Mercury Work Group
Phase I Reports >> End of Pipe Report 

Executive Summary | End-of-Pipe Report | Operations Report | Infrastructure Report

For more information, contact David Eppstein by email at
deppstein@masco.harvard.edu, or by calling 617-632-2860.

Vendor Interviews & Data Acquisition

MWRA Mercury Workshop on June 13, 1994:

Case studies were presented that seemed to highlight the issues which we were about to discuss in our meetings, i.e., the technology is not readily available and that which is available is extremely costly and usually applicable only to relatively low flow rates. Briefly, the following summarizes the highlights of the various presentations:

Dupont: facility is approximately 150,000 square feet in size and generates a maximum of 3,000 gallons per week of wastewater though 400 to 500 gallons per week is more realistic. They have developed a process which employs a membrane microfilter (type) filter press for solids extraction following chemical conditioning of the influent wastestream (method not discussed). The use of activated carbon was discounted on the basis of reduced capacity (premature exhaustion) due to competition for adsorption by organics. For this flow rate, their technology costs about $100,000. The facility has spent about $500,000 to date in attempting to come into compliance with the MWRA's "Prohibited" standard (source reduction measures, repiping and the IWWT system).

K-Bro Laundry: Commercial laundry serving the hospitals and discharging some 66,000 gallons per day. Primary source of mercury was traced to wastewater pretreatment reagents (bleach and sulfuric acid) and mercury thermometers received with the hospital linens. One thermometer received in the linens was analyzed and found to contain some 527 milligrams of mercury. This was sufficient to put the facility into noncompliance for two days. Facility is attempting to comply with an employee education process and ongoing negotiations with the MWRA.

US Army, Natick Labs: John Manning described their efforts on the mercury issue dating back to 1988. The facility is comprised of some 30 to 40 buildings and generates about 160,000 gallons per day of wastewater. The facility was sued by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office for Clean Water Act violations (mercury) in 1992. To date, 200 traps have been tested with 90% registering positive (above 1.0 ppb). Many have been cleaned, replaced or decommissioned. Limestone chip neutralization tanks (two at 1,500 gallons in size and one at 7,000 gallons in size) have been cleaned with contents verified as mercury contaminated and, in fact, the marble chips themselves , verified to contain mercury. Efforts at trap cleaning involved the use of 2% sodium hypochlorite in contact for 2 hours followed by brush cleaning and wiping. Traps made of copper and/or lead were replaced since research showed an amalgam being formed with the mercury which could not be removed but would continue to leach mercury into the effluent stream. Efforts at horizontal run pipe cleaning have not yet been attempted. To date, this facility has expended approximately $1,000,000 on the issue and is still under enforcement by the AG's office with further plans still in the offing on how they might eventually come into compliance.

TURI/OTA: John Raschco described the efforts of a "large analytical testing laboratory" (approximately 250 people) to come into compliance with the MWRA mercury discharge standard. The lab produces some 1,800 gallons per day of wastewater which initially contained about 300 ppb of mercury. Through source control measures, this concentration was lowered by 90% to approximately 30 ppb but this level is still 30 times over the MWRA's requirement of 1.0 ppb. The final solution, according to the speaker, was to install an IWWT system using silver impregnated activated carbon (total of six contactors, each containing 5 cubic feet of media) preceded by flow equalization, 5 micron bag filters, UV sterilization and pH adjustment and followed by final pH adjustment and monitoring (pH & flow). The system, as described, has a capacity of 1,800 gallons per day and was installed at a cost of approximately $100,000. Breakthrough of the carbon contactors was stated to be between two to three weeks at average flow. The useful life of each carbon contactor, therefore, is about 600 gallons at which point the carbon is removed from service and disposed off-site as a hazardous waste. Using these figures, projected operating costs (purchase and disposal) for the main component of this system (carbon contactors) alone are on the order of $150,000 to $200,000 annually based on an 1,800 gallon per day flowrate.

Minutes of October 26, 1994 Meeting:

A. A presentation was made by NTEC, Inc. (later the name was changed to Solmetex):

Copies of technical papers applicable to the technology had been previously submitted and are on file. The technology was reported to be adaptable to a wide range of flows using a proprietary mechanism of covalent bonding not unlike ion exchange though the presenters emphasized that it was not. The technology has primary applicability as a tertiary polishing step following some other primary pretreatment technology. The NTEC system is most useful in the treatment of wastewater with an influent (dissolved) mercury concentration of less than 50 ppb. A removal efficiency to less than 1.0 ppb was claimed.

The system is susceptible to fouling by suspended solids so prefiltration is necessary. The system is also preferential to iron loading which may lead to premature exhaustion. No negative operating impacts due to pH variations, temperature, chlorine, reducers or organic solvents were claimed. The system does not provide for bacterial decontamination. The system can be customized for scavenging other selected metals (chromium, copper, etc.). Automatic regeneration with caustic (1 BV) and sulfuric acid (2 BV) to an electrolytic plate-out cell is incorporated into the design. Operating pressure across the exchange media is 50 psig with a nearly instantaneous pollutant exchange (minimal residence time) obtained. Column breakthru is monitored by bed volume loading and an assumption of influent metals concentration though NTEC is investigation in-line monitoring of conductivity as a measurement of column exhaustion. Parallel operation is suggested to help minimize down time during periods of system regeneration.

B. A presentation was made by Water Stop:

The system is custom designed and uses a proprietary KDF (zinc-copper alloy) exchange media followed by anion and cation exchange (disposable) polishing columns that can be operated in a series or parallel mode, as desired. The system is typically applied following a pH neutralization system so would be considered a polishing module. Some problems in the basic system design relative to an inability to handle hydraulic fluctuations, power failures and periods of system maintenance were uncovered during the presentation which Water Stop will have to address before this design can be considered further by the End of Pipe Subcommittee.

Minutes of November 16, 1994 Meeting:

A presentation was made by U.S. Filter:

US Filter explained that it represents a family of water and wastewater pretreatment companies including, IWT, Ionpure, Lancy, LYCO, Membralox, PERMUTITT, Recovery Services and Superblue. These individual companies have the capability to deliver systems (packaged or customized) which use technologies such as simple filtration, physico-chemical processes, tertiary chemical, ion-exchange and membrane separation processes. They explained that the technology proposed for addressing the mercury issue would need to meet the specifics of the application. To this end, US Filter requested that the Subcommittee prepare and submit wastewater profiles from its members for review and evaluation.

NOTE: Action required by any participating member institution: Information should include parameters such as flow (total daily and distribution (%) by shift), heavy metals (including mercury, by species if available), petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC or TPH), oil/grease (FOG), organic solvents (EPA Methods 624 & 625), TSS, TDS, BOD, COD, phosphate, ammonia and alkalinity. As a starting point, the Subcommittee suggests that members compile available results from recent MWRA SMART reports submitted under Industrial User Discharge Permits. This information should be compiled and made available as soon as possible (mail or fax:) but not later than November 28, 1994. All submitted reports will be sanitized (host facility name and identifying information removed) prior to distribution to system suppliers.

Following data receipt, US Filter indicated that a preliminary evaluation of suitable technologies would be developed for subsequent evaluation. Depending upon the type(s) of technologies suggested, five (5) gallon samples of untreated wastewater from the member institutions would be collected (NOTE: Action required by any participating member institution) and sent to US Filter/Lancy Division for completion of bench top screening tests. Those technologies showing promise on a bench top scale basis would be recommended for field trials at member institutions. Field trial demonstration testing would be in accordance with a protocol to be developed by the End of Pipe Alternatives Subcommittee.

Minutes of November 30, 1994 Meeting:

Only one hospital had responded to the Subcommittee's request for information regarding historical wastewater characteristics from their facility in advance of the meeting (ref. minutes dated November 16, 1994). It was agreed, therefore, that the request for this information would be repeated. To help facilitate data transmission, it was agreed that a form would be prepared and distributed to the membership.

NOTE: Action required by any participating member institution: Information regarding typical wastewater discharge characteristics from your facility to the MWRA sewerage system should be reported on the attached form and returned (mail or fax) as soon as possible but not later than December 9, 1994. The Subcommittee suggests that members compile available results from recent MWRA SMART reports submitted under Industrial User Discharge Permits. All submitted reports will be sanitized (host facility name and identifying information removed) prior to distribution. This information will be compiled for reviewed at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Subcommittee. Please route this request to the attention of your Facilities Engineer or other staff member, as appropriate, immediately.

Depending upon the response received to this second request, the Subcommittee may seek to gain the information it needs via public records such as those maintained in the MWRA's data base via SMART reports. Pat Kelley agreed to look into this possibility in advance of the Subcommittee's need to exercise the option.

The Subcommittee discussed the possibility of conducting a tour of a local industry subject to the MWRA regulations that had installed an Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment (IWWT) system in order to help ensure consistent compliance. The purpose of the tour is to gain perspective on the types, extent and rigors involved in supporting the continuous operation of an end-of-pipe IWWT system in conjunction with a waste minimization program. To this end, arrangements for a tour of the facilities of Altron, Inc., One Jewel Drive, Wilmington, MA on January 11, 1995 beginning at 10:00 AM were made. Since the tour is being hosted by an industry outside of the MASCO Workgroup, advance registration for this tour is required.

Minutes of December 14, 1994 Meeting:

Due to the late mailing of the previous meeting's minutes, no further response to the Subcommittee's previous requests for historical effluent quality information had been received from the membership. Pat Kelley reported that the MWRA would initially prefer that the membership forward the required information to the Subcommittee rather than have the Subcommittee secure the information by accessing public (i.e., MWRA files). Accordingly, the Subcommittee decided to wait to see what level of response occurs thru the end of the year before formulating any alternative measures to secure the required data.

Newton-Wellesley Hospital reported that it had been approached by Ntec, Inc. recommending the installation of a full scale portable waste treatment system for volume reduction of presently containerized waste. Should this system become operational, the Subcommittee discussed the preparation of a testing protocol for the system which would allow a full engineering assessment of performance. As additional details become available, Jim Toma agreed to keep the Subcommittee informed of any progress.

Some discussion on the continued inclusion of "Bypass" arrangements into the design of IWWT systems by certain area engineering firms ensued. Bob Gingras indicated that, with the delegation of the State's Industrial Sewer Connection Permitting program (314 CMR 7) to the MWRA on October 8, 1993, the State had dropped their requirement for engineering design plans review and approval {MGL 21, Section 27(13)}, as well. Since the only remaining approval authority for an IWWT system appears to be the plumbing inspector (for compliance with the provisions with 248 CMR 2.13 which does not prohibit the use of a "by-pass"), it appears as though these devices are continuing to be installed. Though it is understood that the MWRA does not "approve" the design documents for proposed IWWT system, Pat Kelley indicated that he would check with the MWRA concerning their policy when encountering a "by-pass" arrangement either during the design phase or during field inspections and will report back to the Subcommittee.

Minutes of January 4, 1995 Meeting:

In spite of the December 19, 1994 Special Mailing by MASCO, no further response to the Subcommittee's previous requests for historical effluent quality information had been received from the membership. The Subcommittee decided, therefore, to forward information that had been previously submitted by one of its members to vendors for use in developing systems for evaluation.

In an effort to help augment this data base without incurring special analytical costs to do so, Pat Kelley agreed to look into the possibility of scheduling periodic MWRA compliance monitoring at member hospital facilities over the next couple of months and expanding the list of normally analyzed pollutants to include all of the parameters appearing on the IWWT Subcommittee's questionnaire. Since the sampling has to be done anyway, this method of data collection would make the most sense plus the MWRA might be willing to absorb the cost of the additional pollutant parameter determination. Note that if the MWRA agrees to this request, member institutions may wish to volunteer their sites for this monitoring. By doing so, they will gain specific additional information about current wastewater characteristics as well as satisfy an ongoing regulatory obligation.

Jim Toma provided the Subcommittee with follow-up information (proposal) received from NTEC, Inc. relative to the installation of an industrial wastewater pretreatment system for mercury removal to less than 1.0 ppb. The proposal details requirements of the performance guarantee, terms and conditions. The Subcommittee directed Earth Tech to place the information on file for future reference.

A presentation was made by Water Systems Inc. of Newton, MA:

Mr. Joe Aliotta explained that his firm is an Applications Engineering Company that could provide turn-key IWWT system. He explained that his concept to address the Hospital's current mercury problem was to reduce flow rates in contributing locations to minimal levels, then to apply sequential physical separation processes to produce a permeate stream capable of ultimately being recycled back to the facility. Mr. Aliotta claimed that he has successfully applied combinations of simple filtration, ultrafiltration\microfiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis to such application in the metal finishing and printed circuit board industries though he indicated that he had not done so in a hospital or research facility setting.

Water Systems, Inc. represents a wide variety of equipment manufacturers from which they purchase technological components and build site specific IWWT systems depending upon the objective desired. A packet of information was provided which will be maintained on file for future reference.

Minutes of January 11, 1995 Meeting:

A tour of the industrial wastewater pretreatment (IWWT) system that is presently installed at Altron was completed with Messers. Tony Cigliano and Peter Muto, Altron's Safety and Environmental Managers, respectively, serving as our hosts. Mr. Matt Palance, Vice President of Operations also provided some introductory comments. Mr. Cigliano provided a brief overview of the manufacturing processes which contribute contaminated wastewater to the IWWT system then he and Mr. Muto proceeded to describe the various components and functions of the installed systems.

The IWWT system occupies approximately 10,000 square feet of the overall 180,000 square foot manufacturing complex and pretreats some 100,000 gallons of raw wastewater each day before discharging to the MWRA Sewerage System. The installed IWWT system has been rated a Grade 4-I plant by the DEP and is run by a staff which includes eight (8) licensed operators (minimum staffing). The IWWT system employs pH adjustment, complex bond destruction using conventional (hydroxide) and advanced (DTC) chemistry, precipitation, clarification/sedimentation, membrane (cross flow microfiltration) separation, depth filtration, ion exchange and electrolytic recovery. The primary objective of the process is to maintain compliance with the MWRA's pretreatment standards for lead (0.2 mg/l) and copper (1.5 mg/l). Mercury was not stated to be an ongoing concern.

The capital cost of the installed equipment components is in the $1 to $2 million range. The operating budget of the IWWT system approaches $1,000,000 (chemicals, waste disposal, compliance fees and staff labor) annually.

Minutes of January 25, 1995 Meeting

Earth Tech reported that two (2) additional responses to the Subcommittee's request for historical monitoring data had been received since the last mailing. As agreed, that information along with data previously submitted had been compiled and was in process of being forwarded to vendors for use in developing systems for evaluation. To date, an information packet had been sent to US Filter.

Pat Kelley reported that the MWRA had initiated "Special Sampling" at three (3) facilities and that analytical data would be forthcoming. Jim Toma expressed some concern over the representative nature of the sampling since, to his knowledge, one sample set had been taken from a laundry discharge and two other sample sets had been obtained from laboratories but at institutions that are relatively low flow dischargers. Jim requested that Pat obtain clarification from the MWRA, TRAC on how this data might be used against an institution if problems with respect to MWRA regulatory compliance, beyond the mercury issue, are discovered. For example, if an institution is not required by its IUDP to analyze its discharge for TPH but the "Special Sampling" shows something in excess of 15 mg/l, how would the MWRA handle it? Pat is to look into and report back to the Subcommittee.

In view of the three sites sampled thus far, the Subcommittee again requested that the MWRA perform "Special Sampling" at additional facilities so that a better cross section of wastewater characterization data might be compiled.

Analytical data generated around a pretreatment system that has been installed on the waste stream produced by a medical waste incinerator fume scrubber was entered into discussion. Though promising, this system, which employs sulfur impregnated activated carbon for mercury removal, has not been able to consistently attain the MWRA's stipulated 1.0 ppb enforcement limit. The Subcommittee decided to make arrangements to have the manufacturer of the system make a presentation at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

A presentation was made by Wheelabrator\Memtek of Billerica, MA:

Mr. Stratton Tragellis explained that his firm manufactures turn-key IWWT systems which may employ advanced chemistry, membrane separation and/or ion exchange technology. He explained that the chemistry employed on a particular wastestream is tailored, via pilot testing, to the particular application in order to convert all regulated pollutants to a filterable form. After this occurs, the solids are removed via a proprietary membrane microfilter having an effective pore size of 0.1 to 10 microns. Mr. Tragellis explained certain related experience in mercury removal projects at Duracell battery, at the Fort Dix military installation and at the University of Illinois at Urbana.

The membrane is largely unaffected by bleach, organic material, oil/grease etc. but has an operating temperature limitation of 140 F and could be affected by solvents if present at concentrations in excess of 1% (10,000 mg/l). Each membrane stack is capable of processing between 2-5 gpm and costs about $2,500. Each membrane is warranted for 3 years. Stratton explained that Wheelabrator has installations treating flows of up to 600 gpm. A packet of information was provided to all Subcommittee members which will be maintained on file for future reference.

Minutes of February 8, 1995 Meeting

Pat Kelley reported that, per the Subcommittee's request, the MWRA had completed "Special" sampling at two additional facilities bringing the total to five. Analytical data will be provided to the Subcommittee following its receipt and verification for accuracy.

Performance testing results of the Ntec, IWWT system that had been recently installed at BU was provided by Pat Kelley under the name of Solmetex, Inc.. This data was not discussed during the meeting since the Solmetex, Inc. name was not recognized. After reviewing, members should raise any questions for discussion at the next meeting.

Jim Toma reported that he had been provided with final proposals by Water Systems, Inc. for the installation of a field demonstration IWWT system designed for use on the laundry discharge stream and by B.G. Wickberg, Inc. for the installation of a field demonstration IWWT system designed for use on a laboratory discharge stream. Jim indicated that once these tests were initiated, he would relay obtained information to the Subcommittee, following receipt.

The Subcommittee heard a presentation by Henry Hadley of B.G. Wickberg, Inc. of N. Quincy, MA:

Analytical data generated around a pretreatment system that has been installed on the waste stream produced by a medical waste incinerator fume scrubber liquor discharge since May of 1994 was reviewed. The system utilizes approximately 16 cubic feet of Mersorb (elemental sulfur impregnated activated carbon) in two sequencing reactors of approximately 55 gallon individual capacity. Hydraulic loading to the system ranges between 3 and 5 gpm but varies as a function of scrubber/incinerator operation. Influent pH to the system can also vary (5.5 to 10.5 s.u.) but was not reported to be problematic to system performance unless unusually elevated alkaline conditions were encountered (would tend to strip adsorbed material).

Mr. Hadley explained that the carbon, by its nature, would tend to directly adsorb mercury which was organically bound while the sulfur would tend to reduce ionic mercury to an insoluble mercuric sulfide onto the surface of the carbon media where it would be filtered out. Reactor kinetics, though not defined, were described as "slow" (design detention time unavailable for alternative system sizing). Though it appears capable of removing a significant percentage of influent mercury regardless of concentration (up to 1 mg/l), the available data did not indicate operating efficiencies below 1.0 ppb. This was also true following attempts to enhance system performance this system via the installation of KDF resin in an attempt to further remove ionic mercury.

Minutes of February 22, 1995 Meeting:

Pat Kelley provided partial results of the "Special Sampling" that had been completed by the MWRA at the request of the Subcommittee. Analytical data from the remaining four locations where this "Special Sampling" has been performed will be provided to the Subcommittee following its verification for accuracy by the MWRA. Pat indicated that all data will likely be available by March 22, 1995. It was agreed that the information gained from this sampling will be distributed to system suppliers following the Subcommittee's next meeting on March 8, 1995.

Though realizing that it was moving somewhat outside of its primary focus area, the Subcommittee decided that a presentation on the regulatory impacts of the Clean Air Act (Massachusetts and Federal) would be needed in order to fully understand the ramifications of a closed loop system using evaporative technology. Bob Gingras agreed to have a representative of Earth Tech's Air Compliance and Permitting Division attend the Subcommittee's next meeting to provide this perspective.

Minutes of March 8, 1995 Meeting

Pat Kelley provided the results of additional "Special Sampling" that had been completed by the MWRA at two more locations. Analytical data from the remaining two locations where this "Special Sampling" has been performed will be provided to the Subcommittee following its verification for accuracy. Pat indicated that all data will likely be available by March 22, 1995. Earth Tech subsequently compiled and distributed the information to all system suppliers that the Subcommittee has interviewed to date.

The Subcommittee next heard a presentation by Dr. Stephen J. Kmiotek, P.E. of Earth Tech regarding the implications of evaporative technology under the Clean Air Act (Massachusetts and Federal) when attempting to "close the loop":

The institutions, as a group, generate wastewater containing an estimated total of 0.41 ounces per day, or a total of nine (9) pounds per year of mercury. The use of an evaporator (either fuel-fired or atmospheric) had been suggested as one possible method to treat the wastewater and remove the mercury. In summary, evaporators are routinely used to reduce the moisture content of sludges and their permitting is relatively straightforward. The Massachusetts DEP requires permits (or "air plans approvals") for the construction, installation, and operation of sources of air emissions under the provisions of 310 CMR 7.02. These include fuel-burning sources (including a fuel-fired evaporator) and sources of process emissions. Certain sources are exempt from this requirement, including:

• natural gas and distillate oil fired combustion sources with a heat input rating of less than 10 MMBtu/hr; and
   
• sources that emit less than 2,000 pounds per year of a pollutant.

• A narrative description of the project, including process description, production rates and restrictions, emission rates and descriptions, descriptions of the coatings and stains used, BACT analysis, and proposed permit conditions and recordkeeping requirements;
   
• Permit forms, including an emission summary form; a data form for process emissions; and a BACT summary form;
   
• Necessary supporting documentation, including calculations, process flow diagram, topographic map, plot plan, roof plan, floor plan, MSDSs, and standard operating and maintenance procedures; and
   
• P. E. certification; and
   
• A $1,100 filing fee.

If mercury emissions exceeded 200 pounds per year, the evaporator would be considered a major source of mercury emissions and would be subject to more stringent control requirements.

Minutes of March 22, 1995 Meeting:

Pat Kelley provided the balance of results of "Special Sampling" that had been completed by the MWRA. Bob Gingras subsequently compiled the information into the Subcommittee's data base. Due to time constraints, this updated information will not be released to system suppliers via a special mailing. Rather, it will be adapted for use in the Subcommittee's Report and/or will be shared by Subcommittee members as they follow-up with vendors during negotiations for on-site testing (see item below).

Bob Gingras provided the following update regarding the responses (including type) received following issuance of the vendor letters on March 9, 1995:
 

The Subcommittee assigned responsibility for future coordination of the details of on-site pilot trials with the vendors expressing interest as follows:
 

A status update report will be provided by each at the next Subcommittee meeting.

The Subcommittee reviewed, discussed and approved, for issuance, a Preliminary Progress Report that had been prepared at the request of the Steering Committee.

In an effort to help augment the Subcommittee's current data base regarding the nature and characteristics of its members' wastestreams, a request has been made to the MWRA by the Steering Committee for a summary of the SMART mercury data base for the third and fourth quarters of Calendar 1994. This information is viewed as critical in assessing progress made by the Workgroup, as a whole, but will also prove invaluable to the End of Pipe Alternatives Subcommittee as a more "Real Time" statement of the situation which still exists within the membership. Upon receipt, this information will be compiled and distributed to the Subcommittee via minutes.

Minutes of April 5, 1995 Meeting:

Bob Gingras reported that SMART mercury data from selected SIUs for the third and fourth quarters of Calendar 1994 had been received from the MWRA since the last meeting. This information was entered into discussion during the meeting but, due to its volume, will be retained on-file rather than be distributed via meeting minutes. The Subcommittee requested that Bob Gingras complete an analysis of the raw data and compile a spreadsheet to summarize the information (by permit number, not name of facility) presented in the entire database. This spreadsheet is to be available for discussion at the next Subcommittee meeting.

As a follow-up to the last meeting's discussion relative to the availability of sampling support by the MWRA during field pilot trials, Bob Gingras reported that nothing "Official" (verbal or written) had been received from the MWRA. Pat Kelley reported that the matter had been discussed internally, however, and that the MWRA would be able to commit resources as follows:

After July 1st: three (3) sites each with up to four (4) sampling taps

Before July 1st: Site specific depending upon available resources.

Ben Johnson reported that a new IWWT system has been configured and installed at South Shore Hospital and that initiation trials (5 consecutive days) are currently scheduled for the week of April 17, 1995. The Subcommittee requested that the MWRA conduct testing at this site as its first effort. To accommodate, Ben Johnson is to have B.G. Wickberg prepare and submit a flow schematic of the system to Earth Tech who will, in turn, prepare a sampling protocol which will identify sampling locations and analytical parameters required for evaluating system performance (pH, TSS, TDS, mercury-total, mercury-dissolved). Bob will then provide this information to Pat Kelley who will coordinate the sampling and analytical effort within the MWRA.

The following reports were given regarding the status of negotiations with vendors relative to on-site pilot trials:

U.S. Filter - Bruce McCoy (DH): A meeting with a representative of US Filter has been held since the last meeting. Details on a field demonstration trial are being worked out with a letter from US Filter promised by the week of April 10, 1995.

B.G. Wickberg - Jim Toma (N-W): Nothing to report.

Solmetex\Ntec - Doug Larson (GZA-NEMC): See attached report.

Wheelabrator\Memtek - Cheryl Kosegarten (MGH): Nothing to report.

Manchester Corporation - Charlie Storella (DFCI): Charlie reported that he had been contacted by Mr. Dan Adner who expressed interest in performing a field trial. Charlie is to work out the details and report back to the Subcommittee.

Minutes of April 19, 1995 Meeting:

Bob Gingras reported that SMART mercury data from selected SIUs for the third and fourth quarters of 1994 had been received from the MWRA since the last meeting. A "sanitized" spreadsheet of the information (names and permit numbers of SIUs suppressed) was distributed for discussion. Bob also reported that additional information for Fiscal 1993, 1994 and 1995 has been requested from the MWRA and will be similarly manipulated to show progress being made since formation of the Workgroup. An update to progress on this task will be provided at the next Subcommittee meeting.

Ben Johnson provided an update of the status of sampling to be completed around the new IWWT system that has been installed at South Shore Hospital. As was discussed at the last meeting, a flow diagram was provided and a suggested field sampling protocol had been prepared by Earth Tech for implementation by the MWRA. Ben reported that sampling will actually be initiated during the week of April 24, 1995 using a subcontract laboratory. The MWRA will likely perform their testing during the first week of May. Ben agreed to share all data received with the Subcommittee.

The following reports were given regarding the status of negotiations with vendors relative to on-site pilot trials:

U.S. Filter - Bruce McCoy (DH): No progress.

B.G. Wickberg - Jim Toma (N-W): Final negotiations underway. A written report is expected by May 3, 1995.

Solmetex\Ntec - Doug Larson (GZA-NEMC): No report.

Wheelabrator\Memtek - Cheryl Kosegarten (MGH): Letter received but no apparent willingness to perform on a low/no cost basis. Cheryl indicated that, though she will continue to pursue these negotiations, MGH has decided not to serve as a host site for pilot testing.

Manchester Corporation - Charlie Storella (DFCI): Letter of interest has been received.

Jim Toma distributed a copy of the outline of the "Mercury How To Guidebook" being prepared by the MWRA Operations Subcommittee. Pat Kelley provided the Subcommittee members with a copy of the MWRA's recently published "Contingency Plan". Copies of both documents will be retained on file at Earth Tech on behalf of the Subcommittee.

Minutes of May 3, 1995 Meeting:

Bob Gingras reported that additional SMART mercury data from selected SIUs for the period 1993 thru 1995 has been received from the MWRA since the last meeting and is in process of being reviewed. A summary of data compiled, to date, was discussed in order to show preliminary trends, as follows:

Once data manipulation is complete, "sanitized" spreadsheets (names and permit numbers of SIUs suppressed) will be incorporated into the final Subcommittee Report.

Ben Johnson provided an update of the status of sampling being completed around the new IWWT system that has been installed at South Shore Hospital. Preliminary data is starting to trickle in but was not able to be discussed in a meaningful way during the meeting. As more information becomes available, Ben will send to Bob Gingras at Earth Tech for incorporation into the Subcommittee files.

The following reports were given regarding the status of negotiations with vendors relative to on-site pilot trials:

U.S. Filter - Bruce McCoy (DH): No progress

B.G. Wickberg - Jim Toma (N-W): Water Systems, Inc. will attempt the treatment of laundry discharges. B.G. Wickberg will attempt the treatment of clinical laboratory wastewater. Details were not available but Jim agreed that support, e.g., sampling protocol, by the Subcommittee would be welcome.

Solmetex\Ntec - Doug Larson (GZA-NEMC): Nothing new since last report.

Wheelabrator\Memtek - Cheryl Kosegarten (MGH): No progress.

Manchester Corporation - Charlie Storella (DFCI): No progress

The Subcommittee discussed the concept of the final Report with presentations made by Messers. Storella, McCoy and Gingras relative to content and format. The Subcommittee decided that there would be no need for a meeting on May 17, 1995 since time would be better spent in preparing the manuscript. A draft of the Report will be distributed to the members of the Subcommittee prior to the next meeting where constructive comments and suggestions will be received for discussion prior to its being finalized.

A spreadsheet which summarizes presentations made to the Subcommittee by the various equipment suppliers and attempts to categorize the systems according to technology follows.

RETURN TO END OF PIPE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mercury Work Group Site Guide
PHASE I REPORTS	PHASE II REPORTS	OTHER REPORTS
Executive Summary End-of-Pipe Report Operations Report Infrastructure Report	Facilities Loadings Pretreatment Manual Tech. Identification Hg Management Guidebook Mercury Products Database	RFP Guidelines
RELATED LINKS	CONTACT US	MWG HOME

 
ABOUT MASCO, INC. :: AREA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PARKING & TRANSPORTATION SERVICES :: COMMUTEWORKS ::  MASCO SERVICES, INC.
375 LONGWOOD AVE. :: COLLEGES OF THE FENWAY :: CHILD CARE CENTER
MERCURY WORK GROUP :: MASCO MEMBER INSTITUTIONS :: QUARTERLY UPDATE
DIRECTIONS :: THE LONGWOOD MEDICAL AND ACADEMIC AREA
SITE GUIDE :: CONTACT MASCO, INC. :: RETURN HOME

08/16/2006

Copyright © 2000 MASCO, Inc.
375 Longwood Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
Phone: 617-632-2310
Fax: 617-632-2759