March 2002
DTSCR-02-01
EPA600/R-02/038
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Hydromatix
786E Ion Exchange
Rinsewater Recycling System
Report Prepared by
California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
^J C D/\ Under a cooperative agreement with
\/Lr7-\
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ET1/ET1/ET1/
-------
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Hydromatix, Incorporated
Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange
Rinsewater Recycling System
By
California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development
Sacramento, California
ET1/ET1/ET1/
VS-R-02-01 i MARCH 2002
-------
Notice
The verification report and verification statement found in this document were developed jointly
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
The verification study was funded in part by U.S. EPA under Cooperative Agreement number
CR 824433-01-0 for the Pollution Prevention, Recycling, and Waste Treatment Systems
(PPWTS) Pilot under the U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program.
The verification report and verification statement have been subjected to U.S. EPA's and Cal/
EPA's peer and administrative review, and have been approved for publication.
The verification statement is limited to the use of the Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange
Rinsewater Recycling System for reducing the amount of regenerant waste to 17.1 ± 0.2 gal/ft3 of
resin. U.S. EPA and Cal/EPA make no express or implied warranties as to the performance of
the Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange Rinsewater Recycling System. Nor does U.S. EPA or Cal/
EPA warrant that the Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange Rinsewater Recycling System is free from
any defects in workmanship or materials caused by negligence, misuse, accident or other causes.
Mention of corporation names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.
VS-R-02-01 iii MARCH 2002
-------
Foreword
The ETV Program was established by U.S. EPA to evaluate the performance characteristics of
innovative environmental technologies across all media, and to report this objective information
to the permitters, buyers, and users of environmental technology. U.S. EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), through the National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL), then established ETV pilot programs to enhance the transfer of technologies. Cal/
EPA's DTSC partnered with U.S. EPA's ETV Program in late 1995 to establish the Pollution
Prevention, Recycling, and Waste Treatment Systems Pilot. The PPWTS Pilot incorporated
elements of the State of California certification program, and initially focused on the EPA
Common Sense Initiative industry sectors including printing, electronics, petroleum refining,
metal finishing, auto manufacturing, and iron and steel manufacturing.
The verification report found in this document reviews the performance of the Hydromatix 786E
Ion Exchange Rinsewater Recycling System. The 786E system is used in various Metal
Products and Machinery (MP&M) industries to treat rinse wastewaters, and features special
provisions to minimize the regenerant waste volume produced. The 786E system treats rinse
wastewaters by removing the cations and anions resulting from electroplating, cleaning, and
anodizing operations, and minimizes the regenerant wastes produced by reusing portions of the
regenerant waste solutions. Regeneration of ion exchange resins consists of a series of acid and
base rinses which result in restored resin functionality. The regeneration technology utilizes a
process logic controller (PLC), sensors, and associated plumbing for regeneration of the resins
and for collection and reuse of portions of the regenerant waste solution. This verification report
quantified the rinse wastewater treatment by measuring the volumes and concentrations entering
and leaving the 786E system, and characterized the regeneration procedures by measuring the
regenerant waste volume produced and by determining the regeneration efficiency.
VS-R-02-01 iv MARCH 2002
-------
Acknowledgments
Mr. Dick Jones, DTSC's Proj ect Manager, and Mr. Edward Benelli, DTSC's Proj ect Advisor, wish to
acknowledge the support of those who planned and implemented the verification activities, and who
prepared and reviewed this report. Ms. Norma Lewis of U. S. EPA's NRMRL in Cincinnati, Ohio was
the Proj ect Manager, while Ms. Lauren Drees acted as Quality Assurance Manager.
Aero-Electric Connector, Incorporated (AEC) of Torrance, California generously allowed their facilities
and equipment to be used for the verification activities. The verification of the Hydromatix system could
not have been conducted without an industry partner willing to host the testing activities, which included
equipment installation, system monitoring, and sample collection. Both AEC representatives and those of
Hydromatix contributed to this verification. AEC representatives included Messrs. Volker von Detten,
Edgar Taracena, and Luis Castro. Hydromatix representatives included Messrs. Greg White, Amin
Haq, and Jeremy Neel. Mr. Chubb Michaud of Systematix Chemical Engineers also contributed to the
success of this proj ect by serving as the technical representative for Purolite resins.
DTSC's Project Manager and Proj ect Advisor also acknowledge the efforts by DTSC's Technical
Review Panel and Proj ect Team members. The Technical Review Panel included Messrs. Tony Luan
and John Wesnousky. Project Team members included Dr. Bruce LaBelle and Mr. Clay Booher of the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development (OPPTD), and Drs. Russ Chin and
Ruth Chang of DTSC's Hazardous Materials Laboratory (HML).
VS-R-02-01 v MARCH 2002
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
VERIFICATION STATEMENT
EPA
California Environmental Protection Agency
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
FAX:
WEB SITE
E-MAIL:
ION EXCHANGE RINSEWATER RECYCLING
TREATMENT OF METAL FINISHING RINSEWATERS
FOR THE REMOVAL OF CATIONS AND ANIONS
HYDROMATIX 786E ION EXCHANGE SYSTEM
Hydromatix Corporation
10450 Pioneer Boulevard
Building 3
Santa Fe Springs, California 90670
(800) 221-5152
(562) 944-9264
http://www.hydromatix.com
zerodischarge@hydromatix.com
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program was created by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA) to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and information dissemination. The goal of
the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and
use of innovative, improved, and more cost-effective technologies. The ETV Program is intended to
assist and inform those individuals in need of credible data for the design, distribution, permitting, and
purchase of environmental technologies.
The ETV Program works to document the performance of commercial ready environmental
technologies through a partnership with recognized testing organizations. Together, with the full participa-
tion of the technology developer, the ETV Program partnerships develop plans, conduct tests, collect
and analyze data, and report findings through performance verifications. Verifications are conducted
according to an established workplan with protocols for quality assurance. Where existing data are used,
the data must have been collected by independent sources using similar quality assurance protocols.
VS-R-02-01
VI
MARCH 2002
-------
EPA's ETV Program, through the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL),
has partnered with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) under an ETV Pilot
to verify pollution prevention, recycling, and waste treatment technologies. This verification statement
provides a summary of performance results for the Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange System.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Hydromatix Corporation (Santa Fe Springs, California) developed its 786E system to
remove cations and anions from rinse wastewaters generated during metal finishing operations
such as electroplating, cleaning, and anodizing. Regeneration of ion exchange resins consists of
a series of acid and base rinses which result in restored resin functionality, while minimizing the
volume of regenerant waste produced.
Hydromatix developed an ion exchange regeneration process for their Model 786E system
which uses a programmable logic controller (PLC) system to coordinate acid and base rinse
water reuse. This reduces the volume of regenerant chemicals wasted, and consequently the
volume of regenerant wastewater produced. The Hydromatix system features packed bed,
counter-current ion exchange columns with conductivity meters, PLC, and automatic valves to
control the regeneration process. The cationic and anionic ion exchange columns are packed
with Purolite PFC-100 H and Purolite PFA-300 OH resins (Purolite USA, Bala Cynwyd, Penn-
sylvania), respectively. By reusing portions of the regenerant rinses as make-up solutions for the
next cycle, and by returning other rinses to the feed tank rather than to waste, the system is able
to achieve a substantial reduction in the amount of chemicals used as well as in the amount of
wastewater produced during each regeneration cycle.
Precipitation and clarification methods are traditionally used for conventional ion exchange
regenerant waste treatment because they are able to process large volumes. These methods
generally produce wastewaters which meet local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The large volume of
regenerant wastewater requiring precipitation and clarification treatment often precludes the use
of evaporation as a disposal method, which could result in zero wastewater discharge from the
facility.
EVALUATION DESCRIPTION
The central claim made by Hydromatix is that their technology reduces the volume of
regenerant waste produced. The ratio of gallons of waste produced per cubic foot of resin regen-
erated, the specific volume, is smaller than in conventional ion exchange systems. This smaller specific
volume allows more waste management options and assists metal plating facilities in achieving zero
wastewater discharge. Thus, the primary objectives of the evaluation were to determine (1) the specific
volume of regenerant waste produced, and (2) the cation and anion exchange capacities restored during
regeneration. Secondary objectives include providing information for potential end-users and metal
reclaimers, and observing the system during normal operating conditions in order to evaluate worker
health and safety. Only the Hydromatix system was evaluated to achieve the primary and secondary
VS-R-02-01 vii MARCH 2002
-------
objectives of this study; no other competing ion exchange technologies were investigated. The manufac-
turer and users provided basic cost data. Users also provided information on system performance,
reliability, and waste generation. The evaluation verified, through independent testing, the following
performance parameters:
1. Regenerant waste volume produced
2. Cation and anion exchange capacities restored
3. Rinse wastewater volume treated
4. Masses of acid and base volume consumed
5. Masses of metal species in the regenerant waste
Five test runs lasting approximately one week each were conducted over a three month
period at Aero-Electric Connectors, Incorporated (AEC) in Torrance, California. Details of the
evaluation, including data summaries and discussion of results may be found in the report en-
titled U.S. EPA ETV Report, Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange Rinsewater Recycling System.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
Performance results of Hydromatix Corporation's 786E Ion Exchange Rinsewater Recycling
System, are summarized as follows (all data calculated at the 90 percent confidence level):
• Regenerant waste specific volume: 17.1 ±0.2 gallons of waste per cubic foot of resin (gal/ft3). The
cationic regenerant waste produced during four test runs averaged 3 02 gallons for 18 ft3 of resin,
yielding a specific volume of 16.8 ± 0.2 (gal/ft3). The anionic regenerant waste produced during five
test runs averaged 313 gallons for 18 ft3 of resin, yielding a specific volume of 17.4 ± 0.1 gal/ft3.
Cation and anion exchange capacities restored: Cation and anion capacities restored were 94.5 ±
6.8 and 88.7 ±1.7 percent over five test runs, respectively. Compared to new resin material, the
remaining cationic resin capacity averaged 96.0 ± 2.1 percent, and the remaining anionic resin
capacity averaged 79.9 ± 1.8 percent. For the cation resin, the resin utilization was found to be
46.6 ± 4.6 percent using three test runs, and the regenerant efficiency was 29.9 ±28.8 percent
using two test runs. For the anion resin, the resin utilization was found to be 57.2 ± 36.5 percent
over two test runs, while the regenerant efficiency was 32.0 ± 3.7 percent using two test runs.
• Rinse wastewater volume treated: 75,565 ± 9,663 gallons average, measured over five test runs,
containing typical cations and anions found in plating shop wastestreams.
Masses of acid and base consumed: 144.3 pounds of HC1 measured over two test runs, and
119.7 pounds of NaOH per regeneration cycle measured over five test runs. The regenerant
solution volumes were 271 ± 11.6 gallons of acid, and 274.4 ±6.5 gallons of base, each measured
over five test runs. The volumes of concentrated acid and base in the regenerant solution volumes
were 38.9 gallons of 37 percentHCl, and 18.7 gallons of 50 percentNaOH.
VS-R-02-01 viii MARCH 2002
-------
The masses of metal species in the regenerant waste: The average masses and ranges of represen-
tative metal species were found to be: 113.8 ± 89.7 g with a range of 24.9 to 272.5 g for copper,
175.3 ± 70.5 g and 47.5 to 227.9 g for nickel, and 580.8 ± 411.5 g and 65.6 to 1,078.7 g for zinc.
Metal species were determined using four test runs.
Original signed by E. Timothy Oppelt, 4/2/02
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director Date
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Original signed by Kim Wilhelm, 3/15/02
Kim Wilhelm, Acting Chief Date
Office of Pollution Prevention
and Technology Development
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Environmental Protection Agency
AVAILABILITY OF VERIFICATION STATEMENT AND REPORT
Copies of the public Verification Statement are available from the following:
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report.
Appendices are available from DTSC upon request.)
United States Environmental Protection Agency/NSCEP
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv/library.htm (electronic copy)
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
Web site: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/ScienceTechnology/etvpilot.html
or http://www.epa.gov/etv (click on partners)
VS-R-02-01
K
MARCH 2002
-------
NOTICE: U. S. EPA and California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology described in this
verification. Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria using appropriate quality assurance procedures. The end-user is solely
responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements
r v
Photo 1. Aero-Electric Connector, Inc. facilities in Torrance,
California, showing installation of Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange
treatment system and associated equipment.
VS-R-02-01
MARCH 2002
-------
Table of Contents
Notice I
Foreword iv
Acknowledgments x
ETV Verification Statement xi
Abbreviations and Acronyms xii
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 2
2.0 Technology Description 4
2.1 Treatment 5
2.2 Regeneration 5
3.0 Evaluation Approach 8
3.1 Sampling Procedure and Equipment 12
3.2 Verification Activities 13
4.0 Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control 14
5.0 Results of Sampling 20
5.1 Feed Rinse Wastewater Results 20
5.2 Regenerant Waste Volume Produced 23
5.3 Cation and Anion Exchange Capacities Restored 24
5.4 Rinse Wastewater Volume Treated 27
5.5 Masses of Acid and Base Consumed 28
5.6 Masses of Metal Species in the Regenerant Waste 29
5.7 Product DI Water Quality 29
5.8 Worker Health and Safety 31
5.9 End-User Data Collection 32
6.0 Hazardous Waste Management and Hazardous Waste Regulations 33
7.0 Summary of Verification Activities and Sampling Results 34
8.0 Vendor's Comments 35
9.0 Availability of Verification Statement and Report 37
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1 Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange System 4
Table 1 Field Monitoring, Sampling, and Analytical Methods 9
Table 2 Quality Assurance Samples Which Failed Acceptance Criteria 17
Table3 Field Samples Which Failed Acceptance Criteria 18
Table 4 Feed Rinse Wastewater Analysis Results 22
TableS Cationic Regenerant Waste Results 23
Table 6 Anionic Regenerant Waste Results 23
Table 7 Column Resin Analysis Results 25
TableS Regenerant Analysis Results 28
Table 9 Product DI Water Analysis Results 30
Appendices A-H included as separate volumes
VS-R-02-01 xi MARCH 2002
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AEC
ATL
Cal/EPA
CCR
CFR
DI
DISC
EC
ETV
GAC
GF
gpm
HC1
H&SC
HML
HAZWOPER
Ibs
meq/ml
mg/L
ml
MP&M
MSDS
N/A
NaOH
ND
NPDES
NRMRL
OPPTD
ORD
OSHA
pH
PLC
PorG
PPWTS
POTW
ppm
PVC
QA/QC
U.S. EPA
uv
|iS/cm
WIRS
w/v
Aero-Electric Connectors, Inc.
Advanced Technology Laboratories
California State Environmental Protection Agency
California Code of Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations
Deionized
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Electrical Conductivity
Environmental Technology Verification
Granular Activated Carbon
George Fisher
Gallons per Minute
Hydrochloric Acid
Health and Safety Code
Hazardous Materials Laboratory
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
Pounds
Milliequivalents per liter
Milligrams per Liter
Milliliter
Metal Products and Machinery
Material Safety Data Sheet
Not Available
Sodium Hydroxide
Non-Detectable
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Pollution Prevention and Technology Development
EPA's Office of Research and Development
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Negative Log of the Hydrogen Ion Concentration
Programmable Logic Controller
Plastic or Glass
Pollution Prevention, Recycling, and Waste Treatment Systems
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Parts per Million
Polyvinyl Chloride
Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ultraviolet
MicroSiemens per Centimeter
Waste Identification and Recycling Section
Weight per Volume
VS-R-02-01
xu
MARCH 2002
-------
1.0 Introduction
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program was created by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA) to facilitate deployment of innovative technologies through
performance verification and report publication. The goal of the ETV Program is to enhance
environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of innovative, improved,
and cost-effective technologies. The ETV Program is intended to assist and inform those individuals in
need of credible data for the design, distribution, permitting, and purchase of commercially-ready
environmental technologies.
U.S. EPA s ETV Program, through the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL),
has partnered with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) under an ETV Pilot
to verify pollution prevention, recycling, and waste treatment technologies. The Pilot focuses on the
hazardous waste management technologies used in the EPA Common Sense Initiative industry sectors:
printing, electronics, petroleum refining, metal finishing, auto manufacturing, and iron and steel
manufacturing.
The ETV Pollution Prevention, Recycling, and Waste Treatment Systems Pilot gives developers the
opportunity to have their technology evaluated under realistic laboratory or field conditions. The ETV
Pilot selects market-ready environmental technologies from both the private and public sectors. The
evaluation provides information necessary for the ETV Program verification. By completing the
verification and distributing the results, U. S. EPA establishes a baseline for acceptance and use of these
technologies.
This ETV report documents the evaluation of the Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange Rinsewater Recycling
System developed by the Hydromatix Corporation (Santa Fe Springs, California). This system removes
cations and anions from rinse wastewaters generated during metal finishing operations such as
electroplating, cleaning, and anodizing. The Hydromatix 786E system employs recycling to reduce the
amount of waste produced during regeneration of the ion exchange resins. DTSC evaluated the
Hydromatix 786E system in Spring 2001 at Aero-Electric Connectors, Incorporated (AEC) in
Torrance, California.
This ETV report describes the evaluation approach taken by DTSC and the quality control criteria
required for the field sampling and testing activities. The report also includes sampling and testing results,
and calculations for feed rinsewater, regenerant waste, resin capacities, and product deionized (DI)
water quality. Original field notes, raw analytical data, calculation sheets, and reference manuals are
included in Appendices A- H. Appendices are included as separate volumes, and are available from
DTSC upon request. The report includes discussions of the chemicals used in regeneration, and the
characteristics of the regenerant waste. Worker health and safety is reviewed, and results of end-user
surveys are reported. An overview of waste management regulations is provided, followed by a
summary of DTSC's verification activities and sampling results. Lastly, Hydromatix's vendor comments
are presented.
-------
1.1 Background
Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) industries generate waste streams containing metals and their
salts through plating operations such as electroplating, cleaning, etching, anodizing, and stripping. Athin
film of chemical solution is retained on any workpiece as it is removed from a plating bath. This chemical
film is then washed from the workpiece in a subsequent clean water rinse. Metals and salts found in the
chemical film are thus transferred to the clean water, producing a rinse wastewater. The concentrations
of metals and salts found in the rinse wastewater are a function of their concentrations in the plating
baths, the production rate through the plating baths, and the amount of plating solution transferred to the
rinsewaters with each workpiece.
The rinse wastewaters contain a diluted mixture of all the upstream plating bath chemistries, which are a
mixture of raw plating chemicals and byproducts from chemical reactions in the plating baths. Waste
streams originating from MP&M industries often are characterized as a hazardous waste requiring
treatment prior to disposal.
One method of treating rinse wastewaters utilizes ion exchange resins to remove both metals and salts,
yielding a DI product water which can be reused in rinsing operations. The resin materials are contained
in separate cationic and anionic ion exchange columns. Rinse wastewaters are first passed through the
cation exchange column, where metals are exchanged for hydrogen ions. The rinse wastewater is then
passed through the anion exchange column where anions are exchanged for hydroxide ions, producing
DI water at a neutral pH. Ultimately, the ion exchange capacity of the resin is exhausted, and the
material must be regenerated by removing the accumulated metals and anions and replacing them with
hydrogen and hydroxide ions. The regeneration process results in the production of a regenerant
wastewater, which comprises a smaller, more concentrated volume than the original rinse wastewater
treated.
The Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange System uses two pairs of cation and anion resin columns to enable
continuous operation; one resin pair operates while the other is being regenerated or is in standby. The
cation resin column is regenerated by a strong acid, hydrochloric acid, and the anion column is
regenerated by a strong alkali, sodium hydroxide. The Hydromatix system reduces the regenerant
wastewater volume produced by recycling portions of the water rinses used in regeneration. Raw
chemical usage is also minimized by reusing portions of the acid and base regenerant solutions. The
786E system uses a programmable logic controller (PLC) to manage the treatment and regeneration
processes.
Ion exchange replaces precipitation and clarification for the treatment of electroplating rinsewaters.
While the precipitation and clarification process is able to treat large volumes efficiently, it may not meet
increasingly stringent discharge requirements such as the U. S. EPA's pending MP&M Rules. Both
treatment methods produce a residual sludge which is typically a hazardous waste and must be further
treated before disposal.
The central claim made by Hydromatix is that their technology reduces the volume of regenerant waste
produced. The ratio of gallons of waste produced per cubic foot of resin regenerated, the specific
volume, is smaller than in conventional ion exchange systems. This smaller specific volume allows more
-------
waste management options and assists metal plating facilities in reducing their wastewater discharge.
Thus, the primary obj ectives of the evaluation were to determine (1) the specific volume of regenerant
waste produced, and (2) the cation and anion exchange capacities restored during regeneration.
Secondary objectives include providing information for potential end-users and metal reclaimers, and
observing the system during normal operating conditions in order to evaluate worker health and safety.
Only the Hydromatix system was evaluated to achieve the primary and secondary obj ectives of this
study; no other competing ion exchange technologies were investigated, and only basic cost data was
compiled. The evaluation verified, through independent testing, the following performance parameters:
1. Regenerant waste volume produced
2. Cation and anion exchange capacities restored
3. Rinse wastewater volume treated
4. Masses of acid and base volume consumed
5. Masses of metal species in the regenerant waste
Photo 3. Ion exchange
columns - 6' tall.
-------
2.0 Technology Description
Figure 1. Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange System
DOWNFLOW
REGENERATION
-O O
GAC
C1 CATION
A1 ANION
VAPOR PHASE
DISCHARGE
t
EVAPORATOR
UNITS
T
NEUTRALIZATION
TANK
RESIDUAL
SLUDGE
FLOW
METER
C2 CATION
UPFLOW SERVICE
FLOW
METER |SCO
SAMPLER
FILTER
FEED
PUMP
FEED RINSE
WASTEWATER
TANK
35 gpm
PROCESS LINE
RINSE TANKS
RINSE WASTEWATER
A2 ANION
CONDUCTIVITY
PROBE
UV
DISINFECTION
PRODUCT Dl
WATER
STORAGE
TANK
-------
2.1 Treatment
Rinse wastewaters containing metals and their salts are generated from plating operations at Aero-Elec-
tric. AEC keeps contaminants such as oils and grease, and oxidizers out of the rinse wastewater to pro-
tect and extend the life of the ion exchange unit, but as a precaution the rinse wastewater is routed
through a carbon filtration unit to remove any organic compounds that may be present. The next step in
the Hydromatix 786E operation is removal of cations from the feed rinse wastewater by passing the
waste stream through a column of cation exchange resin.
The 786E system uses columns with an empty volume of 24.7 cubic feet. This volume holds both inert
material and active ion exchange resin. In each column there are 2.6 cubic feet of sand at the bottom,
2.4 cubic feet of inert polymer at the top, and 0.6 cubic feet of support and distribution systems. With
room for some expansion, this leaves 18 cubic feet of active ion exchange resin in both the cationic and
anionic columns.
The 786E system uses Purolite (PuroliteUSA, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania) PFC-100 H strong acid
cationic exchange resin, which features a sulfonic acid functional group. The resin is composed of
spherical, 560 micron diameter polystyrene beads with a total exchange capacity of 1.9 eq/L (wet
form, volumetric) when new. Hydrogen ions in the cationic resin are displaced by metals in the incom-
ing rinse wastewater. Next, the waste stream exits the cationic resin column and flows through the
anion resin column. The system uses Purolite PFA-300 OH strong base type II anionic exchange
resin, which features a quaternary ammonium functional group. The anion resin is similarly composed
of 560 micron polystyrene beads, with a total exchange capacity of 1.4 eq/L (wet form, volumetric)
when new. Hydroxide ions in the anionic resin are then displaced by anions in the waste stream. The
resultant DI water flows to the product DI water tank, where it can be reused in plating shop opera-
tions. At the end of the process, ultraviolet light is applied to recirculating water to control the growth
of bacteria in the lines or tanks.
DI water production continues until the resin limiting capacity is exceeded; a conductivity sensor detects
the ionic contamination resulting from resin exhaustion. Approximately 75,000 gallons of rinse wastewa-
ter are treated per run, with flowrates ranging from 35-45 gallons per minute (gpm), by the 786E system
at AEC. The volume of rinse wastewater treated per run is dependant on the concentration of metals
and their salts in the waste stream, with higher concentrations resulting in earlier exhaustion of the limited
capacity of the resin material.
2.2 Regeneration
The regeneration cycles for the 786E system cation column are completed first, followed by regenera-
tion for the anion column. Hydromatix uses upflow service, and downflow regeneration, in a counter-
current flow system. In counter-current flow systems, high quality product DI water is obtained because
the treated water passes through the most highly regenerated portion of the resin bed immediately be-
fore it exits the column. The 786E System utilizes George Fisher (GF, Tustin, California) UniDirectional
Motorized Ball Valves to perform the rinse wastewater treatment and resin column regeneration control
functions. While the GF valve operation is controlled by the PLC, the actual position of the valve can be
verified by either inspecting the top of the valve, or by viewing the control panel.
-------
The regeneration cycle consists of the following sequences:
1) Tank capacity checks: Prior to beginning regeneration, the operator must ensure that sufficient
regenerant waste tank capacity and product DI water volume are available. The regenerant waste
tank will be receiving approximately 600 gallons of waste solutions, and the consumption of
product DI water will be about 75 gallons. The solution level in cationic and anionic regenerant
tanks is maintained at the high level by Flowline (Los Alamitos, California) Smart Trak float
switches located inside the tanks. The chemical composition of the cationic and anionic regenerant
solutions is maintained at six percent by Solu Comp (Irvine, California) SCL-470 conductivity
cells and SCL-C-200 Analyzers. High and low level conditions, as well as the solution concentra-
tions are displayed on the control panel. Subsequent steps in the regeneration cycle will require
that the volume of 30 percent hydrochloric acid and 50 percent sodium hydroxide in the holding
drums be sufficient for replenishment of the regenerant tanks.
2) Displacement of DI water from the cation bed and into the feed tank: Initiated by pushing the
regeneration button, several valves open and close which isolate the treatment train to be regener-
ated from the standby train, allowing both regeneration and treatment to continue simultaneously.
When the acid feed pump starts, acidic solution begins to displace the waste rinsewater solution
remaining in the cation bed pore space. The displaced waste rinsewater is directed to the feed
tank rather than to waste, which minimizes the ultimate waste volume to be treated later. Approxi-
mately one-third of the bed pore space volume is directed back to the feed rather than to waste.
This step continues until a mid-level float switch in the cationic regenerant tank is triggered.
3) Removal of metals from the cation bed by means of the fresh acid and depositing the spent
acid into the neutralization tank: Once the waste rinsewater is displaced from the resin bed the
process of removing the retained metals can begin. Fresh acid is passed through the cation bed at
a flow rate of 810 gpm. As the acid comes into contact with the resin beads, it exchanges metals
from sites within the resin with hydrogen ions supplied by the acid. One or more hydrogen ions are
supplied for every mono or polyvalent cation. As the acid solution works its way down through the
column it gradually becomes concentrated with metals and is ultimately directed through the waste
neutralization line into the regenerant waste tank. The application of acid to the cationic column
continues until the low level float sensor in the cationic regenerant tank is triggered, after about 300
gallons of acid solution have been passed through the resin bed.
4) Slow rinse with DI water through the cation column depositing weak acid into the cationic
regenerant tank: At this stage, nearly all of the easily removable metal ions retained in the cationic
column have been replaced by hydrogen ions, and most of the bed pore volume is filled with a
metal-free acid solution. By flushing this acid out of the column with DI water, Hydromatix is able
to create a weak acid solution which is then directed to the now-empty cationic regenerant tank
for re-use, rather than to waste. This weak acid will be stored in the cationic regenerant tank and
used to prepare acid solution for the next cationic regeneration cycle.
5) Recirculatingrinse through the cation andanionfor 20 minutes: By recirculating DI water
through both the cation and anion resin beds, traces of acid remaining in the cation resin bed are
removed. Chloride ions present from the hydrochloric acid are removed in the anionic exchange
-------
6)
8)
9)
10)
column; in the process the hydrox-
ide ions released neutralize the
excess hydrogen ions from the
acid rinse. The resulting DI water
is free of metal and chloride ions,
and has a neutral pH.
Acid mix cycle: DI water is
added to the cationic regenerant
tank until the solution level is at the
high set point. Concentrated
hydrochloric acid is added until the
conductivity probe indicates a six
percent solution.
TO NEUTRALIZATION!,ftM
CAUSTIC
ACID
Photo 4. Acid, base and neutralization streams to and
from the columns.
Displacement of DI water from the anion bed into the feed tank: Following the appropriate
switching of valves, the caustic regenerant solution is pumped into the anion column, displacing DI
water. This DI water is directed to the feed tank, again reducing the amount of waste which will
ultimately result from the regeneration processes.
Removal of salts from the anion bed by means of the fresh caustic and depositing the spent
caustic into the waste neutralization tank: Once the waste rinsewater is displaced from the
resin bed the process of removing the retained anions can begin. Fresh caustic is passed through
the anion bed at a flow rate of 8-10 gpm. As the caustic comes into contact with the resin beads, it
exchanges anions from sites within the resin with hydroxide ions supplied by the caustic. As the
caustic solution works its way down through the column it gradually becomes concentrated with
anions and is ultimately directed through the waste neutralization line into the regenerant waste
tank. The application of caustic to the anionic column continues until the low level float sensor in
the anionic regenerant tank is triggered, after about 300 gallons of caustic solution have been
passed through the resin bed. At the end of this cycle and subsequent valve changes, deionized
water is drawn from the DI water storage tank and passed through the anion bed. The resulting
rinse water from the anion bed will contain a mixture of salts in a diluted caustic stream. For the
first five minutes of this rinse cycle the waste stream is discharged into the waste neutralization
tank.
Slow rinse with DI water through the anion column and depositing the weak caustic into the
anionic regenerant tank: DI water is passed through the anion column to remove the excess,
unspent caustic from the resin bed, with the excess caustic creating a weak caustic solution. This
weak caustic solution is reuseable and is directed to the anionic regenerant tank.
Recirculating rinse through the cation and anion for at least 60 minutes or until desired
conductivity is achieved: To remove sodium ions remaining on the anion resin the solution is
passed through the cationic beds, where the sodium is removed and the consequent hydrogen ion
produced is used to neutralize the hydroxide ion present. This results in the production of a DI
solution with a neutral pH.
-------
11) Caustic Mix Cycle: DI water is added to the anionic regenerant tank until the solution level is at
the high set point. Concentrated sodium hydroxide is added until the conductivity probe indicates a
six percent solution.
The flow directions are controlled primarily by air-actuated diaphragm valves. The PLC sends signals to
the solenoids that control the valves. High and low level switches in each of the chemical reuse tanks
trigger the switch-over from one cycle to the next.
3.0 Evaluation Approach
The Hydromatix 786E system evaluation required measurements of treatment volumes, generated
wastes, a calculation of mass balance, and a determination of the regenerated resin capacity.
Hydromatix 786E system documents and diagrams were reviewed to determine the placement of
monitoring and sampling equipment. Flow diagrams for plating operations at AEC were studied to
determine which waste streams entered the Hydromatix system.
These waste streams were characterized by studying the chemical make-ups for the baths that contrib-
uted to these waste flows. Material Safely Data Sheets (MSDSs) were obtained for each plating bath
which contributed to the waste stream entering the Hydromatix system. These reference documents
showed which chemical species would be present in the rinse wastewater originating from these plating
operations. DTSC's Hydromatix Technology Evaluation Workplan (Appendix A) focused on quantifying
the primary objectives: regenerant waste volume produced, cation and anion exchange capacities
restored, rinse wastewater volume treated, masses of acid and base volume consumed, masses of metal
species in the regenerant waste, and product DI water quality.
After review and approval of the Workplan, specification and installation of monitoring and sampling
equipment on the Hydromatix 786E system at AEC was implemented. The equipment allowed for
monitoring of flows in the feed rinse wastewater, product DI water, regenerant solutions, and regenerant
waste streams during actual production operations at AEC. Sampling equipment allowed for the collec-
tion of samples from the feed rinse wastewater, product DI water, and regenerant waste streams.
Arrangements were made to have independent chemical analysis of the samples collected during the five
test runs. An ion exchange resin sampling method to determine the capacities used and restored was
devised, and arrangements were made for resin analysis at the manufacturer's laboratory. Provisions for
quality control and data evaluation were devised. Data compilation and evaluation methods were
developed, and a peer review team was established. Guidelines for final report preparation were
adopted.
Sample collection and detailed measurements of the flowrates were performed for the waste streams
and product DI water. This allowed the verification of the waste volumes produced, and the calculation
of resin capacity restored. Sampling of the feed rinse wastewater, product DI water, and regenerant
wastes was also conducted. Anions and cations for these streams were determined through laboratory
analyses. The cationic and anionic resins were sampled and analyzed to determine their capacities restored
-------
by regeneration. These were then compared to those capacities available after the resin's approximately
five years of life. The field data collected from each test run is listed in Table 1, Field Monitoring, Sampling,
and Analytical Methods.
Table 1. Field Monitoring, Sampling, and Analytical Methods
Type
Rinse
Wastewater
Rinse
Wastewater
Duplicate
Parameter(s)
Volume
Flow rate
Al, B, Cu, K,
Na,Ni,Zn
NH;
C1-, F-, SO/-, N03-,
PO/- Total dissolved
solids, Specific
conductance,
Alkalinity
pH
Al, B, Cu, K,
Na,Ni,Zn
Frequency
Each test run
Daily
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Location
Feed line from
collection tank
Feed line from
collection tank
IS CO Automatic
Sampler at collection
tank
IS CO Automatic
Sampler at collection
tank
IS CO Automatic
Sampler at collection
tank
IS CO Automatic
Sampler at collection
tank
IS CO Automatic
Sampler at collection
tank
Method(s)
Inline flow
totalizer
Inline flow
totalizer
U.S. EPA
Methods
3010A, 601 OB
U.S. EPA
Method 350.2
U.S. EPA
Methods 300.0,
9050A, 310.1,
160.3
U.S. EPA
Method 150.1
U.S. EPA
Methods
3010A, 601 OB
Containers
(Storage Limits)
Recorded on site
Recorded on site
lOOOmlPorG,
HN03,pH<2
(601 OB 6 months)
lOOOmlPorG,
H2S04,pH<2
(350.2 28 days)
lOOOmlPorG, 4
C, no preservative
(300.0 48 hours)
(310.1 7 days)
(9050A 28 days)
Measured on site at
time of collection
lOOOmlPorG,
HN03,pH<2
(601 OB 6 months)
-------
Type
Product DI
Water
Cationic
Regenerant
Waste
Anionic
Regenerant
Waste
QA Travel
Blank- Metals
Parameter(s)
Al, B, Cu, K,
Na, Ni, Zn
NH4*
C1-, F-, SO/% NO -
' ' 4 ' 3
PO43" Total dissolved
solids, Specific
conductance,
Alkalinity
pH
EC reading
Volume
Al, B, Cu, K,
Na, Ni, Zn
NH4*
Volume
ci-, F-, so/-,
NO3-, PO/-
Al, Cu, Ni, Zn
Frequency
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Daily
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Location
Grab sample from
Product DI water pipe
sample port
Grab sample from
Product DI water pipe
sample port
Grab sample from
Product DI water pipe
sample port
Grab sample from
Product DI water pipe
sample port
Sensor is in the
effluent pipe; display
is on the panel
Line from cationic
column to
neutralization tank
IS CO Automatic
Sampler installed at
Regenerant waste
collection line
IS CO Automatic
Sampler installed at
Regenerant waste
collection line
Line from anionic
column to
neutralization tank
IS CO Automatic
Sampler installed at
Regenerant waste
collection line
Prepared at So Cal
HML
Method(s)
U.S. EPA
Methods 30 10A,
6010B
U.S. EPA Method
350.2
U.S. EPA
Methods 300.0,
9050A, 310.1,
160.3
U.S. EPA
Methods 150.1
Rosemont
Analytical Solu
Comp Model
SCL-C-002-M2
Inline flow
totalizer
U.S. EPA
Methods 30 10A,
6010B
U.S. EPA Method
350.2
Inline flow
totalizer
U.S. EPA
Method300.0
U.S. EPA Method
6010B
Containers
(Storage Limits)
lOOOmlPorG,
HN03, pH<2
(601 OB 6 months)
lOOOmlPorG,
H2S04, pH<2
(350.2 28 days)
lOOOmlPorG, no
preservative (300.0
48 hours) (310.17
days) (9050A 28
days)
Measured on site at
time of collection
Recorded on site
Recorded on site
lOOOmlPorG,
HN03, pH<2
(601 OB 6 months)
lOOOmlPorG,
H2S04, pH<2
(350.2 28 days)
Recorded on site
lOOOmlPorG, no
preservative (300.0
48 hours)
lOOOmlPorG,
HN03, pH<2
(601 OB 6 months)
10
-------
Type
QA Travel
Blank- Anions
QA Spike-
Metals
QASpike-
Anions
Cationic
Column Resin
QA Cation
Resin Travel
Blank
Anionic
Column Resin
QAAnion
Resin Travel
Blank
Acidic
Regenerant
QAAcid
Standard
Basic
Regenerant
QABase
Standard
Parameter(s)
ci-, so/-, PO/-
Al, Cu, Ni, Zn
ci-, so/-, PO/>-
4 4
Operating capacity
remaining,
regeneration
efficiency
Operating capacity,
regeneration
efficiency
Operating capacity
remaining,
regeneration
efficiency
Operating capacity
remaining,
regeneration
efficiency
Volume
HC1
HC1
Volume
NaOH
NaOH
Frequency
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
Each test run
One sample
Each test run
One sample
Each test run
Each test run
One sample
Each test run
Each test run
One sample
Location
Prepared at So Cal
HML
Prepared at So Cal
HML
Prepared at So Cal
HML
Cationic column
Fresh Cationic resin
from Purolite
Anionic column
Fresh Anionic resin
from Purolite
Line from acid tank
to cation column
Grab sample from
Acid make-up tank
Prepared at So Cal
HML
Line from acid tank
to cation column
Grab sample from
Base make-up tank
Prepared at So Cal
HML
Method(s)
U.S. EPA
Method 300.0
U.S. EPA
Method 601 OB
U.S. EPA
Method 300.0
Purolite
Laboratory
methods
Purolite
Laboratory
methods
Purolite
Laboratory
methods
Purolite
Laboratory
methods
Inline flow meter
U.S. EPA
Method 305.1
U.S. EPA
Method 305.1
Inline flow meter
U.S. EPA
Method 3 10.1
U.S. EPA
Method 3 10.1
Containers (Storage
Limits)
lOOOmlPorG,
(300.0 48 hours)
lOOOmlPorG,
HNO3, pH<2
(601 OB 6 months)
lOOOmlPorG,
(300.0 48 hours)
lOOOmlPorG,
sample must be kept
moist
lOOOmlPorG,
sample must be kept
moist
lOOOmlPorG,
sample must be kept
moist
lOOOmlPorG,
sample must be kept
moist
Recorded on site
lOOOmlPorG
(305.1, as short as
practically possible)
lOOOmlPorG
(305.1, as short as
practically possible)
Recorded on site
lOOOmlPorG
(310.1, as short as
practically possible)
lOOOmlPorG
(310.1, as short as
practically possible)
11
-------
3.1 Sampling Procedure and Equipment
Several pieces of equipment were installed to sample the feed rinse wastewater, regenerant waste, and
DI product water streams. Automatic flowmeters and samplers were installed to enable recovery of the
flow data when samples were taken. An ISCO (Lincoln, Nebraska) Automatic Sampler Model 6800
was used to take 200 ml samples from the feed rinse wastewater at every 2000 gallons of flow (flow
paced sampling). This resulted in one to two gallons of sample collected in a five gallon ISCO sample
bottle during the three-day test runs. Flow volume was measured by a flow totalizer that operated when
it detected flow. Once treatment was complete and the columns exhausted, the EC would climb and the
system would stop. Samples were retrieved from the ISCO sample bottle. Regeneration was then
started with acid solution rinsing out the cation column. Flows were measured and samples taken of acid
and waste. The ISCO sampler was set to collect 200 ml regenerant waste samples every two minutes
(time paced sampling). Corresponding measurements and samples were taken for the anion column.
The following specific items of equipment were installed:
Flow Sensors - Signet (El Monte,
California) Model 515 Rotor-X
Flow Sensors were installed at the
foil owing locations: the rinse
wastewater feed line between
cartridge filter and carbon filter, the
line between the acid tank and
cation column, the line between the
caustic tank and anion column, and
the regenerant waste line between
the columns and the neutralization
tank. Manufacturer's
recommendations for equipment
installation were followed to achieve
the maximum accuracy for the
instruments, including pipe run
lengths and equipment orientation.
Flow sensors and totalizers were calibrated both before and after the sampling events to ensure to
collection of accurate flow data.
Flow Totalizers - Signet Flow Totalizers Model 8550 were installed to record readings from each flow
sensor.
ISCO Automatic Sampler - The ISCO Automatic Sampler Model 6800 was installed and set to sample
periodically at the following locations: at the rinse wastewater feed tank, and the regenerant waste line
between the columns and the neutralization tank. The feed tank was sampled directly through the
manhole port in the top of the tank. The following equipment was installed on the regenerant waste line:
Pressure Reduction Valve (ISCO Model SPA 1081), a Three-way Valve (ISCO Model SPA1082),
and a Relay Contact (ISCO Model SPA 665). Flow paced and time paced sampling regimes were
programmed into the sampler to obtain appropriate sample volumes. To prevent sampling during hours
Photo 5. Signet flow totalizers and flow sensor (bottom).
12
-------
when there was no production the sampling
unit was triggered externally using a flow
signal generated by the flow transmitter.
Once programmed, the ISCO sampler was
calibrated with a graduated cylinder by
DISC personnel.
Resin Sampling Probe - An approximately
six foot long one-half inch diameter
poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with a
removable cap was used for sampling the
resin. The PVC pipe was inserted through
the top of the columns down through the
full 5.5 feet of bed. The top cap was
removed during sampling to allow the semi-
viscous resin to flow up into the pipe; it
was then replaced for withdrawal of the
resin sample.
Photo 6. Automatic ISCO Sampler, top view with
tube entering pump and keypad for programming
the sampling outline.
Electrical Conductivity (EQ Meter - The existing Rosemont (Irvine, California) Analytical Model SCL-
C-002-M2 electrical conductivity sensor/meter was used to measure the electrical conductivity of the
treated rinse water. Rosemont Analytical reports the accuracy and precision at 0.1 microSiemens per
centimeter (|iS/cm). The existing sensor/meter readings were checked against laboratory analysis, and
the results were not used in any calculations.
pH Meter-A Orion (Beverly, Massachusetts) Model 330 pH Meter was used to measure samples
directly onsite at the time of sample collection. The unit adhered to the requirements of
U. S. EPAMethod 150.1, including a provision for two-point calibrations. The unit was calibrated
before each set of readings were collected.
3.2 Verification Activities
The Technology Evaluation Workplan specified field testing, sampling and data acquisition from five runs
using the Hydromatix 786E system at AEC. Field testing was conducted at AEC from February 28,
2001 through May 3,2001, as shown in the Chronology of Maj or Events
(Appendix B). Each run included collecting samples from the feed rinse wastewater, product DI water,
regenerant solutions, and regenerant waste lines. Adetailed list of the test run sampling is included in
Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, metals and anion samples were taken from the feed rinse wastewater and product
DI water streams. Cations and anions were also taken from the corresponding regenerant waste
streams. Flowrates were measured for all streams. Acid, base, and resin samples were collected during
each run. Five separate test runs using the same cation and anion resin columns were conducted; each
test run consisted of a complete treatment cycle including column exhaustion and regeneration. Installed
13
-------
in October 1997, AEC has one of the oldest 786E systems in operation. AEC reported that the system
had been regenerated more than 200 times with no detectable degradation in resin performance. The
system contained 18 cubic feet each of Purolite PFC-100 H cationic and Purolite PFA-300 OH anionic
resins. Rinse wastewater flow to the system was typically 35-45 gpm.
The ion samples were produced in each sampling run by the following series of steps. Each sampling run
began with the start of the operating train's treatment phase. The ISCO automatic sampler was
programmed to turn on with the start of flow through the feed rinse wastewater line, when that flow was
directed through the operating train. The signal controlling the ISCO sampler came from the flow meter
in the feed line and the GF valves that controlled the flow direction of the waste stream. Aflow totalizer
which had been previously zeroed began recording as the solution began flowing. The ISCO sampler
purged its line and then took its first sample of 200 ml after a volume of 2000 gallons of feed rinse
wastewater had passed the flow sensor. The collected sample was directed into a five gallon glass
holding bottle within the sampling unit. The ISCO collected 200 ml of sample after each 2000 gallon
volume had passed the sensor, or approximately every 45-60 minutes for the duration of the three day
treatment run. Conclusion of the treatment run was signaled with the rise in the displayed EC. Bed
saturation was indicated by a display EC of approximately ten jiS/cm, which would then be followed by
a fast rise in the EC. The operating train was set to shut off by the AEC operators at display ECs of
about 65-75 |iS/cm. As the display EC rose rapidly past that point, the flow to the operating train was
redirected to the alternate set of columns, and the ISCO sampler was stopped automatically. This final
EC set point differed from that stated in the Workplan: "at an EC set point of about 20 |iS/cm.. .the feed
flow is redirected to a fresh set of columns." In the analysis of the product DI water, the quantified EC
results were closer to this expected value of approximately 20 |iS/cm. This simply shows that a
discrepancy exists between the conductivity meter display and specific conductance measured by the
analytical laboratory.
4.0 Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
A high level of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) was required throughout the verification.
This was achieved by following QA/QC requirements established in the Technology Evaluation
Workplan. The QA/QC requirements ensured that data generated through field test methods and
analytical laboratory tests was of sufficient quality to be used in the evaluation of Hydromatix's claims.
The Workplan established that analytical laboratory data would be disregarded if sample contamination
were identified, if QA/QC procedures were not followed, or if the results of percent recoveries were not
within the established acceptable ranges. A charge balance would be performed to determine if ionic
species were undetected in the collected samples. For samples sent to Advanced Technology Laboratories
(ATL, Signal Hill, California), QA/QC was to be performed in accordance with internal laboratory
procedures. This included protocols for sample preservation and sample holding times, as well as the
analysis of spikes, matrix spikes, and blanks. ATL's data integrity was validated by the laboratory chemist,
analyst, and supervisor, and was documented in the laboratory data packages. For samples sent to ATL
and to Purolite Resin Laboratory, DTSC established a comprehensive set of external QA/QC
requirements focusing on control of analytical accuracy and precision, and identification of sample
contamination.
14
-------
For each of five test runs, duplicate, travel blank, spike, and acid and base standards were included for
analyses and were sent to ATL as blind control samples. The duplicates consisted of splits from the rinse
wastewater samples. DISC established acceptance criteria of relative percent differences of no greater
than 20 percent for the duplicates. The travel blanks consisted of DI water supplied by DTSC's
Hazardous Materials Laboratory (HML) in Los Angeles, California. The acceptance criteria for the
travel blanks was no appreciable ionic contamination; no concentration values were specified for ionic
contamination of the blanks. The spikes were prepared by HML, and consisted of a known synthetic
mixture of cations and anions expected to be present in the waste samples. The spikes were prepared at
the 25 mg/L level, and acceptance criteria of 80 to 120 percent recovery for metals, and 85 to 115
percent recovery for anions, was established. For the phosphate spikes, laboratory results are
presented in terms of phosphorous, so that a conversion to phosphate ion is necessary in order to
determine the percent recovery.
The acid and base standards were prepared by HML, and consisted of hydrochloric acid at the six
percent weight to volume (w/v) level, and sodium hydroxide at the six percent (w/v) level, with an
acceptance criteria for percent recovery of 80 to 120 percent established for each. For each of five test
runs, resin travel blanks were sent to Purolite Laboratories as blind control samples. Quality control
cation and anion resin samples consisting of fresh unused materials were submitted as the resin travel
blanks, along with the actual resin samples collected at the conclusion of each test run. No spike was
prepared for the resin samples. QA/QC for the resin samples sent to Purolite's analytical laboratory
was performed in accordance with their internal company procedures; the acceptable range for percent
recovery was 80 to 120 percent for both cationic and anionic resins. Samples analyzed with associated
spike recoveries outside of this range were not used in subsequent calculations of mass balance, acid or
base consumption, or resin capacity restored. Fresh resin samples were similarly deemed unacceptable
and the associated data rendered unuseable if the recoveries were not within the established range.
An examination of charge balance for the feed rinse wastewater and product DI water samples was
performed to indicate if ions were undetected in the analysis. In the examination of charge balance, the
concentration of each ionic species is expressed in units of milliequivalents (meq) per liter, and the sum
of the cations is compared to that of the anions. An acceptable range for the difference between cation
and anion sums is published in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. This
range encompasses one standard deviation, and has been empirically established as:
E anions -E cations = ± (0.1065 + 0.0155 E anions)
Values falling outside the limits set by this equation indicate that at least one of the determinations should
be rechecked, or that one or more ionic species present in the sample was not detected in the analysis.
Complete chemical analyses was performed on only the feed rinse wastewater and product DI water
samples.
The examination of charge balance for these samples revealed one sample of feed rinse wastewater, from
test run three, met the criteria, while the other four samples had differences exceeding the established
range. For the product DI water samples, test runs one and three yielded values within the range, while the
other runs did not. These differences can be explained by considering the additional quality control checks
performed on the samples. For example, the product DI water sample from test run one had acceptable
results for cationic and anionic spike percent recoveries, duplicate sample relative percent differences, and
15
-------
for the associated blank QA/QC samples. Consequently, the charge balance difference also fell within the
acceptable range. By comparison, the product DI water sample from test run two had an unacceptable
relative percent difference from the duplicate sample, and had an unacceptable result from the analysis of
the associated blank QA/QC sample. Thus, the true value from the duplicate analysis is not known, and
the reported sample value associated with the blank analysis is probably inflated. Predictably, the charge
balance difference for this analysis fell outside of the acceptable range.
An acceptable level of accuracy for the flow sensors was verified through calibration and re-calibration
procedures. The units were certified by the manufacturer at ten flowrates, both prior to installation and
after removal from the system. The acceptable range for both the new and used units was defined as no
flowrate measurement exceeding one percent deviation. Flow data from the cationic regenerant waste
measurement for the second run was lost, probably due to debris in the paddle wheel mechanism. After
sensor removal, cleaning, and re-installation, all subsequent data was useable. All units passed the
recalibration procedures conducted at the manufacturer's testing facility after the sensors were removed
from the system following completion of the test runs.
Data review and validation was conducted by members of the proj ect team to ensure that the
procedures and activities conformed to the requirements outlined in the Workplan. Dr. Ruth Chang and
Mr. Ed Benelli verified the procedures and data generated by ATL and Purolite Resin Lab. Dr. Bruce
La Belle, Mr. Ed Benelli and others from the proj ect team provided qualitative review of survey results
to ensure that the data could support the proj ect evaluation. Additionally, the Neptune Company (Los
Alamos, New Mexico) was retained by U.S. EPA to review field testing procedures. A physical
inspection of the Hydromatix system, and of DTSC's sampling equipment installation and procedures,
was conducted at AEC on April 20, and 21,2001. The U.S. EPA contractor's Field Quality Control
Audit is included as Appendix C.
Tables 2 and 3 index DTSC's QAreview of ATL analyses for the Hydromatix ETV Proj ect. Table 2 lists
Standard, Spike, Duplicate, and Travel Blank Q A samples which failed DTSC 's acceptance criteria.
These QA samples were submitted to ATL as blind controls along with field samples collected from the
Hydromatix system at AEC. The listed QA samples failed one or more of three acceptance criteria:
standards and spike samples had to exhibit recoveries of between 80 and 120 percent for acids and
cations, or between 85 and 115 percent for anions; duplicate samples could not exhibit relative deviations
of greater than 20 percent; and travel blanks could not exhibit significant analyte concentrations. Of the five
acid standards submitted to ATL, the results of three analyses were rej ected due to recoveries of 28,257,
and 196 percent. Two sets of duplicate results were rejected due to relative differences of 41 and 193
percent. Quality assurance samples which failed DTSC's acceptance criteria are denoted in Table 2 with a
footnote (1).
Table 3 lists the associated field samples for which the analysis was dependant on acceptable QA
sample results. Using the acid standards as an example, for each of the three QA samples that failed, the
analytical results from one field sample collected at AEC had to be rejected. In some cases as many as
four field sample results were rejected as a consequence of a QA sample failure. Field samples for
which the analysis was dependant on acceptable QA sample results, and for which the QA samples that
failed are denoted in Table 3 with a footnote (2). The results from these data analyses were not used in
subsequent calculations and are presented here only to show the range and variability of data collected
in field and through laboratory analysis.
16
-------
In summary, eleven QA samples failed DTSC's acceptance criteria which resulted in the rej ection of 23
field sample results. For the Hydromatix ETV Proj ect overall, 64 species were analyzed for each of the
five test runs for a total of 320 analyses. Because of the original provision for excess sample collection,
data of sufficient quality and quantity remained to complete the Hydromatix ETV Proj ect evaluation.
Table 2. Quality Assurance Samples Which Failed Acceptance Criteria. Standard, spike, dupli-
cate, and travel blank QA samples were prepared by DTSC's HML Laboratory and were submitted as
blind controls to ATL Laboratory along with the field samples collected at AEC.
Test Run
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
Sample Type
Q A Acid Standard
Rinse Wastewater for Metals
Rinse Wastewater Duplicate for Metals
Q A Travel Blank for Anions
Q A Acid Standard
Rinse Wastewater for Metals
Rinse Wastewater Duplicate for Metals
Q A Travel Blank for Anions
Q A Acid Standard
Q A Travel Blank for Anions
Q A Travel Blank for Anions
Analyte
Acidity, Total
Potassium
Potassium
Chloride
Acidity, Total
Sodium
Sodium
Chloride
Acidity, Total
Chloride
Sulfate
Notes
Percent recovery of 28 percent renders Acid
Standard unacceptable.
Relative Percent Difference of 41 percent
renders Metals Duplicate unacceptable.
Appreciable analyte concentration renders
Travel Blank unacceptable.
Percent recovery of 257 percent renders
Acid Standard unacceptable.
Relative Percent Difference of 193 percent
renders Metals Duplicate unacceptable.
Appreciable analyte concentration renders
Travel Blank unacceptable.
Percent recovery of 196 percent renders
Acid Standard unacceptable.
Appreciable analyte concentration renders
Travel Blank unacceptable.
Appreciable analyte concentration renders
Travel Blank unacceptable.
17
-------
Table 3. Field Samples Which Failed Acceptance Criteria. The acceptance of the Field
samples was predicated on successful analysis of the DTSC Quality Assurance samples
submitted as blind controls to ATL Laboratories. Due to associated standard, spike, duplicate,
and travel blank QA sample failures, the field sample results were unusable.
Test Run
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Sample Type
HC1 Sample
Rinse Wastewater for Metals
Rinse Wastewater Duplicates
for Metals
Product DI Water for Metals
Cationic Regenerant Waste for
Metals
Rinse Wastewater for Anions
Product DI Water for Anions
Anionic Regenerant Waste for
Anions
HC1 Sample
Rinse Wastewater for Metals
Rinse Wastewater Duplicate for
Metals
Product DI Water for Metals
Analysis
Acidity, Total
Potassium
Potassium
Potassium
Potassium
Chloride
Chloride
Chloride
Acidity, Total
Sodium
Sodium
Sodium
Notes
QA Acid Standard failed acceptance criteria (Client ID 42 1 5,
ATL Lab ID 050406-010A). Percent recovery of 28 percent
renders Field sample result unuseable.
Relative Percent Difference of 41 percent renders Field
sample results unuseable.
Duplicates for Metals failed acceptance criteria (Client ID s
4601 1 and 46012, ATL Lab IDs 050485-001A and
050485-002A). Relative Percent Difference of 41 percent
renders Field sample result unuseable.
Duplicates for Metals failed acceptance criteria (Client ID s
4601 1 and 46012, ATL Lab IDs 050485-001A and
050485-002A). Relative Percent Difference of 41 percent
renders Field sample result unuseable.
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 46017, ATL Lab ID 050485-007A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 46017, ATL Lab ID 050485-007A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 46017, ATL Lab ID 050485-007A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
QA Acid Standard failed acceptance criteria (Client ID
4090121, ATL Lab ID 050537-007A). Percent recovery of
257 percent renders Field sample result unuseable.
Relative Percent Difference of 1 93 percent renders Field
sample results unuseable.
Duplicates for Metals failed acceptance criteria (Client ID s
41601 1 and 416012, ATL Lab ID s 050634-001A and
050634-002A). Relative Percent Difference of 193 percent
renders Field sample result unuseable.
18
-------
Test Run Sample Type
Cation Regenerant Waste for
Metals
Analysis
Sodium
Notes
Duplicates for Metals failed acceptance criteria (Client ID s
416011 and 416012, ATL Lab ID s 050634-001A and
050634-002A). Relative Percent Difference of 193 percent
renders Field sample result unuseable.
Rinse Wastewater for Anions
Chloride
QATravel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 416017, ATL Lab ID 050634-007A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
Product DI Water for Anions
Chloride
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 416017, ATL Lab ID 050634-007A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
Anionic Regenerant Waste for
Anions
Chloride
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 416017, ATL Lab ID 050634-007A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
HC1 Sample
Acidity, Total
QA Acid Standard failed acceptance criteria (Client ID
4160115, ATL Lab ID 050634-015A). Percent recovery of
196 percent renders Field sample result unuseable.
Chloride
Rinse Wastewater for Anions
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 53017, ATL Lab ID 050942-003A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
Sulfate
Rinse Wastewater for Anions
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 53017, ATL Lab ID 050942-003A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
Chloride
Product DI Water for Anions
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 53017, ATL Lab ID 050942-003A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
Product DI Water for Anions
Sulfate
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 53017, ATL Lab ID 050942-003A). Blanks showing
appreciable concentrations renders Field sample result
unuseable.
Anionic Regenerant Waste for
Anions
Chloride
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 53017, ATL Lab ID 050942-003A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
Anionic Regenerant Waste for
Anions
Sulfate
QA Travel Blank for Anions failed acceptance criteria (Client
ID 53017, ATL Lab ID 050942-003A). Travel Blank
showing appreciable analyte concentration renders Field
sample result unuseable.
19
-------
5.0 Results of Sampling
5.1 Feed Rinse Wastewater Results
Field testing was conducted by DTSC personnel at AEC following the steps shown on the Test Run
Checklist (Appendix D). Each test run required collecting the samples shown in Table 1 from the feed
rinse wastewater, product DI water, and regenerant waste lines.
Photo 6. Flow sensors installed in feed lines. Valve and sam-
pling line for regenerant waste is shown at rear.
Five separate test runs using the same cation and anion resin columns were conducted at AEC. Each
test run consisted of a complete treatment cycle including column exhaustion and regeneration. Each
sampling run began with the start of the treatment phase using Train 1. The ISCO automatic sampler
was programmed to turn on with the start of flow through the feed rinse wastewater line. The signal
came from the flow sensor in the feed line; previously zeroed flow totalizers also began recording the
volume of rinse wastewater treated. The ISCO sampler purged its line and then took its first sample of
200 ml after a volume of 2000 gallons of feed rinse wastewater had been processed. The collected
sample was stored in a five gallon glass bottle within the ISCO unit. Based on a flow rate of 35-45 gpm,
this would occur every 45-60 minutes for the duration of the three day treatment run. The run
conclusion was signaled with the rise in the displayed EC. Once the display EC reached approximately
ten |iS/cm, bed saturation and a fast rise in display EC was imminent. The operating train was set to
shut off by the AEC operators at display ECs of about 65-75 |iS/cm. As the display EC rose rapidly
past that point, the flow to Train 1 was redirected to Train 2, and the ISCO sampling unit was stopped
automatically. The product DI water analyses showed EC results closer to the expected value of 20 |iS/
20
-------
Photo 7 (left). ISCO 5-gallon bottle,
after a sampling run.
Photo 8 (below). Reading the Signet
Totalizers.
cm, showing that a discrepancy exists between the conductivity meter display and the specific
conductance measured by the analytical laboratory.
The feed rinse wastewater sample collected in the ISCO's five gallon bottle was transferred to labeled
one-liter sample bottles containing the appropriate preservative. The transfer, labeling and delivery of
the feed rinse wastewater samples was usually conducted on the final day of the treatment phase. The
regeneration steps including sampling of the regenerant waste, acid and base regenerant solutions, and
column resins, was usually completed the following day. The resins were sampled with a 5l/2 foot long,
one-half inch PVC tube inserted down through the top of the column to a resin depth of 5% feet.
Original Field Notes are included in Appendix E.
Table 4 presents the Feed Rinse Wastewater analysis results and the associated quality control samples.
Original Laboratory Reports are included in Appendix F. QA samples which were rejected are denoted
with a footnote (1); dependant field samples which were unuseable because of QA sample rejection are
denoted with a footnote (2). Non-available data is shown as N/A, while non-detectable values are
indicated by ND, with the detection limits included in parentheses. All volumes are in gallons, and
concentrations are reported in units of mg/L.
21
-------
Table 4. Feed Rinse Wastewater Analysis Results
Rinse Wastewater Samples
Parameter
Volume (gal)
Flow Rate (gpm)
Al (mg/L)
B
Cu
K
Na
M
Zn
NH/ ( as N)
ci-
F-
SO/2
NO,- ( as N)
PO/- ( as P)
TDS
Conductivity
Alkalinity
pH
Run 1
66845
N/A
0.50
1.2
0.31
5.4
33
0.74
2.9
0.66
26
1.3
20
1.9
ND(<2.5)
140
180
26
7.4
Run 2
64354
41-48
0.56
2.0
0.12
(1) (2) 5.1
33
1.0
3.3
0.85
(2)23
2.1
27
3.6
ND(<2.5)
160
190
9.8
4.24
Run 3
67127
N/A
0.70
1.9
0.30
7.1
(1) (2) 9.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
(2) 4.0
3.1
35
5.3
3.3
130
180
ND
3.88
Run 4
92474
33-40, 43-49
0.47
1.8
0.50
4.8
23
0.94
1.4
1.2
4.0
2.1
20
3.1
ND(<2.5)
140
130
13
6.67
Run 5
87025
N/A
0.36
2
0.83
8.1
31
0.55
2.8
1.1
(2) 9.7
1.8
(2)21
2.7
3.6
N/A
180
40
N/A
Rinse Wastewater Duplicate
Al
B
Cu
K
Na
Ni
Zn
0.46
1.7
0.33
6.1
34
0.76
2.9
0.55
1.9
0.12
(1) (2) 7.7
32
0.96
3.2
0.72
1.9
0.30
7.5
(1) (2) 18
1.4
1.4
0.46
1.8
0.49
4.8
27
0.92
1.4
0.36
2
0.85
7.9
31
0.58
2.9
QA Travel Blank - Metals
Al
Cu
Ni
Zn
ND(<0.10)
0.06
0.0044
0.01
ND(<0.10)
ND (<0.0030)
ND (<0.0030)
ND(<0.010)
ND(<0.10)
0.0059
ND (<0.0030)
0.020
ND(<0.10)
ND (<0.0030)
ND (<0.0030)
ND(<0.010)
ND(<0.10)
ND (<0.0030)
ND (<0.0030)
ND(<0.010)
QA Travel Blank - Anions
ci-
so/
P04-3 ( as P)
ND (<0.50)
ND(<2.5)
ND(<2.5)
3.3
ND(<2.5)
ND(<2.5)
3.5
ND (<2.5)
ND (<2.5)
ND (<0.50)
ND (<2.5)
ND(<2.5)
5.1
(1)3.5
ND (<2.5)
QA Spike - Metals
Al
Cu
Ni
Zn
24
25
24
25
24
24
24
26
25
25
26
29
23
24
24
20
27
26
27
28
QA Spike - Anions
ci-
so/
P04-3 ( as P)
22
24
7.3
27
26
7.6
28
27
7.8
23
27
7.5
27
27
7.2
22
-------
5.2 Regenerant Waste Volume Produced
The regenerant waste volume produced was measured with inline flow sensors and totalizers during each
test run; no flow sensors were found to be out of calibration. In test run 2, the flow sensor was plugged
with debris, and no volume data was collected. Each of the other test runs yielded useable data; the
average and range for the regenerant waste volume produced were determined from the four useable test
runs. The volume produced is shown on the first line of Tables 5 and 6 for the cationic and anionic
regenerant wastes, respectively. Q A samples which were rej ected are denoted with a footnote (1); depen-
dant field samples which were unuseable because of QA sample rejection are denoted with a footnote (2).
The measured volumes varied by less than 10 gallons due to the constant delivery of regenerant controlled
by float level switches.
Table 5. Cationic Regenerant Waste Results
Cationic Regenerant Waste Samples
Parameter
Volume (gal)
Al (mg/L)
B
Cu
K
Na
Ni
Zn
NH/( as N)
Run 1
301
120
0.4
77
1100
7500
200
820
28
Run 2
N/A
150
ND (<1.0)
30
(2) 1300
7700
270
1000
1.3
Run 3
308
160
2.3
60
1600
(2) 3800
190
210
16
Run 4
299
120
2.5
22
1400
3500
42
58
180
Run 5
300
65
1.1
240
2200
14000
180
950
200
Table 6. Anionic Regenerant Waste Results
Anionic Regenerant Waste
Parameter
Volume (gal)
Cl- (mg/L)
F
so/2
NO,' ( as N)
PO4'3 ( as P)
Run 1
318
6500
280
4200
520
<300
Run 2
310
(2) 5700
520
7500
480
470
Run 3
313
(2) 2000
1100
10000
320
320
Run 4
313
2500
600
6500
710
500
Run 5
311
(2) 3900
460
(2) 5700
810
940
As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the cationic regenerant waste produced averaged 302 gal for 18 ft3 of
resin, yielding a specific volume of 16.8 ± 0.2 gal/ft3. The anionic regenerant waste produced averaged
313 gal for 18 ft3 of resin, yielding a specific volume of 17.4 ± 0.1 gal/ft3. Therefore, the regenerant
waste volumes produced averaged 17.1 ± 0.2 gal/ft3 resin. These were higher than the 10-12.5 gal/ft3
estimated in the Workplan.
23
-------
5.3 Cation and Anion Exchange Capacities Restored
Direct sampling of the cation and anion resins was used to determine the exchange capacities restored
during regeneration, and the total exchange capacities remaining after several years of service. The 786E
system at AEC contained 18 cubic feet each of Purolite PFC-100 H cationic and Purolite PFA-300
OH anionic resins. Samples of the resins were collected using standard industry methodology, generally
following the procedures outlined in ASTM Method D-2687-95. The procedures involved inserting a
one-half inch PVC pipe into the resin beds from above; when withdrawn the tube retained a core
sample of the resin material. To ensure a representative sample through the bed, the pipe was inserted
through the full 5!/2 footbed depth.
The capacities restored and the total capacities remaining were determined analytically at the resin
manufacturer's laboratory using proprietary methods. These methods generally involve eluting the cation
resin with a brine solution, followed by a titration of the eluent with base. The anion resin is similarly
exposed to brine; the eluent is then titrated with acid and silver nitrate.
The capacities restored to the columns
were also checked by performing a
mass-balance on incoming feed rinse
wastewater, product DI water, and
regenerant waste streams. Using volume
measurements, the concentrations of ions
found in these streams were converted to
equivalents, and totaled, providing the
number of equivalents entering and
leaving the system.
The direct resin sampling results in Table
7 show the total capacity remaining and
the percent regeneration for each of the
five resin sample collections. The total
capacities remaining for the cationic resin
averaged 96.0 ±2.1 percent, while the
QA sample of fresh resin showed a
recovery of 96.3 percent using the same
testing procedure. The total capacities
remaining for the anionic resin averaged
79.9 ±1.8 percent, while the QA sample
of fresh anionic resin showed a recovery
of 94.3 percent using the same testing
procedure. The operating capacity is a
measure of the quantity of ions, acids, or
bases adsorbed or exchanged under the
conditions existing during the operation of
the column. Because the adsorption
Photo 9. Extracting column resin sample.
24
-------
process is terminated before all of the functional groups have been utilized, the operating capacity is
always less than the total capacity. There is a relationship between the operating capacity of the resin
bed and the quantity of regenerant employed. The operating capacity is based on the resin utilization and
the regeneration efficiency. Resin utilization is defined as the ratio of ions removed during treatment to
the total ions that could be removed at 100 percent efficiency. The regenerant efficiency is the ions
removed from the resin compared to the ions present in the volume of regenerant used. The resin
utilization will increase as the regenerant efficiency decreases.
Table 7. Column Resin Analysis Results
Cationic Column Resin
Parameter
Moisture Capacity, %
Total Capacity, meq/g
Total Capacity, meq/ml
Bead Integrity, %
(Whole-Cracked-Broken)
Cation Exchange Capacity Restored
(Purolite, Regeneration Efficiency H)
Total Capacity Remaining, %
Run 1
56.0
4.82
1.77
98-1-1
99.0
93.2
Run 2
56.7
4.99
1.80
95-4-1
98.0
94.7
Run 3
55.1
5.08
1.90
98-1-1
98.0
100
Run 4
55.8
5.05
1.86
99-1-0
78.0
97.9
Run 5
55.8
4.86
1.79
96
99.5
94.2
QA Cation Resin
Travel Blank
52.0
4.56
1.83
97-1-2
99.5
96.3
Anionic Column Resin
Parameter
Moisture Holding Capacity, %
Total Capacity, meq/g
Total Capacity, meq/ml
% Strong Base
Bead Integrity, %
(Whole-Cracked-Broken)
Extractable Organics, mg C/g resin
Anion Exchange Capacity Restored
(Purolite, % Regeneration, OH)
% Regeneration, CO3
% Regeneration, Cl
% Regeneration, SO4
% Regeneration, SIO2
Total Capacity Remaining
Run 1
46.0
2.96
1.10
85.0
99-1-0
9.7
90.48
3.17
5.82
0.0
0.53
78.6
Run 2
46.5
2.92
1.07
83.3
98-1-1
9.6
85.56
6.67
7.22
0.0
0.55
76.4
Run 3
45.0
3.05
1.16
80.0
99-1-0
10.1
90.92
3.47
4.63
0.0
0.98
82.9
Run 4
45.2
3.03
1.14
84.3
99-1-0
10.8
89.40
3.48
5.81
0.0
1.31
81.4
Run 5
45.2
2.96
1.12
80.2
99-0-1
10.9
87.28
6.94
4.62
0.0
1.16
80.0
QA Anion Resin
Travel Blank
45.0
3.49
1.32
88.5
96-4-0
3.8
95.07
3.52
1.41
0.0
0.0
94.3
25
-------
To determine the resin utilization, the ions retained by the resin before column exhaustion and ion break-
through were quantified using a mass balance. Ions in the feed rinse wastewater applied to the column,
less those ions found exiting the column in the product DI water, equal those retained within the resin.
From Table 7, the PFC-100 H cationic resin was found to have an average remaining total capacity of
1.82 meq/ml (96.0 percent of its original). Considering a column containing 18 ft3 of resin, this yields a
column capacity of 927 equivalents. Test runs one, four, and five resulted in useable data for both the
feed rinse wastewater volume and cation analysis (Table 4), and for the analysis of product DI water
cations (Table 9). For test run one, 547.2 cationic equivalents were applied to the resin in the feed rinse
wastewater, while 63.57 were passed through the resin bed and were quantified in the product DI
water. The difference, 483.53 equivalents, was retained by the cationic resin; compared to the column
capacity of 927 equivalents, the cationic column
shows a resin utilization of 52.2 percent. For run
four, 678.27 equivalents were applied, and
267.44 were passed through, resulting in a resin
utilization of 44.3 percent. For run five, 777.45
equivalents were applied, and 374.95 were
found in the product DI water, resulting in a resin
utilization of 43.4 percent. Therefore, the aver-
age resin utilization measured in the three useable
test runs was 46.6 ± 4.6 percent.
To determine the regenerant efficiency, data from
the Cationic Regenerant Waste Results (Table 5)
and the Regenerant Analysis Results (Table 8)
was used to compare the ions removed to the
number applied. Test runs four and five yielded
useable data for both cation species and acidity
analysis. For test run four, 246.07 equivalents
Photo 10. Packaged Cation/Anion Resin
samples just after extraction from columns.
were measured in the cationic regenerant waste stream. Using a volume of 299 gallons, and an acid
concentration of 88,000 mg/L as CaCO3 measured for the regenerant, it can be seen that 1991.8
equivalents were applied to the column in the acid regenerant solution. This results in a regenerant
efficiency of 12.4 percent. For test run five, 827.89 equivalents were measured in the cationic
regenerant waste stream. Using a volume of 265 gallons, and an acid concentration of 87,000 mg/L as
CaCO3 measured for the regenerant, it can be seen that 1745.3 equivalents were applied to the column
in the regenerant solution, yielding a regenerant efficiency of 47.4 percent. The average regenerant
efficiency measured in the two useable test runs was therefore 29.9 ± 28.8 percent.
Resin utilization for the anionic resin was also determined using a mass balance calculation. The PFA-
300 OH anionic resin was found to have an average remaining total capacity of 1.12 meq/ml (79.9
percent of its original). Considering a resin volume of 18 ft3, this yields a column capacity of 570.8
equivalents. Test runs one and four yielded useable data for anions found in the feed rinse wastewater
(Table 4), and the Anionic Regenerant Waste Results (Table 6). To determine the resin utilization for test
run one, the volume of 66,845 gallons was used along with the analytical data and a total of 504.9
equivalents were calculated to have been applied to the column, while 51.9 equivalents were seen to
have passed through in the product DI water. The difference of 453.0 equivalents was retained by the
26
-------
anionic resin; compared to the column capacity of 570.8 equivalents, the cationic column shows a resin
utilization of 79.4 percent. For run four, 434.9 equivalents were applied, and 235.1 were found in the
product DI water, resulting in a resin utilization of 3 5.0 percent. Therefore, the average resin utilization
measured in the two useable test runs was 57.2 ±36.5 percent.
To determine the regeneration efficiency, data from the Anionic Regenerant Waste Results (Table 6) and
the Regenerant Analysis Results (Table 8) were used to compare the ions removed to the number
applied. Test runs one and four yielded useable data for both anion species and basic regenerant
analysis. For test run one, 423.5 equivalents were measured in the cationic regenerant waste stream.
Using a volume of 281 gallons, and a base concentration of 67,000 mg/L as CaCO3 measured for the
regenerant, it can be seen that 1425.2 equivalents were applied to the column in the basic regenerant
solution. This results in a regeneration efficiency of 29.7 percent. For test run four, 424.4 equivalents
were measured in the cationic regenerant waste stream. Using a volume of 260 gallons, and a base
concentration of 63,000 mg/L as CaCO3 measured for the regenerant, it can be seen that 1239.4
equivalents were applied to the column in the regenerant solution, yielding a regeneration efficiency of
34.2 percent. The average regeneration efficiency measured in the two useable test runs was therefore
32.0 ±3.7 percent.
5.4 Rinse Wastewater Volume Treated
The volume of rinse wastewater treated was
measured with an inline flow sensor and totalizer.
The recorded values are found in Table 4. Feed
Rinse Wastewater Analysis Results. The totalizer
read both current flowrates and the total flow
over the period of operation. Upon re-
certification of the flow sensors at the
manufacturer's testing facility, no units were found
to be out of calibration. Based in the five runs
detailed in Table 4, the rinse wastewater volume
treated averaged 75,565 ± 9,663 gallons. The
first three runs were all around 66,100 gallons;
the last two just under 90,000 gallons.
5.5 Masses of Acid and Base Consumed
The masses of acid and base consumed were
determined by monitoring the volumes of acid
and base solutions applied to the columns during
regeneration, combined with measurements of
those solutions for concentration. The flows from
the acid and base tanks were each measured with
an inline flow totalizer. Table 8 shows the results
of the Regenerant Analysis. QAsamples which
Photo 11. Extracting acid tank sample with
glass Coliwasa tube.
27
-------
were rejected are denoted with a footnote (1); dependant field samples which were unuseable because of
QA sample rej ection are denoted with a footnote (2).
Table 8. Regenerant Analysis Results
Acidic Regenerant
Parameter
Volume (gal)
HCl(mg/LasCaCO,)
Run 1
266
(2) 12,000
Run 2
265
(2) 100000
Run 3
260
(2) 92000
Run 4
299
88000
Run 5
265
87000
QA Acid Standard
6%HCl(mg/LasCaCO,)
(1) 10000
(1) 93000
(1) 71000
36000
34000
Basic Regenerant
Volume (gal)
NaOH(mg/LasCaCO,)
281
67000
280
65000
279
67000
260
63000
272
65000
QA Base Standard
6% NaOH (mg/L as CaCO3)
76000
76000
77000
78000
74000
The masses and volumes of acid and base used per regeneration were determined by measuring the
volumes of acid and base solutions applied to the columns during each test run. These volumes were
combined with analysis of those solutions for concentration to determine the masses used. The flows
from the acid and base tanks were measured with an inline flow sensor and recording totalizer. Each of
the five values for acid and base regenerant volumes recorded at AEC were useable. The acid volume
averaged 27' 1 ±11.6 gallons, ranging from 260 to 299. The base volume averaged 274.4 ±6.5 gallons,
with a range of 260 to 281. The mass was calculated using the average of the five volumes recorded,
and the two concentrations which were acceptable, those from runs four and five. The average for acid
volume of 271 gallons and concentration of 87,500 mg/L as CaCO3 yielded a mass of 144.3 Ibs HC1,
which corresponds to 38.9 gallons of concentrated HC1 solution (3 7 percent w/v). Thus, each
regeneration cycle for the cationic column was found to require slightly less than 40 gallons of
concentrated HC1. As described in Section 2.2 Regeneration, a portion of the acidic regenerant solution
was reused from the previous regeneration cycle, but that fraction was not determined in this study.
Each of the volume measurements, and each of the Q A samples associated with the base regenerant
study were useable, therefore the reported data is an average of all five test runs. The average base
regenerant used was 274.4 ±6.5 gallons. The average base concentration was 65,400 mg/L as
CaCO3, which yields an average mass of 119.7 pounds NaOH. This corresponds to 18.7 gallons of
concentrated NaOH solution (5 0 percent w/v) used per anionic column regeneration. As with the acidic
regenerant, a portion of the basic regenerant solution was reused from the previous regeneration cycle,
but that fraction was not determined in this study.
28
-------
5.6 Masses of Metal Species in the Regenerant Waste
The concentrations of cations in the regenerant waste were determined for mass balance calculations
and to provide information for potential end-users and metal reclaimers. The concentrations were used
with regenerant waste volume measurements to calculate the masses of metal species in the regenerant
waste. The average and range for the masses of the representative metal species copper, nickel, and
zinc were determined.
Each of the five test runs provided useable concentration data for metals, and all but test run two yielded
useable data for waste volumes. The average masses and ranges were found tobel!3.8±89.7g and
24.9 to 272.5 g for copper, 175.3 ± 70.5 g and 47.5 to 227.9 g for nickel, and 580.8 ± 411.5 g and
65.6 to 1,078.7 g for zinc.
5.7 Product DI Water Quality
EC readings were recorded daily from the panel display. Before the evaluation, the EC of the product
DI water was monitored using the existing conductivity sensor/meter in the effluent pipe. Hydromatix
reported that at the beginning of each treatment, the EC was about 0.3 jiS/cm, and that the set point for
the end of the treatment was normally chosen to be about 20 jiS/cm. Although the displayed EC at the
start of treatment was about 0.5-1 jiS/cm, the end of
treatment set point was actually set at 65-75 jiS/cm by
the operator. When the sensor/meter indicates the EC
was greater than or equal to the set point, the treated
water EC indicator light on the panel illuminated and the
rinse wastewater flow was redirected to a fresh set of
columns.
Five product DI water samples were collected, one at
the end of each test run, when the set point had been
reached. These samples were measured for the same
constituents as the feed rinse wastewater, with an addi-
tional analysis for electrical conductivity. The average and
range for the EC of the product DI water was deter-
mined from the five runs. The reported values for maxi-
mum ionic concentrations in the product DI water were
determined from useable test runs only.
Product DI Water Analysis Results are presented in Table
9. QA samples which were rejected are denoted with a
footnote (1); dependant field samples which were
unuseable because of QA sample rej ection are denoted
with a footnote (2). As measured by ATL, the EC of the
DI water averaged 36 |iS/cm at the end of a run, with Photo 12. Labeled water samples
extreme values of 13 and 78 |i S/cm noted. The EC sealed in plastic bags.
29
-------
values reported on the control panel often exceeded 100 jiS/cm at the end of a run. Other water quality
indicators measured included pH averaging 4.5, TDS averaging 36 mg/L, and non-detectable alkalinity.
The presence of elevated chloride concentrations, and decreased pH levels, are associated with end of
run samples. This is an indication that the anion column resin is exhausted first, which is by design. If the
cationic column was exhausted prior to the anionic, metals would pass through and enter the down-
stream anionic column. In the anionic column the pH is raised by the release of hydroxide ions; these
would form hydroxide precipitates with any metals present, which would tend to foul the resin bed. By
design, the anion column is exhausted before the cation. Metals are still removed from the waste stream,
but anions are not exchanged for hydroxide ions. Hence, the anions are present in the product water
and no hydroxide ions have been released to react with the hydrogen ions, resulting in a lower pH.
Table 9. Product DI Water Analysis Results
Product DI Water Analysis
Parameter
Al
B
Cu
K
Na
Ni
Zn
NH/ ( as N)
ci-
F-
SO;2
NO; ( as N)
P04-3(asP)
TDS
Conductivity
alkalinity
pH
Run 1
ND(<0.10)
0.63
0.0075
ND (<2.0)
ND (<2.0)
0.01
0.010
ND (<0.030)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.5)
ND (<0.50)
ND(<2.5)
15
13
ND (<2.0)
5.48
Run 2
ND(<0.10)
0.71
0.01
(2) 2.4
ND (<2.0)
ND (<0.0030)
0.010
0.058
(2) 6.4
1.4
ND (<2.5)
ND (<0.50)
ND(<2.5)
23
36
ND (<2.0)
4.3
Run 3
ND(<0.10)
0.7
0.003
2.7
(2) ND (<2.0)
0.0058
0.010
0.12
(2) 3.8
1.5
ND (<2.5)
ND (<0.50)
ND(<2.5)
21
31
ND (<2.0)
4.3
Run 4
ND(<0.10)
2.4
ND (<0.0030)
ND (<2.0)
ND (<2.0)
0.0079
ND(<0.010)
0.41
0.56
5.5
ND (<2.5)
ND (<0.50)
ND(<2.5)
86
78
ND (<2.0)
4.04
Run 5
0.1
3.8
0.02
ND (<2.0)
ND (<2.0)
ND (<0.0030)
0.01
0.14
(2) 5.1
1.1
(2) ND (<2.5)
ND (<0.50)
ND(<2.5)
N/A
23
N/A
N/A
Two DI water samples were collected at the start and midpoint of a treatment run, in addition to the
product DI water sample collected at the end of the run. The start and midpoint samples were collected
to show the performance of the system during normal treatment operations, whereas the sample col-
lected at the end of the run shows the product DI water in the worst case condition, just prior to column
exhaustion. For the first sample collected at the start of the run, chloride was detected at 4.5 mg/L,
ammonia (as N) at 0.28, and boron at 0.05 mg/L. All other ions from the analytical suite were not found
above the detection limit. The sample conductivity was 0.5 jiS/cm after 7657 gallons had been pro-
cessed, with an alkalinity of 2.1 mg/L and a pH of 7.1. The midpoint sample was collected after 3 5,790
gallons had been treated. Only ammonia (as N) was detected at 0.77 mg/L; all other ions were below
30
-------
the detection limits. The alkalinity was 2. Img/L, the TDS non-detectable, and the pH was 8.0. Typical
panel readouts during the start and midpoints of runs were from 0.5-2 |iS/cm, and these values agreed
with analytical results determined by ATL.
5.8 Worker Health and Safety
Onsite observations at AEC, end-user interviews, and reviews of Hydromatix documentation were used
to assess the risks posed to worker health and safety posed by the 786E system. These observations
and inquiries indicate that accidental releases due to the failure of piping, valves, or pumps, appear to be
unlikely. Routine contact with the system should not result in worker exposure because the waste and
regeneration solutions are entirely contained within sealed pipes. Routine maintenance operations such
as filter cartridge removal and acid and base concentrate replenishment may involve contact with haz-
ardous solutions and could therefore pose a risk. Non-routine operations such as resin and carbon
change-outs would similarly involve hazardous conditions. However, the risk from exposure can be
minimized by operators following established operating procedures including adherence to the individual
plant's health and safety plan.
The Hydromatix system is typically located in plating shops where potential chemical hazards exist. Such
sites should have eye wash stations and safety showers, first aid kits, and all applicable Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDS) available. Workers should have training appropriate for operations involving
hazardous chemicals. The training should ensure that employers are complying with federal and state
regulations. The Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard
located in 29 CFR1910.120 sets forth training requirements for employers and workers involved in
hazardous waste clean up, treatment, and emergency response operations. Personal protective equip-
ment including eye protection, gloves, boots, coveralls, and ear protection should be required when
physical or chemical hazards are present. An on-going program of continued hazard monitoring, health
and safety plan review and modification, re-training, and frequent inspection should be established.
While using the 786E system end-users should follow the recommended safety practices as out-
lined in the Hydromatix Installa-
tion, Operation, and Maintenance
Manual (Appendix G). The
Hydromatix system itself does not
appear to pose a danger to work-
ers during normal operation,
although proper precautions
should be taken around acidic
and basic solutions, holding tanks,
and piping and pumping systems.
Secondary containment around
the tank and piping systems, and
good housekeeping procedures
should provide protection against
Photo 13. Sampling air over acid tank porthole for HC1.
spills and leaks.
31
-------
At AEC, the Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange Recycling System has been operating for five years with-
out a significant safety incident. As a precaution before beginning sampling of the hydrochloric acid tank,
DISC personnel took measurements of air quality above the sample port. ADraeger CMS pump and
hydrogen chloride chip were used to detect acid gas emissions from above the acid make-up tank
sample port. During multiple sampling events, DISC personnel detected no measurable hydrogen chlo-
ride concentrations in the air above the sample port of the hydrochloric acid tank. OSHA has estab-
lished a permissible exposure limit for hydrogen chloride gas of no greater than 5 ppm maximum at any
time. The monitoring equipment utilized has a detection limit of 1 ppm HC1; thus, the initial concern of
gas generation from the acid storage tank and consequent exposure to workers was shown to be of
reduced concern.
5.9 End-user Data Collection
Early in the evaluation, DISC staff had contacted, by phone, several Hydromatix end-users. Sets of
questions on the following main subj ects were asked: system information, process information, volume
of regenerant, waste generation/management, system performance, reliability, and user health and safety.
The purpose of the phone questionnaires was to provide supportive information to the evaluation of this
technology and to develop a database of information from which to select end-users for onsite visits.
Three end-user questionnaires were completed (Appendix H); questionnaire topics were chosen to
characterize system performance:
System Information
systems:
- chosen because capable of zero discharge
- were evaluated/compared b efore purchase
- were not modified.
Process Information
- process:
- used for Ni&Cu
11 -12 gal regenerant/ft3 resin (key obj ective)
- have been operating for 2-3 yrs
3 + regenerations/wk.
Waste Generation and Waste Management Information
- ~2 regeneration cycles collected
- use evaporation
- waste filter cakes are sent for reclamation
- average 90 Ibs/day of filter cake
- disposal cost -$0.24/lb.
- air permit needed
- metals analysis available
- used precipitation previously
System Performance (cleaning, regenerant has not increased, maintenance)
- consistent regenerant volumes
- easy system operation
32
-------
low maintenance
- increased water quality
- reduced operating cost
Reliability
- repairs can easily be made by operators
- very reliable system
- resin lasts approximately 1 year
User Health and Safety
- protective clothing is not required
- no major leaks
- no health and safety issues
Operator Comments
system works well and is easy to use
6.0 Hazardous Waste Management and Hazardous Waste Regulations
Ion exchange systems such as the Hydromatix 786E concentrate and separate dilute wastewaters from
metal finishing operations, producing a metal-free treated water which is reused onsite, but also produc-
ing a concentrated regenerant waste which requires further treatment. The concentrated regenerant
waste is typically a hazardous waste, and in accordance with 40 CFR Part 261, is subj ect to permit
requirements and other restrictions at the Federal, State, and local levels. Since a significant portion of
the wastewater treated by the Hydromatix system is reused onsite, the ion exchange system is recog-
nized as a recycling unit, and may be exempt from permit requirements. Downstream processes apart
from the ion exchange system which change the physical or chemical characteristics of the regenerant
waste may still constitute hazardous waste treatment. Hazardous waste treatment processes could in-
clude neutralization of the regenerant waste (physical/chemical treatment), and evaporation of the neu-
tralized regenerant wastes (volume reduction). California's Permit-by-Rule regulations found in Califor-
nia Code of Regulations (CCR) 45 §67450.1 should be consulted with relevant Federal, State, and
local regulatory requirements to determine the permit requirements and other restrictions for treatment of
hazardous wastes. For wastewater treatment systems in California, requirements found in Health and
Safety Code (HSC) §25143.2 (c)(2) and (d)l should be consulted for recycling provisions. Questions
may be directed to the Waste Identification and Recycling Section (WIRS) of DISC.
7.0 Summary of Verification Activities and Sampling Results
This ETV report documented the Hydromatix 786E Ion Exchange Rinsewater Recycling System evalu-
ated by DISC at Aero-Electric Connectors in Spring 2001. The primary obj ectives of regenerant waste
specific volume and cation and anion exchange capacities were determined. This determination allowed
DTSC to state how much waste is generated by the Hydromatix system while documenting the amount
of exchange capacity restoration achieved. Secondary objectives included providing information for
potential end-users and metal reclaimers, and observing worker health and safety conditions during
normal operation of the system. Because no pass or fail criteria were established for this evaluation, the
results of the verification performance form the basis for the conclusions of this report.
33
-------
The central claim made by Hydromatix involved the ratio of gallons of waste produced per cubic foot
of resin regenerated. DISC was able to quantify these values over five test runs and determine the
regenerant waste specific volume. A reduced specific volume allows more waste management options
and assists metal plating facilities in achieving zero wastewater discharge. The evaluation verified,
through independent testing, the following performance results:
Regenerant waste volume produced: Measured over four test runs, the regenerant waste volume
produced averaged 17.1 ±0.2 gal/ ft3 resin. The cationic regenerant waste produced averaged 3 02
gal for 18 ft3 of resin, yielding a specific volume of 16.8 ± 0.2 gal/ft3. The anionic regenerant waste
produced averaged 313 gal for 18 ft3 of resin, yielding a specific volume of 17.4 ± 0.1 gal/ft3. These
regenerant waste values were different from those predicted in the Workplan.
Cation and anion exchange capacities restored: The percentages of the resin capacities restored were
measured through direct resin sampling and laboratory analysis. Cation and anion exchange capacities
restored were 94.5 ±6.8 and 88.7 ±1.7 percent, respectively. Compared to new resin material, the
remaining cationic resin capacity averaged 96.0 ± 2.1 percent, and the remaining anionic resin
capacity averaged 79.9 ±1.8 percent. Mass balances were used to determine the resin utilization and
regenerant efficiencies. For the cation resin, the resin utilization was found to be 46.6 ± 4.6 percent,
and the regenerant efficiency was 29.9 ±28.8 percent. For the anion resin, the resin utilization was
found to be 57.2 ±36.5 percent, while the regenerant efficiency was 32.0 ±3.7 percent. No
prediction of values for resin capacity restoration, utilization, or regeneration efficiency were stated in
the Workplan; these values serve as a baseline for future comparisons of ion exchange technologies.
Rinse wastewater volume treated: The rinse wastewater volumes treated averaged
75,565 ± 9,663 gallons per test run.
Masses of acid and base consumed: The acid volume averaged 271 ± 11.6 gallons ranging from
260-299 gallon. The base volume averaged 274 gal ranging from 260-281 gallon. The masses of
acid and base used were 144.3 pounds of HC1 and 119.7 pounds of NaOH per regeneration cycle.
The volumes of concentrated acid and base were 38.9 gallons 37 percentHCl, and 18.7 gallons 50
percent NaOH.
Masses of metal species in the regenerant waste: The averages and ranges for the masses of the
representative metal species copper, nickel, and zinc the regenerant waste were determined. The
masses and ranges were found to be: 113.8 ± 89.7 g and 24.9 to 272.5 g for copper, and 175.3 ±
70.5 g and 47.5 to 272.5 g for nickel, and 580.8 ±411.5 g and 65.6 to 1,078.7 g for zinc. These
masses were contained in an average cationic regenerant waste volume of 302 gallons per test run.
Product DI water quality: The ECs in the product DI water collected at the end of the treatment runs
averaged 36 jiS/cm, with extreme values of 13 and 78 jiS/cm noted. Typical panel readouts during
the start and midpoints of runs were from 0.5 to 2 |iS/cm. Maximum ionic contamination of the
product DI water was 2.7 mg/L potassium (K) and 6.4 mg/L chloride (Cl). Values for pH ranged
from 4.04 to 5.48, with an average pH of 4.5.
34
-------
User opinion responses on system performance, reliability, and waste generation were collected; all
were generally favorable, with no negative comments noted. The data resulting from field testing was
reviewed by the Proj ect Review Team. The collected data and supporting information were sufficient
to verify the technology, and DTSC has prepared a Verification Decision. Additional field tests are
not necessary, and the scope of the Environmental Technology Verification is representative of a
potential commercial application.
8.0 Vendor's Comments
The following information was provided by Hydromatix. The purpose is to provide the vendor
with the opportunity to share additional information on their technology. This information
does not reflect agreement or approval by U.S. EPA and Cal/EPA.
Target Market Applications: The features of the technology offer tremendous advantages in the
following areas:
a. Metal Finishing Rinsewater
b. Printed Wiring Board Rinsewater
c. Semiconductor Li quid Abatement
d. Groundwater Remediation
Competitive Advantage: The minimized waste volume produced by the 786E can be up to 93% less
than conventional ion exchange base recycling system. This makes evaporation of the residual liquid
waste feasible. Thus the 786E provides the bridge to zero discharge. Regardless if the user wishes to
be zero discharge or not, the cost for wastewater treatment is reduced substantially.
System Operating Costs: The Hydromatix 786E System costs approximately $5.00 per 1,000
gallons treated to operate. This takes into consideration the present value of 5 years worth of
consumables (resins included), sludge haul off, and labor. This compares with treat and discharge
systems based on conventional precipitation with an operation cost between $20.00 and $3 5.00 per
1,000 gallons treated. These costs include the cost of City water and sewage treatment. The variance
is due to the differences in plating operations and municipal water and sewer charges. The typical
payback period, when using a Hydromatix 786 System is under two years, when compared to
conventional treatment.
Compliance: With a minimized waste treatment system, the final waste volume can be either evapo-
rated or batch treated. If a user opts for batch treatment, they have the option to be zero discharge at
any time in the future. In a batch treatment mode, the user releases the batch to the POTW when
their in-house tests indicate that compliance targets are within limits. The batch treater, typically the
chemical precipitation unit that was previously used on a continuous basis as the treat and discharge
treatment system. When a 786E System is installed, the [regenerant] waste can be treated by this
same precipitation unit, but unlike the continuous mode, in a batch, target contaminants can be
precipitated to their optimum levels. Since pH plays a significant role in optimizing the precipitation of
various mixed metals, the batch allows for the ability to vary the pH during the batch process, thus
insuring optimum separation and removal.
35
-------
Environmental benefits of a closed loop water system include:
a. Substantially reduced water requirements. This is particularly beneficial in arid areas or
those that experience water shortages, but is of value anywhere, because it means that less water
is diverted from municipal supplies for the manufacturing process.
b. Zero discharge. This alleviates the environmental risks and challenges of water treatment.
Removing the potential for heavy metal contamination of water supplies is an obvious advantage.
Lowering the demand on energy and resource intensive waste treatment processes is also a
significant benefit.
c. Other factors. Anumber of environmental and ecological problems are associated with industrial
water use, even with proper water treatment facilities. These include such local disturbances as
elevated temperatures in streams and rivers.
The economic and business benefits also include:
a. Recycles DI water. By putting DI water back into the rinsewater systems, the expense of and
infrastructure needs for city water purification or in the case of the electronics industries, ultrapure
water, are diminished.
b. Avoids water and sewer costs. These can be particularly high in specific metropolitan area. Such
cost avoidance can mean that the zero discharge system is considerably less expensive overtime
than continuing to treat and discharge water.
c. Avoids regulatory procedures. The closed loop system requires little or no regulation.
d. Alleviates risk. As a more environmentally sound method, the process lessens the likelihood of
liability claims.
Hydromatix Contact: The latest information about Hydromatix products can be obtained from
Hydromatix at:
Greg White
BOC Edwards Hydromatix
10450 Pioneer Blvd., SantaFe Springs, CA 90670
Telephone (800) 2215152
Systems Costs: The Hydromatix 786E System costs approximately $5.00 per 1,000 gallons treated to
operate. This takes into consideration the present value of 5 years worth of consumables (resins
included), sludge haul off, and labor. This compares with treat and discharge systems based on
conventional precipitation with an operation costbetween $20.00 and $35.00 per 1,000 gallons
treated. These costs include the cost of City water and sewage treatment. The variance is due to the
differences in plating operations and municipal water and sewer charges. The typical payback period,
when using a Hydromatix 786 System is under two years, when compared to conventional treatment.
Compliance: With a minimized waste treatment system, the final waste volume can be either evaporated
or "batch treated". If a user opts for batch treatment, they have the option to be zero discharge at any
time in the future. In a batch treatment mode, the user releases the batch to the POTW when their in-
house tests indicate that compliance targets are within limits. The batch treater, typically the chemical
precipitation unit that was previously be used on a continuous basis as the "treat and discharge"
treatment system. When a 786E System is installed, the regenerate waste can be treated by this same
36
-------
precipitation unit, but unlike the continuous mode, in a batch, target contaminants can be precipitated to
their optimum levels. Since pH plays a significant role in optimizing the precipitation of various mixed
metals, the batch allows for the ability to vary the pH during the batch process, thus insuring optimum
separation and removal.
The latest information about Hydromatix products can be obtained from Hydromatix at:
Greg White - Telephone (800) 221 -5152
6.0 Availability of Verification Statement and Report
Copies of the public Verification Statement and Verification Report are available from the following:
(NOTE: Appendices A - H are included as separate volumes, and are available from DTSC upon
request.)
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419
Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/etv/library.htm (electronic copy)
37
------- |