporous  silicone
 rubber, which is permeable to organic compounds but
 highly resistant to degradation.  The composition of the
 membrane causes organics in solution to adsorb to it; the
 organics then diffuse through the membrane by a vacuum
 and condense into a highly concentrated  liquid  called
 permeate.  The  permeate separates  into aqueous  and
 organic phases.  The organic phase can either be disposed
 of or sent off site for further processing to recover the
 organics.   The  water  phase is sent  back to  the
 pervaporation unit for retreatment.

 The ZENON technology removes organic contamination
 from groundwater and other aqueous waste streams. The
technology is not practical for reducing VOC concentrations
to regulatory  limits,  most  notably drinking  water
 standards.    It  is   best  suited for  reducing  high
 concentrations of VOCs to levels that can be  reduced
further and more economically by conventional treatment
technologies, such as carbon adsorption. According to the
 developer, once the ZENON technology is installed and
 equilibrated, it requires minimal  support from on-site
 personnel.

 The ZENON pervaporation technology involves modules
 containing dense polymeric membranes.  Each membrane
 consists of a nonporous organophilic polymer, similar to
 silicone rubber, formed into capillary fibers measuring
 less than  1  millimeter in  diameter.   Silicone rubber
 exhibits high selectivity toward organic compounds and is
 highly resistant to degradation. The capillary fibers are
 aligned in parallel on a plane and  spaced slightly apart.
 This arrangement of capillary fibers forms a membrane
 layer.

 Separate membrane layers are aligned in series, as shown
 in Figure 1-1,  with the interior of the  capillary  fibers
 exposed to a vacuum  (about 1 pound per square inch
 absolute). The number of membranes used in a particular
 system  depends  on expected flow  rates, contaminant
 concentrations  in  the untreated  water,   and  target
 concentrations  for  contaminants in  the treated water.
 Process temperatures are elevated to improve treatment;
 however, temperatures are kept at or below 75 °C (165 °F).

 The organophilic composition of the membrane causes
 organics to adsorb into the capillary fibers.  The organics
 migrate to the interior of the capillary fibers and are then
 extracted from the membrane by the vacuum.

 Figure 1-2 displays a schematic diagram of the ZENON
 cross-flow pervaporation  system  in a typical  field
 application (sampling   locations  for the system are
 designated SI, S2, S3,  and S4). Contaminated water is
 pumped from an equalization tank through a 200-micron
 prefilter to remove debris and silt particles, and then into a
 heat exchanger that raises the water temperature.   The
 heated  contaminated   water  then   flows  into  the
 pervaporation module.   Organics and small amounts of
 water are extracted from the contaminated  water, and
 treated water exits the pervaporation module  and is
 discharged from the system after further treatment.

 The extracted organics and small amount of water is called
permeate. The  permeate from the membranes is drawn
 into a condenser by the vacuum, where the organics and
any water vapor are condensed.  Because the vacuum is
vented from the downstream side of the condenser,  most
organics are kept in solution, thus minimizing air releases.

-------
                                                                                                                                           1
                        MEMBRANE
                            LAYER
Figure 1-1. ZENON cross-flow pervaporation module.

-------



Contaminated
Water ~*
Eq





-



ualizatk
Tank

Tank Air Vent
PERVAPO1
Carbon Filter


RATION MODULE
Prefilter \,
(§1) 1 Heat Xs^
J 1^ Exchanger "
Feed Pump
>n






Treated
Water
(g) 	
t
^

— > —
Permeate


Carbon Filters
-CHT
^
Discharge
Condenser

T~*~~ 	 ' — U~^
T Carbon Filter
	 (S4)
r
*
a
'
LI
J Carbon Filter
k
	 (§)
) Vacuum Pump and
Outlet to Vent
Organics
f\ For Recycle.
— >-*£ —
WatPr 4 	
*" Disposal, or
Further Treatment
                                                                                         For Return to Equalization
                                                                                             Tank or Off-Site
                                                                                          Treatment or Disposal.
Figure 1-2. ZENON cross-flow pervaporation system.

-------
Because condensed permeate contains highly concentrated
organic compounds, the  liquid  permeate  generally
separates into aqueous and organic phases, rendering the
organic fraction potentially recoverable.  The organic
phase permeate is pumped from the condenser to storage,
while aqueous phase permeate, which contains lower
concentrations of organics, can either be returned to the
pervaporation module for further treatment or removed for
disposal.

Water  containing exceedingly  high  concentrations of
contaminants require multiple passes through the module.
Although the system can treat  light nonaqueous phase
liquids (LNAPL)  and dense nonaqueous-phase liquids
(DNAPL), they should be removed from water before it
enters the system to decrease the number of passes.

1.4   Pilot-Scale Demonstration

A  pilot-scale study  of  the  ZENON  pervaporation
technology was performed in October 1993  at a former
petroleum  pumping  station in Waterdown,  Ontario,
Canada.  Samples of treated groundwater showed that
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and  xylene  (BTEX)
concentrations were significantly reduced  in treated
groundwater samples compared to untreated samples. The
removal efficiencies of BTEXs for the system ranged from
96.8 to 99.3 percent. The average removal efficiency for
benzene was 98.0  percent; for toluene, ethylbenzene, and
xylenes, the average removal efficiency was 98.4 percent.

1.5   Full-Scale Demonstration

This report summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the
ZENON cross-flow pervaporation technology by EPA's
SITE Program.   The demonstration was conducted at
Naval Air  Station North Island (NASNI), in Coronado,
California, as a cooperative effort between EPA and the
Naval Environmental  Leadership Program  (NELP).
Operations involving the technology were conducted from
September 1994 through February 1995 at a former waste
disposal site (Site 9) at NASNI. The site was selected for
the demonstration  following  a  bench-scale test  of
contaminated groundwater  that  was  conducted  by
ZENON  in December  1993.    SITE  demonstration
 sampling from the technology occurred over a period 5
 days in February  1995, with trichloroethene the primary
 contaminant of concern.
1.6    Key Contacts

Additional information  on the  ZENON pervaporation
technology and the SITE program are available from the
following sources:

ZENON Pervaporation Technology
Chris Lipski
Process Engineering
Zenon Environmental, Inc.
45 Harrington Court
Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7N 3P3
905-639-6320
FAX: 905-639-1812

SITE Program
Annette Gatchett
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7697

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.
                                                   10

-------
                                              Section 2
                            Technology Applications Analysis
 This section addresses the general applicability of the
 ZENON pervaporation technology to contaminated waste
 sites. Information presented in this section is intended to
 assist decision-makers in screening specific technologies
 for a particular cleanup situation. This section presents the
 advantages,  disadvantages,  and  limitations  of  the
 technology and discusses factors that have a major impact
 on the performance  and cost of the technology.  The
 analysis  is  based on the demonstration  results  and
 available information from other  applications of  the
 technology.

 2.1   Key Features of the Zenon
       Treatment Technology

 ZENON claims that cross-flow pervaporation provides an
 alternative approach to treating  organic-contaminated
 water at  hazardous waste sites and industrial facilities
 where conventional air stripping or carbon adsorption are
 currently  used.   Pervaporation releases  less volatile
 organic compounds (VOC) to the outside  air than  air
 stripping.   Because contaminants  pass  through  the
 pervaporation membranes, the membranes can be used for
 years before degradation requires replacement. Organic
 contaminants  removed   from  untreated  water  are
 concentrated in recovered permeate, thus greatly reducing
 waste volume.

 A full-scale pervaporation unit measures about 8 feet by
 12 feet at its base, allowing transportation in a semitrailer
 or a flat-bed truck. ZENON also claims that shakedown
time for a pervaporation unit averages about 2 weeks, and
manual  operation  and  monitoring  requirements  are
limited. It is a stand- alone technology, but can be used in
series with other conventional technologies such as soil
washing,  carbon adsorption, or flocculation with solids
removal.  Contaminated aqueous media can be pumped
directly to the  pervaporation module; however, it is
 recommended that water be equalized in a bulk tank before
 entering the system.  Depending on local pretreatment
 standards, treated water exiting the ZENON system may
 be discharged  to a publicly owned treatment works
 (POTW).  To comply with limitations imposed by the
 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
 or the Safe Drinking Water Amendment (SDWA), further
 treatment with a separate technology is usually required.

 2.2    Technology Applicability

 The  ZENON  cross-flow  pervaporation  technology
 removes  VOCs  from aqueous   matrices,  such  as
 groundwater, wastewaters, and leachate. The technology
 can treat a variety of concentrations; however, it is best
 suited for reducing high concentrations of VOCs to levels
 that can be reduced further and more economically by
 conventional  treatment technologies, such  as  carbon
 adsorption. The technology can also remove a limited
 number of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC) and
 petroleum hydrocarbons.  Both the  pilot- and full-scale
 demonstrations have evaluated the ZENON technology's
 treatment of contaminated groundwater.

 2.3    Technology Limitations

 A number of factors must be considered before using
 pervaporation. The prefilter prevents solids from reaching
 the pervaporation module and inhibiting the movement of
 organics through the membrane.   Solids can clog the
 prefilter, requiring frequent cleaning. Influent with a high
 alkalinity or high amounts of calcium or iron can cause the
 system to scale. In these cases, anti-scalents can be added
to the untreated water as a preventive measure.

The  ZENON technology  does not remove inorganic
contamination and can only remove only a limited number
of SVOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons.  Heavy metals
                                                  11

-------
dissolved in groundwater have not adversely affected the
treatment ability of the technology.

VOCs with water solubilities of less than 2 percent weight
(20,000 mg/L) are generally suited for removal by
pervaporation. Highly soluble organics such as alcohols
are not effectively removed by a single-stage pervaporation
process. Also, low-boiling VOCs such as vinyl chloride
tend to remain in the vapor phase after moving through the
condenser, and can escape to the surrounding air through
the vacuum vent.  For elevated concentrations of most
low-boiling VOCs, a carbon filter placed on the vacuum
vent ensures  that  contaminants  are not released to the
outside air.

The system has proven effective in reducing certain VOC
concentrations in groundwater to near federal maximum
concentration  limits  (MCL).   However,  lowering
concentrations to below MCLs may require multiple
passes through the pervaporation  module,  which can
prove impractical  when compared to other technologies,
such  as  carbon  adsorption.   Water containing  high
concentrations of contaminants, including LNAPLs and
DNAPLs, also require multiple  passes through  the
module. To decrease the number of passes, LNAPLs and
DNAPLs should be removed from water before it enters
the system.

Water quality standards normally will not allow water
exiting the ZENON system to be discharged directly into
surface water bodies.  Depending on  local standards,
treated water may be acceptable for discharge to a local
POTW. During the SITE demonstration at NASNI, water
discharged from the ZENON system required additional
treatment through a series of two 1,000-pound carbon
filters for polishing.  VOC concentrations in the water
were then monitored with an on-site gas chromatograph
(GC).  The water was discharged to the sanitary sewer.

The ZENON system tested at NASNI  could achieve a
maximum flow rate of about 11 gallons per minute (gpm),
which is the highest flow rate for the technology to date.
 Sites requiring treatment at higher flow rates will require
 multiple systems  or additional pervaporation modules.

 2.4    Process Residuals

 The ZENON system generates two waste streams: treated
 water and concentrated permeate.  During the  SITE
 demonstration at NASNI, granular activated carbon used
to remove VOCs  from emissions released  from the
vacuum vent of the system also required disposal. Treated
water may require further treatment to meet local or site-
specific discharge requirements.

Permeate usually separates into an organic and an aqueous
phase.  The organic phase permeate is pumped from the
condenser to storage and eventual recycling or disposal.
Because of the high VOC concentrations expected with
permeate,  it must normally be handled as  a RCRA
hazardous  waste,  and  storage  regulations  must  be
followed. Aqueous phase permeate can either be returned
to the  pervaporation module for further treatment or
removed for disposal.

Depending on  the application  and local regulations,
personal protective clothing and equipment, along with
field laboratory waste, may require disposal at a licensed
disposal facility. If monitoring and pumping wells will be
installed as part of a remediation effort, contaminated soil
cuttings may need to be stored in permitted areas and
disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.

2.5    Site Support Requirements

The ZENON system is a self-supporting treatment unit,
and as such, requires other basic  site support elements. If
wells are used as the groundwater source, pumps must be
used to extract  groundwater and direct it to the ZENON
system. The pumping capacity of the system may limit the
amount of groundwater it can pull from a series of
monitoring wells.

Access roads at treatment sites  are necessary because a
full-scale pervaporation system is shipped to sites in a
semi trailer or on flat-bed trucks. The ZENON system is
mounted in a steel enclosure measuring about 12 feet by 8
feet by 7 feet. The enclosure is designed to be moved with
a large forklift or a small crane. The enclosure must be
placed on a hard surface, preferably an asphalt or concrete
pad, although packed soil will support it.

 The  ZENON  system  requires  utility  hookups  for
 electricity and water. A full-scale ZENON system capable
 of 11 gpm requires 460-volt, 3-phase, 15-ampere service,
 During shakedown, clean water is necessary to verify that
 all components are operating correctly before contaminated
 water enters the system.

 Clean water is also needed to decontaminate process
 equipment and for health and safety.  Permeate must be
                                                    12

-------
stored in drums or bulk tanks, which under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations
requires secondary containment and possibly permits. To
move drums of permeate at the site, a two-wheel drum
mover or forklift is advised.   A receptacle for treated
water, such as bulk tanks or sewer lines, is also necessary.
A small office trailer, atelephonej and security fencing are
recommended for moderate- to long-term operations.

2.6   Availability And Transportation of
       Equipment

The ZENON  technology  employs   conventional,
commercially available equipment and materials that are
easily transported in a semi trailer or on a flat-bed truck.
On-site  assembly and  maintenance  requirements are
minimal. ZENON claims that the treatment system can
begin operating within 2 weeks of startup if all necessary
facilities, utilities, and supplies are available.

Demobilization activities include decontaminating on-site
equipment,  disconnecting  utilities,  disassembling
equipment, and transporting equipment off site.  In a
groundwater treatment  scenario,  wells  used for the
extraction  of groundwater may require  plugging and
abandonment after project completion.

2.7   Feasibility Study  Evaluation
       Criteria

This section presents  an assessment of the ZENON
pervaporation technology relative to the nine evaluation
criteria used for conducting detailed analyses of remedial
alternatives in feasibility studies under the Comprehensive
Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) (EPA 1988b).   Table 2-1 presents a
summary of the pervaporation technology's relation to the
nine evaluation criteria.

2.7.1  Overall Protection of Human
       Health and the Environment

The ZENON technology provides both short- and long-
term protection of human health and the environment by
removing  contaminants from  groundwater and by
preventing  further  migration  of contaminants  in the
groundwater. VOCs are removed from the groundwater in
the  pervaporation module, condensed, and  placed in
storage.   VOC releases to the  surrounding air are
controlled by carbon filters. Although worker protection
is required  when  moving  and handling the highly
concentrated permeate, contaminants are removed from
the groundwater with minimal exposures  to on-site
workers  and the  community.   Heavy equipment is
necessary to unload and place the unit  in a designated
location. Once in place and operating, heavy equipment
usage would be limited to the occasional movement of
drums of permeate with a forklift.

2.7.2 Compliance with Applicable or
       Relevant and Appropriate
       Requirements

General  and  specific  applicable  or  relevant  and
appropriate requirements  (ARAR) identified for the
ZENON  pervaporation  technology are presented in
Section 2.8.  Compliance with chemical-, location-, and
action-specific ARARs should be determined on a site-
specific basis;  however,  location-and  action-specific
ARARs generally  are  achieved.   Compliance  with
chemical-specific ARARs depends on (1) the efficiency of
the ZENON system in removing contaminants from the
groundwater,(2) influent contaminant concentrations, (3)
the amount of treated water recirculated in the system, and
(4) postpervaporation treatment.  To  meet chemical-
specific ARARs, contaminated groundwater may require
multiple passes through the treatment system, along with
postireatment (such as carbon adsorption).

2.7.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and
       Permanence

The  ZENON pervaporation  technology  provides  an
effective long-term solution to  aquifer  remediation by
removing contaminants from the groundwater. Depending
on treatment requirements, some residual risk may exist at
a given site after treatment. The magnitude of residual risk
can be controlled by extending the length of time that the
system operates, or by allowing groundwater to recirculate
through the treatment system in multiple passes.

2.7.4 Reduction ofToxicity, Mobility, or
       Volume Through Treatment

The ZENON system reduces the toxicity of contaminated
groundwater by actively removing organic contaminants
through the membrane-based process.  The membrane-
based process reduces the volume of contaminated media
                                                 13

-------
Table 2-1.  Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZENON Technology
                            Criteria
                     ZENON Technology Assessment
   Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
   Compliance with Federal and State ARARs
   Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
   Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
   Short-Term Effectiveness
The technology reduces contaminants in the groundwater and prevents further
migration of those contaminants with minimal exposure to on-site workers and
the community.

Compliance with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs must be
determined on a site-specific basis.  The technology is not suited for removing
contaminants to maximum concentration limits (MCL) and may require additional
treatment to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards depending on (1) influent contaminant concentrations, and
(2) treatment efficiency of the ZENON technology.

Contaminants are permanently removed from the groundwater. Treatment
residuals (concentrated permeate) require proper off-site recycling, treatment or
disposal.

Contaminants are removed from the groundwater,  thus reducing its toxicity.  The
radius of influence of wells used to  pump influent to the system, the pumping
rate, and the time-frame of pumping will determine the mobility of contaminants
in the groundwater over the treatment period. Treatment followed by discharge
to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or surface water prevents further
migration of contaminants and reduces  the volume of contaminated media.

During site preparation and installation of the treatment system, no adverse
impacts to the community, workers, or the environment are anticipated.  Risks to
workers involve the movement of containerized permeate and possible venting of
contaminants from the system. The time requirements for treatment using the
ZENON system is dependent on site conditions and may require several years.

-------
Table 2-1. Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria for the ZENON Technology (continued)
                             Criteria
                                                                                       ZENON Technology Assessment
    Implementability
   Cost
   Community Acceptance
   State Acceptance
 The site requires a hard surface such as concrete or packed soil to support the
 system and associated tanks, which require about 120 square feet. A large
 capacity bulk tank is recommended for the equalization of contaminated water
 before it is pumped into the system. Services and supplies required include
 laboratory analyses  and electrical utilities.

 For use of the technology at NASNI Site 9 for a 15-year period treating a total of
 63 million gallons of groundwater, total fixed costs are $189,500. Equipment
 costs comprise 79 percent of the total fixed costs. Total annual variable costs are
 $118,100. Utilities costs comprise 47 percent of the variable costs, and residual
 waste handling services comprise 28 percent.

 The small risks to the community and permanent removal of the contaminants
 make public acceptance of this technology likely.

 State acceptance  is anticipated to be favorable because the ZENON system
generates a low volume of waste in relation to treated groundwater, and air
emissions are negligible.  State regulatory agencies may require permits to
operate the treatment system, for air emissions, and to store concentrated
permeate for greater than 90 days.

-------
by  separating  the  organic  contaminants  from  the
groundwater  and  concentrating them into a  highly
concentrated liquid permeate. This treatment results in a
significant volume reduction compared to the untreated
water. The radius of influence of wells used to pump
influent to the system, the time frame of pumping, and the
aquifer  characteristics will  determine the volume  of
material treated.

Treatment  of the organic contaminants followed  by
discharge of the treated water to a POTW or surface water
prevents further migration of contaminants and reduces
the volume of contaminated  media.   Water  quality
standards normally  will not allow water exiting the
ZENON system to be discharged directly into  surface
water bodies, and further treatment is required. Results of
the  ZENON   demonstration  at NASNI,  displaying
contaminant reductions, are presented in Section 4.3.

2.7.5  Short-Term Effectiveness

The  pervaporation  technology  provides a long-term
solution  to   removing  VOCs  from  contaminated
groundwater or wastewaters. VOCs in untreated water are
reduced immediately as the water  passes through  the
system.  Further treatment may be required depending on
the regulations applicable to individual sites.

 2.7.6  Implementability

 Site  preparation  and  access  requirements  for  the
technology are minimal.  As noted in Section 2.6, a given
 site requires access roads large enough to allow passage of
 a semi truck. The entire system occupies an area of about
 200  square meters.  Installation and operation of the
 ZENON system is anticipated to involve few administrative
 difficulties. Operation and monitoring can be performed
 by a trained field  technician  and  does not require a
 specialist.  However,  system maintenance should be
 provided by  personnel familiar with operation of the
 system.  Routine activities include  monitoring target
 compound concentrations in  the system  influent  and
 effluent  wells.   Services and supplies required to
 implement the ZENON system include bulk tanks for
 equalization and treated water storage, laboratory analyses
 to monitor the system performance, electrical and water
 utilities, and carbon adsorption regeneration or disposal.
2.7.7 Cost

A complete analysis of costs to operate the ZENON
pervaporation system is presented in Section 3.0.  The
analysis presents cost estimates for treating groundwater
at NASNI contaminated with TCE. In short, operating
conditions include treating the groundwater at 8 gpm for a
period of 15 years.   Total fixed costs  are $189,500.
Equipment costs comprise 79 percent of the total fixed
costs. Total annual variable costs are $ 118,100. Utilities
costs comprise 47 percent of the variable costs, and
residual waste handling services comprise  28 percent.
After operating for  15  years,  the total  cost  of the
groundwater  remediation scenario  presented  in this
analysis is $1,961,000. Annual costs were not adjusted for
inflation.  A total of 63 million gallons of groundwater
would be treated over this time period. The total cost per
1,000 gallons treated is $31, or roughly 3 cents per gallon.
During the demonstration, numerous equipment failures
occurred, which caused extensive downtime. It is assumed
that the pervaporation  system will be perfected  by
ZENON thereby decreasing maintenance requirements. If
technical needs are not addressed by ZENON, the costs
associated with applying this system could be substantially
higher than those presented in this analysis.

 2.7.8  State Acceptance

 State acceptance is anticipated to be favorable because the
 ZENON system is an advanced technology that generates
 low relative residual waste. Also, the ZENON system is
 small and relatively easy to  transport,  operate,  and
 manage.  If remediation  is conducted as part of RCRA
 corrective actions, state regulatory agencies may require
 that permits be obtained before implementing the system,
 such as a permit to operate, an air emissions permit, and a
 permit to store permeate for greater than 90 days if these
 items are considered hazardous wastes.

 2.7.9 Community Acceptance

 The ZENON  system has limited space requirements,
 minimal maintenance and monitoring, and a low noise
  level. Emissions are limited when the system is used in
  conjunction with  carbon  filters.  Because  an operating
  ZENON system requires only minor maintenance, traffic
  in and out of a particular site will be limited. Short-term
  risks to  the  community are  minimal,  which include
  delivery  vehicle traffic to and from the site electrical
  concerns during installation.  Long-term benefits include
                                                     16

-------
the permanent removal of organic  contaminants from
groundwater.    These factors  make  this  technology
favorable to the public.

2.8   Technology Performance Versus
       ARARs

This  section  discusses  specific  federal  regulatory
requirements  pertinent to the treatment, storage, and
disposal of water and permeate, along with other materials
generated  during the operation of  the 'technology.
Regulatory  requirements  that  apply  to a particular
remediation  activity will  depend on the  type  of
remediation site and the type of waste being treated.
Contaminated groundwater is usually not considered a
hazardous waste unless it is withdrawn from the aquifer
and placed in stand-alone containers ortanks. Contaminated
leachates and other waste streams considered hazardous
may be RCRA regulated.  Table 2-2 provides a summary
of regulations discussed in this section. Remedial project
managers will have to address federal requirements, along
with state and local regulatory requirements, which may
be more stringent.

2.8.1 Comprehensive Environmental
       Response, Compensation,  and
       Liability Act

CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)  of 1986,  authorizes the
federal government to respond to releases or  potential
releases of any hazardous substances into the environment,
as well as to releases of pollutants or contaminants that
may present an imminent or significant danger to public
health and welfare or the  environment.   Remedial
alternatives that significantly reduce the volume, toxicity,
or mobility of hazardous materials and provide long-term
protection are preferred. Selected remedies must also  be
cost  effective  and  protect human  health  and the
environment.

Contaminated water is treated on site,  while  residual
wastes generated during the installation, operation, and
monitoring of the system may be treated either on- or off-
site.  CERCLA requires that on-site actions  meet  all
substantive  state'and federal  ARARs.    Substantive
requirements pertain directly to actions or conditions in
the environment (such as, groundwater effluent and air
emission standards). Off-site actions must comply with
both legally applicable substantive and' administrative
ARARs. Administrative requirements,.such as permitting,
facilitate the implementation of substantive requirements.

ARARs are determined on a site-by-site basis and may be
waived under six conditions: (1) the action is an interim
measure, and the ARAR will be met at completion; (2)
compliance with the ARAR would pose a greater risk to
health and the environment than noncompliance; (3) it is
technically impracticable to  meet  the  ARAR; (4)  the
standard of performance  of an ARAR can be met by an
equivalent  method; (5)  a state  ARAR has not been
consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) fund balancing
where ARAR  compliance would  entail such cost in
relation to the added degree of protection or reduction of
risk afforded by that ARAR that remedial action at other
sites would be jeopardized. These waiver options apply
only to Superfund actions taken on site,  and justification
for the waiver must be clearly demonstrated.   Off-site
remediatioris are not eligible for ARAR waivers, and all
substantive and administrative applicable requirements
must be met.

For the  ZENON technology, treated groundwater and
concentrated permeate are the primary residual wastes
generated from the treatment system. During the SITE
demonstration, spent granular activated  carbon was also
generated from treatment of air  emissions.  CERCLA
requires identification and consideration of environmental
laws that  are ARARs  for site  remediation before
implementation of a remedial technology at a Superfund
site. Given these wastes (typical of operation of a ZENON
system), the following additional regulations pertinent to
use of a ZENON system were identified: (1) RCRA, (2)
the Clean Water Act (CWA), (3) SD WA, (4) the Clean Air
Act (CAA), and (5) the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). These five regulatory authorities
are discussed below.  Specific ARARs under these acts
that were applicable  to the SITE demonstration  are
presented in Table 1.

2.8.2  Resource Conservation and
       Recovery Act

RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Disposal Amendments of 1984, regulates management
and disposal of municipal and industrial solid wastes. The
EPA and RCRA-authorized states [listed in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 272] implement
and enforce RCRA and state regulations.  Some of the
RCRA requirements under 40 CFR Part 264  apply at
                                                  17

-------
Table 2-2.  Federal and State ARARs
     Process Activity
          ARAR
          Description
  Why ZENON is Subject to ARAR
              Requirements
   Remediate
   contaminated
   groundwater
   (cleanup standards)

   Waste
   characterization
   (untreated waste)

   Waste processing
   Waste
   characterization
   (treated waste,
   permeate, and spent
   carbon)


   Storage after
   processing
SDWA 40 CFR Parts 141
through 149 or state
equivalent
TCE - 0.005 mg/L

RCRA 40 CFR Part 261
Subparts C and D or state
equivalent

RCRA 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265 or state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 261 or
state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264
and 265 or state equivalent
Establishes drinking water quality
standards for public water
supplies


Identifies whether the waste is a
listed or characteristic hazardous
waste

Identifies standards applicable to
the treatment of hazardous waste
at permitted and interim status
facilities
Identifies whether the waste is a
listed or characteristic hazardous
waste
Standards that apply to the
storage of hazardous waste hi
tanks or containers
The groundwater may be used as a
source of drinking water.
A RCRA requirement prior to
managing and handling the waste


Hazardous waste must be treated hi a
manner that meets the operating and
monitoring requirements; the
treatment process may be considered
a miscellaneous unit.
A RCRA requirement prior to
managing and handling the waste; it
must be determined if treated waste is
still a RCRA hazardous waste.
If treated water stored in tanks is
considered hazardous, requirements
for storage of hazardous waste in
tanks may apply. Spent carbon in the
containers may be handled as
hazardous if derived from the
treatment of a RCRA hazardous
waste.	    	
Additional treatment must occur until
cleanup standards are met.
Chemical and physical analyses must be
performed.


Equipment must be operated and maintained
daily.  The ZENON system must be
monitored and maintained to prevent
leakage or failure; the tanks and equipment
must be decontaminated when processing is
complete.

Chemical tests must be performed on treated
waste and permeate prior to discharge to
surface water, a POTW, or off site disposal.
The spent carbon is considered a hazardous
waste if it is derived from treatment of
hazardous waste.

The spent carbon must be stored in tanks or
containers that are well maintained; the
container storage area must be  constructed
to Control runon and runoff.

-------
Table 2-2.  Federal and State ARARs (continued)
       Process Activity
          ARAR
          Description
  Why ZENON is. Subject to ARAR
              Requirements
    On-site/off-site
    disposal
    Transportation for
    off-site disposal
    Wastewater injection
RCRA40CFRPart264or
state equivalent
RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 or
state equivalent


RCRA40CFRPart262or
state equivalent
                         RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 or
                         state equivalent
SDWA 40 CFR Parts 144
and 145
Standards that apply to
incineration and landfilling
hazardous waste
Standards that restrict the
placement of certain hazardous
wastes in or on the ground

Manifest requirements and
packaging and labeling
requirements prior to transport
                            Transportation standards
Standards that apply to the
disposal of contaminated water in
underground injection wells
Organic permeate will likely be
handled as a RCRA hazardous waste.
Spent carbon may need to be
managed as a hazardous waste if it is
derived from treatment of hazardous
waste.

The hazardous waste may be subject
to the LDRs.
Organic permeate will likely need to
be manifested and managed as a
hazardous waste. This may also
apply to spent carbon if it is derived
from treatment of hazardous waste.

Organic permeate will likely need to
be manifested and managed as a
hazardous waste. This may also
apply to spent carbon if it is derived
from treatment of hazardous  waste.

Treated groundwater may be
reinjected into the aquifer.
Wastes must be incinerated or disposed of at
a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste facility,
or EPA approval must be obtained EPA to
dispose of wastes on site.
The waste must be characterized to
determine if the LDRs apply; treated wastes
must be tested and results compared.

An identification number must be obtained
from EPA.
                                                                     A transporter licensed by EPA must be used
                                                                     to transport the hazardous waste according
                                                                     to EPA regulations.
If the technology is defined as underground
injection and the treated groundwater still
contains hazardous constituents then a
waiver from EPA or the state will likely be
required.	

-------
         Table 2-2. Federal and State ARARs (continued)
             Process Activity
                               ARAR
                                      Description
                                                                                              Why ZENON is Subject to ARAR
                                                                                                                                    Requirements
           Discharge of water
to
o
Air emissions from
the system
                     CWA 40 CFR Parts 122 to
                     125, Part 403
                            Standards that apply to the
                            discharge of water to a surface
                            water body or a POTW
CAA or state equivalent;
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264
and 265, Subparts AA, BB,
and CC; State
Implementation Plan;
OSWBR Directive 9355.0-
28
Regulated air emissions mat may
impact attainment of ambient air
quality standards
Treated water, purge water; and
decontamination water'may be
discharged to a surface water body or
a POTW.  If treated water is
discharged to an off-site surface
water body, an NPDES permit is
required and permit levels must be
achieved.

The ZENON technology usually
incorporates carbon filtration of the
gases as part of the treatment system.
Treated air is emitted to the
atmosphere.
An NPDES permit is not required if treated
water is discharged to an on-site surface
water body, which may be considered
further treatment. Compliance with
substantive and administrative requirements
of the national pretreatment program is
required treated water is discharged off-site
to a  POTW.

Treatment of the contaminated air must
adequately remove contaminants so that air
quality is not impacted.
         Notes:
                 ARAR   Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
                 SDWA   Saie Drinking Water Act
                 40 CFR  Title 40 of flre Code of Federal Regulations
                 NPDES  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                 CWA   dean Water Act
                 CAA   Clean Air Act
                 TCE    Trichloroethene

-------
 CERCLA sites  that contain RCRA hazardous waste
 because  remedial actions generally involve treatment,
 storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.

 Contaminated water treated by the ZENON system will
 most likely  be  hazardous  or  sufficiently similar  to
 hazardous waste so that RCRA standards will apply. Tank
 storage of contaminated  water considered a hazardous
 waste must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264 or
 265,  Subpart J.   Pertinent RCRA  requirements  are
 discussed below.

 The  presence  of  RCRA-defmed   hazardous  waste
 determines whether  RCRA regulations apply  to  the
 ZENON technology.  If wastes generated during  the
 installation, monitoring, or operation of the technology are
 determined to be hazardous according to  RCRA, all
 RCRA  requirements regarding the  management  and
 disposal of hazardous wastes will need to be addressed.
 RCRA regulations define hazardous wastes and regulate
 their transport, treatment, storage, and disposal.  Wastes
 defined as hazardous under RCRA include characteristic
 and listed wastes. Criteria for identifying characteristic
 hazardous wastes are included in  40 CFR Part 261,
 Subpart C. Listed wastes from nonspecific and specific
 industrial sources,  off-specification  products,  spill
 cleanups, and other industrial sources are itemized in 40
 CFR Part 261, Subpart D.

 If contaminated  groundwater  is determined to be a
 hazardous waste, and is extracted for treatment, storage, or
 disposal, the requirements for a hazardous waste generator
 will be applicable.   Requirements for hazardous waste
 generators are specified  in 40 CFR Part 262.   These
 requirements  include obtaining an  EPA  identification
 number, meeting waste accumulation standards, labeling
 wastes,   and   keeping  appropriate  records.    These
 requirements also allow generators to store wastes up to 90
 days without a permit and without having interim status as
 a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. If the untreated
 influent is a "listed waste," or  the treated effluent  is a
 "characteristic waste," and treatment residues are stored
 on site for 90 days or more, requirements in 40 CFR Part
 265 apply. If hazardous wastes are treated by the ZENON
 system, the owner or operator of the treatment or disposal
 facility must obtain an EPA identification number and a
 RCRA permit from the EPA- or RCRA-authorized state.
RCRA requirements for permits are specified in 40 CFR
Part 270.  In addition, to the permitting requirements,
 owners and operators of facilities that treat hazardous
 waste must comply with 40 CFR Part 264.

 Use of the ZENON system would constitute treatment as
 defined by RCRA.   Therefore, treatment requirements
 may apply if the ZENON system is found to belong to a
 treatment category classification regulated under RCRA,
 and if it is used to treat a RCRA listed or characteristic
 waste.  Treatment requirements in 40 CFR Part 264,
 Subpart X, which regulate hazardous waste, treatment,
 and disposal in miscellaneous units, may be relevant to the
 ZENON system.  Subpart X requires that treatment "in
 miscellaneous  units protect  human  health  and  the
 environment.  Treatment requirements in 40 CFR Part
 265,  Subpart Q (Chemical, Physical,  and Biological
 Treatment),  could also apply.   Subpart  Q includes
 requirements for automatic  influent  shutoff,  waste
 analysis, and trial tests.   RCRA also contains special
 standards  for ignitable or reactive wastes, incompatible
 wastes, and special categories of waste (40 CFR Parts 264
 and 265, Subpart B). These standards may apply to the
 ZENON system, depending on the waste to be treated.

 Requirements for corrective action at RCRA-regulated
 facilities are provided in 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts F and
 S. These subparts also apply to remediation at Superfund
 (CERCLA) sites. Subparts F and S include requirements
 for initiating and conducting RCRA corrective  actions,
 remediating groundwater,  and  ensuring that corrective
 actions  comply with other environmental  regulations.
 Subpart S also details conditions under which particular
 RCRA  requirements may be  waived  for  temporary
 treatment units operating at corrective action sites. Thus,
 RCRA mandates requirements similar to CERCLA, and as
 proposed,  allows treatment units such as the ZENON
treatment system to operate without full permits.

Air emissions from operation of the ZENON are subject to
RCRA regulations on air emissions from hazardous waste
treatment, storage,  or disposal operations and are
addressed in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subparts AA, BB,
 and CC.  Subpart AA regulations apply to process  vents
 associated with  specific treatment operations for wastes
contaminated with  organic constituents, which would
apply to the ZENON system due to the vacuum  vent.
 Subpart BB regulations apply to fugitive emissions, such
as equipment leaks,  from hazardous waste treatment,
 storage, or disposal facilities that treat waste containing
organic concentrations of at least 10 percent by  weight.
These regulations address pumps, compressors, open-
                                                   21

-------
ended valves or lines, and flanges. Subpart BB regulations
would normally not impact the ZENON system because of
lower  contaminant concentrations usually  found  in
affected aquifers. Any organic air emissions from storage
tanks would be subject to the RCRA organic air emission
regulations in  40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subpart CC.
These regulations address air emissions from hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility tanks, surface
impoundments, and  containers.    The   Subpart  CC
regulations were issued in December 1994 and became
effective in July 1995 for facilities regulated under RCRA.
Presently, EPA is deferring application of the Subpart CC
standards to waste management units used solely to treat
or store hazardous waste generated on site from remedial
activities required  under RCRA  corrective action or
CERCLA response authorities (or similar state remediation
authorities). Therefore, Subpart CC regulations would not
immediately  impact  implementation of  the ZENON
system.  The  air emission standards are applicable to
treatment, storage, or disposal 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. The most
important air requirements are probably associated with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and state air toxic programs (see
Section 2.8.5).

Concentrated permeate, spent  granular activated carbon
(if used),  and  possibly,  contaminated   soil  cuttings
generated  during  the  installation,  operation,  and
monitoring of the  treatment system must be stored and
disposed of properly.  If the untreated water is a listed
hazardous waste, treatment residues will be considered a
hazardous waste (unless RCRA delisting requirements are
met). If the untreated water is a characteristic hazardous
waste, treatment residues should be tested to determine if
they are a RCRA characteristic  hazardous waste.   If
activated  carbon  and soil  cutting residues  are  not
hazardous and do not contain free liquids, they  can be
disposed of at a nonhazardous waste landfill.

If the organic phase of the permeate, spent carbon, or soil
cuttings is hazardous, RCRA standards may apply. For
most applications  involving the removal of VOCs from
water, concentrated permeate will normally be classified
as a hazardous waste, requiring recycling or disposal at a
designated treatment facility. Any facility (on-site or off-
site) designated for  permanent disposal  of hazardous
wastes must comply with RCRA. Disposal facilities must
fulfill  permitting,  storage, maintenance, and closure
requirements contained in 40 CFR Parts 264 through 270.
In addition, any authorized state RCRA requirements must
be fulfilled.  If treatment residues are disposed off site,
transportation standards apply.

Water quality standards included in  RCRA (such as
groundwater monitoring and protection standards), the
CWA, and the SDWA are appropriate cleanup standards
and apply to discharges of treated water.  The CWA and
SDWA are discussed below.

2.8.3  Clean Water Act

The CWA  is designed to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological quality of navigable
surface waters by establishing federal, state, and local
discharge standards.  Treated water, purge water, and
decontamination water generated from the  system and
during monitoring of the 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 NPDES requirements, but do not require
an  NPDES  permit.   A direct  discharge of CERCLA
wastewater  would qualify as "on site" if the receiving
water body is in the area of contamination or in very close
proximity to the site and if the discharge is necessary to
implement the response action.  Off-site discharges to a
surface water body require a 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 also be identified and satisfied.

Any applicable local or state requirements, such as local or
state pretreatment requirements or water quality standards
(WQS), must also be identified and satisfied.  State WQSs
are  designed  to protect existing and attainable surface
water uses  (for example, recreational and public water
supply). WQSs include surface water use classifications
and numerical or narrative standards (including effluent
toxicity standards,  chemical-specific requirements, and
bioassay  requirements  to  demonstrate no  observable
effect level from a  discharge) (EPA 1988b).  These
standards should be reviewed on a state- and location-
specific basis before discharges are made to surface water
bodies.  Bioassay tests may be required if the ZENON
                                                    22

-------
  system is  implemented  in  particular states  and if it
  discharges treated water to surface water bodies.

  2.8.4  Safe Drinking Water Act

  The 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 wellhead
 protection programs.

 The National Primary Drinking Water Standards are found
 in 40 CFR Parts 141 through 149. SDWA primary or
 health-based, and  secondary  or  aesthetic maximum
 contaminant level (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,  more  stringent maximum
 contaminant level goals (MCLG) may be appropriate.  In
 other cases, alternate concentration limits (ACL) based on
 site-specific  conditions may be used.  CERCLA and
 RCRA standards and  guidance  should  be  used  in
 establishing ACLs (EPA 1987). During the demonstration,
 ZENON system performance was tested for compliance
 with SDWA MCLs for TCE.  Removal of TCE to below
 the MCL was not met and is discussed in Section 4.3.

 If the treated water is  reinjected  into an  aquifer, the
 ZENON system may be interpreted by federal or state
 agencies as underground injection since treated water is
 placed into the subsurface. If this interpretation is applied,
 water  discharged from the ZENON system  will  be
 regulated by the underground injection control program
 found in CFR 40 Parts 144 and 145. Injection wells are
 categorized in Classes 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 after treatment, the groundwater
 still  contains hazardous waste, its  reinjection into the
 upper portion of the aquifer would be subject to 40 CFR
Part 144.13, which prohibits Class IV wells. Technically,
groundwater pumping wells used in conjunction with the
ZENON technology could be considered Class IV wells
because of the following definition found in 40 CFR Part
 144.6(d):
  "(d) Class IV. (1) Wells used by generators of hazardous
  waste or of radioactive waste, by owners or operators of
  hazardous waste management facilities, or by owners or
  operators of radioactive waste disposal sites to dispose of
  hazardous waste or radioactive waste into a formation
  which within one-quarter (!4) mile of the well contains an
  underground  source of drinking water.

  (2) Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or of
  radioactive waste, by owners or operators of hazardous
  waste management facilities, or by owners or operators of
  radioactive waste disposal sites  to dispose of hazardous
  waste or radioactive waste above a formation which within
  one-quarter (1A) mile of the well contains an underground
  source of drinking water.

  (3)  Wells used by  generators  of hazardous waste or
  owners or operators  of hazardous waste management
  facilities to dispose of hazardous waste, which cannot be
 classified under paragraph (a)(l) or (d) (1) and (2) of this
 section (e.g., wells used to dispose of hazardous waste into
 or above a formation which contains an aquifer which has
 been exempted pursuant to § 146.04)."

 The  sole-source  aquifer  protection  and  wellhead
 protection programs  are designed to  protect  specific
 drinking water supply sources. If such a source is to  be
 remediated  using  the  ZENON  system,  appropriate
 program officials should be notified, and any potential
 regulatory requirements should be  identified.   State
 groundwater antidegradation requirements and WQSs
 may also apply.

 2.8.5  Clean Air Act

 EPA has developed a  guidance document for control  of
 emissions from air stripper operations at CERCLA sites.
 This document, entitled "Control of Air Emissions from
 Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund Groundwater Sites"
 (EPA 1989a),  provides information relevant to vented
 gases from the ZENON system.   The  EPA  guidance
 suggests that the sources most in need of controls are those
 with an actual emissions rate of total VOCs in excess of 3
 pounds per hour,  or 15 pounds per day, or a potential
 (calculated) rate of 10 tons per year (EPA 1989b). Based
 on air analysis from the demonstration, vapor discharges
from the ZENON system would be required to pass
through carbon filters to comply with the EPA guidance.
                                                   23

-------
The CAA and the 1990 amendments establish primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards for protection of
public health as well as 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 operation of the ZENON system
because the technology ultimately results in an emission
from a point source to the ambient air. Allowable emission
limits  for  operation  of a  ZENON  system  will be
established on a site-by-site basis depending on the type of
waste treated and whether or not the site is in an attainment
area of theNAAQS.  Allowable emission limits may be set
for specific  hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter,
hydrogen chloride,  or other pollutants.  A local State
Implementation Plan may include specific standards to
control air emissions of VOCs in ozone nonattainment
areas. Typically, an air abatement device such as a carbon
adsorption unit will be required to remove VOCs from the
ZENON system's process air stream before discharge to
the ambient air.

The ARARs pertaining to the CAA can only be determined
on a site-by-site basis. Remedial activities involving the
ZENON 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 apply when the
remedial activities involve a major source or modification
as defined in 40 CFR §52.21. Activities subject to PSD
 review must ensure application of best available control
technologies and demonstrate that the activity will not
 adversely impact ambient air quality.

 2.8.6 Occupational Safety and Health
        Administration Requirements

 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 action sites
 must be performed  in accordance with Part  1926  of
 OSHA, which provides safety and health regulations for
 constructions sites. For example, electric utility hookups
 for the ZENON system must comply with Part 1926,
 Subpart K, Electrical.  State OSHA requirements, which
may be significantly stricter than federal standards, must
also be met. In addition, health and safety plans for site
remediations should address  chemicals of concern and
include monitoring practices to ensure that worker health
and safety is maintained.

All technicians operating the ZENON treatment 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, and
specific operational activities,  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 on the
A-weighted scale.
                                                     24

-------
                                               Section 3
                                        Economic Analysis
 This economic analysis presents cost estimates for using
 the ZENON cross-flow pervaporation technology to treat
 groundwater contaminated with VOCs.  Cost data were
 compiled during the SITE demonstration atNASNI Site 9
 and from information obtained from independent vendors,
 R.S. Means Inc. (Means 1995), and ZENON.  Costs have
 been placed in 12 categories applicable to typical  cleanup
 activities at Superfund and RCRA sites (Evans 1990).
 Costs, which are presented in 1995 dollars, are rounded to
 the nearest 100 dollars, and are considered to be estimates
 with an expected accuracy within 50 percent above and 30
 percent below the actual costs.

 This economic analysis presents the costs associated with
 using the ZENON pervaporation treatment system at
 NASNI Site 9 operating at S.gpm continuously for 15
 years. Section 3.1 describes the issues and assumptions
 that form the basis of the economic analysis. Section 3.2
 discusses costs associated with  using  the ZENON
 technology  to  treat  groundwater  contaminated  with
 VOCs, and Section  3.3  presents conclusions  of the
 economic analysis.

 3.1   Issues And Assumptions

 This section summarizes major issues and  assumptions
 regarding site-specific factors, equipment, and operating
 parameters used in this economic analysis.  Issues and
 assumptions are presented in  Subsections 3.2.1 through
 3.2.3.  Assumptions are summarized in bullets following
 each section. Certain assumptions  were made to account
 for variable site and waste parameters. Other assumptions
 were made to simplify cost estimating for situations that
 actually would require complex engineering or financial
 functions.  In general, most ZENON system operating
 issues and assumptions are based on information provided
by  ZENON and observations made during  the SITE
demonstration.
 3.1.1 Site-Specific Factors

 Site-specific factors can affect the costs of using  the
 ZENON pervaporation treatment system. These factors
 can be grouped into waste-related factors or site features.

 Waste-related  factors affecting  costs  include  waste
 volume,  contaminant  types and  concentrations,  and
 treatment goals designated by regulatory agencies.  Waste
 volume affects total project costs because a larger volume
 takes longer to remediate. 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 contaminant types and levels in the
 groundwater and the treatment goals for the site determine
 (1) the appropriate number of ZENON  pervaporation
 modules, which affects capital equipment costs; (2)  the
 flow rate at which treatment goals can  be  met,  which
 affects the duration of the remediation; and (3) periodic
 sampling requirements, which affect analytical costs.

 Site features affecting costs include geology, aquifer
 permeability, groundwater chemistry (such as naturally
 occurring minerals in solution),  and site  geographic
 location. Site geology and soil characteristics such as total
 organic  content  and  permeability  also  affect  the
 groundwater extraction rate and the required treatment
 period. Overall, annual variable costs are relatively low
 with this technology, As a result, factors that affect the
 duration of remediation do not significantly impact total
 treatment costs.

 Groundwater chemistry can  affect the  pervaporation
 system in several ways.  Solids can clog the prefilter,
 requiring frequent cleaning. Influent with a high alkalinity
or high amounts of calcium or iron can cause scaling of the
system. Anti-scalents can be added to the untreated water
as a preventative measure. These factors would increase
                                                   25

-------
the duration of remediation, affecting consumable and
time-related variable costs, or may impact maintenance
costs.

Geographic location  will  impact  site  preparation,
mobilization, and demobilization costs. Mobilization and
demobilization costs are affected by the relative distances
that system materials must be transported to the site. Site
preparation costs are influenced by the availability of
access roads and utility lines.

Site-specific assumptions used for the economic analysis
include the following:

 •  The  groundwater  is  contaminated with  TCE  in
    concentrations ranging from 30 to 250 milligrams per
    liter (mg/L) and is a hazardous waste

 •  Treated water will be discharged to a POTW

 -  Utilities, including electricity and water, along with
    other infrastructure  features (for  example,  access
    roads to the site) are readily available

 •  The groundwater remediation project involves a
    total  of 63 million gallons of contaminated water.
    This groundwater volume corresponds to the volume
    that the system can treat operating continuously for 15
    years at an average flow rate of 8 gpm. Some down-
    time is expected for system maintenance and repair,
    and is not considered in this cost estimate
 3.1.2 Equipment and Operating
        Parameters

 ZENON will provide the appropriate system configuration,
 which includes pervaporation modules, condensers, and
 piping.   The configuration  is based  on  site-specific
 conditions such as aquifer permeability and groundwater
 contaminant types.

 Depreciation of  equipment is not considered in this
 analysis in order to simplify presenting the costs of this
 analysis.    An  additional  assumption  is  that the
 pervaporation system  will be perfected  by  ZENON
 thereby decreasing maintenance requirements. During the
 demonstration, numerous equipment failures occurred,
 which caused extensive downtime and eventually required
 demonstration sampling to be shortened to 5 days (see
Section 4.2.3).  If technical needs are not addressed by
ZENON, the costs associated with applying this system
could be substantially higher than those presented in this
analysis.

The  equipment and  operating parameter  assumptions
include the following:

 •   A 100-square-foot concrete  pad is needed for the
    pervaporation system

 •   The individual components of the treatment system
    are mobilized to the site and assembled by ZENON

 •  Groundwater will be extracted from the contaminated
    aquifer using existing wells

 •   The treatment system is operated 24 hours per day, 7
    days per week,  52 weeks per  year for 15  years.
    Routine maintenance results in a down-time of about 2
    percent of this time and is  not considered  in the
    calculations.

  •   The treatment system operates automatically without
    the constant attention  of an  operator,  with the
    exception of maintenance-related labor

  •   The treatment system is effective enough to allow
    treated groundwater to be discharged to a POTW. To
     comply with NPDES or SDWA limitations,  further
     treatment with a separate technology, such as  carbon
     adsorption,  may   be    required;   however,
     postpervaporation carbon  filters for  water are not
     considered as part of this analysis.

      Air emissions monitoring is not needed based on
      the use of a carbon filter

 3.1.3 Miscellaneous Factors

 For  this analysis, annual costs are not adjusted for
 inflation, and  no net present value is  calculated. Most
 groundwater remediation projects are long-term in nature,
 and usually a net present worth analysis is performed for
 cost comparisons. The  variable costs for this technology
 are  relatively  low.    In addition, no  other  system
 configurations  or  technologies  are presented  in this
 analysis for comparison.
                                                     26

-------
Additional premises used for this economic analysis are
the following:

 •  The ZENON system is mobilized to the remediation
    site from within 500 miles of the site

 •  Labor costs for operation, maintenance, and sampling
    are incurred  by  the client.   ZENON performs
    maintenance and modification activities     that  are
    paid for by the client.

 •  Initial operator training is provided by ZENON a part
    of installation and startup services
3.2   Cost Categories

Table 3-1 presents cost breakdowns addressing the 12 cost
categories.   Cost data associated with the  ZENON
technology  have  been presented  for  the following
categories:  (l)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. Each of these cost categories is
discussed in the following sections.

3.2.1 Site Preparation

Site preparation costs include performing a treatability
study,  conducting engineering design  activities,  and
preparing the treatment area. A treatability study will take
about 1 month to complete and cost between $1,000 and
$3,000. After the study and a preliminary site assessment,
ZENON will design the optimal system configuration for
a particular site.  System design costs are included in the
equipment costs in Subsection 3.2.4.

Preparation of the treatment area includes installing a 100-
square-foot concrete pad, fencing, and piping and pumps
to connect the wells to the system.  Groundwater wells
with sufficient pumping and recovery rates are assumed to
be available, but piping will need to be installed to connect
the wells to the ZENON system and will cost about $ 10 per
linear foot to construct. For this analysis, it is assumed that
500 feet of piping will be necessary to connect the
groundwater wells to the ZENON system. Total piping
costs, including labor, are $5,000.
A concrete pad is preferred to support the ZENON system,
although it  is also possible to use packed soil.   The
concrete pad should be bermed, epoxy-coated, reinforced,
and 6 inches thick. This pad can be constructed for $25 per
square foot for a total of $2,500. A 6-foot-high security
fence and one gate is needed to limit  access to the
treatment system. Fencing costs about $21 per foot, which
includes labor and supplies. This analysis assumes the
fence will secure a 20-foot-by-20-foot area. Total fencing
costs, including labor and supplies, are $1,700.

Secondary containment for bulk storage of untreated and
treated water was required during the SITE demonstration
and  may be  required  in other  applications  of the
technology.    Secondary  containment for  a  15-year
treatment operation would probably require a sealed
concrete dike.  An average of $5,000 has been used for
secondary containment.

Total site preparation costs are estimated to be $17,200.

3.2.2  Permitting and Regulatory Costs

Permitting  and  regulatory costs  depend on  whether
treatment is performed at a  Superfund or a  RCRA
corrective action site and on how disposal of treated
effluent and any generated solid wastes occurs. 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.  Remediation at RCRA corrective  action sites
requires additional monitoring and recordkeeping, which
can increase the regulatory costs. In general, ARARs must
be determined on  a site-specific  basis.   This analysis
assumes remediation at a Superfund site.

For this analysis, permitting and regulatory costs are
associated with  discharging treated  groundwater to a
POTW.  The cost of all permits are  based  on the
characteristics of the effluent and related receiving water
requirements.  An air permit is also necessary for the
release  of VOCs that escape from  the  pervaporation
system's vacuum vent.

Total permitting and regulatory costs for this analysis are
estimated to be $3,000.
                                                    27

-------
Table 3-1. Costs Associated with the ZENON Treatment Process
Cost. Categories

Site Preparation Costs (c)
Treatability study
Piping from wells
Concrete pad
Security fence
Secondary containment
Permitting and Regulatory Costs (c)
Mobilization and Startup (c)
Transporation
Assembly
Forklift rental
Electric hookup
GC rental (two months)
Trailer
Equipment (c)
Pervaporation system
Bulk tanks
Labor (d)
Technician labor
Supplies (d)
Carbon Canisters
Personal protective equipment
Disposal drums
Utilities (d)
Electricity
Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs (d)
Publicly owned treatment works charges
Residual Waste Shipping and Handling (d)
Carbon Canister Disposal
Drum disposal
Transportation charges
Analytical Services (d)
Equipment Maintenance (d)
Replacement parts
Anti-seal ing and acidic chemicals

Itemized
Cost(b)

$3,000
5,000
2,500
1,700
5,000


1,500
4,000
600
4,000
8,000
1,200

140,000
10,000

7,000

2,000
200
700

55,200

7,000

2,400
28,800
2,400


1,500
2,500
0
Total Cost (b) !

$17,200





3,000
19,300






150,000


7,000

2,900



55,200

7,000

33,600



8,400
4,000




Total One-Tune Costs




118.100
                     F
                     EC
 'otal Groundwater Treatment Project Costs (f)
[Costs per 1.000 gallons treated (z)       __^==i!
                      Notes:
                      (a)  Based on conditions similar to SITE demonstration at NASNI Site 9
                      (b)  Costs are in May 1996 dollars
                      (c)  Fixed costs
                      (d)  Annual variable costs
                      (e)  Equipment may require disposal or have salvage value, therefore assume no cost
                      (f)  Total of 63 million gallons treated
                      (g)  Total over a 15-year period; costs not adjusted for inflation
$1,961,000
  	31
                                                                   28

-------
  3.2.3  Mobilization and Startup

  Mobilization and startup costs include the costs  of
  delivering the ZENON system components to the site from
  the suppliers, assembling the system, and performing the
  initial shakedown of the  treatment system.  ZENON
  provides trained personnel to assemble and shake down
  the ZENON system. ZENON personnel are assumed to be
  trained in appropriate health and safety procedures,  so
  health and safety training costs are not included as a direct
  startup cost. Initial operator training is needed to ensure
  safe, economical, and efficient operation of the system.
  ZENON includes initial operator training to its customers
  in the cost of the capital equipment.

  Transportation costs vary depending on the location of the
  site in relation to the  ZENON offices  in Burlington,
 Ontario.  The pervaporation system is mounted in a steel
 enclosure measuring about 12 feet by 8 feet by 7 feet, that
 can be shipped to sites  in a semi trailer. The ZENON
 offices are assumed to be located within 500 miles of the
 site.  Transportation costs are estimated to be $1,500 or
 about $3 per mile.

 Assembly costs include  the costs of unloading delivered
 equipment,  assembling  the  ZENON  system,  piping
 connections, and electrical connections.   A two-person
 crew will work 10 8-hour days to unload and assemble the
 system and perform the initial shakedown. Working at a
 wage rate of $25 per hour, which  includes per  diem,
 personnel costs for assembly are about $4,000. The only
 heavy equipment requirement is a forklift to  move the
 pervaporation system  from  the  semi-trailer to the
 treatment location. A forklift would be necessary for this
 work for about 1 week. Forklift costs are estimated to be
 $600 for a weekly rental.  Electricity connection costs will
 vary based on the site location and are estimated to be
 $4,000. Total assembly costs are estimated to be $8,600.

 Clean water is used during the shakedown process to
 verify that all components are operating correctly before
 the contaminated water enters the system.  Clean water is
 also needed for decontaminating process equipment and
 for site personnel. However, as the water requirements are
 minimal, no costs have been estimated.

 Once the ZENON system is assembled and operational, a
 GC is needed to monitor the effectiveness of contaminant
removal from the effluent. The GC is necessary for  about
2 months for ZENON to ensure that the system is operating
  at its optimum. Rental costs for the GC are estimated to be
  $4,000 per month, for a total cost of $8,000.

  A trailer will be needed during mobilization to house
  equipment, the GC, and as a meeting area.  A 2-month
  trailer rental is about $1,200.

  Total mobilization and startup costs are estimated to be
  $19,300.

  3.2.4 Equipment Costs

 Equipment costs consists of the  costs of purchasing the
 ZENON  treatment  system.   ZENON  configures  the
 complete ZENON treatment system based on site-specific
 conditions. The  components for this analysis and their
 respective costs  include:  the  pervaporation system
 ($140,000) and  two  10,000-gallon  steel bulk  tanks
 ($10,000  or  $5,000 each)  for equalization of  the
 groundwater.  System design costs are included with these
 costs.

 The  equipment  will  be  used for the duration of  the
 groundwater remediation project, which for this analysis
 is 15 years. The pervaporation modules have a potential
 salvage value of 25 percent of their original cost; however,
 because of the uncertainty of economic circumstances and
 market conditions, no salvage value was assumed for this
 analysis.

 The total equipment costs of this treatment system are
 $150,000.

 3.2.5 Labor

 Once the system is functioning, it is  assumed to operate
 unattended and   continuously except  during routine
 equipment monitoring. One operator, trained by ZENON,
 performs routine  equipment monitoring and  sampling
 activities. Under normal operating conditions, an operator
 is required to monitor the system about 4 hours per week.
 This labor could be contracted at about $45 per hour.

 Total annual labor costs are estimated to be $7,000.

 3.2.6 Supplies

 Supplies  that  will be needed include carbon filters,
disposable Level D PPE, waste drums, and sampling and
field analytical supplies.
                                                   29

-------
To  comply with  air regulations, carbon  filters  for
capturing VOC releases from the vacuum vent of the
system are a requirement in most applications of this
technology. Two 55-gallon carbon canisters were used
during the  demonstration - one initial filter was as a
primary capturing measure, while the second was used as
a precautionary measure, in the event VOCs escaped from
the first filter.  Carbon canisters cost about $250 each.
Analytical  results  from the demonstration showed no
breakthrough to the second carbon filter over about four
months of off and on activity.  It is estimated that eight
filters would be required each year initially, changed out
quarterly.  This number could change based on analysis
results and  site conditions. Total cost for carbon canisters
are about $2,000 per year.

Disposable PPE typically consists of latex inner gloves,
nitrile outer gloves, and safety glasses. This PPE is needed
during monthly sampling activities that are assumed to be
conducted by the contracted operator.  Disposable PPE is
assumed to cost about $200 per year for the operator.

Disposable PPE and concentrated permeate are assumed
to be hazardous and need to be disposed of in a 55-gallon
steel drum. About four drums are assumed to be filled
every month, and each drum costs about $ 15. Total annual
drum costs are about $700.

Sampling supplies are usually provided free ofcharge by
laboratories and consist of sample bottles and containers,
labels, shipping containers, and laboratory forms for off-
site analyses. Costs for laboratory analyses and sampling
collection labor are presented in Subsection 3.2.10.

Total annual supply costs are estimated to be $2,900.

 3.2.7 Utilities

 Electricity and water are the utilities used by the ZENON
 system.  Less  than 2,000 gallons of water  would be
 necessary  during  mobilization,  so  water  costs are
 considered negligible.   Based on observations  made
 during the SITE demonstration, the system operating for
 24 hours draws about  1,680  kilowatt hours  (kWh)  of
 electricity per day.   The total annual electrical energy
 consumption is estimated to  be about 613,200 kWh.
 Electricity is assumed to cost $0.09 per kWh, including
 demand and usage charges. The total annual electricity
 costs are about $55,200.
3.2.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal
       Costs

This analysis assumes that no further treatment is needed
prior to releasing the treated effluent into the POTW.
Permitting costs were presented under permitting and
regulatory costs in Subsection 3.2.2. Actual disposal costs
depend on the concentrations of VOCs in the effluent and
on the rates charged by a local POTW.  Based on 1996
industrial sewer rates for medium-sized cities, total annual
effluent treatment costs are $7,000 (PRC Environmental
Management, Inc. [PRC] 1996a and 1996b).

3.2.9  Residual Waste Shipping and
        Handling

The residuals produced during operation of the ZENON
system  are  spent carbon  canisters,  used PPE, and
concentrated permeate, all of which would be contained in
steel drums.  For purposes of this analysis, this waste is
considered hazardous and requires disposal at a permitted
facility. It is also assumed that the drums will be removed
every  90 days  in accordance  with RCRA generator
accumulation requirements. Carbon canister removal is
calculated separately from PPE and permeate.

The disposal of carbon canisters during the demonstration
equaled about $300 per drum.  Transportation costs are
estimated at $3 00 per shipment. Estimating the removal of
eight canisters per year over four trips, annual cost of
disposing of the carbon canisters is $3,600.

PPE generation is estimated at two  drums per year and
 could be removed  with  the  concentrated permeate.
 Because  of  mechanical problems  with the  ZENON
 technology  during the demonstration, the amount of
 permeate generated could only be estimated. This analysis
 assumes that about 48 drums of concentrated permeate
 would be generated annually. As a result, transportation
 costs will be incurred four times a year.   The cost of
 handling and transporting the drums  is $300 per load, and
 disposing of them at a hazardous waste disposal facility by
 incineration  costs about $600 per drum.  Annual drum
 disposal costs will be about $30,000.

 Total annual costs  for the  removal  and disposal of
 residuals is about $33,600.
                                                     30

-------
3.2.10       Analytical Services

Required sampling frequencies and number of samples are
site-specific  and   based  on  treatment  goals   and
contaminant concentrations.  Analytical costs associated
with a groundwater remediation project include the costs
of  laboratory analyses,  data reduction,  and  quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC).    This  analysis
assumes that  one  sample of treated  water,  and  an
associated QC sample (trip blank) will be collected and
analyzed monthly  for  the  following  two  series  of
parameters: VOCs ($195) and SVOCs ($370). Monthly
analytical costs for these parameters are about $600. Also,
to indicate  evaluate contaminant breakthrough, one air
sample  should collected each quarter from the vacuum
vent line, between the two carbon canisters. This could be
done with a SUMMA™ canister and analyzed for about
$300 each.  There is no charge for labor associated with
sample collection because the operator who performs the
routine  monitoring will also perform the sampling
activities. The total annual analytical costs are estimated
to be $8,400.
                                        Total annual equipment maintenance costs are estimated
                                        to be $4,000.
3.2.11
Equipment Maintenance
Maintenance labor is needed to check the pervaporation
module prefilter for debris or biological build-up. If debris
or bacteria is found, it is  manually scraped off of the
prefilter  membranes.   Occasional acid washings  are
necessary to clean scaled materials from the membranes.
A neutralization chemical, such as sodium hydroxide
would have to be added  to the  acid solution  before
discharge to a POTW. Depending on the chemistry of
water to be treated, an anti-scaling chemical may need to
be added to the influent. Costs for acid and anti-scalents
are determined on a site-by-site basis and can vary widely.
ZENON considered the groundwater chemistry conditions
during the  demonstration  to  be atypical, presenting a
worst-case scenario. It is estimated that $2,500 would be
spent on  anti-scalent chemicals per year.  No additional
charges for labor associated with equipment maintenance
are added because the operator performing the sampling
and routine monitoring labor will also perform equipment
maintenance.

Although the  groundwater  remediation is long-term,
equipment replacement is expected to be minimal.  The
only replacement parts identified by ZENON that would
require replacement are seals for the piping. However,
other costs should be expected, and replacement part costs
are estimated at an average of $1,500 per year.
                                        3.2.12
               Site Demobilization
Site demobilization includes treatment system shutdown,
disassembly, and  decontamination; site cleanup  and
restoration; utility disconnection; and transportation of the
ZENON equipment off site. This analysis assumes that all
equipment will be transported off site for overhaul or
disposal.

For this analysis, demobilization costs are assumed to
occur 15 years from the date of startup. Because of the
uncertainty  of economic circumstances  and market
conditions, this analysis does not estimate the cost of
demobilization or if the equipment has salvage value.

3.3    Conclusions of Economic Analysis

This  analysis  presents  cost   estimates for  treating
groundwater contaminated  with  TCE.    Operating
conditions include treating the groundwater at 8 gpm for a
period of 15 years.  Table 3-1 shows the costs associated
with the 12 cost categories presented in this analysis.

Total  fixed  costs are  $189,500.  Treatment equipment
costs comprise 79 percent of the total fixed costs. Figure
3-1 shows the distribution of fixed costs.  Total annual
variable costs are  $118,100.  Utilities costs comprise
nearly 50 percent of the variable costs, and residual waste
handling services comprise about 28 percent. Figure 3-2
shows the distribution of variable costs.

After  operating for  15 years,  the total cost of the
groundwater remediation  scenario presented  in   this
analysis is $ 1,961,000.  Annual costs were not adjusted for
inflation.  A total of 63 million  gallons of groundwater
would be treated over this time period. The total cost per
1,000 gallons treated is $31, or roughly 3 cents per gallon.

As noted, it is assumed that the pervaporation system will
be perfected by ZENON thereby decreasing maintenance
requirements.   During  the  demonstration,  numerous
equipment  failures occurred, which caused extensive
downtime.   If  technical needs are not addressed by
ZENON, the costs associated with applying this system
could be substantially higher than those presented in this
analysis.
                                                   31

-------
                                                     Site Preparation
                                                      Costs $17,200
                                                         (9.1%)
               Permitting
                 Costs
                $3,000
                 (1.6%)
                    Mobilization
                 and Startup Costs
                     $19,300
                     (10.2%)
                                                                Equipment Costs
                                                                $150,000 (79.2%)
Figure 3-1. Fixed costs.
                                      Residual
                                    Waste Costs
                                      $33,600
                                      (28.5%)
  Analytical
Services Costs
   $8,400
   (7.1%)
   Equipment
Maintenance Costs
     $4,000
     (3.4%)
Labor Costs
  $7.000
  (5.9%)
                                      Effluent
                                   Disposal Costs
                                      $7,000
                                      (5.9%)
 Figure 3-2.  Annual variable costs.
                                                                         32

-------
                                              Section 4
                                   Treatment Effectiveness
 This  section documents  the background,  field and
 analytical procedures, results, and conclusions used to
 assesses the ability of the ZENON cross-flow pervaporation
 technology  to   remove  VOCs  from  contaminated
 groundwater.  This assessment is based on the activities
 conducted during the SITE demonstration at NASNI.
 Because the results of the SITE  demonstration are of
 known quality, conclusions in this section are drawn only
 from the demonstration results.

 4.1    Background

 EPA conducted  a SITE demonstration of the ZENON
 system at Site 9 at NASNI, which is located in Coronado,
 California  (see  Figure  4-1).   A description  of the
 environmental setting at NASNI and Site 9 are presented
 in  Subsections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.   An overview of the
 demonstration objectives and approach is presented in
 Subsection 4.1.3.

 4.1.1 Naval Air Station North Island

 NASNI is located at the north end of the peninsula that
 forms San Diego Bay and adjoins the city of Coronado.
 NASNI is accessible by land through Coronado by way of
 the San Diego - Coronado Bay Bridge or through Imperial
 Beach by way of the Silver Strand Highway, State Route
 75.  Commissioned in November 1917, NASNI is an
 active, 2,520-acre naval complex that supports  naval
 aviation activities and units.

NASNI  is  currently  conducting  environmental
 investigations under the Installation Restoration Program
at 12 sites, one of which is Site 9. The Navy is expediting
cleanup of these sites through the Naval Environmental
Leadership  Program (NELP).  The main objective of
NELP is to demonstrate innovative technologies and focus
management to expedite compliance and remediation at
 contaminated NASNI sites.  Successful technologies may
 be applied to contaminated sites at other naval facilities.

 During mid-1993, the SITE program and NELP began to
 discuss  the potential  for  demonstrating  innovative
 technologies at NASNI.  The  SITE program informed
 NELP  of the treatment methodology of the  ZENON
 technology  and site  requirements for a demonstration.
 NELP provided the SITE program with groundwater data
 for Site 9, along with information regarding site access and
 available utilities. In March 1994, after verifying that it
 was a suitable candidate for treatment with the ZENON
 technology,  SITE 9 was selected for the demonstration.
 The demonstration of the  technology at NASNI  was
 performed under a cooperative agreement between NELP
 and the SITE Program, and was financed in part by EPA,
 the U.S. Navy, and ZENON.

 4.1.2  Site 9 Features

 Site 9 is a 4.7-acre area located on the western end of
 NASNI. It is bordered to the north by an aircraft taxiway,
 a number of maintenance buildings, an open area; to the
 east by small buildings and runways; to the south by an
 ammunition  storage  area;  and  to the  west  by  an
 ammunition  pier and  a channel  of San Diego Bay. The
 demonstration area at  Site 9 and surrounding features are
 shown in Figure 4-2. Site 9 is relatively flat; however, just
 south of 3rd Street West, there is an immediate 7-foot rise
 of the land surface to a terrace.

 Geology and Hydrogeology

 Borings  performed  during previous  investigations
 indicate that formations underlying Site 9 consist  of
varying, unconsolidated layers of sand, silt, and clay, with
a few lenses of shell beds.  The  Bay Point formation
underlies all of Site 9 at an average depth of about 25 to 30
                                                  33

-------

                                                                                                              SAN DIEGO
                                                  NAVAL AIR
                                                   STATION
                                             ///  NORTH ISLAND
Figure 4-1.  NASNI and Site 9 location map.

-------
u>
                                                                                                             Wet Well
                                                                                                      (effluentdischarge point'
                                                                            ZENON System
                                                                                 and
                                                                              Baker Tanks
                                                                                                       Effluent
                                                                                                       Discharge
                                                          Trailers and Siijport
                                                                                                                        FORMER CHEMICAL WASTE
                                                                                                                              DISPOSAL PITS
 Crash Fire and
Rescue Training
   Grounds
                                                                                                                                                                 Former Liquid
                                                                                                                                                              Waste Disposal Area
                                                                                                                                              Former Low Level
                                                                                                                                              Radioactive Waste
                                                                                                                                                Staging Area
                                                                                                                                                    n
         Figure 4-2.  Site 9 demonstration area.

-------
feet below ground surface (bgs). It is exposed east of the
site near the central portion of North  Island and dips
sharply at an undetermined gradient towards the west. The
Bay Point formation is highly unconsolidated and consists
of micaceous, clayey, fossiliferous, very fine- to medium-
grained, silty sand.

Overlying the Bay  Point formation is a series of three
artificial fill layers. The fill was placed in 1936,1976, and
1978 from various island extension projects and dredging.
Borings  indicate that  the  fill  consists of micaceous,
fossiliferous, fine- to medium-grained sand and silty sand,
with some areas containing gravel, wood chips, concrete,
and asphalt debris.  The layers are considered poorly
graded and unconsolidated (Southwest Division Naval
Facilities [SWDIV] 1993).

The water table at Site 9 averages about 8 feet bgs, and
groundwater flow direction is west toward the shoreline.
The saltwater-freshwater interface is about 60 feet bgs
(SWDIV 1993).   The Bay Point formation's porosity
ranges from 33 to 47 percent; the hydraulic conductivity
ranges from 70 to 92 feet per day. Porosities of the fill
layers  range  from  45  to   56  percent;  hydraulic
conductivities range from 8 to 16 feet per day.

Waste Disposal Practices

Waste disposal records from the mid-1970s indicate that
about 300,000 to 800,000 gallons of liquid wastes were
disposed of annually  at Site 9 (SWDIV 1993).   These
wastes included waste acids, waste solvents, waste paint
materials,  electroplating wastes, and various petroleum
hydrocarbons.

 Site 9 consists of three former waste disposal areas. The
 first area is located just north of 3rd Street West. From the
 1940s or 1950s until  1968, various liquid Wastes were
 drained into a large, shallow pit.  Waste materials have
 since migrated  through the  groundwater to various
 portions of the surrounding area.  The second area is
 located just south of 3rd Street West and consisted of four
 parallel disposal pits  oriented  north to south. From an
 undetermined date to the mid-1970s, liquid  wastes,
 including caustics, acids, and other hazardous materials,
 were segregated  and disposed  of in  these separate
 trenches.  Contamination has migrated from the trenches
 and entered the underlying groundwater. The third former
 waste disposal area is located south of 3rd Street West near
 the center of Site 9 extending to its southern boundary. It
was used periodically from the 1950s until 1978 for the
burial  of  unidentified  drummed  chemical  wastes.
Groundwater contamination has been confirmed near this
location (SWDIV 1993).   Site 9 also contains a former
low-level radioactive materials staging area. A 1977 land
development map displays an area just south of the waste
disposal trenches as a radioactive materials disposal area;
however,  radioactive  waste disposal  has  not  been
documented near this area.

No development of the Site 9 area has occurred since waste
disposal operations ended, and none is planned in the near
future. Under NASNI's federal RCRA permit, Site 9 is
required  to undergo  a  RCRA  facility investigation.
Monitoring well  installation; sampling and analysis  of
soils,  sediments,  and groundwater;  and  geophysical
surveys have been performed as part of this investigation.

Demonstration Monitoring Weils

Monitoring wells installed as part of the RCRA Facility
Investigation  at  Site 9  provided groundwater for the
ZENON demonstration.  EPA's SITE team and ZENON
reviewed Site 9 monitoring well data, including the most
recent analytical results, screened depths,  and well
construction criteria.  Because of  logistical concerns,
including  pump  capacity limitations,  only  monitoring
wells within 500  feet of the proposed demonstration area
were considered for use during the demonstration.

 The  following four wells  were selected  as potential
 sources of groundwater because of elevated concentrations
 of TCE, as well as other VOC concentrations: 9-IMW-l,
 9-IMW-2,9-DMW-1, and 9-CW-5. The well locations are
 shown on Figure 4-2; selected analytical results for these
 four wells from  samples collected during the Spring of
 1994 are shown in Table 4-1.

 4.1.3 Bench-Scale Study

 In December 1993, ZENON performed a  bench-scale
 study of the pervaporation technology using groundwater
 sampled from monitoring well 9-IMW-1 at NASNI Site 9.
 The study was mainly performed to determine if high
 salinity and  the presence of nontarget compounds  in
 groundwater  at Site  9  would be detrimental  to  the
 performance of a pervaporation system. The results of the
 bench-scale  study indicated  that  salinity  or  other
 characteristics of the local groundwater did not affect the
 system's ability to remove VOCs (ZENON 1994).
                                                     36

-------
Table 4-1. Analytical Results for Site 9 Groundwater
Well ID
Screened Interval
Volatile Organic
Compounds (mg/L)
Trichlorethene
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
Carbon disulfide
cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene
Semivolatile organic
compounds (mg/L)
Phenol
2-Memylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-
methylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Total metals (mg/L)
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cyanide
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
9-MW-l
17 - 38 feet
-
61.0
3.30 J
0.38
7.70J
170
2.50 J
10.0J
0.10U
0.10U
54.0

24.4
3.17
46.6
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U

0.22
163
0.96
0.20
604
360
0.42
182
4.510
9-IMW-2
17 - 38 feet

420
25.0 U
15
25.0 U
130
8.00 J
25.0 U
25.0 U
25.0 U
25.0 U

2.41
0.17
1.72
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U

0.03 J
111
0.34
L57
0.67
679
0.86
301
2,500
9-DMW-l
43 - 64 feet

5.30
0.17
0.01 U
0.01 U
0.01 U
0.13J
1.40 J
.012
0.12
8.10

0.17
0.08 J
0.42
0.03 U
0.03 U
0.03 U
0.03 U

0.03 1
355
0.01 U
0.01
0.12 J
800
0.86
419
8,950
9-CW-5
5 -20 feet

0.77
4.3 J
0.10 U
720
140
3.10J
70,0
0.01 U
0.01 U
0.68

3.53 J
1.21 J,
355
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U

0.13J
7.79
0.77
0.15
5.21
491
0.08
31.0
1,800
                                                         37

-------
Table 4-1. Analytical Results for Site 9 Groundwater (continued)
Well ID
Screened interval
Total Suspended
Solids
Alkalinity
Sulfate
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Notes:
1
mg/L
J
9-MW-l
17 - 38 feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
9-IMW-2
17 - 38 feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
9-DMW-l
43 - 64 feet
28
1,041
521
NA
9-CW-5
5 - 20 feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: Southwest Division Naval Facilities 1994
milligrams per liter
Indicates an estimated concentration value. The result is considered qualitatively
                           u
acceptable, but quantitatively unreliable.
Indicates that the data are acceptable both qualitatively and quantitatively.
4.1.4 Demonstration Objectives and
       Approach

The SITE demonstration was designed to address primary
and secondary objectives selected for evaluation of the
ZENON pervaporation technology.   These objectives
were selected to provide the U.S. Navy and other potential
users of the technology with the necessary technical
information to assess its applicability to NASNI Site 9 and
other contaminated sites. For the SITE demonstration of
the ZENON technology, two primary and eight secondary
objectives were formulated and are summarized below:

Primary Objectives:

PI)    Determine  if   the   system   can  remove
trichloroethene (TCE) in groundwater to below federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCL) at varying flow
rates, at the 95 percent confidence level

P2)    Determine the removal efficiency of the system
for TCE

Secondary Objectives:

SI)    Assess the pervaporation system's ability to
remove nontarget VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOC), and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
(TRPH) from contaminated groundwater
                    S2)    Determine  the  volume  of  recovered  liquid
                    permeate generated during each run

                    S3)    Measure VOC emissions from the pervaporation
                    system

                    S4)    Determine requirements for anti-scaling additions,
                    and  monitor  the potential  scaling of  the  system by
                    identifying reductions in total suspended solids (TSS) and
                    concentrations of  carbonate,  fluoride,  sulfate,  silica,
                    strontium, calcium, barium, magnesium, and  iron  in
                    treated and untreated water

                    S5)    Determine  if the  technology's efficiency  in
                    removing VOCs, SVOCs, and TRPH  is reduced, and if
                    scaling due to the precipitation of the analytes listed under
                    secondary objective S4 occurs after a 3-week period

                    S6)    Determine  the physical effects  the  ZENON
                    system has on treated groundwater

                    S7)    Document  the  operating  conditions  of the
                    ZENON system

                    S8)    Estimate the capital and operating costs of treating
                    contaminated groundwater at NASNI Site 9 with full-scale
                    ZENON pervaporation systems
                                                   38

-------
 The demonstration objectives were achieved by collecting
 data from analysis of untreated and treated groundwater
 samples,  along with vapor  samples.   To meet  the
 demonstration  objectives,  data were  collected  and
 analyzed using the methods and procedures summarized
 in  Section 4.2.  A more  detailed description  of the
 demonstration procedures is provided in the final ZENON
 quality assurance project plan (QAPP) (PRC 1994c) and
 the ZENON Technology Evaluation Report (PRC 1996c).

 4.2    Demonstration Procedures

 This section describes the methods and procedures used to
 collect and analyze samples for the SITE demonstration of
 the ZENON techno logy. The field and analytical methods
 and procedures used to collect and analyze samples were
 conducted in accordance with the ZENON demonstration
 QAPP.    The  activities  associated  with  the SITE
 demonstration included (1) demonstration preparation, (2)
 demonstration design, (3) groundwater sample collection
 and analysis, (4) vapor sample collection, and (4) field and
 laboratory QA/QC.

 4.2.1 Demonstration Preparation

 Predemonstration activities included preparing of the
 demonstration QAPP, site specific health and safety plan
 (PRC 1994b), demonstration work plan (PRC 1994a),the
 acquisition of permits, and site preparation. The QAPP,
 site specific health and safety plan, and the demonstration
 work plan were submitted in May 1994 to various agencies
 for review.   Final versions of these documents were
 prepared in August and September 1994.

 Three permits were required for the SITE demonstration at
NASNI. The California EPA Division of Toxic Substance
 Control  required  a  Hazardous   Waste  Research
Development and Demonstration Permit Variance for the
 demonstration.  This allowed the extraction, treatment,
and discharge of contaminated groundwater,  along with
the storage of hazardous waste at Site 9, to be performed
under NASNI's RCRA permit.  A permit was required by
the City of San Diego for the discharge of treated water to
a sewer line at NASNI running to a POTW. The permit
required analyses of the treated groundwater for various
organic contaminants. A permit was also required by the
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District for the
release of vapors  from  the  pervaporation system.  No
sampling was required under this permit.  Inspections at
Site 9 by the above-mentioned agencies were required
 before the demonstration could proceed.  Because of
 delays in performing the demonstration, extensions of all
 three permits were required (see Subsection 4.2.3).

 Preparation activities  conducted at Site 9  included the
 following: (1) connecting of electrical power and fresh
 water to the site; (2) testing dedicated groundwater pumps
 for the monitoring wells identified for use during the
 demonstration; (3) placing four 21,000-gallon steel bulk
 tanks at the site; (4) constructing secondary containment
 units surrounding the  bulk tanks and the pervaporation
 unit; (5) installing various groundwater pumping lines; (6)
 installing a GC unit for field sample  analysis; and (7)
 installing carbon  filters.  Other requirements included
 temporary fencing, storage  drums, an on-site trailer,
 sanitary facilities, sample containers, PPE, and laboratory
 supplies (PRC 1994a).

 4.2,2 ZENON System Configuration

 A  detailed description  of the  ZENON  cross-flow
 pervaporation technology is provided in Section 1.3. The
 following explains the system configuration during the
 SITE demonstration at NASNI Site 9.

 During the demonstration, previously installed monitoring
 wells were used to obtain all groundwater necessary for
 testing and sampling.   The monitoring  wells  were
 equipped with dedicated pumps, usually capable of about
 8 gpm, depending on the depth of the pump. Control boxes
 for regulating  the  pumps were  supplied by  EPA and
 plugged into the well  head.  Power for the wells  was
 provided by direct electrical hookups  installed for the
 demonstration. Groundwater was pumped from the wells
 to a manifold equipped with flow meters displaying the
 flow rate of groundwater pumped from each well (three
 maximum), and a sampling port.  The manifold served to
 combine the flows and allowed the demonstration team to
 regulate the flow from each well, and in turn, TCE influent
 concentrations.  The manifold was also equipped with a
 sampling port.  The combined groundwater flows exited
the manifold and entered a bulk tank for equalization.
Because of problems with the bulk tanks (see Subsection
4.2.3), the demonstration team eventually bypassed the
tanks  and pumped groundwater directly to the ZENON
system. During the demonstration, untreated groundwater
was pumped from the wells at 2.1 to about 11.2 gpm.
Before entering the system, the  untreated groundwater
was passed through a 200-micron prefilter to  remove any
debris or  silt particles.  It then entered a heat exchanger,
                                                  39

-------
raising the temperature to about 165 °F (75 °C). From the
heat exchanger, the water flowed into a series of two
pervaporation modules for separation of VOCs from the
groundwater. The treated water exited the pervaporation
modules and was passed through a series of two 1,000-
pound carbon filters to ensure the removal of SVOCs. The
treated water then entered a steel 21,000-gallon bulk tank
and was stored until it was discharged to the industrial
sewer,  located  about  500  feet  northeast  of the
demonstration area.

The VOC-laden vapors from the pervaporation modules
were passed through a condenser. Most aqueous phase
permeate was returned  to the pervaporation modules,
while organic phase permeate was contained in 55-gallon
drums.

Heat for the heat exchanger  was supplied by  a steam
cleaner converted to a boiler, and cool air for the condenser
was supplied by a chiller. Both the boiler and chiller were
separate from the pervaporation unit. All electrical power
was supplied by a direct hookup installed at the site by the
Naval Public Works Center, San Diego.

4.2.3  Demonstration Delays

Demonstration sampling from the ZENON technology
was initially scheduled to occur during October 1994, and
mobilization began in September 1994.   As noted  in
Subsection 4.2.2, four 21,000-gallon steel bulk tanks were
brought to the site for storage of untreated and treated
groundwater.  Pumping of untreated groundwater from the
 bulk tanks began  during  middle October  1994, and
 ZENON immediately began experiencing problems with
 rust  particles from the bulk tanks mixing with the
 groundwater.  Larger particles tended to clog  the 200-
 micron prefilter, and smaller  particles fouled and  scaled
 the pervaporation module membranes, reducing treatment
 efficiency.  After several failed attempts to keep the filter
 clear, combined with  frequent acid washings of the
 modules,  the  demonstration  team  began  pumping
 groundwater  directly from the monitoring wells  to the
 system.   Bypassing the  tanks eliminated  the  filter
 clogging, along with fouling and scaling from the rust
 particles;  however,  high concentrations  of calcium
 bicarbonate in the groundwater continued to cause the
 membranes to become  scaled and fouled.  During late
 November, after attempts with  a variety of chemicals,
 ZENON selected an anti-scalent similar to zinc phosphate,
 which proved fairly effective.
During this time, ZENON also had difficulty regulating
steam for the heat exchanger entering the system. The
boiler was composed of a rented steam cleaner modified
for the demonstration. ZENON eventually corrected this
problem by altering a valve configuration on the system.

Other mechanical problems  plagued the demonstration.
The sight glass on the permeate collection tank leaked,
which did not allow the system to maintain pressure inside
the tank. The drains on the pervaporation modules were
too small and became plugged with sediment fines carried
by the groundwater. Sediment fines also partially plugged
a  number of  check valves, which allowed  unwanted
backflow. Also, TCE continually coming in contact with
the pump seals caused premature degradation and eventual
failure of the pumps.

The natural conditions at Site  9  also  caused various
problems. Salty air caused a number of metal components
to fail prematurely. Dusty conditions caused grit to build
up on some components.  Heavy rains caused electrical
shorts in the system control panel and in an electrical panel
for the boiler.  The boiler pilot  light  Was repeatedly
extinguished by strong winds prevalent in the area.

Because of continuing pump  problems, pump shipping
delays, a GC  malfunction,  travel  difficulties, and
uncharacteristically poor weather  conditions  during
January 1995, demonstration sampling was  postponed
until February 1995.

 4.2.4 Demonstration Design

 This section describes the sampling and analysis program
 and  sample collection frequency and  locations.  The
 objective of the demonstration design was to collect and
 analyze samples of known and acceptable quality to
 achieve the objectives in the QAPP.

 Groundwater Pumping and Gas Chromatograph
 Analysis

 To achieve various TCE concentrations, groundwater was
 pumped from combinations of monitoring  wells. The
 demonstration team planned to use four monitoring wells;
 however, after pumping for about 10 minutes at 5 gpm,
 monitoring well 9-CW-5 was pumped dry and not used
 during the rest of the demonstration.  Groundwater from
 monitoring wells 9-DMW-l, 9-IMW-l, and 9-IMW-2
                                                    40

-------
was  used to provide all groundwater.   Groundwater
samples were collected from a polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
manifold combining the flows from each well, and
analyzed with an on-site GC.  Based on the analytical
results, which were available after about 40 minutes, the
flow  rates  were adjusted to  achieve desired  TCE
concentrations.  Also, during the  first few hours of
pumping a particular well, the groundwater was analyzed
for chromium and cyanide with field test kits. Moderately
elevated concentrations of these two analytes were found
during past sampling events from well 9-IMW-2, causing
discharge concerns; however, negligible concentrations
were detected in the groundwater during the demonstration.

The GC was also used to determine the optimum operating
conditions for the system.  Samples of untreated and
treated  groundwater  were   analyzed,  results  were
compared, and the  system was adjusted accordingly.
Finally, samples of treated water, after it passed through
the two 1,000-pound carbon filters., were analyzed with the
GC to confirm that water discharged to the industrial
sewer was within designated permit limits.

Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Program

After achieving  a designated flow rate and sustained
concentration of TCE, samples of untreated and treated
groundwater were collected. As noted, untreated samples
were collected from a port on the manifold (SI) that
combined groundwater from the separate wells (see Figure
1 -2). Samples of treated groundwater were collected from
a port on the discharge line of the ZENON system (S2).

The demonstration was composed of 4.5 days of sampling,
with each day referred to as a sampling run. Four grab
samples of untreated water were collected per run,  along
with four samples of treated water. A sampling overview
is shown in Table 4-2.

The demonstration QAPP specified that most sampling
from  the system would  occur at  the  start  of the
demonstration. The system would then  operate for a 3-
week period with little maintenance.  After the 3-week
period,  additional  sampling would occur.   Before
demonstration sampling began, the SITE team elected to
not run the system for 3 weeks and then resample because
(1)  component  failures caused  continual treatment
difficulties with the pervaporation system, (2) adequate
information pertaining to scaling (a primary reason for the
3-week test  period) was gathered before demonstration
sampling, and (3) cost concerns had arisen due to project
delays.   As explained in Subsection 4.2.3, problems
ranging  from  temperature  regulation difficulties  to
premature failure of seals on various pumps, interfered
with the treatment efficiency of the ZENON technology.
After weighing several options, the demonstration team
elected to limit sampling to six 8-hour runs.  When a
stainless  tube on the pervaporation module  failed,
demonstration sampling ended 4 hours into the fifth run.

Vapor Samples and Sampling Methodology

Vapor samples were collected from the vacuum vent from
the system (S3) and from the vent after the vapor passed
through a single air carbon filter (S4).  Samples at S3 were
collected to determine the amount of VOCs released from
the vacuum  vent relative to the  concentrations  of
contaminants in groundwater treated by the system and the
influent flow rate.  The amount of VOCs released would
provide  an  indication of the amount of  VOCs not
converted to liquid by the condenser. To comply with state
and local air regulations, two carbon filters were attached
to the vacuum vent to capture VOCs that would otherwise
be released to the outside air.  Sampling point S4, located
between the carbon filters, provided a verification that all
VOCs not condensed in the ZENON system were captured
by the first carbon filter.  Sampling point S4 was not
intended  to provide data on releases  of VOCs from the
vacuum vent of the ZENON system.  Data from S4 was
only intended to verify that VOCs were not released to the
outside air. Therefore, the data for sampling point S4 is not
included  with this document.

Vapor  samples were collected in 6-liter SUMMA™
polished stainless steel canisters. Two samples per 8-hour
run were collected, except for the fifth day, when only one
sample was collected because the run was abbreviated.
For vapor  sampling, each  SUMMA™  canister  was
attached, via a male/female connector, directly to a shut-
off valve that was connected to the vacuum vent. After the
canister was attached, the shut-off valve on the vacuum
vent was opened. The valve on the SUMMA™ canister
was then opened for about 5 seconds until the sound of the
vacuum began to  decrease.  The SUMMA™ canister
valve was then closed, followed by the shut-off valve  on
the vacuum vent.  The SUMMA™ canister was then
removed from the shut-off  valve  and  packaged  for
shipment to the laboratory. Canister vacuum measurements
were not taken before and after sampling.
                                                   41

-------
Table 4-2.  Sampling Overview
Samoling Location
Untreated Water
S-l




Treated Water
S-2




Air Monitoring at
Vacuum Pump Vent
Before and After Carbon
Filter
S-3andS-4
Parameter
VOCs
SVOCs
TRPH
TSS
Carbonate alkalinity,
fluoride, sulfate,
silica, strontium,
calcium, barium,
magnesium, and iron
pH, conductivity, and
temperature
VOCs
SVOCs
TRPH
TSS
Carbonate alkalinity,
fluoride, sulfate,
silica, strontium,
calcium, barium,
magnesium, and iron
pH, conductivity, and
temperature
Total VOCs

Freouencv
Four and one half sampling
runs; four samples per run
Four and one half sampling
runs; four samples per run
Four and one half sampling
runs; four samples per run
Four and one half sampling
runs; one sample per run
Two sampling runs; one
sample of each per run
Four and one half sampling
runs; three measurements per
sampling run
Four and one half sampling
runs; four samples per run
Four and one half sampling
runs; four samples per run
Four and one half sampling
runs; four samples per run
Two sampling runs; one
sample per run
Two sampling runs; one
sample of each per run
Four and one half sampling
runs; three measurements per
sampling run
Four and one half sampling
. runs; two measurements per
run


Critical
Noncritical
Noncritical
Noncritical
Noncritical
Noncritical
Critical
Noncritical
Noncritical
Noncritical
Noncritical
Noncritical
•Noncritical

Tvoe
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Field
measurement
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Laboratory
analytical
Field
measurement
Laboratory
analytical


P1.P2.
S5
SI, S5
SI, P2,
S5
S4, S5
S4, S5
S6
P1.P2,
S5
SI, S5
SI, S5
S4, S5
S4, S5
S6
S3, S5

     Notes:
               1         The parameter was analyzed to meet the indicated primary or secondary objective.
               VOC     Volatile organic compounds
               SVOC    Semivolatile organic compounds
               TRPH    Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
               TSS      Total suspended solids
                                                               42

-------
4.2.5 Analytical Methodology

Liquid samples were analyzed for the required parameters
by the methods specified in Table 4-3. TCE in untreated
and treated water was the only critical parameter for this
demonstration. All air samples were analyzed by Method
TO-14 using gas chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer
(GC/MS) full scan detection.

Method 8260, which was used to measure concentrations
of TCE and other VOCs, involves the use of a GC/MS
system operated under recommended conditions.  The
volatile components of an  aliquot of the sample are
introduced into the GC/MS system using a purge and trap
procedure  with  detection  of analytes  using  a  mass
spectrometer.  Compounds are identified by comparing
peak retention times and mass fragmentation patterns to
the known retention  times  and known fragmentation
patterns of the target compounds.  The concentration of
each target compound detected is determined from the
peak response by comparison with the associated internal
standard and the external calibration standards.
              For  each analyte of  interest, initial  calibration was
              performed using calibration standards at a minimum of
              five concentrations.   One of  the  initial  calibration
              standards was at a concentration near, but above, the
              MDL.   The  other concentrations corresponded to the
              expected range of sample concentrations or defined the
              working range of the detector.

              Each calibration  standard was analyzed by the same
              technique used to introduce the samples into the GC. Peak
              or area responses were tabulated against the mass inj ected.
              The results were used to prepare a calibration curve for
              each compound.  In addition,  the ratio of the response
              (relative  to  the internal  standard)  to  the  amount
              introduced, or the relative response  factor (RRF), was
              calculated for  each  compound  at   each  standard
              concentration. If the percent relative standard deviation
              (%RSD) of the relative response factor met the method
              criteria  of 30 percent over the working range, linearity
              through the origin can be assumed, and the average RRF
              can be used in place of a calibration curve.
Table 4-3. Analytical Methods
                    Matrix
Parameter
                 Notes:
                 1 SW-846: (EPA 1992); MCAWW: (EPA 1983)
                 2 VOC Volatile organic compounds
                 3 SVOC Semivolatile organic compounds
                 4 TRPH Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
                 s TSS Total suspended solids
                                                                 Method
                                          Reference1
Liquid










Air
VOCs2
SVOCs3
TRPH4
TSS3
Cations
Sulfate
Huoride
Carbonate
PH
Specific Conductance
Temperature
VOCs
8260
3520/8270A
418.1
160.2
6010A
375.4
340.2
403
150.1
120.1
170.1
TOW
SW-846
SW-846
MCAWW
MCAWW
SW-846
MCAWW
MCAWW
MCAWW
MCAWW
MCAWW
MCAWW
EPA 1988a
                                                    43

-------
4.2.6 Quality Assurance and Quality
       Control Program

QC checks and procedures were an integral part of the
SITE demonstration to ensure that the QA objectives were
met.  These checks and procedures  focused on the
collection of representative samples absent of external
contamination and the analysis of comparable data.  The
QC  checks and  procedures conducted  during  the
demonstration  were of two kinds:  (1) checks of field
activities, such as sample collection and shipping, and (2)
checks of laboratory activities, such as extraction and
analysis.   These are discussed below. A data quality
summary is provided in Section 4.3.4.

Field Quality Control Checks

As a check on the quality of field activities such as sample
collection, shipment, and handling, three types of field QC
checks (duplicate samples, field blanks, and trip blanks)
were collected. In general, these QC checks  assessed
possible contamination or the representativeness of the
samples.  Any QC results that failed acceptance criteria
and could not readily be corrected in the laboratory were
reported to the PRC project manager or PRC QA manager
as soon as possible to effect corrective action. If a field QC
check sample exceeded the established criteria for any
analytical parameter, analytical results of that parameter
for all associated samples having the analyte concentration
above  the  quantitation  limit  were  flagged during
postlaboratory validation.

Duplicate samples  (DUP), separated  aliquots of the
sample analyzed by the same method, were collected to
assess the  laboratory's precision.  Field blanks were
collected  to assess the potential for contamination of the
sample from dust or other sources at the site during sample
collection.   Trip  blanks were prepared to determine
whether contamination was introduced through sampling
containers or as a result of exposure during shipment.

Laboratory Quality Control Checks

Laboratory QC checks were designed  to determine
precision and accuracy of the analyses, to demonstrate the
absence  of  interferences  and  contamination  from
glassware and reagents, and to ensure the comparability of
data.  Laboratory-based QC checks consisted of method
blanks, MS/MSDs,  surrogate  spikes, blank  spikes and
blank spike duplicates, and other checks specified in the
analytical methods. The laboratory also performed initial
calibrations and continuing calibration checks according
to the specified analytical methods.

Field and Laboratory Audits

EPA conducted internal and external system audits to
evaluate field and laboratory QC procedures. Because of
delays in performing the demonstration sampling, the field
audit was conducted before data collection and analysis
activities commenced.    The  laboratory  audit was
performed while samples from the demonstration were
analyzed. The results of both EPA audits are presented in
the TER (PRC 1996).

4.3    Demonstration Results and
       Conclusions

This section presents the operating conditions, system
maintenance, results and  discussion, data quality,  and
conclusions of the  SITE demonstration of the ZENON
technology.   The demonstration results  have  been
supplemented by information provided by ZENON on
other tests involving the technology.

4.3.1 Operating Conditions and
       Parameters

This section summarizes  the  operating conditions  and
parameters  for the system   during the  5-day SITE
demonstration.     During   the  demonstration,  the
pervaporation  system  was   operated  at  conditions
determined  by ZENON and EPA.   To document the
system's operating conditions, untreated and  treated
groundwater, along with vapor released from the vacuum
vent were monitored and sampled. The system operated 8
hours per day for 4  days, and about 4 hours on the a fifth
day.  It was allowed to run for about 0.5 hour before the
first sampling of a particular run to allow all components
to reach normal operating temperatures. All samples were
shipped to the laboratory the same day they were collected.
Untreated water flow rates through the system were varied
from 2.10 to 11.23  gpm. Weather conditions during the
sampling days were consistently clear with an average
temperature of about 68 °F. Wind speed usually increased
during the afternoons to about 10 miles per hour. After the
first 2 days, sampling was delayed for 3 days due to severe
weather at the work site, which did not allow the boiler to
remain ignited.
                                                   44

-------
  The pervaporation system was continually monitored by
  ZENON,   and  samples  of  untreated  and   treated
  groundwater, along with vented vapor, were collected to
  evaluate the system's performance. The system operating
  parameters monitored by the developer included heat
  exchanger temperature, module pressure, and groundwater
  flow rates.  VOC removal from the treated groundwater
  was monitored with the on-site GC to maintain  system
  efficiency.

  4.3.2  System Maintenance

  During  the time spent  at NASNI,  ZENON performed
  frequent chemical washings  of the system to alleviate
  scale buildup on the pervaporation module membranes. A
  sodium  metabisuifite solution was used to remove iron
 buildup  resulting from materials released from the bulk
 tanks. High concentrations of calcium bicarbonate in the
 groundwater led to calcium scaling on the membranes.
 This required frequent washings with  a phosphoric acid
 solution. During demonstration sampling, a phosphoric
 acid washing was performed on the system after 3 days of
 operation.   Depending on the groundwater or process
 water treated  in   future applications,  frequent acid
 washings of the membranes may be necessary to allow
 efficient removal of VOCs.

 Biological buildup accumulated on system components
 during downtime from early December to late January.
 This was alleviated with a sodium metabisuifite wash. For
 future field applications, before a prolonged downtime the
 system may be subjected to a sodium metabisuifite wash to
 prevent biological buildup.

 ZENON  claims that a typical full-scale pervaporation
 system would require maintenance once every 1  or 2
 weeks. Maintenance requirements would mainly depend
 on  the groundwater's potential to foul  and scale the
 membranes and other components of the  system.  Other
 components, such as pumps, motors, and valves, typically
 would be checked two to four times per year, depending on
 a particular component's service requirements.

 While under a vacuum, the condensate pump operated at
 irregular  intervals and could not be relied on to properly
remove permeate from a holding reservoir to storage.
While operating at normal atmospheric conditions, the
pump operated correctly.  This malfunction required the
ZENON on-site operator to manually control the pump
  during  the  demonstration.   Because  of the  high
  concentrations of TCE in the groundwater, seals of the
  condensate  pump .degraded  and  failed prematurely,
  requiring frequent replacement by  the developer.  The
  seals were  replaced three times during the five days of
  demonstration runs.  For a long-term field  application
  involving high concentrations of TCE, seals composed of
  a material able to withstand the TCE would be required to
  alleviate shutting down the system every few days.

  4.3.3  Results and Discussion

  This section presents the results of the SITE demonstration
  of the ZENON technology. The results are presented by
 project objective and have been interpreted in relation to
 each objective.  The  specific primary and secondary
 objectives are shown at the top of each section in italics
 followed by a discussion of the objective-specific results.
 Data quality and conclusions based  on these results are
 presented in Subsections 4.3.4 and  4.3.5.  Appendix A
 presents analytical data generated during the demonstration.

 Primary Objectives

 Primary objectives were considered critical for evaluating
 the ZENON pervaporation technology.   Two primary
 objectives were selected for the SITE demonstration, and
 because of similarities, are discussed together.

 PI)    Determine if the ZENON technology can remove
 TCE from ground-water to below the federal MCL at
 varying flow rates, at the 95 percent confidence level.
P2)
TCE.
Determine the removal efficiency of the system for
During the demonstration, TCE was present in varying
concentrations  in  all  four  wells  used  to supply
groundwater to the pervaporation system. As noted, TCE
influent concentrations were varied by altering the flow
rates  into  the   system  from  the  selected  wells.
Demonstration objectives were achieved by collecting
samples of untreated and treated groundwater over four 8-
hour and one four-hour sampling runs. Flow rates of the
system ranged from about 2 to 11 gpm, and influent TCE
concentrations ranged from 33 to 240 mg/L. As noted, the
                                                   45

-------
demonstration was scheduled for seven sampling runs;
however, sampling ended after 4 hours into the fifth run
because  of a corroded  stainless  steel tube  on  the
pervaporation module.

Analysis of groundwater for TCE was performed by EPA
Method 8260 (EPA 1987).  Analytical results from the
demonstration indicate thatthe ZENON technology, when
operating at  optimum conditions, effectively removed
TCE from the groundwater at NASNI Site 9. Analytical
results for TCE in untreated and treated water are shown in
Table 4-4.  Removal efficiencies for TCE averaged 97.3
percent.   Sixteen of 18 comparisons  of treated water
samples  to untreated  samples showed average TCE
removal efficiencies of 99.3 percent. The highest levels of
contaminant  removal expressed  as  a  percentage were
achieved during the fourth run, when the system operated
at  a  flow rate  of about  5.5  gpm with an  influent
concentration of about 230 mg/L of TCE.   Removal
efficiencies were lowest during the first run, when the
system  operated  at about 2.1 gpm with an influent
concentration of about 40 mg/L of TCE. Generally, the
data indicate that treatment efficiency increased slightly
after the first run, which could  be attributed to minor
adjustments made to the system by ZENON.  However,
during the fourth run, treatment efficiency dropped due to
the high  volume  of  groundwater processed by  the
technology.

 Although  the   system   significantly  reduced  TCE
 concentrations in the groundwater to an average of 1.49
 mg/L (1,490 ng/L), the federal MCL of 5 ng/Lwasnot
 achieved.  The lowest concentration achieved during the
 demonstration occurred during the second run, when the
 system was operating at about 5.2 gpm with a TCE influent
 concentration of 44 mg/L. This effluent sample was taken
 after operating the system for about  2.5  hours,  and
 indicated that TCE was reduced to 0.09 mg/L
 (99.8 percent removal).

 Because all comparisons of TCE  concentrations  in
 untreated water to treated water were above the MCL, it
 was not necessary to calculate the upper confidence level.

 A mass balance was calculated for the demonstration data
 using  TCE contaminant  concentrations  for untreated
 groundwater, treated groundwater and vapor (see Table 4-
 5).  The following equation (4-1)  was used for the
 calculation of water and vapor contaminant loads:
Flow Rate x Time x TCE Concentration x Conversion
Factor = Contaminant Load per Sampling Run (4-1)

No analysis was performed on permeate generated by the
system  because of the high concentrations of  TCE
expected compared to the untreated and treated water.
Permeate TCE concentrations were estimated based on
analysis of untreated and treated water and vapor.  TCE
losses  could have occurred from other portions of the
system (valves, connectors, and piping).

When expressed as a percentage of total TCE load into the
system, treated groundwater from  the system averaged
about 2.6 percent TCE.  For the second, third, and fourth
runs, TCE load to treated water averaged 0.6 percent.  As
detailed in Table 4-5, the system was most efficient in
removing TCE from the groundwater during these three
sampling runs.  The highest release to .treated water
occurred during the first run and was 9.7 percent. This
figure corresponds to the poorest TCE removal efficiency
obtained during the demonstration.

Secondary Objectives

 Secondary objectives provided additional information that
was useful, but not critical for the evaluation of the
 ZENON technology.  Eight secondary objectives were
 selected for the SITE demonstration. The results of each
 secondary objective  are  discussed in the following
 subsections.

 SI)    Assess  the pervaporation  system's ability to
 remove nontarget  VOCs,  SVOCs,  and  TRPH from
 contaminated groundwater

 Concentrations and removal percentages for VOCs other
 than TCE in groundwater at Site 9 varied considerably,
 and are presented in tabular format in the TER.  The
 following VOCs other than TCE were detected in Site 9
 groundwater during the demonstration:

    •    vinyl chloride
         4-methyl-2-pentanone
         2-butanone
         methylene chloride
         1,1 ,-dichloroethene
     •    toluene
     •    cis-l,2-dichloroethene

  As expected, concentrations of particular contaminants in
                                                     46

-------
Table 4-4.  Trichloroethene Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per
minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5r 11.2

Average
Well
IMW-1"




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-1"


IMW-2
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1

Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2

Untreated
Concentration
(me/LY
40
43
33
42
40
41
44
48
48
45.3
33
35
38
37
36
220
220
240
240
230
130
120
125
Treated
Concentration
	 fms/LI
0.17
1.0
3.8
11
3.9
[O.lOf
0.09
0.16
0.19
0.14
0.32
0.27
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.45
0.40
0.51
0.46
0.46
2.7
2.7
2.7
Total Average Percent Removal
Percent
Removal
99.5%
97.7%
88.5%
73.8%
89.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
99.6%
99.7%
99.0%
99.2%
99.4%
99.4%
99.3%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
97.9%
97.8%
97.9%
97 3%8
            Notes:
            a mg/L = milligram per liter
            b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
            c [ ] =   Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit
                    concentration is half of the sample quantitation limit.
            d DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well.No. 1
            e IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
            f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
            g Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
The treated
                                                             47

-------
      Table 4-5. Mass Balance figures
00
Run Number Total Water
Treated
(gallons)
1 1032
2 2496
3 4320
4 2640
5' 2688
Averages:
Notes:
mg/Run mill
* Call
Untreated
GroundwaterTCE
Load (mg/Run)
152,813
428,531
589,421
2,301,288
1,273,440


.Treated
GroundwaterTCE
Load (mg/Run)
14,899
1,324
4,257
4,603
27,506


Treated
GroundwaterTCE,
Percent
9.7%
0.3%
0.7%
0.2%
2.2%
2.6%

Vapor TCE Load
from Vacuum
Vent (mg/Run)
75,152
40,656
172,480
251,328
246,400


Vapor TCE,
Percent
49.2%
0.9%
29.3%
11.0%
19.3%
21.9%
•in

Permeate TCE
Load (mg/Run)*
62,762
386,351
412,684
2,045,357
997,309


Permeate TCE,
Percent*
41.1%
90.2%
70.0%
88.9%
78.5%
73.7%

SpUntjiunwas abbreviated due to system failure. Calculations were based on a 4-hour sampling run.
ciliated mass and percent







-------
 untreated  groundwater  changed  based on the well
 configurations used for each run. For instance, methylene
 chloride and 1,1-dichloroethene were not detected until
 monitoring well IMW-2 was used, which occurred during
 the fourth and fifth runs.  During the demonstration, the
 ZENON   system   removed  vinyl  chloride,   1,1-
 dichloroethene, toluene, and cis-l,2-dichloroethene at an
 average above 90 percent.  The highest average removal
 rate for a VOC other than TCE was that for toluene at 94.3
 percent. The highest removal  for toluene occurred during
 the second run where the removal rate averaged 97.8
 percent while the system operated at about 5.18 gpm. The
 lowest average removal rate for toluene was during the
 first run where removal averaged 84.3 percent while the
 flow rate was at about 2.12 gpm. As noted above, the data
 indicate that treatment efficiency increased slightly after
 the first  run,  which could  be attributed to  minor
 adjustments made to the system by ZENON.

 Detected VOCs removed at less than 90 percent included
 4-methyl-2-pentanone (49.1 percent),  2-butanone (18.2
 percent), and methylene chloride (80.6 percent). It should
 be noted that 2-butanone is fairly soluble in water and has
 a low Henry's Law constant, thus making it similar to an
 SVOC and difficult to remove by pervaporation.  These
 compounds tend to remain in the aqueous phase after the
 influent is heated, and are thus not removed  through the
 membrane.

 Vinyl chloride was present in untreated groundwater at an
 average of 12.9  mg/L  over  the five sampling runs.
 Although  it has a low  Henry's Law constant, it was
 removed by the ZENON technology at an average of 99.7
 percent, to 0.29 mg/L. The highest concentration of vinyl
 chloride was detected at 120 mg/L in the fourth sample of
 the first run.   The vinyl chloride concentration in the
 corresponding treated sample was not detected above the
 method detection limit of 250  ug/L, for greater than 99.9
 percent removal.

 Removal of VOCs generally was best when the system
 operated at lower flow rates (2.1 to 5.2 gpm), allowing
 greater retention time for groundwater passing through the
 pervaporation modules.  Elevated VOC concentrations
 appeared to have little effect on the treatment capability of
 the unit,  as  seen from the   TCE  analytical  results.
Analytical results for other VOCs is less conclusive. It
 appears that variations in concentrations of VOCs, across
the concentration levels found  in Site 9 groundwater, has
 little effect on the treatment capability of the technology.
 SVOCs

 As expected, SVOC removal  efficiencies were much
 lower than those for VOCs.  SVOCs detected in Site 9
 groundwater  during  the demonstration  included  the
 following:

    •    phenol
    •    2-methylphenol
    •    4-methylphenol
    •    2,4-dimethylphenol
    •    4-chloro-3-methylphenol
        bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

 SVOC concentrations in groundwater at Site 9 proved to
 be consistently lower than those for detected VOCs.  The
 highest concentrations of SVOCs were for 4-methylphenol,
 averaging 7.4 mg/L. The highest influent concentration
 for this compound, which was the highest concentration of
 a single SVOC during the demonstration, was during the
 first run at 19.3 mg/L.   Because of the lower influent
 concentrations, percent removals for SVOCs appear much
 less dramatic than those for VOCs.

 Removal rates for detected SVOCs ranged from a high of
 64.9 percent for bis(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate to a low of 7.4
 percent for 4-methylphenol.  As with VOCs,  treatment
 efficiency  generally  decreased  as  groundwater flow
 through the system increased.   For instance, with an
 average influent concentration of 5.9 mg/L, the average
 removal efficiency of phenol during the first run (average
 of 2.1 gpm) was 17.7 percent. During the third run (flow
 rate of 9 gpm), with an average influent concentration of
 6.5 mg/L, the average removal percentage was 3.5 percent.

 TRPH

 The removal efficiency of TRPH was monitored during
 the demonstration because of the variety of contaminants
 known to be present at Site 9, and because of previous
 success of  the pervaporation system at removing these
 materials from contaminated groundwater. Four untreated
 and four treated water samples were collected during each
 run and analyzed for TRPH. Analytical data are presented
 in the TER.

 Average TRPH removal during the demonstration was
 68.5 percent; however, the true removal efficiency of the
technology may have been higher because about half of the
                                                   49

-------
analytical results for treated groundwater were below the
laboratory's lower analytical detection limit of 0.3 mg/L.
This value was used in calculating removal for these runs.
The highest TRPH removal rate occurred during the third
run (flow rate of 9 gpm) at an average efficiency of 80.5
percent. The lowest average removal rate occurred during
the fifth run (flow rate of 11.2 gpm)  at 56.7 percent.
Because both the highest and lowest removal efficiencies
occurred when  groundwater flow rates were high, no
correlation between removal of TRPH and flow rate can be
drawn.  The highest average concentration of TRPH in
untreated groundwater was 3.18 mg/L  occurring in the
second run. The removal efficiency during this round
averaged 60.4 percent.

S2)     Monitor the volume of recovered liquid permeate
generated during each run

After exiting the pervaporation module of the ZENON
system, VOCs are  condensed  to  the  liquid  phase,
producing permeate.  The permeate generally separates
into aqueous and organic phases. The aqueous phase can
be sent back to the pervaporation unit for  retreatment,
while the organic phase can either be disposed of or sent
off site for  further processing to recover the organics.

During  the demonstration,  the amount of permeate
generated by the system during each run was determined
by the developer and provided to the SITE team. Much of
the  aqueous  phase permeate  generated   during  the
demonstration would normally have been returned to the
system.  However, problems involving the seals and
pumping controls of the condensate pump did not always
allow aqueous phase permeate to be returned to the system
for retreatment, and some was discharged with the organic
phase permeate to a holding drum, along with a higher then
normal volume of water. Because of  the failure of the
condensate pump, the amount of organic phase permeate
generated  by a typical ZENON system  could only be
estimated.  Table 4-6 displays the amount of organic phase
permeate generated per run in relation to the flow rate and
TCE concentrations in  untreated groundwater.  The
system generated an average of about  2.9 gallons of
 permeate per hour, equaling 23 gallons per 8-hour run.
The average amount of untreated groundwater passed
 through the system was 441 gallons per hour (gph) (about
 3,525 gallons per 8-hour run).

 The mass balance calculation was used to determine TCE
 contaminant loads in concentrated permeate.  Because
 flow rates and contaminant concentrations  were not
available for permeate, the following equation (4-2) was
used to provide a permeate figure:

Untreated Groundwater - Treated Groundwater -
       TCE Load             TCE Load

       Vapor TCE = Permeate TCE Load      (4-2)
                     Load

TCE concentrations in permeate, when expressed as a
percentage of total TCE load into the system, averaged
73.7 percent.  TCE permeate load was highest during the
second and fourth sampling runs, averaging 89.6 percent
of the total TCE contaminant load. The lowest percentage
of TCE load was occurred during the first run and was 41.1
percent.

Variations   in  flow  rates,   influent  contaminant
concentrations, or TCE treatment efficiency, appeared to
have no effect on the amount of permeate generated during
the demonstration.    When  the condensate pump  is
operating correctly, the amount of organic phase permeate
generated by a typical ZENON pervaporation system
should be lower than the amount  generated during the
demonstration.    Also, total  organic phase permeate
generation should rise with elevated influent contaminant
concentrations.

S3)     Measure VOCvapor vented from the pervaporation
system

Samples of vapor from the vacuum vent of the ZENON
pervaporation technology were collected directly from the
vent (S3) and after the vapor passed through  a 55-gallon
carbon canister (S4).  Samples from  S3 allowed the
determination of the amount of VOCs removed from
untreated groundwater but not captured by the condensing
process. As noted in Section 4.2.4, samples from S4 were
collected to determine if VOCs were released to the
atmosphere.  Sampling point S4, which was between the
two carbon filters, provided a verification that all VOCs
not condensed in the ZENON system were captured by the
 first carbon filter. Sampling point S4 was not intended to
 provide data on releases of VOCs from the vacuum vent of
the ZENON system - data from S4 was only intended to
 verify that VOCs were not released  to the  outside air.
 Therefore, the data for sampling point S4 is not included
 with this document.

 Two samples from each location were collected during
 each run, except for  the fifth run when only one sample
                                                    50

-------
 Table 4-6.  Estimated Permeate Generation
Run Number
1
2
3
4
5'
Average
How Rate (gallons
per minute)
2.1
5.2
9
5.5
11.2
-
Average Untreated
TCE Concentration
(mefD
40
42
36
230
125
-
Average Treated TCE
Concentration (mg/L)
3.9
0.11
0.26
0.46
2.7
-
Total Permeate
(U.S. gallons)
20.8
20.8
28.0
21.0
12.0
20.5
Average Amount
Per Hour (U.S.
	 gallons)
2.6
2.6
3.5
2,6
3.0
2.9
       Notes:
              mg/L    Milligrams per liter
              1       Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
 was collected.  All samples were analyzed for VOCs by
 Method TO-14.

 Analytical results for TCE from vapor vented from the
 system (sampling point S3) are shown in Table 4-7. TCE
 concentrations in the vented vapor ranged from 14,000
 milligrams per cubic meter  (mg/m3), which occurred
 during the second run, to 110,000 mg/m3 during the fourth
 and fifth runs. The rise in discharges of TCE vapor from
 the vacuum vent of the system correspond to higher
 concentrations  of TCE in the  untreated groundwater.
 When considered as a percentage of contaminant load,
 releases from the vacuum vent were inconsistent, ranging
 from 10.3 to 49.2 percent.  The mass balance calculation
 was used to provide the percentage of TCE contaminant
 load released from the vacuum vent.   Vapor release
 velocity (supplied by ZENON) from the vacuum vent was
 used  for the flow  rate of equation 4-1.  When the
 groundwater flow rate through the system was near 5 gpm,
 the vapor flow rate was at about 0.30 cubic meters per hour
 (m3/hr); when the groundwater flow rate was near 9 gpm,
the vapor flow rate was  about 0.55 m3/hr. The average
release of TCE from the vacuum vent as a percentage of
total TCE entering the system was 21.9 percent.  The
 lowest, 0.9 percent, occurred during the second run, when
groundwater flow through the system was 5.2 gpm. The
highest TCE release from the vacuum vent  when
expressed as a percentage of total TCE was 49.2 percent,
 during the first run.

 For a few other VOCs, higher concentrations in untreated
 water provided higher concentrations of VOCs released
 from the vacuum vent. For instance, the second and fourth
 runs  were conducted with varying concentrations at
 similar flow rates.  During the second run, cis-1,2-
 dichloroethene was detected at 62.8 mg/L in untreated
 groundwater, and  releases  of this compound from the
 vacuum vent averaged 32,000 mg/m3. During the fourth
 run, cis-l,2-dichloroethene was  detected at 5.9 mg/L,
 while its concentration in vented vapor was 9,000 mg/m3.
 This general reduction of VOCs in vacuum vapor with
 lower influent concentrations also applied to 4-methyl-2-
 pentanone.

 For the remaining VOCs detected during the demonstration,
 no clear removal characteristics could be gathered.  For
 instance, during the second run 2-butanone was detected in
 untreated groundwater at 93.8 mg/L, and releases of this
 compound from the vacuum vent averaged 6,500 mg/m3.
During the fourth run, 2-butanone was detected at 108 mg/
L, while concentrations of this compound in vented vapor
averaged 3,040 mg/m3.

Because some other compounds were not detected during
each run, the analytical data available does not provide
                                                   51

-------
Table 4-7.  TCE Concentrations in Vented Vapor
Run Number Flow Rate (gpm) Average Groundwater
TCE Concentration
	 	 	 	 (msJL.)
1' 2.1 40

2 5.2 42

3 9.0 36

4 5.5 230

5* 11.2 125
Average: 95
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

Concentration of
TCE in Vented
Vanor (me/in')
32.000
29,000
19,000
14,000
39,000
38,000
94,000
110,000
110,000
53.889
Concentration of
TCE in Vented
Vaoor (rom)
6,100
5,500
3,700
2,500
7,300
7.200
18,000
20.000
21,000
10,100
               Notes:
                       mg/L    Milligrams per liter
                       mg/nf   Milligrams per cubic meters
                       ppm    Parts per million
                       1       A sampling run is defined as one 8-hour period for a given flow rate
                       2       Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
 significant information to allow a  definite  conclusion
 concerning VOCs other than TCE released with vacuum
 vapor in relation to concentrations of VOCs in the influent
 and changes in flow rates through the system. As noted,
 the monitoring wells used during the demonstration were
 varied to provide varying concentrations of TCE.

 S4)    Determine requirements for anti-scaling additions,
 and monitor the potential of the system, by identifying
 reductions  in  TSS, and concentrations of carbonate,
 fluoride,  sulfate, silica, strontium, calcium, barium,
 magnesium,  andiron in treated and untreated water

 To identify  significant removal or  scaling of materials
 from the groundwater at Site 9, samples of untreated and
 treated groundwater were collected during runs one, three,
 and five, and analyzed for the above-listed materials. Data
 for these analyses are presented in the TER. As detailed in
 previous sections, scaling of the pervaporation module
 membranes  reduced  the system's  ability to correctly
 function.

 In comparing untreated to treated groundwater samples,
 no significant reductions in any of the materials were
 noted, except  in TSS.  Untreated groundwater samples
collected during the first run contained 12.4 mg/L TSS,
and the corresponding treated sampled contained TSS at a
concentration below the method detection limit of 4.0 mg/
L. During the fifth run, untreated groundwater contained
TSS  at 3.67 mg/L, and the corresponding treated sample
was  again below the detection limit of 4.0 mg/L.  No
correlation could be made between changes in analytical
results for the above-listed materials and scaling buildup
on the pervaporation membranes.

ZENON attributed  the  scaling  problems during the
demonstration  to  the deposition of  magnesium and
calcium bicarbonate ions, which precipitated out of the
groundwater as it was heated. Magnesium concentrations
in the Site 9 groundwater averaged 468  mg/L, while
calcium concentrations averaged about 201 mg/L. To
counter this deposition, ZENON used two  additives
similar to zinc phosphate. These materials were steadily
added to the untreated groundwater at from 5 to 20 mg/L
and  served to change  the chemistry  of the  ions that
prevented  their precipitation  at the system  operating
temperatures used during the  demonstration.  After the
additive feed system was operating, scaling  problems
decreased substantially.  According to ZENON, both  of
the  additives  performed well  at lower temperatures,
                                                      52

-------
 though the second worked best at higher temperatures
 (ZENON1996). Because the technology was operated for
 only a limited time period, long-term effects of scaling
 could not be assessed during the demonstration.

 ZENON considered the groundwater conditions atNASNI
 Site 9 to be atypical of most aquifers, presenting a worst-
 case scenario.  Contaminants found  in groundwater or
 wastewater  at  separate sites  can vary  tremendously.
 Therefore, if scaling is a problem, additives used to control
 it may vary.   Companies manufacturing anti-scalent
 materials can analyze a sample of the expected influent
 and determine the anti-scalent material best suited for that
 particular application. A determination of this sort would
 always be made on a site-by-site basis.

 S5)     Determine if the  technology's  efficiency in
 removing VOCs, SVOCs, and TRPH is reduced  after  a
 3-week period, and if scaling occurs after a 3-\veekperiod
 due to  the precipitation  of the  analytes listed under
 secondary objective S4.

 Before  demonstration sampling began, the SITE  team
 elected not to run the system for 3 weeks and then resample
 because  (1)  component  failures   caused  continual
 treatment difficulties with the pervaporation system and
 (2) cost concerns had arisen due to project delays.

 At the start of sampling, the demonstration team was
 concerned that the technology would not operate for 3 full
 weeks.  Problems ranging from temperature regulation
 difficulties to premature failure of seals on various pumps
 interfered with  the treatment efficiency of the ZENON
 technology.   Scaling of the pervaporation membranes
 proved to be a continuous problem that required frequent
 acid washings of the technology until an adequate anti-
 scaling  additive was provided.  According to ZENON
 representatives, the company had a set budget to perform
the demonstration atNASNI, and as difficulties continued,
which required much more time  in the field than was
 expected, budget problems became a concern. Without
 any of the above-listed problems, this objective could not
 have been accomplished  because of the  failure of the
 stainless tube on the pervaporation module, which ended
demonstration sampling 4 hours into the fifth run.

As discussed in the results  of Secondary  Objective S4,
 scaling potential must be assessed on a site-by- site basis.
After a proper anti-scaling additive is selected, frequent
monitoring of  the performance of the technology is
 necessary, especially  during  the initial  period of a
 treatment job, to determine the necessity for acid washings
 of the system. Once additional determinations have been
 made for monitoring requirements, a schedule of routine
 maintenance involving washings can then be established.

 S6)     Determine  the  physical  effects  the ZENON
 technology has on treated groundwater

 Samples of  untreated and  treated groundwater were
 collected three tunes  per  run,  and  measurements of
 temperature, pH, and conductivity were collected with a
 multitesting meter.  The main  purpose of this sampling
 was to identify physical changes caused by heat from the
 pervaporation system or  from  additions of anti-scaling
 chemicals.

 The average change in temperature between untreated
 groundwater  (before entering  the  system)  and treated
 groundwater (discharged groundwater) was 4.0 °C.  The
 greatest daily average change in temperature was 11.7 °C
 and occurred during the first run. During this run, water
 was passed through the system at 2.10 to 2.15 gpm, the
 slowest  of the demonstration.   The higher average
 temperature change  can be  attributed  to the  higher
 retention  time of  the  groundwater in  the system.
 Groundwater pH increased an average of 0.56 during the
 demonstration. A change of  0.90, the  highest  of the
 demonstration, occurred  during the second  run.   The
 change in conductivity of treated groundwater compared
to untreated groundwater was  negligible.  Data tables
containing this information are provided in the TER.

S7)    Document the operating conditions of the ZENON
technology

The particulate and scaling problems that delayed the start
of the  demonstration caused problems  with  many
components of the system, including sight glasses, valves,
and several component surfaces.  This complicated the
monitoring of operating conditions of the system, and
caused  difficulty in  keeping  all parameters within
specified control limits. The various parameters recorded
in the field, such as flow rates, temperature, and pressure
are probably imprecise (due to varying interference). No
independent measurements are  available  to verify these
results.   Therefore, data gathered for  these parameters
should be used qualitatively. Data in this section were
provided by ZENON (ZENON 1995).
                                                    53

-------
Average daily values for the temperature of water entering
and exiting the  pervaporation unit is presented under
Secondary Objective S6; flow rates for the demonstration
are presented Table 4-5. Permeate was discharged from
the unit in bulk, so flow rates for permeate do not apply.
Values  for feed pressure, vacuum,  and chilled water
temperature were provided by ZENON and are presented
in the TER.

The   highest  feed pressure  of  water entering  the
pervaporation module during the demonstration occurred
during the fifth run at 10.9 pounds per square inch (psi);
the lowest was during the second run and was 5.1 psi.  For
water exiting the module,  the highest feed pressure was
during the fifth run at 7.4  psi; the lowest was during the
first run at 2.3 psi.

The pervaporation module is subjected to a vacuum that
removes organics  in  the vapor phase.   During  the
demonstration, the vacuum on the module averaged 0.50
psi.  The vacuum  was highest during the fifth run  and
averaged 0.72 psi-absolute (psia). It was lowest during the
third run and averaged 0.40 psia.  The vacuum during the
first, second, and third runs were all near 0.41 psia.

The temperature of water entering the system from the
chiller averaged 4 °C; the temperature of water returning
to the chiller from the system varied between 4 °C and 5
S8)     Estimate the capital and operating costs of
treating contaminated ground-water at Site 9 -with ZENON
pervaporation  systems  identical to that used for the
demonstration

This objective was  achieved  by using  capital  cost
information  provided  by  the developer,  measuring
electricity consumption, and estimating labor requirements.
A detailed estimate of the capital and operating costs of
constructing  a  single  treatment unit  to  remediate
groundwater contaminated  with TCE  is presented in
Section 3.0.  Cost have been placed in 12 categories
applicable to typical cleanup activities at RCRA sites and
include fixed  and annual  variable costs.   Operating
conditions consist of treating the groundwater at 8 gpm for
a period of 15 years.  Total fixed costs  are $189,500.
Equipment  costs comprise 79 percent of the total fixed
costs. Total annual variable costs are $118,100.  Utility
costs comprise 47 percent  of the variable  costs, and
residual waste handling services comprise 28 percent.
After operating for 15  years, the  total cost of the
groundwater  remediation scenario  presented  in  this
analysis is $ 1,961,000. Annual costs were not adjusted for
inflation.  A total of 63 million gallons of groundwater
would be treated over this time period. The total cost per
1,000 gallons treated is $31, or roughly 3 cents per gallon.

Based on the performance of the technology during the
demonstration at NASNI, a strong potential exists for a
typical  application  to  experience  down-time  from
mechanical problems, including scaling difficulties, seal,
pump, and valve failures, along with unknown difficulties
that may be caused by extreme  changes in weather
conditions (temperatures). Problems such as these over an
extended period of time  could increase treatment costs
substantially.

4.3.4  Data Quality

A data quality assessment was conducted to incorporate
the analytical data validation results with the  field QC
results, evaluate the impact of all QC measures on the
overall data quality, and remove all unusable values from
the investigation data set. The results of this assessment
were used to produce the known, defensible information
employed to define the investigation findings and draw
conclusions.   The QA objectives for this project were
established in the QAPP.

A  data  validation  review  of the  analytical  data for
groundwater and air samples collected during the ZENON
SITE demonstration was conducted to ensure that all
laboratory data generated and processed are scientifically
valid, defensible, and comparable. Data  validation was
conducted using both field QC samples and laboratory QC
analyses. The field samples included field blanks and trip
blanks.  Laboratory samples  included method blanks,
surrogate recoveries, initial and continuing  calibration,
and MS/MSD results.  Results from these samples were
used to calculate the precision, accuracy, representativeness,
comparability, and completeness of the data. In general,
all data quality indicators met the QA objectives specified
in the QAPP, indicating that general data quality was good
and  that the  sample  data are  useable as  reported.
Conformance with data quality objectives for the critical
and non critical parameters, along with conformance with
field QA/QC procedures, calibration requirements, and
 internal QC procedures, is discussed below.
                                                     54

-------
Critical Parameter

The one critical parameter was the TCE concentrations in
untreated and treated groundwater. All QA objectives for
TCE in groundwater were met except the TRL.  Most
samples  were diluted ten-fold  or more because of
concentrations of TCE and other VOCs that exceeded the
calibration range for an undiluted sample, so the sample
reporting  levels  in  the  data  tables  are   generally
correspondingly higher than the TRL.  However, because
the ZENON technology was not capable of reducing TCE
to concentrations   approaching  the requirements  of
Primary Objective PI (reduce TCE to below an MCL of 5
Hg/L), the TRL was not a factor.

Noncritical Parameters

The noncritical parameters include VOCs other than TCE,
SVOC, various inorganic parameters (metals, fluoride,
silica, sulfate, pH), and some collective parameters (total
petroleum  hydrocarbons,  alkalinity,  total  suspended
solids, conductivity). Most of the QA objectives for these
parameters were met.

Since TCE was analyzed by Method 8260, a  number of
other VOC could be determined simultaneously. One of
the precision objectives for these noncritical parameters
was not met.  In the MS/MSD analysis of treated water
from Day 2, recovery of 2-butanone was 136 percent in
both the  MS  and  MSD  samples,  slightly  about the
acceptance criterion of 70 to 130 percent. The 2-butanone
results in that sample are considered qualified, but are still
usable.

There were greater problems with the SVOC MS/MSD
analyses.  In all cases, the phenol results are  not usable
because the spike was much less than the native sample
concentration.  In seven of the eight spiked samples, there
was  excessive recovery  of  4-chloro-3-methylphenol.
There was also excessive recovery of 2-chlorophenol in
one untreated water MS/MSD pair and of pyrene  in one
untreated water and one treated water MS/MSD pair. In
addition,  there was a high relative percent difference of
recoveries of  acenaphthene  and  4-nitrophenol in  one
treated water  MS/MSD  pair.  These results provide
evidence of significant matrix interference with the acidic
fraction (phenol and its derivatives, benzoic acid, and so
on) of the SVOC analysis.  This matrix effect is probably
associated with the sample alkalinity. The acidic fraction
results in all samples should be used with caution.
The laboratory noted that most volatile organic analysis
(VOA) vials had a pH exceeding 2 when they were opened.
The samplers added a standard amount of hydrochloric
acid to preserve each vial.  However, the groundwater
samples  had  very high  alkalinity,  1,184 to  1,740
milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate.  That standard
amount of acid was insufficient to neutralize the actual
alkalinity of the samples.  This would not affect the
samples to a significant extent.   The chemicals most
susceptible to degradation in unpreserved samples are the
aromatic  hydrocarbons, which are minor constituents of
these samples, if present at all. The high  ionic strength
associated with the alkalinity is also a reasonably effective
bacterial  inhibitor  (that is,  preservative)  which  would
supplement the effects of the acid. Verifying the pH of a
preserved VOC  sample is not acceptable because the
sample disturbance can cause outgassing and loss of VOC
content.

All QA objectives for the air samples were met.  These
objectives included laboratory (method) blanks, laboratory
duplicates, and MS/MSD for each batch of samples, plus
holding times and surrogate spikes for each sample.

Conformance With Field QA/QC Procedures

During the demonstration, the sample collection and field,
measurement procedures described in Section 4.0 of the
QAPP were generally followed.  At least one VOC was
found in at least one of the three blanks (field blanks for
untreated and treated water and trip blank) on each day of
sampling. Acetone was found in eight blanks on three
days at concentrations of 18 to 34 ujig/L.  Methylene
chloride was found in all three of the Day 4 blanks at 2.4 to
3.1 |o.|J,g/L. 2-Butanone was found in two of the  Day 1
blanks at 4.7 and 5.2 mig/L. Those three  chemicals are
frequently found contaminants.  In addition, one  Day 2
blank contained 5.5 u.|J.g/L of chloromethane and one Day
3 blank contained 15 uug/L of  4-methyl-2-pentanone.
Therefore, similar concentrations of these compounds are
considered artifacts and the results flagged as "undetected."
No field blanks contained TCE. The laboratory (method)
blanks were free of VOC contamination.   These blank
analysis results are within the acceptable range.  The
overall results are not significantly affected.

Conformance With Calibration Requirements

Section   5.0  of the  QAPP specifies  the calibration
                                                    55

-------
procedures and acceptance criteria for the demonstration.
The only significant calibration problem was with some
continuing calibration of the VOC analysis.  In those
instances,  the  response  factors for  acetone  and 2-
hexanone, two of the well-known poorly responding target
compounds, exceeded the percent difference criterion.
Associated results for those noncritical compounds are
considered estimates.

Conformance With Internal QC Procedures

Table 7-1  of the QAPP summarizes the internal QC and
corrective action procedures for the demonstration. None
of the  19  VOC method blanks and five SVOC method
blanks contained any chemicals at or above the reporting
limits.  All three BS/BSD and VOC analyses gave results
within  the specified precision and accuracy limits. All
VOC  surrogate  recovery   results  were  within the
acceptance criteria. Therefore, no corrective actions by
the laboratory were required.

4.3.5  Conclusions

TheZENON cross-flow pervaporation system provides an
alternative approach to  treating organic-contaminated
water at sites where conventional treatment technologies
are used, such as air stripping or carbon adsorption.

Analytical results from the demonstration indicate that the
ZENON  technology, when operating at  optimum
conditions, effectively removed TCE from the groundwater
atNASNI Site 9. Removal efficiencies for TCE averaged
97.3 percent.  Sixteen of 18 comparisons of treated water
samples to  untreated samples  showed average TCE
removal efficiencies of 99.3 percent. Although the system
significantly  reduced  TCE  concentrations   in  the
groundwater to an average of 1.49 mg/L (1,490 ng/L), the
federal MCL of 5 ug/L was not achieved. Lowering TCE
concentrations to  below  MCLs may require  multiple
passes  through the pervaporation module, which can
prove impractical when compared to other technologies,
such as carbon adsorption. The technology is best suited
for  reducing high concentrations of VOCs to levels that
can  be reduced  further  and  more  economically  by
conventional  treatment  technologies.  The  ZENON
system appeared to remove TCE from groundwater most
efficiently when the groundwater flow rate was just over 5
gpm, achieving near 100 percent removal.

The technology proved  effective in  removing certain
VOCs other than TCE  from the Site 9  groundwater,
performing best on highly volatile compounds.  VOCs
with solubilities of greater than 2 percent are generally not
suited  for  removal  by  pervaporation.    Removal
efficiencies for SVOCs detected were 50 percent or less.
Because of some data quality  flaws,  namely  VOC
presence in trip blanks and  SVOC  MS/MSD  results
outside of QA objectives, the usefulness of the VOC and
SVOC results is considered limited. TRPH removal for
the demonstration averaged 68.5 percent and was fairly
consistent over each sampling run.

Problems involving the seals and pumping controls of the
condensate pump did  not always allow aqueous phase
permeate to be returned to the system for retreatment.
Because of the failure of these items,  the amount of
permeate generated by a typical  pervaporation system
could only be estimated.  ZENON estimated that the
system at NASNI generated an average of 2.9 gallons of
permeate per hour, equaling 23 gallons per 8-hour run. The
average amount of untreated groundwater passed through
the system was 441 gph (about 3,525 gallons per 8-hour
run).

TCE contained in vapor discharged from the pervaporation
module averaged 53,889 mg/m3.  As a percentage of the
total TCE contaminant load, volatilized TCE discharged
from the module averaged 21.7 percent.  When the influent
flow rate was near 5 gpm, TCE vapor releases averaged 0.9
percent of the  total TCE contaminant  load.  For highly
volatile VOCs, the amount of these compounds released
from the module generally appeared to increase in relation
to higher concentrations of those particular contaminants
in the untreated groundwater. For VOCs that are less
volatile, no clear removal similarities could be gathered.

Because of variations in water chemistry, potential scaling
of the module membranes should be considered on a site-
by-site basis. Treatability studies should be performed on
groundwater or wastewater to be treated to determine  if
pervaporation can be applied.  If necessary, a proper anti-
scaling additive could then be selected.  Scaling problems
during the demonstration at NASNI were due to high
concentrations   of magnesium  and  calcium in the
groundwater at Site 9, and its high salinity.  To limit
scaling of the membranes, ZENON eventually used an
anti-scalent similar to zinc phosphate.

The average temperature of groundwater as it passed
through the ZENON system was 4.0 °C. Groundwater pH
                                                   56

-------
increased an average  of  0.56,  though  changes  in
conductivity were negligible.

Estimated costs for operating a ZENON system atNASNI
Site 9 at 8 gallons per minute for a period of 15 years,
treating 63 million gallons of groundwater, are $1,961,
000.   The total cost per  $1,000 gallons of treated
groundwater is $31, or about 3 cents per gallon.
                                                   57

-------
                                             Section 5
                                 ZENON Technology Status
The ZENON cross-flow pervaporation technology is a
membrane-based  process  that  removes VOCs from
aqueous matrices.  The SITE demonstration at NASNI
represents the first full-scale use of the ZENON cross-flow
pervaporation technology.  The unit was  returned to
ZENON's base office in Ontario immediately following
the demonstration for refurbishing. An application of the
technology was recently performed at a separate location
in California; however, analytical data and operational
information for that application is not available.

A number of bench-scale studies  of the technology
involving varying types of VOC-contaminated influent
have been performed and can be acquired by contacting
ZENON at the address provided in Section 1.0.  A pilot-
scale study of the technology was conducted by EPA in
late  1993 at a former  petroleum  pumping station in
Burlington, Ontario. The pilot-scale test was performed to
assess the technology's ability to remove low levels of
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BETX) in
contaminated groundwater.  Sampling for the pilot-scale
test was performed over a single 8-hour period.

According  to  ZENON,  pervaporation  systems   are
available for immediate implementation,  and require
minimal site preparation. Pervaporation is ideally suited
for  applications  that  require  the removal  of high
concentrations of VOC contamination to  levels where
other, more cost-effective technologies could be used to
reduce contamination  levels to regulatory standards.
Although the demonstration at NASNI dealt strictly with
groundwater, the technology is available for industrial
applications, as  well as  applications involving surface
water.
                                                   58

-------
                                           Section 6
                                          References
 Evans G.  1990. "Estimating  Innovative Technology
   Costs for the SITE program." Journal of Air and Waste
   Management Assessment. Volume 40, Number 7.
   July

 PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC). 1994a.
   Field Work Plan for the ZENON Environmental, Inc.
   (ZENON) Cross-Flow Pervaporation Technology,
   Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
   Program, Demonstration at NASNI Site 9, Coronado,
   CA. September 2.

 PRC.  1994b.  Health  and  Safety   Plan  for  the
   Demonstration of the ZENON Technology, NASNI
   Site 9, Coronado, California. September 8.

 PRC.  1994c.   ZENON  Cross-Flow  Pervaporation
   Technology,  SITE  Demonstration, Final  Quality
   Assurance Project Plan. October 3.

 PRC. 1996a. Telephone Communication. Between Pete
   Zelinskas, PRC,  and Gene Weil, Hamilton County
   Municipal Sewer District Representative. May 30.

 PRC. 1996b. Telephone Communication. Between Pete
   Zelinskas,  PRC,  and Jessica  Olson,  City of
   Indianapolis Water Division Representative. June 4.
   Representative. May 30.

 PRC.   1996c.  ZENON  Cross-Flow  Pervaporation
   Technology Evaluation Report. May.

 Southwest Division Naval Facilities (SWDIV). 1993.
   RCRA Facility Investigation Report. Prepared by
   Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs). December
   22.

SWDIV. 1994. NASNI Technical Memorandum, Site 9,
   Chemical Waste Disposal Area. Prepared by Jacobs.
   April.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987.
   Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volumes
   IA-IC:   Laboratory Manual,  Physical/Chemical
   Methods; and Volume II:  Field Manual, Physical/
   Chemical Methods, SW-846. Third Edition. Office of
   Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington,
   D.C.

 EPA.  1988a.  Compendium  of Methods  for  the
   Determination  of Toxic Organic Compounds in
   Ambient Air, Second Edition, Atmospheric Research
   •and  Exposure  Assessment  Laboratory. Office of
   Research and Development. EPA/600/4-89/017.

 EPA.  1988b.  Guidance  for  Conducting  Remedial
   Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA.
   EPA/540/G-89/004. October.

 EPA. 1989a. Control of Air Emissions from Superfund
   Air Stripping at Superfund Groundwater Sites. Office
   of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS WER)
   Directive 9355.0-28.  June 15.

EPA. 1989b. CERCLA  Compliance  with Other Laws
   Manual:  Part  II.  Clean  Air  Act   and   Other
   Environmental  Statutes  and State  Requirements.
   OSWER. EPA/540/G-89/006. August.

EPA. 1992. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
   Volumes  IA-IC: Laboratory  Manual,  Physical/
   Chemical Methods; and  Volume II: Field Manual,
   Physical/Chemical Methods,  SW-846. Third Edition
   (revision 2). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
   Response. Washington, DC.

Means,  R.S., Company, Inc.  1995.  Means Building
   Construction  Cost Data for  1995. 53rd Annual
   Edition.
                                                59

-------
r
          ZENON. 1994. Bench-Scale Pervaporation Treatability
             Testing of Sample from NASNI Site 9. February 1.

          ZENON. 1995. Letter Report Providing Monitoring Data
             and Other Information from the SITE Demonstration
             at NASNI. August 29.

          ZENON.  1996. Letter Report to PRC Providing Data
             Concerning Anti-Scaling Additives. March 28.
                                                           60

-------
     Appendix A
Analytical Data Tables
         61

-------
Table A1.  Groundwater Monitoring Well Data1
Well ID
Screened Interval'
Volatile Organic
Compounds (mg/L)s
Trichlorethene
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Acetone
2-butanone
Toluene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
Carbon disulfide
Cis-1,2-
dichloroethene
Semivolatile organic
compounds (mg/L)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-
methylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
Metals
Barium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cyanide
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
IMW-lb
17 - 38 feet

61.0
3.30 J"
0.38
7.70 J
170
2,50 J
10.0 J
0.10U
0.10U
54.0

24.4
3.17
46.6
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U

0.22
163
0.96
0.20
604
360
0.42
IMW-2"
17 - 38 feet

420
25.0 U1
15
25.0 U
130
8.00 J
25.0 U
25 .OU
25.0 U
25.0 U

2.41
0.17
1.72
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U

0.03 J
111
0.34
1.57
0.67
679
0.86
DMW-1"
43 - 64 feet

5.30
0.17
0.01 U
0.01 U
0.01 U
0.13 J
1.40J
0.12
0.12
8.10

0.17
0.08 J
0.42
0.03 U
0.03 U
0.03 U
0.03 U

0.03 J
355
0.01 U
0.01
0.12J
800
0.86
CW-5e
5 - 20 feet

0.77
4.3 J
0.10 U
720
140
3.10 J
70.0
0.01 U
0.01 U
0.68

3.53 J
1.21 J
355
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U
0.25 U

0.13 J
7.79
0.77
0.15
5.21
491
0.08
                                                        62

-------
Table A1. Groundwater Monitoring Well Data (continued)
                      Wdiro
               IMW-l
                                                          IMW-2
                                              DMW-1
                                                                                            CW-5
                 Screened Interval

                   Metals (mg/L)
             17 - 38 feet      17 - 38 feet      43 - 64 feet
                   Notes:

                   a
                   b
                   c
                   d
                   e
                   f
                   g
                   h
5-20 feet
Potassium
Sodium
Total Suspended
Solids
Alkalinity
Sulfate
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
182
4,510
NZ1
NZ
NZ
NZ
301
2,500
NZ
NZ
NZ
NZ
419
8,950
28
1,041
521
NZ
31.0
1,800
NZ
NZ
NZ
NZ
Source: Southwest Division Naval Facilities, 1994
IMW^l - Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
CW-5 = Shallow monitoring well No. 5
The measurement for the screened interval is below the ground surface
mg/L = milligram per liter
J = Indicates an estimated concentration value. The result is considered qualitatively
    acceptable, but quantitatively unreliable.
U = Indicates that the substance was analyzed for but not detected above the concentration
             listed. The value listed is the sample quantitation limit
Not analyzed
                                                       63

-------
Table A2. Trichloroethene Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate Well Event Untreated
(gallons per Number Concentration
intauhS tae/U*
1 2.1 IMW-lb 1 40
2 43
3 33
4 42
Average 40
2 5.2 IMW-1 1 41
2 44
3 48
4 48
Average 45.3
3 9.0 MW-1 1 33
and 2 35
DMW-1" 3 38
4 37
Average 36
4 5.5 IMW-2 1 220
and 2 220
DMW-1 3 240
4 240
Average 230
5' 11.2 IMW-1, 1 130
IMW-2,.
and 2 120
DMW-1
Average 125
Total Average Percent Removal 	 	 	
Treated
Concentration
fme/U
0.17
1.0
3.8
11
3.9
[O.lOf
0.09
0.16
0.19
0.14
0.32
0.27
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.45
0.40
0.51
0.46
0.46
2.7
2.7
2.7

Percent
Removal
99.5%
97.7%
8815%
73.8%
89.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
99.6%
99.7%
99.0%
99.2%
99.4%
99.4%
99.3%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
97.9%
97.8%
97.9%
97.3%g
        Notes:
        a mg/L = milligram per liter
        b IMW-1«Intermediate monitoring well No. 1                                     _
        c [ ] =  Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit.
                concentration is half of the sample quantitation limit.
        d DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
        e IMW-2 * Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
        f Sampling ran was abbreviated due to system failure
        g Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
The treated
                                                              64

-------
Table A3. Vinyl Chloride Concentration
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)

1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5h 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well

IMW-1"




1MW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-1"


IMW-2f
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Summary
Event
Number

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2



Untreated
Concentration
hne/LV
. 11
11
8.3
120
37.6
12
11
12
11
11.5
9.3
8.9
9.8
8.7
9.2
NA"
NA
NA
NA
NA
[5]
6.3
5.7


Treated
Concentration
	 (mg/L) 	
0.11
[0.7]c
[0.7]
[0.7]
0.6
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
0.18J"
[0.13]
0.15
[0.13]
0.15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.27
[0.3]
0.29

.
Percent
Removal

99.0%
93.6%
91.6%
99.4%
95.9%
98.9%
98.8%
98.9%
98.8%
98.9%
98.1%
98.5%
98.5%
98.5%
98.4%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
94.6%
95.2%
94.9%
97.0%'
Notes:
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c [ ] =   Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit. The untreated
         concentration is the sample quantitation limit and the treated concentration is half of the sample quantitation limit
unreUabl    ^ *" 6Stimated concentration value- The result is considered qualitatively acceptable, but quantitatively

e DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
f IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
g NA = Contaminant was not detected in influent or effluent, therefore, event is negated
h Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure.
i  Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                               65

-------
Table A4. Acetone Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate Well Event Untreated
(gallons per Number Concentration
	 minute) 	 ftng/LV 	
1 2.1 IMW-1" 1 30JC
2 51J
3 33UJ
4 29UJ
Average 35.6
2 5.2 IMW-1 1 41UJ
2 43UJ
3 41UJ
4 37UJ
Average 40.5
3 9.0 IMW-1 1 23UJ
and 2 27UJ
DMW-1" 3 27UJ
4 30UJ
Average 26.8
4 5.5 IMW-2f 1 37UJ
and 2 12UJ
DMW-1 3 14.6UJ
4 15UJ
Average !9.7
5* 11.2 IMW-1, 1 27UJ
IMW-2,
and 2 31UJ
DMW-1
Average 29
Total Average Percent Removal
Treated
Concentration
fme/O
21
20UJ"
20UJ
15UJ
19
35
18
33
35
30.3
20
32
21
33
26.5
9.1
9.6
8.7UJ
10
9.4
16
41J
28.5

Percent
Removal
30.0%
60.8%
39.4%
48.3%
44.6%
14.6%
58.1%
19.5%
5.4%
24.4%
13.0%
0.0%
22.2%
0.0
8.8%
75.4%
20.0%
40.4%
33.3%
42.3%
40.7%
0.0%
20.35%
28.1%"
   Notes:
   a mg/L >» milligram per liter
   b IMW-1 - Intermediate monitoring well No. 1                                         . ,,•.,•,
   c J - Indicates an estimated concentration value. The result is considered qualitatively acceptable, but quantitatively
            unreliable.                                                    .   .
   d  UJ «« Estimated value that was 10 times less than the contract required quantitation limit
   e DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
   f IMW-2 - Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
   g  Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
   h  Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                                66

-------
 Table AS. 4-Methy!-2-Pentanone Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5° 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-lb




MW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-1C


UvlW-2"
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
(me/LY
64
70
53
57
61
45
66
46
35
48
39
45
39
42
41.3
28
28
37
30
30.8
40
24
32

Treated
Concentration
fme/U
12
17
24
31
21
19
25
9.5
13
16.6
23
25
21.
21
22.5
17
14
18
18
16.8
30
32
31

Percent
Removal
81.3%
75.7%
54.7%
45.6%
64.3%
57.8%
62.1%
79.3%
62.9%
65.5%
41.0%
44.4%
46.2%
50.0%
45.4%
39.3%
50.0%
51.4%
40.0%
45.2%
25.0%
0.0%
12.5%
46.6%F
Notes:
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
d IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
e Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
f Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                          67

-------
Table A6.  2-Butanone Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5f 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-1"




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-ld


IMW-20
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
fme/LV
120
53
90
100
90.8
94
110
100
71
93.8
79
84
85
88
84
110
90
120
110
107.5
96
65
80.5

Treated
Concentration
Yrne/L)
86
70
62
63
70.3
79
86JC
46
58
67.3
77
82
61
76
74
100
95
94
99
97
90
100
95

Percent
Removal
28.3%
0.0%
31.1%
37.0%
24.1%
16.0%
21.8%
54.0%
18.3%
27.5%
2.5%
2.4%
28.2%
13.6%
11.7%
9.1%
NA
21.7%
10.0%
13.6%
6.3%
0.0%
3.2%
16.0%"
    Notes:
    a mg/L = milligram per liter
    b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
    c J = Indicates an estimated concentration value. The result is considered qualitatively acceptable, but quantitatively
         unreliable.
    d DMW-1  = Deep monitoring well No. 1
    e IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
    f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
    g Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                             68

-------
Table A7. Methylene Chloride Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2.



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5* 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-1"




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-ld


IMW-2"
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
(me/LY
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ssur
33UJ
34UJ
38UJ
35.8UJ
12UJ
12UJ
12UJ

Treated
Concentration
fme/U 	
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
. NA
NA
NA
2.4UJ
2.0UJ
2.4UJ
2.2UJ
2.25UJ
3.8UJ
4.0UJ
3.9UJ

Percent
Removal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.7%
93.9%
92.9%
94.2%
93.7%
68.3%
66.7%
67.5%
80.6%h
Notes:
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c NA = Contaminant was not detected in influent or effluent, therefore, event is negated
d DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
e IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
f UJ = Estimated value that was 10 times less than the contract required quantitation limit
g Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
h Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                           69

-------
Table A8. 1,1-Dichloroethene Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5' 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
MW-1"




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-1"1


IMW-2f
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
a
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
fme/LV
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
[2.5]"
NA
11
10
11
11
10.75
4.4Jh
4.6J
4.5J

Treated
Concentration
fme/U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
[0.13]
NA
[0.3]
[0.13]
[0.3]
[0.3]
[0.3]
[0.13]
[0.3]
[0.25]

Percent
Removal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
94.8%
NA
97.3%
98.7%
97.3%
97.3%
97.7%
97.0%
93.5%
95.3%
96.5%'
    Notes:
    a mg/L= milligram per liter
    b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
    c NA = Contaminant was not detected in both influent and effluent and thus cannot be used
    d DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
    e [ ] -  Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit. The untreated
            concentration is the sample quantitation limit and the treated concentration is half of the sample quantitation limit.
    f IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
    g Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
    h J = Indicates an estimated concentration value. The result is considered qualitatively acceptable, but quantitatively
    unreliable.
    i Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                                 70

-------
Table A9. Toluene Concentration Summary . . •
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5" 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-1"




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-r


IMW-2r
and
DMW-1

IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
1
2


Untreated
Concentration
(me/LY
6.4
6.4
4.7
6.5
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.1
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.4
NA«
3.9
NA
NA
3.9
4.8J
4.2J
4.5J

Treated
Concentration
	 (mg/U 	
0.037J"
[0.65]11
0.79J
2.3
0.94
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.13]
[0.07]
[0.13]
[0.12]
NA
[0.13]
NA
NA
0.13
0.16J
[0.3]
0.23

Percent
Removal
99.4%
89.8%
83.2%
64.6%
84.3%
97.9%
97.9%
97.8%
97.8%
97.9%
96.9%
97.0%
98.4%
97.1%
97.4%
NA
96.7%
NA
NA
96.7%
96.7%
92.9%
94.2%
94.3%'
Notes:
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b IMWrl = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c J ^Indicates an estimated concentration value. The result is considered qualitatively acceptable, but quantitatively
unreliable.                                  .
d [ ] =   Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit The untreated
  r«m, foncentration is to*5 samPle quantitation limit and the treated concentration is half of the sample quantitation limit
e DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1                                                     .
f IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
g NA = Contaminant was not detected in infleunt or effluent; therefore, event is negated
h Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
i  Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                               71

-------
Table A10. cis-1,2-DichloroetheneConcentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per
minnte)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5° 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-lb




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-10


MW-2
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
(melLY
77
80
58
68
70.8
69
64
62
56
62.8
48
45
46
44
45.8
6.4P
54
NA*
NA
30.2
34
29
31.5

Treated
Concentration
(mefL)
1.1
2.9
6.8
13
6.0
0.86
0.87
0.99
0.92
0.91
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.1
[0.3Jf
[0.13]
NA
NA
[0.26]
3.8
3.6.
3.7

Percent
Removal
98.6%
96.4%
88.2%
80.9%
90.9%
98.8%
98.6%
98.4%
98.4%
98.6%
95.0%
95.3%
96.1%
95.8%
95.6%
95.3%
99.8%
NA
NA
97.6%
88.8%
87.6%
88.2%
94.2%"
 Notes:
 a mg/L = milligram per liter
 b IMW-1 — Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
 c DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
 d IMW-2 — Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
 e J « Indicates an estimated concentration value.  The result is considered qualitatively acceptable, but quantitatively
            unreliable.
 f [ ] «•   Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit. The untreated
          concentration is the sample quantitation limit and the treated concentration is half of the sample quantitation limit.
 g Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
 h Total average computed from the. averages of the five runs
                                                                72

-------
Table A11.  Phenol Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.10-2.15



Average
2 5.16-5.21



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.46



Average
5° 11.18-11.23

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-lb




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-1C


IMW-2d
and
MW-1
.,

IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number •
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
tae/LV
5.5
5.5
5.8
6.6
5.9
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.6
4.43
5.9
6.8
6.8
6.5
6.5
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.3
4.6
4.1
4.4

Treated
Concentration
	 (mg/U
4.5
5.1
5.2
4.3
4.8
5.3
5.3
4.5
4.4
4.9
6.8
6.4
6.8
6.2
6.6
5.0
6.8
4.0
4.8
5.2
4.5
4.2
4.4

Percent
Removal
18.2%
7.3%
10.3%
34.8%
17.7%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%
4.3%
1.6%
O.O%
5.9%
0.0%
4.6%
2.6%
3.8%
0.0%
25.9%
7.7%
9.4%
2.2%
0.0%
1.1%
6.5%f
Notes:
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
d IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
e Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
f Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                          73

-------
Table A12. 2-Methylphenol Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5Q 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-lb




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-10


IMW-2"
and
DMW-1


MW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
(me/LY
4.6
4.5
4.8
5.4
4.8
3.3
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
2.7
3.1
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.9
2.6
2.75

Treated
Concentration
(mefL)
3.6
3.9
3.8
3.2
3.6
3.9
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.7
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.9
2.0
2.7
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.8
2.7
2.75

Percent
Removal
21.7%
13.3%
20.8%
40.7%
24.1%
0.0%
0.0%
5.4%
8.1%
3.4%
0.0%
6.5%
3.2%
6.9%
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%
28.6%
5.3%
8.5%
3.4%
0.0%
1.7%
8.4%f
 Notes:
 a mg/L = milligram per liter
 b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
 C DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
 d IMW-2 s Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
 e Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
 f Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                         74

-------
Table A13. 4-Methylphenol Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5" 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-1"




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-16


IMW-2"
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
.Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
(me/LY
19
18
19
21
19.3
13
13
14
14
13.5
12
13
13
13
12.8
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
7.6
7.3
7.45

Treated
Concentration
	 (mg/L)
16
16
16
15
15.8
14
15
13
13
13.8
13
13
13
13
13
2.8
3.8
2.2
2.7
2.9
7.6
7.4
7.5

Percent
Removal
15.8%
10.5%
15.8%
28.6%
17.7%
0.0%
0.0%
7.1%
7.1%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
29.0%
3.6%
9.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.1%f
Notes:
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b JMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
d IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
e Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
f Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                          75

-------
Table A14. 2,4-Dimethylphenol Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5f 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-111




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-1"


IMW-2d
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
fmfi/D'
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.9
2.6
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
NA°
MA
NA
NA
NA
0.72
0.71
0.715

Treated
Concentration
taB/U
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.81
0.82
0.815

Percent
Removal
25.0%
20.8%
26.9%
44.8%
29.4%
0.0%
0.0%
9.5%
14.3%
6.0%
0.0%
11.1%
5.6%
17.6%
8.6%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.0%*
  Notes:
  a mg/L = milligram per liter
  b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
  c DMW-I » Deep monitoring well No. 1
  d IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
  e NA s Contaminant was not detected in both influent and effluent and thus cannot be used
  f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
  g Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                            76

-------
Table A1 5. 4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol Concentration
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5* 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
MW-lb




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-le


MW-2f
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Summary
Event Untreated
Number Concentration
fme/U'
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

' 1
2
3
4

1
2


0.61°
0.62J
0.67J
0.76J
0.66J
NA"
. NA
NA
NA
NA
0.34J
0.4J
0.38J
0.37J
0.37J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


Treated
Concentration
	 fmg/L) 	
0.46J
0.51J
0.49J
0.46J
0.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.38J
0.35J
0.37J
0.37J
0.37J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


Percent
Removal
23.3%
17.7%
26.9%
39.5%
26.9%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0
12.5%
2.6%
0.0%
5.0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
NA
NA
i6;o%"
Notes:                                               ......
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c J = Indicates and estimated concentration value. The result is considered qualitatively acceptable, but quantitatively
        unreliable.
d NA = Contaminant was not detected in both influent and effluent and thus cannot be used
e DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
f IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2 '-•'•••
g Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
h Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                            77

-------
Table A16.  bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5f 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-lb




IMW-1




IMW-1
and
DMW-1"


IMW-20
and
DMW-1


IMW-1,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

.1
2


Untreated
Concentration
(me/LY
NA"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.8
3.5
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.3
1.7
2.0

Treated
Concentration
Cme/U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.25
1.5
1.0
3.0
1.4
1.1
0.61
0.86

Percent
Removal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
91.1%
57,1%
66.7%
0.0%
53.7%
52.2%
64.1%
58.2%
56.0%*
  Notes:
  a mg/L = milligram per liter
  b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
  c NA — Contaminant was not detected in both influent and effluent and thus cannot be used
  d DMW-1« Deep monitoring well No. 1
  c IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
  f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
  g Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                           78

-------
Table A17.  Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1



Average
2 5.2



Average
3 9.0



Average
4 5.5



Average
5f 11.2

Average
Total Average Percent Removal
Well
IMW-l"




MW-1




IMW-l
and
DMW-1"


IMW-2e
and
DMW-1


IMW-l,
IMW-2,
and
DMW-1


Event
Number
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4

1
2


Untreated
Concentration
fmaTLy
2.18
2.76
2.82
2.58
2.59
2.78
3.54
3.28
3.11
3.18
2.0
1.35
1.7
1.29
1.59
1.36
1.41
1.33
1.7
1.45
1.36
1.43
1.4

Treated
Concentration
	 fmg/L) 	
[0.3]°
[0.3]
0.75
1.14
0.62
[0.3]
0.71
0.65
0.58
0.56
[0.3]
[0.3]
[0.3]
[0.3]
[0.3]
0.59
0.59
[0.3]
[0.3]
0.45
0.568
0.64
0.60

Percent
Removal
86.2%
89.1%
73.3%
55.8% .
76.1%
89.2%
79.9%
80.3%
81.4%
60.4%
85.0%
77.8%
82.4%
76.7%
80.5%
56.5%
58.0%
77.4%
82.4%
68.6%
58.2%
55.2%
56.7%
68.5%E
 Notes:
 a mg/L= milligram per liter
 b IMW-l = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
 c [ ] =   Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit.  The untreated
         concentration is the sample quantitation limit and the treated concentration is half of the sample quantitation limit
 d DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
 e IMW-2 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
 f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
 g Total average computed from the averages of the five runs
                                                          79

-------
Table A18. Metals Concentration Summary
Run Flow Rate Well Event Metal
(gallons per minute)
1 2.1 lMW-lb 1 Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Strontium
3 5.2 IMW-1 1 Barium
and
DMW-10
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Strontium
5* 11.2 IMW-1, 2 Barium
IMW-2C,
and
DMW-1
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Strontium
Untreated
Concentration
(mdLY
0.228
174
8.73
. 381
1.64
0.121
240
3.04
573
2.81
0.0954
190
4.1
450
2.14
Treated
Concentration
fme/D
0.170
160
5.58
337
1.61
0.129
239
3.10
567
2.79
0.101
187
3.97
443
2.13
   Notes:
   a mg/L >- milligram per liter
   b IMW-1  = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
   c DMW-1 *= Deep monitoring well No. 1
   d Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure.
   e IMW-2  = Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
                                                         80

-------
Table A19. General Chemistry Concentration Summary
Run How Rate Well Event General
(gallons per minute) Chemistry
1 2.1 IMW-1" 1 Carbonate
alkalinity
Total
alkalinity
Fluoride
Silica
Sulfate
Total
suspended
solids
3 9.0 IMW-1 1 Carbonate
and alkalinity
DMW-1"
Total
alkalinity
Fluoride
Silica
Sulfate
Total
suspended
solids
5e 11.2 IMW-1, 2 Carbonate
IMW-2f, alkalinity
and
DMW-1
Total
alkalinity
Fluoride
Silica
Sulfate
Total
suspended
solids

Untreated
Concentration
ftng/Ly
NDC
1,740
0.402
42.4
399
12.4
ND
1,180
0.392
573
2.81
ND
ND
Ij410
1.43
26.5
863
3.67

Treated
Concentration
fmg/O 	
60.6
1,740
0.366
42.5
466
ND
ND
1,190
0.345
567
2.79
ND
ND
1,390
1.39
27.5
860
ND
Notes:
a mg/L = milligram per liter
b IMW-1 = Intermediate monitoring well No. 1
c ND = Not detected
d DMW-1 = Deep monitoring well No. 1
e Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
f IMW-2 =  Intermediate monitoring well No. 2
                                                          81

-------
Table A20. Trichloroethene Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
(gpm)'
1 2.1

2 5.2

3 9.0

4 5.5

5" 11.2
Average:
Average
Groundwater TCE
Concentration
taE/LV
40

42

36

230

125
95
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

Concentration
of TCE in
Vented Vapor
toe/in^
32,000
29,000
19,000
14,000
39,000
38,000
94,000
110,000
110,000
53,889
Concentration
of TCE in
Vented Vapor
fomnV1
6,100
5,500
3,700
2,500
7,300
7,200
18,000
20,000
21,000
10,100
     Notes:
     a gpm s gallons per minute
     b mg/L = milligram per liter
     c mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter
     d ppm •« parts per million
     e Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
                                                            82

-------
Table A21. Vinyl Chloride Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate Average Grab Number
(gpm)a Groundwater ,
Vinyl Chloride
Concentration
(me/ltf
1 2.1 37.6 1
2
2 5.2 11.5 1
2
3 9.0 9.2 1
2
4 5.5 8.1 1
2
5f 11.2 5.7 1
Average: 14.4
Concentration Concentration
of Vinyl of Vinyl
Chloride in Chloride in
Yented Vapor Vented Vapor
(me/m3)c rnnnvkd
16,000
15,000
6,200
5,900
13,000 5,000
5*100 2,000
19,000 7,300
8,700 3,400
[l,000]e
[1,000]
[395]
[395]
14,000 5,500 ,
10.311 	 4.010
 Notes:                                    .                                                 ~
 a gpm = gallons per minute
 b mg/L = milligram per liter
 c mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter                                                          :
 d ppm = parts per million                                                             -
 e [ ] =  Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit.  The
         shown is half the sample quantitation limit.
 f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
concentration
                                                         83

-------
Table A22. Acetone Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
fepm)"
1 2.1

2 5.2

3 9.0

4 5.5

5« 11.2
Average:
Average
Groundwater
Acetone
Concentration

-------
Table A23. 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
(gpm)8
1 2.1
,••'•• •
2 5.2

3 9.0

4 , 5.5
' • '
5g 11.2.
Average:
Average
Groundwater 4-
Methyl-2-
pentanone
Concentration
fms/L)b
61

48

41.3

30.8

32
42.6
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

Concentration
of4-Methyl-2-
pentanone in
Vented Vapor
(mg/m3)c
12,000
11,000
7,600
4,400
3,800
6,400
2,700
[2,000]f
[2,000]
5,767
Concentration
of4-MethyI-2-
pentanone in
Vented Vapor

-------
Table A24. 2-Butanone Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
(gpm)*
1 2.1

2 5.2

3 9.0

4 5.5

5f 11.2
Average:
Average
Groundwater
2-Butanone
Concentration
ftne/LV
90.8

93.8

84.0

107.5

80.5
91.3
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

Concentration
of 2-Butanone
in Vented
Vapor (mg/m3)c
17,000
14,000
8,400
4,600
5,000
5,700
4,100
3,900 TR"
[2,000]*
7,189
Concentration
of 2-Butanone
in Vented
Vapor (ppm)d
5,900
4,700
2,900
1,600
1,700
1,900
1,400
1.300TR
[700]
2,456
  Notes:
  a gpm = gallons per minute
  b mg/L = milligram per liter
  c mg/m3 — milligram per cubic meter
  d ppm = parts per million
  e TR =» Detected below the indicated reporting limit
  f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
  g []  «  Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit. The concentration shown
           is half the sample quantitation limit.
                                                          86

-------
 Table A25.  Methylene Chloride Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
(gpm)a
1 2.1

2 5.2

3 9.0

4 5.5

5* 11.2
Average:
Average
Groundwater
Methylene
Chloride
Concentration
(mefLV
2.8

2.5

2.5

10.75

4.5J
4.6J
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

Concentration
of Methylene
Chloride in
Vented Vapor
(mg/m3)'
830 TR"
[500]f
[500]
450
770 TR
[500]
32,000
43,000
23,000
11,283
Concentration
of Methylene
Chloride in
Vented Vapor

-------
Table A26.  1,1-Dich!oroethene Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
(gpm)m
1 2.1

2 5.2

3 9:0

4 5.5

5h 11.2
Average:
Average
Groundwater
1,1-Dichloroethene
Concentration
tos/Li"
2.8

2.5

2.5

35.8UJ8

12UJ
11.1UJ
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

Concentration
of 1,1-
Dichloroethene
invented
Vapor (ms/m3)c
[500]e
[500]
[500]
[200]
900 TRf
[500]
14,000
20.000
13,000
5,588
Concentration
of 1,1-
Dichloroethene
invented
Vapor (ppm)d
[125]
[125]
[125]
[50]
230 TR
[125]
3,600
5,000
3,400
1,420
   Notes:
   a gptn = gallons per minute
   b mg/L « milligram per liter
   c mg/m3 ** milligram per cubic meter
   d ppm s parts per million
   e [ ] — Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit. The concentration shown
           is half the sample quantitation limit.
   f TR «= Detected below the indicated reporting limit
   g UJ — Estimated value that was 10 times less than the contract required quantitation limit
   IT Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
                                                           88

-------
Table A27. cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
(gpm)*
1 2.1

2 5.2

3 9.0

4 5.5

5C 11.2
Average:
Average
Groundwater
cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene
Concentration
(me/L)*
70.8

62.8

45.8

20.1

31.5
"46.2
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1

Concentration
ofcis-1,2-
Dichloroethene
in Vented
Vapor (mg/rn3)0
63,000
57,000
44,000
20,000
66,000
48,000
14,000
8,000
49,000
41,000
Concentration
ofcis-1,2-
Dichloroethene
in Vented
Vapor (ppm)d
16,000
15,000
11,000
5,200
17,000
12,000
3,600
2,000
12,000
10,422
 Notes:
 a gpm = gallons per minute
 b mg/L = milligram per liter
 c mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter
 d ppm = parts per million
 e Sampling ran was abbreviated due to system failure
                                                         89

-------
Table A28. Carbon Disulfide Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate
(gpm)"
1 2.1

2 5.2

3 9.0

4 5.5

5f 11.2
Average:
Average
Groundwater
Carbon disulfide
Concentration
ftns/Ly
5.5

5.0

5.0

16.3

10.0
8.4
Grab Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
,1
2
1

Concentration
of Carbon
disulfide in
Vented Vapor
(mg/nrV
[500]e
[500]
[500]
1,000
1,500
[500]
[1,000]
[1,000]
[1,000]
833
Concentration
of Carbon
disulfide in
Vented Vapor
(D0m)d
[160]
[160]
[160]
320
500
[160]
[320]
[320]
[320]
269
  Notes:,
  a gpm = gallons per minute
  b mg/L = milligram per liter
  c ,mg/m3 — milligram per cubic meter
  d ppm = parts per million
  e [] —  Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected above the sample quantitation limit.  The concentration
           shown is half the sample quantitation limit.
  f Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
                                                         90

-------
 Table A29. Trichlorotrifluoroethane Concentrations in Air
Run Flow Rate Average
(gpm)' Groundwater
Trichlorotri-
fluoroethane
Concentration

-------
Table A30. Aquifer Temperature, pH, Conductivity Summary
Run
1


2


3


4



5"
Average
Time
0850
1031
1115
0925
1200
1700
0900
1350
1625
1015
1158
1435
1635
0950

Temperature
Untreated Treated
23
NA
23.0
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.6
21.8
21.9
21.1
22.9
23.0
21.9
22.3
22.1
34
NA
36.0
22.8
22.5
22.6
23.9
24.6
25.7
22.7
22.4
25.0
24.0
24.9
25.5
P]
Untreated
NAC
6.5
NA
6.65
6.70
7.00
6.78
6.86
6.84
7.63
7.71
,..7.70
7.67
7.09
7.09
H
Treated
NA
6.5
NA
7.46
7.50
7.60
7.45
7.47
7.45
7.77
6.66
8.03
8.02
7.54
7.5
Conductivity
(mmhos/cm)b
Treated Untreated
NA ..
NA
NA
22.0
22.2
22.3
31.8
29.5
31.5
21.4
23.0
23.0
23.2
26.2
25.1
NA
NA
NA
22.4
22.4
22.7
31.7
31.2
31.3
23.4
23.3
22.7
22.6
25.8
25.4
                Notes:
                a  °C = degrees celsius
                b mmhos/cm = millimhos per centimeter
                c  NA = Not analyzed due to a faulty meter
                d  Sampling run was abbreviated due to system failure
                                                           92

-------
Table A31. ZENON System Operating Parameters
Time Flow Rate
(gpm)'

0815 1.93"
0845
1000
1030
1100
1205
1300
1400
1500
1545

0850 5.0
0900
1000
1100
1130
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1630
Total Water
(gal)"

43.9
103.1
256.4
312.7
372.8
488.3
601.4
711.2
829.1
912.1

57.4
95.3
408.8
NR'
859.9
1010.1
1304.8-
1596.6
1928.1
2199.7
2358.6
Feed Temperature
In(°Q° Out(°C)

66
68
70
70
70
71
70
71
70
70

60
60
60
60
. ; 60
. ;- 60
60
< 61
60
59
60

67
68
70
70
- 70
, 70'
: 70
i 70
69
:. 70

1 62
: 60
; 59
'" 58
: ss
: 59
59
• 60
, 58
59
60
Feed Pressure
In(kPa)" Out(kPa)

60
60:
61
61
60
. 60 ;
60
61
61
61^

35
35
35
35
35
35V
., 35!;
35
36
36
36
Runl
41
41
41
41
41
41 '
41
41
41
41
Run 2
16
16
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
Vacuum
(mbar)c

25
25
32
33
25
30
30
33
29
30

35.
34
30
22
22
20
20
23
23
25
28
Chilled Water
•n-400 n-401

4
4
4
4
4
4 "
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4 _
4 ,
4
4
4
4

4
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5

4
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
4 .
4
5
Total Air
(ft3/ ;

93.1
101.3
113.7
118.4
124.2
133.0
143.2
152.7
162.2
168.7

178.7
180.9
191.2
NR
211.5
217.2
248.7
294.0
349.4
396.2
423.8
Vacuum
Disc
Pressure

23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

24
24
24
24
23
22
21
21
21
20
21
Compressor
Pressure
(kPa)

90
75
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85

85
85
85
85
80
85
140
135
135
135
135

-------
Table A31. ZENON System Operating Parameters (continued)
Time Flow Rate
(gpm)*

0830 8.3
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1330
1400
1500
1600
1630

0900 5.2
0930
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1430
1500
1600
1645
Total Water
(gal)'

491.8
738.3
NR
1730.9
2263.4
2778.4
3034.8
3297.8
3774.5
4317.2
4515.5

14.6
155.4
298.1
624,8
941.8
1274.1
1587.7
1740.0
1887.9
2199.8
2452.2
Feed Temperature
i&(°cy out('C)

59
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
70

56
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
61
62
60

58
59
59
59
60
60
59
60
60
59
69

44
60
59
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
59
Feed Pressure
In(kPa)d Out(kPa)

50
50
51
51
51
54
54
55
56
56
56

35
35
35
35
36
36
37
38
40
41
41
Run 3
32
32
32
33
35
36
36
36
36
36
36
Run 4
18
19
19
19
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
Vacuum
(mbar)'

35
27
27
22
20
20
20
20
23
30
30

25
26
28
34
42
42
35
38
40
32
37
Chilled Water
TI-400 TI-401
CQ (°C)

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

4
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4

4
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
Total Air
9W

474.8
482.3
NR
519.8
540.5
5623
573.1
586.9
613.8
656.3
677.9

695.2
705.7
717.8
735.8
753.8
744.9
791.8
800.3
808.6
825.3
838.8
Vacuum
Disc
Pressure
("fag)'

22
22
22
22
21
22
22
22
22
17
17

22
22
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
Compressor
Pressure
(kPa)

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
120
140

50
85
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

-------
Table A31. ZENON System Operating Parameters (continued)
Time Row Rate
(gpm)"
Total Water
(gal)"
' Feed Temperature
In(°C)c Out(°C):
Feed Pressure
In (kPa)d Out (kPa)
Vacuum
(mbar)'
Chilled Water
TI-400 TI-401
(°C) (°C)
Total Air
(ft3)'
Vacuum
Disc
Pressure
("hg)8
Compressor
Pressure
(kPa)
RUNS
0815 10.7
0835
0900
1000
1100
119.6
305.6
611.1
1247.9
1885.9
50
60
60
60
60
45
60
59
60
59
75
75
75
75
76
50
50
50
51
51
64
55
56
45
30
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
857.7
862.5
867.2
872.6
884.6
21
21
22
22
22
50
85
90
90
100
         Notes:
         a gpm = gallons per minute
         b gal = U.S. gallons
         c °C = degrees Celsius
         d kPA = kilopascal
         e mbar = millibar.                                                ,.
         f ft3 = cubic feet
         g "hg = inches of mercury
         h Flow rates shown in this table were calculated from volume of water amassed during each run.  The flow rates shown on all other tables in Appendk A were taken from a flow
                 meter on the effluent line from the system.
         i  NR = not recorded

-------

-------