Laserfiche WebLink
y - <br /> `Wool <br /> East Bay MUD - 5 - 10 March 1995 <br /> Memo #2 <br /> Nitrogen (THIN). Comparison of the sample results indicates that an increase in the <br /> concentration of ammonia and TKN occurred after addition of the enzyme complex. Nitrite <br /> was not detected in either sample. Nitrate was detected at the detection limit in the <br /> upgradient sample. The detection limits used for nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia for the bench <br /> scale test sample were higher than those used for the upgradient sample. According to the <br /> lab, this was due to matrix interference. "The nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia levels are all less <br /> than California and federal water quality goals. Because TKN represents a comprehensive <br /> quantification of nitrogen from all compounds containing nitrogen in the sample, and the <br /> water quality goals are compound-specific, water quality goals do not apply to TKN....does not <br /> indicate a water quality problem." <br /> - Where was the upgrudient sample collected? <br /> - EVIam the procedure used to obtain the tfifuenr sample. <br /> - Why were two d E erent labombaries used? <br /> Nobe: Patricia Leary will also address the bench scale/nitrogen issue. <br /> P. The mixture may also cause bacterial clogging of the injection wells and surrounding aquifer <br /> materials. Addition of hydrogen peroxide has been proposed to alleviate this problem if it <br /> occurs. <br /> Q. The RAP states that the rate of bioremediation may be enhanced by injection of live bacteria <br /> but rejected this because of regulatory constraints. <br /> Note The Geweke site at 16 South Cherokee Lane in Lodi injected bacteria into the <br /> subsurface. They had to apply for WDRs, which were waived at a Board Meeting. <br /> However, most of the literature I have read indicates that enhancement of native <br /> bacteria is the most efficient mode of in-situ bioremediation. Other than addition of <br /> the enzymes and surfactant, this proposal may qualify as enhanced bioremediation. <br /> R. Nowhere in the RAP is there an explanation of the complete objective of this proposal or <br /> mention of the volumes of enzymes, amino acids, and surfactants to be added to the <br /> subsurface. There is no estimate of the volume of hydrocarbons present in the soil and ground <br /> water. There is no estimate of the amount of oxygen needed nor the number of bacteria <br /> required to successfully remediate the hydrocarbons. There is no projected cleanup level. <br /> &dispersal of the irgected material into the contarr>ina ted zone an objective? <br /> What volume of hydrocarbons is cunvn ly present in soil and ground water? <br /> What numbers of bacterin and amount of oxygen will be needed to break down flue <br /> hydrocarbons? <br /> What volume of ernzy nes, amino acids, and surfactunrts will be necessary to break down the <br /> hydrocabons? <br /> What volume and m what ratios wr?L enzymes, suoiwtm4 amino acids, and oxygen be <br /> added? <br /> What are the projected cleanup levels for TPlig and the B=carstduents? <br /> S. To verify that ground water and saturated soils have been remediated , quarterly monitoring <br /> of wells MW1, MW8, and MW9 will continue for one year after completion of remedial <br /> activities. <br /> - What remedial a terradves will be irnMi sited sluould this alternative f N7? <br /> - Why are the other wells, MW?, MW3, MW4 MWS, MW4 and MW7, not irnch ided in tine <br /> "%PrvgrYare? <br />