September 2004
04/19/WQPC-SWP
EPA/600/R-04/182
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
Wastewater from Individual
Residential Homes
BioConcepts, Inc.
ReCip® RTS ~ 500 System
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
EMAIL:
BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT -
NITRIFICATION AND DENITRIFICATION FOR NITROGEN
REDUCTION
REDUCTION OF NITROGEN IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
FROM INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL HOMES
RECIP® RTS ~ 500 SYSTEM
BIOCONCEPTS, INC.
P.O. BOX 885
ORIENTAL, NC 28571-0885
alprivette@coastalnet.com
PHONE: (252)249-1376
FAX: (707) 598 7615
NSF International (NSF) operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The WQPC
evaluated the performance of the BioConcepts Inc., ReCip® RTS ~ 500 System (ReCip®) for nitrogen
removal in residential applications. This verification statement provides a summary of the test results for
the ReCip®. The Barnstable County [Massachusetts] Department of Health and Environment (BCDHE)
performed the verification testing.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created the ETV Program to facilitate deployment of
innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination
of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the
acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by
providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,
distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups
consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters, and the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
verifiable quality are generated, and that the results are defensible.
04/19/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
September 2004
-------
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the ReCip® was conducted over a 12-month period at the Massachusetts
Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC) located on Otis Air National Guard Base in Bourne,
Massachusetts. A nine-week startup period preceded the verification test to provide time for the
development of an acclimated biological growth. The verification test included monthly sampling of
influent and effluent wastewater, and five test sequences designed to test the unit's response to differing
load conditions and power failure. The ReCip® proved capable of removing nitrogen from the wastewater.
Over the verification period, the total nitrogen (TN) concentration in the influent averaged 36 mg/L and
the TN in the effluent averaged 15 mg/L.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description is provided by the vendor and does not represent verified
information.
The ReCip® uses a filter medium contained in two adjacent, equally dimensioned cells. The medium
provides a surface for microbes to attach, live, and grow. Timers on each of two reciprocating pumps
control the process. BioConcepts Inc. describes the basic treatment processes as follows: at the start of the
cycle, the first cell of the ReCip® unit is filled nearly to the top with wastewater. The pump located in the
cell then pumps the liquid into the second cell, until the first cell is nearly empty. As the liquid leaves the
first cell, the void space formerly occupied by the liquid fills with air from the vent system, exposing the
medium to atmospheric oxygen contained in the air. At this point, the second cell is nearly full and the
first cell is nearly empty. The two cells remain in this state for a time before the second cell's pump sends
the liquid back to the first cell, drawing air into the second cell. Wastewater that clings to the medium
contains nutrients and organics, which are oxidized by bacteria (biofilm) that are exposed to the air. The
bacteria live and grow on the medium. In the presence of oxygen, organic matter is converted to carbon
dioxide and water, and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) is converted to nitrate nitrogen (NO3~). Anaerobic
decomposition of the contaminants continues in the wastewater that is not exposed to air (at the very
bottom of the cells), converting the NO3" to nitrogen gas. The two cells continue to fill and drain, with rest
periods between the cycles, until additional wastewater flows into the first cell. When the capacity of the
first cell is met, its contents are pumped into the second cell. The excess volume exits the overflow of the
second cell as treated effluent. As an example, if the rated capacity of the tanks is 500 gallons and one
extra gallon enters the system, a gallon of treated effluent will exit cell number two.
A basic residential ReCip® wastewater treatment system includes: (1) a standard septic tank to provide
solids separation and primary treatment; (2) a ReCip® unit to provide secondary and tertiary treatment for
the septic tank effluent; and (3) a tile field or other system for final disposal of treated effluent.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The MASSTC site is located on the Otis Air National Guard Base in Bourne, Massachusetts. The site uses
domestic wastewater from the base's residential housing, and sanitary wastewater from other military
buildings. Raw wastewater, after passing through a one-inch bar screen, is pumped to a dosing channel at
the test site. This channel is equipped with four recirculation pumps spaced along the channel length to
ensure mixing, such that the wastewater is of similar quality at all locations along the channel.
Wastewater is dosed to the test unit using a pump submerged in the dosing channel. A programmable
logic controller (PLC) is used to control the pumps and the dosing sequence or cycle.
04/19/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-ii
-------
Methods and Procedures
The ReCip® was installed by a contractor, in conjunction with the BCDHE support team, in August 2002.
An existing 1,500-gallon septic tank was used for the verification test. On October 29, 2002, the primary
tank was filled with wastewater and the dosing sequence began. The ReCip® unit had a design capacity of
500 gallons per day. The verification test was designed to load the system at design capacity (±10
percent) for the startup period as well as the entire 12-month test, except during the low load and vacation
stress tests. The system was dosed 15 times per day with approximately 33.3 gallons of wastewater per
dose, receiving five doses in the morning, four doses mid-day, and six doses in the evening. The dosing
volume was controlled by the dosing-pump run time for each cycle and was checked and calibrated twice
weekly.
A startup period allowed the biological community to become established and the operating conditions to
be monitored. The verification test consisted of a 12-month test period, incorporating five sequences with
varying stress conditions simulating real household conditions. The five stress sequences, performed at
two-month intervals, included washday, working parent, low load, power/equipment failure, and vacation
test sequences. Monitoring for nitrogen reduction was determined by measurement of nitrogen species
[total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), NH3-N, nitrite (NO2~), and NO3"]. Biochemical and carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5/CBOD5) and other basic parameters [pH, alkalinity, total suspended
solids (TSS), and temperature] were also monitored. Operational characteristics, such as electric use,
labor to perform maintenance, maintenance tasks, durability of the hardware, and noise and odor
production, were also evaluated.
Twenty-four-hour flow-weighted composite samples of the influent and effluent wastewater were
collected once per month under normal operating conditions and more frequently following stress tests, as
well as at the end of the verification test. Grab samples were collected each sampling day to monitor the
system pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature.
All analyses were performed in accordance with EPA-approved methods or according to the methods in
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition. An established QA/QC
program was used to monitor field sampling and laboratory analytical procedures. QA/QC requirements
included field duplicates, laboratory duplicates and spiked samples, and appropriate
equipment/instrumentation calibration procedures. Details of all test procedures, analytical methods, and
QA/QC procedures are provided in the verification report.
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
Overview
Evaluation of the ReCip® began on October 29, 2002, when the ReCip® pumps and the initial dosing
cycles were activated. Five samples of influent and effluent were collected during the startup period.
Verification testing began on January 1, 2003 and continued for twelve months, until December 21, 2003.
During the verification test, 53 sets of samples of influent and effluent were collected to measure system
performance.
Startup
The installation instructions were easy to follow, and installation proceeded without difficulty. The unit
started with no mechanical difficulty. The initial timer setting was the default value of a two-hour rest
period between pump cycles. Near the end of the startup, BioConcepts changed the timer setting to
provide a one-hour rest period, thus increasing the number of pumping cycles per day. At the end of the
nine-week start-up, effluent CBOD5 was 43 mg/L and TSS was 22 mg/L. The influent TN concentration
was 37 mg/L, and the effluent TN concentration was 30 mg/L.
04/19/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-iii
-------
Verification Test Results
The standard dosing sequence was performed daily from January 1, 2003 through December 21, 2003,
except during certain stress periods. Following completion of the 12-month verification test, the unit
continued in operation at the same dosing levels and settings for four additional months, January through
April 2004. Volume per dose and total daily volume varied only slightly during the verification test. All
monthly average doses and volumes met the requirement of being within ±10 percent of the target.
At the start of the verification test, the pump timer was reset to provide a two-hour rest period between
pump cycles. On January 22, 2003, the rest period was changed to one hour. BioConcepts requested this
change to improve system performance by introducing additional air (oxygen) to the unit by increasing
the number of pump cycles between the cells. The pump timer setting of one-hour rest periods between
cell wastewater transfers remained constant from January 22, 2003 to August 11, 2003. At that time, it
was reset to provide a half-hour rest period, at BioConcept's request.
The TSS and BOD5/CBOD5 results for the verification test, including all stress test periods, are shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. BOD5/CBOD5 and TSS Data Summary
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
BOD5
Influent
(mg/L)
200
190
360
98
52
CBOD5
Effluent
(mg/L)
28
26
67
<2
14
Percent
Removal
86
87
>99
68
6.8
Influent
(mg/L)
130
130
230
82
32
TSS
Effluent
(mg/L)
13
12
28
6
4.7
Percent
Removal
90
91
95
74
4.7
Note: The data in Table 1 are based on 53 samples.
The nitrogen results for the verification test, including all stress test periods, are shown in Table 2. The
ReCip® showed a mean TN reduction of 58 percent, with a mean NH3-N removal of 57 percent.
Table 2. Nitrogen Data Summary
TKN
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
36
36
44
24
4.1
13
14
27
5.4
4.7
NH3-N
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
23
23
35
15
3.1
10
10
18
3.4
4.0
TN
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
36
36
44
24
4.1
15
15
27
3.0
4.2
NO3
(mg/L)
Effluent
1.7
1.8
11
<0.10
2.5
NO2
(mg/L)
Effluent
0.18
0.19
0.86
<0.05
0.19
Note: The TKN, effluent NH3-N and influent TN data in Table 2 are based on 52 samples. The influent NH3-N data are
based on 51 samples. The effluent TN, NO3" and NO2" data are based on 53 samples.
Verification Test Discussion
At the beginning of the verification test, TN removal was 29 percent and NH3-N removal was 14 percent.
Following the January 22, 2003 timer change, performance began to improve. TN removal reached 50
percent by February. NH3-N removal increased more slowly, reaching 50 percent removal in mid-April
04/19/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-iv
-------
when wastewater temperatures also increased. TN, TKN, and NH3-N removals all improved as the test
continued. NH3-N removal reached 80 percent by November 2003, following the August 11, 2003 timer
change.
The washday (February 18 to 22) and working parent (April 22 to 26) stress tests did not negatively
impact nitrogen removal. In fact, NH3-N removal and TN removal improved in the post-stress-test
monitoring periods. The low load stress test, during which the hydraulic loading (250 gpd) of the ReCip®
was half of design loading, began on July 2 and ended on July 22. NH3-N, TKN, and TN removal all
decreased during the post-low-load stress test monitoring, but the ReCip® recovered within the following
three weeks. Performance returned to pre-low-load stress test levels, and removal percentages for NH3-N
and TN were consistently higher during September 2003 compared to previous periods of the test. The
power/equipment failure stress test was conducted from September 16 to 18, and showed no impact on
the unit.
The vacation stress test was started on November 18 and continued until November 27. During this
period, there was no influent flow to the system for eight days. Lower NH3-N and TKN removals were
observed during the last days of the post-stress-test monitoring period. However, performance improved
within two weeks. On the first day of post-stress-test monitoring the NO3" level in the effluent increased
to 11 mg/L, the highest level found during the entire verification test, then steadily decreased over the
next several days. It is apparent from the increase in NO3" and corresponding decrease in alkalinity
(denitrification produces alkalinity) that something upset the denitrification process. Flow to the unit had
returned to normal for nine days following the stress test, so it is not clear if the vacation stress test had a
direct impact on the denitrification process. It is more likely that something else caused the decrease in
denitrification.
The system performance returned to the same general levels achieved in September and October during
the final week of sampling in December 2003, with effluent NH3-N and TKN concentrations of less than
10 mg/L (in the 3.8 to 5.1 mg/L and 7.6 to 9.2 mg/L ranges, respectively). After a peak of 11 mg/L on
November 30, 2003, the NO3" levels improved to between 3.0 and 4.1 mg/L in late December.
Operation and Maintenance Results
Noise levels associated with pumps were measured once during the verification period using a decibel
meter. Measurements were made one meter from the unit and one and one-half meters above the ground,
at 90° intervals in four directions. The noise levels ranged from 78 to 97 decibels with a background noise
level of 85 decibels.
Qualitative odor observations based on odor strength (intensity) and type (attribute) were made 13 times
during the verification test. Observations were made during periods of low wind velocity (<10 knots), at a
distance of three feet from the treatment unit, and recorded at 90° intervals in four directions. There were
no discernible odors during the observation periods.
A dedicated electric meter serving the ReCip® was used to monitor electrical use. The average electrical
use was 2.7 kilowatts (kW) per day. Electrical use increased or decreased depending on the number of
pump cycles per day, as would be expected. The ReCip® did not require or use any chemical addition
during normal operation.
The only maintenance performed during the test was cleaning the floats on the pump in cell one. On two
occasions, March 1 and August 2, 2003, the pump did not cycle properly. This was caused by the low
water shutoff float becoming stuck, preventing the pump from operating. The pump was pulled using the
04/19/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-v
-------
procedures described in the O&M manual. The float was cleaned and the pump was reinstalled. This
solved the problem in both cases.
The ReCip® appeared to be of durable design and proved to be durable during the test. The piping and
construction materials used in the system meet the application needs. Although pump life is difficult to
estimate, the equipment used operated continuously for 17 months.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF International completed QA audits of MASSTC and the BCDHE laboratory during testing. NSF
personnel completed a technical systems audit to assure the testing was in compliance with the test plan; a
performance evaluation audit to assure that the measurement systems employed by MASSTC and the
BCDHE laboratory were adequate to produce reliable data; and a data quality audit of at least 10 percent
of the test data to assure that the reported data represented the data generated during testing. In addition to
quality assurance audits performed by NSF International, EPA QA personnel conducted a quality systems
audit of NSF International's QA Management Program.
Original signed by
Sally Gutierrez for
Lawrence W. Reiter, Ph.D.
09/30/04
Original signed by
Gordon E. Bellen
10/20/04
Lawrence W. Reiter, Ph.D. Date
Acting Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Gordon E. Bellen
Vice President
Research
NSF International
Date
04/19/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-vi
September 2004
-------
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report in no way constitutes an NSF Certification of the specific product
mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETVProtocol for Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment
Technologies for Nutrient Reduction, dated November 2000, the Verification Statement, and
the Verification Report are available from the following sources:
l.ETV Water Quality Protection Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2.NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
3.EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are available
from NSF upon request.)
EPA's Office of Wastewater Management has published a number of documents to assist
purchasers, community planners and regulators in the proper selection, operation and
management of onsite wastewater treatment systems. Two relevant documents and their
sources are:
1. Handbook for Management of Onsite and Clustered Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems http://www.epa.gov/owm/onsite
2. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual
http://www.epa/gov/owm/mtb/decent/toolbox.htm
04/19/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-vii
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic Wastewater
from Individual Residential Homes
BioConcepts, Inc.
ReCip®RTS~500
Wastewater Treatment System
Prepared by
NSF International
and
Scherger Associates
In cooperation with
Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
ETV Water Quality Protection Center
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08837
September 2004
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a
Cooperative Agreement. The Water Quality Protection Center, Source Water Protection area,
operating under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, supported this
verification effort. This document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and
recommended for public release.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental
problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
in
-------
Contents
Verification Statement VS-1
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Contents iv
Tables vi
Figures vii
Acknowledgments ix
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization (VO) 2
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2
1.2.3 Testing Organization 3
1.2.4 Technology Vendor 5
1.2.5 ETV Test Site 5
1.3 Background - Nutrient Reduction 6
1.3.1 Biological Nitrification 6
1.3.2 Biological Denitrification 7
Chapter 2 Technology Description and Operating Processes 9
2.1 Technology Description 9
2.2 ReCip® Equipment 10
2.3 Installation, Startup, Operation, and Maintenance 11
2.4 Vendor Claims 12
Chapters Methods and Test Procedures 14
3.1 Verification Test Plan and Procedures 14
3.2 MASSTC Test Site Description 14
3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures 16
3.3.1 Introduction 16
3.3.2 Objectives 16
3.3.3 Installation and Startup Procedure 16
3.4 Verification Testing - Procedures 17
3.4.1 Introduction 17
3.4.2 Objectives 17
3.4.3 System Operation - Flow Patterns and Loading Rates 17
3.4.3.1 Influent Flow Pattern 17
3.4.3.2 Stress Testing Procedures 18
3.4.3.3 Sampling Locations, Approach, andFrequency 19
3.4.3.4 Residuals Monitoring and Sampling 22
3.4.4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping 22
3.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Performance 23
3.4.5.1 Electric Use 24
3.4.5.2 Chemical Use 24
3.4.5.3 Noise 24
3.4.5.4 Odors 24
iv
-------
3.4.5.5 Mechanical Components 24
3.4.5.6 Electrical/Instrumentation Components 24
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 26
4.1 Introduction 26
4.2 Startup Test Period 26
4.2.1 Startup Flow Conditions 26
4.2.2 Startup Analytical Results 27
4.2.3 Startup Operating Conditions 28
4.3 Verification Test 28
4.3.1 Verification Test - Flow Conditions 29
4.3.2 BOD5/CBOD5 and Suspended Solids Results 30
4.3.3 Nitrogen Reduction Performance 37
4.3.3.1 Results 37
4.3.3.2 Discussion 38
4.3.4 Residuals Results 49
4.4 Operation and Maintenance 49
4.4.1 Electric Use 49
4.4.2 Chemical Use 50
4.4.3 Noise 50
4.4.4 Odor Observations 50
4.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Observations 51
4.5 Post-Verification Test Data 53
4.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 55
4.6.1 Audits 55
4.6.2 Daily Flows 55
4.6.3 Precision 55
4.6.4 Accuracy 58
4.6.5 Representativeness 60
4.6.6 Completeness 60
Appendices 61
A BioConcepts ReCip® Verification Test Plan 61
B MASSTC Field SOPs 61
C Lab Data and QA/QC Data 61
D Field Lab Log Book 61
E Spreadsheets with Calculation and Data Summary 61
F Field Operations Logs 61
Glossary 62
References 64
-------
Tables
Table 3-1.
Table 3-2.
Table 3-3.
Table 3-4.
Table 4-1.
Table 4-2.
Table 4-3.
Table 4-4.
Table 4-5.
Table 4-6.
Table 4-7.
Table 4-8.
Table 4-9.
Table 4-10.
Table 4-11.
Historical MAS STC Wastewater Data [[[ 15
Sampling Matrix [[[ 20
Sampling Schedule for ReCip® [[[ 22
Summary of Analytical Methods and Precision and Accuracy Requirements ........... 23
Flow Volume Data - Startup Period [[[ 27
Influent Wastewater Quality - Startup Period [[[ 27
ReCip® Effluent Quality - Startup Period [[[ 28
ReCip® Influent Volume Summary [[[ 30
ReCip® BOD5/CBOD5 and TSS Results [[[ 35
ReCip® Influent and Effluent Nitrogen Data [[[ 45
ReCip® Alkalinity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen Results ............................................. 47
Summary of ReCip® Electrical Usage (kW/day) [[[ 50
ReCip® Noise Measurements [[[ 50
-------
Figures
®
Figure 2-1. ReCip general layout [[[ 13
®
Figure 4-1. ReCip BOD5/CBOD5 results [[[ 33
Figure 4-2. ReCip® total suspended solids results [[[ 34
Figure 4-3. ReCip® Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen results [[[ 40
Figure 4-4. ReCip® ammonia nitrogen results [[[ 41
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BDCHE Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
BOD5 Biochemical oxygen demand (five-day)
°C Degrees Celsius (temperature)
CBOD5 Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (five-day)
COC Chain of custody
DO Dissolved oxygen
DQI Data quality indicators
DQO Data quality objectives
EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
GAI Groundwater Analytical, Inc.
gal Gallons
gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
MASSTC Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center
mg/L Milligrams per liter
mL Milliliters
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
NSF NSF International
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M Operation and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development, EPA
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PLC Programmable logic controller
QA Quality assurance
QAPP Quality assurance project plan
QC Quality control
QMP Quality management plan
ReCip® ReCip® ~ 500 Wastewater Treatment System
RPD Relative percent difference
SAG Stakeholder Advisory Group
SOP Standard operating procedure
SWP Source Water Protection Area, Water Quality Protection Center
TKN Total Kj eldahl Nitrogen
TN Total nitrogen
TO Testing organization
VO Verification organization
VR Verification report
VTP Verification test plan
WQPC Water Quality Protection Center
Vlll
-------
Acknowledgments
The Testing Organization (TO), the Barnstable County Department of Health and the
Environment, was responsible for all elements in the testing sequence, including collection of
samples, calibration and verification of instruments, data collection and analysis, and data
management. Mr. George Heufelder was the project manager for the verification test.
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630
(508) 375-6616
Contact: Mr. George Heufelder, Project Manager
Email: gheufeld@capecod.net
Scherger Associates assisted with preparation of the verification report.
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
(734)213-8150
Contact: Mr. Dale A. Scherger
Email: Daleres@aol.com
The laboratories that conducted the analytical work for this study were:
Barnstable County Health Laboratory
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630
(508) 375-6605
Contact: Gongmin Lei
Email: bcdhelab@cape.com
Groundwater Analytical, Inc. (GAI)
228 Main Street
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts 02532
(508) 759-4441
Contact: Jonathan Sanford
www. groundwateranalytical .com
IX
-------
The manufacturer of the equipment is:
BioConcepts, Inc.
P.O. Box 885
Oriental, North Carolina 28571
(252)249-1376
Contact: Al Privette, President
Email: alprivette@coastalnet.com
The TO wishes to thank NSF International, especially Mr. Thomas Stevens, Project Manager,
and Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator, for providing guidance and program management.
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The ETV Program's goal is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the
acceptance and use of innovative, improved, and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to
achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to
those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental
technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations (TO); stakeholder
groups that consist of buyers, vendor organizations, consulting engineers, and regulators; and the
full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance
of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of
stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data,
and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous
quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and
that the results are defensible.
In cooperation with EPA, NSF International (NSF) operates the Water Quality Protection Center
(WQPC), one of six centers under ETV. Source Water Protection (SWP) is one area within the
WQPC. The WQPC-SWP evaluated the performance of the BioConcepts, Inc. ReCip® RTS ~
500 Wastewater Treatment System (ReCip®) for the reduction of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),
ammonia nitrogen (NHa-N), nitrite nitrogen (NO2~), and nitrate (NOs") present in residential
wastewater. BioConcepts, Inc. (BioConcepts) sells the ReCip® to treat wastewater from single-
family homes. Other BioConcepts models similar to the ReCip® are available for agricultural,
residential development, industrial, and similar applications, but this evaluation does not address
those models. The ReCip® is designed to work in conjunction with a conventional septic tank
system to provide nitrogen reduction in addition to the removal of organics and solids present in
these wastewaters. This report provides the verification test results for the ReCip®, in
accordance with the ETV Protocol for the Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment
Technologies for Nutrient Reduction, November 2000 (2).
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the ReCip® was a cooperative effort between the following participants:
• NSF International
• Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center
• Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment Laboratory
• Groundwater Analytical, Inc.
-------
• S cherger As soci ate s
• BioConcepts, Inc.
• EPA
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization (VO)
The WQPC of the ETV is administered through a cooperative agreement between EPA and NSF.
NSF is the verification partner organization for the WQPC. NSF administers the center, and
contracts with the TO to develop and implement the Verification Test Plan (VTP).
NSF's responsibilities as the VO included:
reviewing and commenting on the site-specific VTP;
coordinating with peer reviewers to review and comment on the VTP;
coordinating with the EPA Project Manager and the technology vendor to approve
the VTP prior to initiation of verification testing;
reviewing the quality systems of all parties involved with the TO and, subsequently,
qualifying the companies making up the TO;
overseeing the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing;
conducting an on-site audit of test procedures;
overseeing the development of a verification report and verification statement;
coordinating with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement;
and,
• providing QA/QC review and support for the TO.
Key contacts at NSF for the Verification Organization are:
Mr. Thomas Stevens, Program Manager
(734) 769-5347 email: stevenst@nsf.org
Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator
(734) 827-6821 email: mroush@nsf.org
NSF International
789 North Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
(734) 769-8010
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Management
Branch, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, NRMRL, provides administrative,
technical, and QA guidance and oversight on all ETV WQPC activities. EPA reviews and
approves each phase of the verification project. EPA's responsibilities with respect to
verification testing include:
-------
• verification test plan review and approval;
• verification report review and approval; and,
• verification statement review and approval.
The key EPA contact for this program is:
Mr. Ray Frederick, Project Officer, ETV Water Quality Protection Center
(732) 321-6627 email: frederick.ray@epa.gov
U.S. EPA,NRMRL
Urban Watershed Management Branch
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-104)
Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679
1.2.3 Testing Organization
The TO for verification testing was the Barnstable County Department of Health and
Environment (BCDHE). The project manager, Mr. George Heufelder, was responsible for the
overall development of the VTP, oversight and coordination of all testing activities, and
compilation and submission of all test information for development of this final report.
Mr. Dale Scherger of Scherger Associates was contracted by NSF to assist with the review of the
test data and preparation of the verification report and verification statement.
The BCDHE Laboratory and its subcontractor, Groundwater Analytical, Inc. (GAI), provided
laboratory services for the testing program and consultation on analytical issues addressed during
the verification test period.
The responsibilities of the TO included:
preparing the site-specific VTP;
conducting verification testing, according to the VTP;
• installing, operating, and maintaining the ReCip® in accordance with the Vendor's
operation and maintenance (O&M) manual(s);
• controlling access to the area where verification testing was carried out;
• maintaining safe conditions at the test site for the health and safety of all personnel
involved with verification testing;
• scheduling and coordinating all activities of the verification testing participants,
including establishing a communication network and providing logistical and technical
support as needed;
• resolving any quality concerns encountered and reporting all findings to the VO;
• managing, evaluating, interpreting, and reporting data generated by verification testing;
• evaluating and reporting on the performance of the technology; and,
• if necessary, documenting changes in plans for testing and analysis, and notifying the
VO of any and all such changes before changes are executed.
-------
The key personnel and contacts for the TO are:
Mr. George Heufelder, Project Manager and Facility Operations Manager
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630
(508)375-6616
Email: gheufeld@capecod.net
Gongmin Lei, Laboratory Manager
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment Laboratory
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable, MA 02630
(508) 375-6605
Email: bcdhelab@cape.com
Mr. Jonathan Sanford, President
Groundwater Analytical, Inc. (GAI)
228 Main Street.
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts 02532
(508) 759-4441
The key contact at Scherger Associates is:
Mr. Dale A. Scherger
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
(734)213-8150
Email: Daleres(S)aol.com
-------
1.2.4 Technology Vendor
The nitrogen reduction technology evaluated was the ReCip® RTS ~ 500 Wastewater Treatment
System manufactured by BioConcepts, Inc. BioConcepts was responsible for supplying
equipment needed for the test program and for supporting the TO to ensure that the equipment
was properly installed and operated during the verification test.
ReCip® is the registered name for the Tennessee Valley Authority's patented Reciprocating
Water Technology. The ReCip® RTS ~ 500 Wastewater Treatment System is a modular
reciprocating system sized for treating 500 gpd.
Specific responsibilities of the vendor during the verification process included:
• initiating the application for ETV testing;
• providing input regarding the verification testing objectives to be incorporated into the
VTP;
• selecting the test site;
• providing complete, field-ready equipment and the O&M manual(s) typically provided
with the technology (including instructions on installation, startup, operation, and
maintenance) for verification testing;
• providing any existing relevant performance data for the technology;
• providing assistance to the TO on the operation and monitoring of the technology during
the verification testing, and logistical and technical support as required;
• reviewing and approving the site-specific VTP;
• reviewing and commenting on the verification report; and,
• providing funding for verification testing.
The key contact for BioConcepts is:
Al Privette
BioConcepts, Inc.
P.O. Box 885
Oriental, North Carolina 28571
(252)249-1376
Email: alprivette@coastalnet.com
1.2.5 ETV Test Site
The Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC) was the host site for the
nitrogen reduction verification test. MASSTC is located at Otis Air National Guard Base in
Bourne, Massachusetts. The site was designed as a location to test septic treatment systems and
related technologies. MASSTC provided the location to install the technology and provided the
infrastructure support requirements to collect domestic wastewater and pump the wastewater to
-------
the system, as well as operational and maintenance support for the test. Key items provided by
the test site were:
• logistical support and reasonable access to the equipment and facilities for sample
collection and equipment maintenance;
• wastewater that is "typical" domestic, relative to key parameters such as five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5); total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN),
and phosphorus;
• a location for sampling raw or screened wastewater and a sampling arrangement to
collect representative samples;
• automatic pump systems capable of controlled dosing to the technology being evaluated
to simulate a diurnal flow variation and to allow for stress testing;
sufficient flow of wastewater to accomplish the required controlled dosing pattern;
setup of sampling equipment and collection of samples per the established schedule;
an accessible but secure site to prevent tampering by outside parties; and,
wastewater disposal of both the effluent from the testing operation and any untreated
wastewater generated when testing is not occurring.
1.3 Background - Nutrient Reduction
Domestic wastewater contains various physical, chemical, and bacteriological constituents,
which require treatment prior to release to the environment. Various wastewater treatment
processes exist that reduce oxygen-demanding materials, suspended solids, and pathogenic
organisms. Reduction of nutrients, principally phosphorus and nitrogen, has been practiced since
the 1960s at centralized wastewater treatment plants. The reduction of nutrients in domestic
wastewater discharged from single-family homes, small businesses, and similar locations within
watersheds is desirable for the same reasons as for large treatment facilities. Nutrient reduction
is needed primarily to protect the quality of ground- or surface water for drinking (drinking water
standards for NO2" and N(V have been established), and to reduce the potential for
eutrophication in nutrient-sensitive surface waters and the consequent loss in ecological,
commercial, recreational, and aesthetic uses.
1.3.1 Biological Nitrification
Nitrification is a process carried out by bacterial populations (Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter)
that oxidize ammonium to N(V with intermediate formation of nitrite ion. These organisms are
considered autotrophic because they obtain energy from the oxidation of inorganic nitrogen
compounds. The two steps in the nitrification process and their equations are as follows:
(1) Ammonium is oxidized to NO2" by Nitrosomonas bacteria.
2 NH4+ + 3 O2 =2 NO2" + 4 H+ + 2 H2O
(2) NO2" is then converted to N(V by Nitrobacter bacteria.
2NO2' + O2 =2NO3"
-------
Since complete nitrification is a sequential reaction, systems must be designed to provide an
environment suitable for the growth of both groups of nitrifying bacteria. These two reactions
essentially supply the energy needed by nitrifying bacteria for growth. Several major factors
influence the kinetics of nitrification, including organic loading, hydraulic loading, temperature,
pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration.
Organic loading: Organic loadings affect the efficiency of the nitrification process. Although
the heterotrophic biomass is not essential for nitrifier attachment, the heterotrophs (organisms
that use organic carbon for the formation of cell tissue) form biogrowth to which the nitrifiers
adhere. The heterotrophic bacteria grow much faster than nitrifiers at high BODs concentrations.
As a result, the nitrifiers can be overgrown by heterotrophic bacteria, which can cause the
nitrification process to cease. In order for nitrification to take place, the organic loadings must
be low enough to provide balance between the heterotrophic and nitrifying bacteria.
Temperature: The nitrification process is very dependent on temperature and occurs over a
range of approximately 4 to 45°C (39 to 113°F). Typically, nitrification rates slow dramatically
at temperatures below 10°C, and may stop altogether at around 5°C.
pH and Alkalinity: The nitrification process produces acid, which lowers the pH and can
reduce the growth rate of the nitrifying bacteria. The optimum pH for Nitrosomonas and
Nitrobacter is between 7.5 and 8.5. At a pH of 6.0 or less, nitrification normally will stop.
Approximately 7.1 pounds of alkalinity (as calcium carbonate [CaCO3]) are destroyed per pound
of NH3-N oxidized to NO3".
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The concentration of DO affects the rate of nitrifier growth and
nitrification in biological waste treatment systems. The DO concentration at which nitrification
is limited can be 0.5 to 2.5 mg/L in either suspended or attached-growth systems under steady-
state conditions, depending on the degree of mass-transport or diffusional resistance and the
solids retention time. The maximum nitrifying growth rate is reached at a DO concentration of 2
to 2.5 mg/L. However, the maximum growth rate is not needed for effective nitrification if there
is adequate contact time in the system. As a result, there is a broad range of DO values at which
DO becomes rate limiting. The intrinsic growth rate of Nitrosomonas is not limited at DO
concentrations above 1.0 mg/L, but DO concentrations greater than 2.0 mg/L may be required in
practice. Nitrification consumes large amounts of oxygen with 4.6 pounds of O2 being used for
every pound of NH3-N oxidized.
1.3.2 Biological Denitrification
Denitrification is an anoxic process where NO3" serves as an oxygen equivalent (electron
acceptor) for bacteria, and the NO3" is reduced to nitrogen gas. Denitrifying bacteria are
facultative organisms that can use either DO or NO3" as an oxygen source for metabolism and
oxidation of organic matter. If both DO and NO3" are present, the bacteria will tend to use the
DO first. Therefore, it is important to keep DO levels as low as possible.
-------
Another important aspect of the denitrification process is the presence of organic matter to drive
the denitrification reaction. Organic matter can be in the form of raw wastewater, methanol,
ethanol, or other organic sources. When these sources are not present, the bacteria may depend
on internal (endogenous) carbon reserves as organic matter. The endogenous respiration phase
can sustain a system for a time, but it may not be a consistent enough source of carbon to drive
the reaction to completion or to operate at the rates needed to remove the elevated NCV levels
present in nitrified effluent.
The denitrifying reaction using methanol as a carbon source can be represented as follows:
6NO3" + 5CH3OH = 5CO2 + 3N2 + 7H2O + 6OJf
Several conditions affect the efficiency of the denitrification process, including the anoxic
conditions, the temperature, presence of organic matter, and pH.
DO: The level of DO has a direct impact on the denitrifying organisms. As DO increases, the
denitrification rate decreases. DO concentrations below 0.3 to 0.5 mg/L in the anoxic zone are
typically needed to achieve efficient denitrification.
Temperature: Temperature affects the growth rate of denitrifying organisms with higher
growth rates occurring at higher temperatures. Denitrification normally occurs between 5 and
35°C (41 to 95°F). As in the case of nitrification, denitrifying rates drop as the temperature falls
below 10°C.
Organic matter: The denitrification process requires a source of organic matter. The
denitrification rate varies greatly depending upon the source of available carbon. The highest
rates are achieved with the addition of an easily assimilated carbon source such as methanol.
Somewhat lower denitrification rates are obtained with raw wastewater or primary effluent as the
carbon source. The lowest denitrification rates are observed with endogenous decay as the
source of carbon.
pH and alkalinity: The optimum pH range for most denitrifying systems is 7.0 to 8.5. The
process will normally occur in a wider range, pH 6 to 9, but denitrifying rates may be impacted
near the extremes of the range. Acclimation of the population can lower the impact of pH on
growth rates. An advantage of the denitrification process is the production of alkalinity that
helps buffer the decrease in alkalinity during the nitrification process. Approximately 3.6
pounds of alkalinity are produced for each pound of nitrate nitrogen removed.
Additional information on various nitrogen control strategies can be found in the Manual for
Nitrogen Control, EPA, 1993, 625/R-93/010 [2].
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description and Operating Processes
The information contained in this chapter is taken from the literature and information provided
by BioConcepts, and does not represent verified information. It is intended to provide the reader
with a description of the ReCip® system and to explain how the technology operates. The
verified performance characteristics of the ReCip® system are described in Chapter 4.
2.1 Technology Description
The ReCip® uses a filter medium contained in two adjacent, equally dimensioned cells to provide
enhanced biological treatment of organics and nitrogen compounds. By "reciprocating" septic
tank effluent between the two cells (alternately draining and filling the cells), the septic tank
effluent encounters aerobic and anoxic conditions necessary for nitrification and denitrification.
The process is controlled by timers on each reciprocating pump.
The ReCip® uses filter media for fixed-film wastewater treatment. The two cells are filled with
the medium1, which provides a surface for microbes to attach, live, and grow. Wastewater is
applied to the medium and allowed to trickle through. Microorganisms on the medium use the
nutrients and organic materials provided by the constant supply of fresh wastewater to form new
cell mass. The open spaces within the medium allow air to freely pass through, providing
oxygen to support the microorganisms. The alternating fill and drain cycles in the medium
encourages air movement.
BioConcepts states that the ReCip® system is able to provide wastewater treatment because the
system operates in all three typical wastewater treatment regimes, aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic,
on every fill and drain cycle. BioConcepts describes the basic treatment processes as follows:
At the start of the cycle, the first cell of the ReCip® unit is filled nearly to the top with
wastewater. The pump located in the cell then pumps the liquid into the second cell, until the
first cell is nearly empty. As the liquid leaves the first cell, the void formerly occupied by the
liquid fills with air from the vent system, exposing the medium to atmospheric oxygen contained
in the air. At this point, the second cell is nearly full and the first cell is nearly empty. The two
cells remain in this state for a time before the second cell's pump sends the liquid back to the
first cell, drawing air into the second cell. Wastewater that clings to the medium contains
nutrients and organics, which are oxidized by bacteria (biofilm) exposed to the air. The bacteria
live and grow on the medium. In the presence of oxygen, organic matter is converted to carbon
dioxide and water, and NH3-N is converted to NO3". Anaerobic decomposition of the
contaminants continues in the wastewater that is not exposed to air (at the very bottom of the
cells), converting the NOs" to nitrogen gas. The two cells continue to fill and drain, with rest
periods between the cycles, until additional wastewater flows into the first cell. When the
capacity of the first cell is met, its contents are pumped into the second cell. The excess volume
exits the overflow of the second cell as treated effluent. As an example, if the rated capacity of
For the ETV verification test, the medium used was Stalite, an expanded slate aggregate. However, according to
its literature, BioConcepts also may use patented plastic "bioballs" with the ReCip®.
-------
the tanks is 500 gallons and one extra gallon enters the system, a gallon of treated effluent will
exit cell number two.
A basic residential ReCip® wastewater treatment system includes (1) a standard septic tank to
provide solids separation and primary treatment; (2) a ReCip® unit to provide secondary and
tertiary treatment for the septic tank effluent; and (3) a tile field or other system for final disposal
of treated effluent.
2.2 ReCip® Equipment
BioConcepts recommends the use of a 1,500-gallon septic tank with a residential ReCip® system
sized for a flow of 500 gallons per day (gpd). The septic tank should be a baffled or two-
compartment tank to help promote solids settling and separation. It is recommended that the
septic tank be equipped with an effluent filtering device (required in some states) to minimize
solids carryover to the ReCip® system. Septic tank effluent can flow to the ReCip® inlet by
gravity or can be pumped in applications where there is insufficient slope to use gravity flow.
The ReCip® RTS ~ 500 for single-family home use is sized to treat 500 gpd, which is the
expected flow from a 4- to 5-bedroom house. Other models and sizes are available to handle
larger or smaller daily flows. The ReCip® RTS ~ 500 treatment unit consists of two equally
sized (approx 453 gal) compartments in a cylindrical tank. The tank is constructed of a heavy
(14) gauge corrugated, anti-corrosive aluminum pipe four and one half (4/^>) feet in diameter.
The unit contains two chambers separated by a baffle. The first cell (cell one) is closest to the
septic tank, and it receives effluent directly from the septic tank. Cell two empties to a dosing
tank or directly to the disposal location (tile field, etc.). The cell covers, or caps, are made of
aluminum and are attached to an aluminum collar. Both caps are fitted with gooseneck pipes,
which vent the cell and allow fresh air to enter the chamber. The pipes are fitted with a screen to
keep insects, grass clippings, and other foreign objects from entering the cells. When properly
installed, the collars function as anti-vandal security and can deter unauthorized access to the
pump chambers. As an option, locks can be added to the collar connections to further deter
unauthorized access.
Black plastic "risers" are located above each cell. The risers are made to fit the depth of the
installation and provide service personnel access to the pump chambers. Each pump chamber
houses a single l/3 horsepower pump and associated piping. The piping consists of two 2-inch
PVC pipes, going into and coming out of each pump chamber. Each pump is equipped with a
quick disconnect fitting, which allows simple disconnection of the pump's discharge pipe. A
length of chain is attached under each lid and connected to the pump handle. This system allows
a service technician to quickly disconnect a pump and pull it to the surface.
Only two pumps are needed (one in each cell), if gravity flow can be used from the septic tank
outlet to the ReCip® inlet and from the ReCip® outlet to the final disposal location. If the site
hydraulics do not allow for gravity flow, pumps can be added to move wastewater from the
septic tank outlet to the ReCip® unit, and from the unit to the tile field or other disposal location.
The system used for the verification test used only two pumps, one per cell; all other flow was by
gravity.
10
-------
Both cells are partially filled with medium. The center baffle has an overflow system that allows
effluent to continue to pass through the system in the event of a long-term power outage or
complete pump failure. Under this condition, water will not backup or spill out of the unit.
The system includes a fiberglass control panel that houses the electrical connections, circuit
breakers, pump timers, and alarms. The panel has the capability of controlling and timing the
pump operations of the two cells. If an additional pump is needed to move septic tank effluent to
the ReCip® inlet, the panel can also control this pump and has alarms for high water level in the
feed tank. The panel is normally mounted on a post between the two risers.
Figure 2-1 shows a basic schematic representation of the ReCip®.
2.3 Installation, Startup, Operation, and Maintenance
BioConcepts provides an O&M guide for homeowners, which contains important information
about the ReCip®. BioConcepts has identified this document as Confidential Business
Information and consequently, it is not included as an Appendix to this report. The O&M guide
was available for review by NSF personnel, MASSTC personnel, and the technical peer
reviewers for this project. The O&M guide was also reviewed as part of the verification and is
discussed further in Section 4.4.5.
The O&M Guide states that the ReCip® unit is of modular self-contained design, so installation
not difficult. However, it clearly states that installation should never be done by the homeowner
and should only be done by installers who are licensed and trained by BioConcepts. Installation
by anyone else voids the warranty for the unit. BioConcepts provides an "end-user license" for
the technology that certifies parameters of use and the effluent reductions that the system will
meet. The license protects the proprietary nature of the technology from patent infringement and
ensures the end-user is aware of the performance criteria.
The O&M Guide provides a basic overview of the process and a description of the ReCip®
components, and includes a description and discussion of the control panel operation. It also
explains how to perform visual observations of the cell water depth and how to determine if there
may be a pump problem; it also lists possible solutions to system operating problems.
BioConcepts strongly recommends that the homeowner engage the services of an authorized
local service provider to perform any needed sampling (state rule-dependent) and to provide
periodic servicing of the unit. BioConcepts also recommends, at minimum, an annual inspection
of the septic tank, with solids removal as needed. For the ReCip® unit, monthly observation of
the pump cycle and water depth is recommended to ensure that the pumps are operating properly.
The O&M Guide also emphasizes two other activities:
1. It is very important that the screens on the cap vents be kept clear/clean to allow air to
flow in and out of the cells.
11
-------
2. If a power failure is expected to last more than 48 hours, a generator should be connected
to the outlet on the timer control box to allow the system to cycle several times per day.
This will be adequate to maintain treatment until power is restored. If the homeowner
suspects a problem, sees an alarm, or is under extended power loss, the "Responsible
Operator in Charge" (contracted licensed service provider) should be notified.
2.4 Vendor Claims
BioConcepts claims that the ReCip® can provide residential wastewater treatment and nutrient
reduction.
12
-------
JTM
ReCip1M RTS-500
Figure 2-1. ReCip® general layout
13
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Test Procedures
3.1 Verification Test Plan and Procedures
A VTP, Test Plan for The Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center for the
Verification Testing of the BioConcepts, Inc. ReCip® System Nutrient Reduction Technology (3),
December 12, 2002, was prepared and approved for the verification of the BioConcepts ReCip®
unit, and is included in Appendix A. The VTP was prepared in accordance with the ETV
Protocol for the Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Nutrient
Reduction (2), November 2000. The VTP details the procedures and analytical methods to be
used to perform the verification test. The VTP included tasks designed to verify the nitrogen
reduction capability of the ReCip® and to obtain information on the operation and maintenance
requirements of the ReCip®. The VTP covered two distinct phases of fieldwork: startup of the
unit and a one-year verification test that included normal dosing and stress conditions. The
verification test was conducted between January and December 2003.
This section describes each testing element performed during the technology verification,
including sample collection methods, analytical protocols, equipment installation, and equipment
operation. QA/QC procedures and the data management approach are discussed in detail in the
VTP.
3.2 MASSTC Test Site Description
The MASSTC site is located at Otis Air National Guard Base in Bourne, Massachusetts. The
site is designed to provide domestic wastewater for use in testing various types of residential
wastewater treatment systems. The domestic wastewater source is the sanitary sewerage from
the base's residential housing and other military buildings. The sewer system for the base flows
to an on-base wastewater treatment facility. An interceptor chamber, located in the main sewer
line to the base's wastewater treatment facility, was constructed when the MASSTC was built
and provides a location to obtain untreated wastewater. The raw wastewater passes through a bar
screen (grate) located ahead of the transfer pump. This bar screen has one-inch spacing between
the bars to remove large or stringy materials that could clog the pump or lines. The screened raw
wastewater is pumped through an underground two-inch line to the dosing channel at the test
site. The design of the interceptor chamber provides mixing of the wastewater just ahead of the
transfer pump to ensure that well-mixed raw wastewater is obtained for the influent feed at the
test site.
The screened wastewater is pumped to the dosing channel at a rate of approximately 29 gpm on a
continuous basis for 18 hours per day, yielding a total flow of approximately 31,000 gallons per
day (gpd). Wastewater enters the dosing channel, an open concrete channel 65 feet long by 2
feet wide by 3 feet deep, via two pipes midway in the channel. Approximately 4,000 to 6,000
gallons per day is withdrawn for test purposes. The excess wastewater flows by gravity to the
base's sanitary sewer and is treated at the base's wastewater treatment plant. The dosing channel
14
-------
is equipped with four recirculation pumps. These pumps, spaced along the channel length, keep
the wastewater in the channel constantly moving to ensure the suspension of solids and to ensure
that the wastewater is of similar quality at all locations along the channel.
Dosing wastewater to test units is accomplished by individual pumps submerged in-line along
the dosing channel. The pumps are connected to the treatment technology being tested by
underground PVC pipe. A custom-designed, programmable logic controller (PLC) is used to
control the pumps and the dosing sequence or cycle. Each technology feed pump can be
controlled individually for multiple start and stop times and for pump runtime. For the ReCip®,
the volumetric dosages were set to meet the dosing sequence described in the VTP. The test for
the ReCip® was based on dosing 15 times per day with approximately 33.3 gallons of wastewater
per dose. This dosing volume of 500 gallons per day was based on the ReCip®-rated capacity of
500 gpd. The individual dose volume was controlled by adjusting the pump runtime for each
cycle.
MASSTC maintains a small laboratory at the site to monitor basic wastewater treatment
parameters. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and volumetric
measurements are routinely performed to support the test programs at the site. These field
parameters were performed at the site during the ReCip® test.
MASSTC has been in operation since 1999. Screened wastewater quality has been monitored as
part of several previous test programs, and is within the requirements established in the ETV
Protocol for the Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Nutrient
Reduction (2) for raw wastewater quality. The data are presented in Table 3-1. Influent
wastewater monitoring was part of the startup and verification testing, and is described later in
this section. Results of all influent monitoring during the verification test are presented in
Chapter 4.
Table 3-1. Historical MASSTC Wastewater Data
Parameter
BOD5
TSS
Total nitrogen
Alkalinity
PH
Average
(mg/L)
180
160
34
170
7.4
Standard
Deviation
61
59
4.6
28
15
-------
3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures
3.3.1 Introduction
BioConcepts provided installation instructions for the ReCip® and had personnel present at the
site during the installation. The system delivered by BioConcepts consisted of a ReCip® unit,
including an aluminum tank (approximately 900 gallons total volume), two pumps, and the
control panel. A two-compartment, 1,500-gallon concrete septic tank was provided by MASSTC
and installed ahead of the ReCip® unit. The complete system was installed by a contractor in
August 2002 and used for the startup period and verification test for the ETV program.
3.3.2 Objectives
The objectives of the installation and startup phase of the VTP were to:
• install the ReCip® in accordance with the instructions;
• startup and test the ReCip® to ensure that all processes were operating properly, the
pumps were set for proper timing sequence, and any leaks that occurred during the
installation were eliminated;
• make any modifications needed to achieve operation; and,
• record and document all installation and startup conditions prior to beginning the
verification test.
3.3.3 Installation and Startup Procedure
The VTP and ETV Protocol for the Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment
Technologies for Nutrient Reduction (2) allow for a startup period, during which the biological
community was established and operating conditions were adjusted, as needed, for site
conditions. The primary tank and filter system were filled with water and each component of the
system was checked for proper operation. The water was also used to check the dosing pump
flow rates.
Startup of the ReCip® began on October 29, 2002. The septic tank was filled with raw
wastewater from the dosing channel, and the dosing sequence was started with a setting of 15
doses of wastewater per day and a target of 33.33 gallons of wastewater per dose. This dose
setting provided a target total daily flow of 500 gallons per day.
The system was monitored during the startup period (October 29 through December 31, 2002) by
visual observation of the system, routine calibration of the dosing system, and the collection of
influent and effluent samples. Analytical samples were collected five times over the startup
period. Influent samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, temperature, BODs, TKN, NHa-N,
and TSS. The effluent was analyzed for pH, alkalinity, temperature, carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD5), TKN, NH3-N, TSS, dissolved oxygen, MV, and MV. The same
procedures for sample collection, analytical methods, and monitoring were used during startup
and the one-year verification period.
16
-------
3.4 Verification Testing - Procedures
3.4.1 Introduction
The verification test procedures were designed to verify nitrogen reduction by the ReCip®. The
verification test consisted of a 12-month test period, incorporating five stress periods with
varying stress conditions simulating real household conditions. Dosing volume was set based on
the design capacity of the ReCip®. Monitoring for nitrogen reduction was accomplished by
measurement of nitrogen species (TKN, NHs-N, NCV, and NCV). BOD5, CBOD5, and other
basic parameters (pH, alkalinity, TSS, and temperature) were monitored to provide information
on overall treatment performance. Operational characteristics such as electric use, residuals
generation, noise, and odor were also monitored.
Verification results and observations are presented in Chapter 4 of this verification report.
3.4.2 Objectives
The objectives of the verification test were to:
• determine nitrogen reduction performance of the ReCip®;
• monitor removal of other oxygen-using contaminants (BODs CBODs, and TSS);
• determine operation and maintenance characteristics of the technology; and
• assess chemical usage, energy usage, generation of byproducts/residuals, noise and odor.
3.4.3 System Operation - Flow Patterns and Loading Rates
The flow and loading patterns used during the 12-month verification test were designed in
accordance with the protocol, as described in the VTP (Appendix A). The flow pattern was
designed to simulate the flow from a "normal" household. Several special stress test periods
were also incorporated into the test program.
3.4.3.1 Influent Flow Pattern
The influent flow dosed to the ReCip® was controlled by the use of timed pump operation. The
dosing pump was set to provide 15 doses of equal volume (target = 33.3 gallons per dose) in
accordance with the following schedule:
• 6 a.m. - 9 a.m. - approximately 33% of total daily flow in 5 doses
• 11 a.m. - 2 p.m. - approximately 27% of total daily flow in 4 doses
• 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. - approximately 40% of total daily flow in 6 doses
The influent dosing pump was controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC), which
permitted timing of the 15 individual doses to within one second. The pump flow rate and time
setting were calibrated by sequencing the dosing pump for one cycle and collecting the entire
volume of flow in a "calibrated" barrel. The barrel was initially calibrated by placing a
17
-------
measured volume of water into it. The dosing flow volume was checked by this calibration
method at least twice per week. Calibration results were recorded in the field logbook.
The initial total daily flow to the ReCip® was targeted to be 500 gallons per day (33.3 gallons per
dose). After each calibration test, the measured volume was compared to this target rate. If the
volume was more than 10 percent above or below the target, the pump runtime was increased or
decreased to adjust the volume per dose back to the target volume. If the runtime was changed,
then a second calibration was performed to determine the total volume for the new timer setting.
The QC requirement for the dosing volume was 100 ± 10 percent of the target flow (500 gallons
per day) based on a 30-day average, with the exception of periods of stress testing. All
calibration tests were recorded in the field logbook.
In addition to the twice-weekly direct calibrations, the PLC system results were checked on a
daily basis. The PLC system recorded the number of doses delivered each day for each pump
operated by the dosing system, and it was confirmed that 15 doses were delivered each day. The
PLC was also checked to ensure that the start and stop times were set properly. Any changes
made to the settings or problems with dose cycles were recorded in the field log.
Flow information was entered into a spreadsheet that showed each day of operation, the pump
runtime, the gallons pumped per dose, and the number of doses delivered to the unit.
3.4.3.2 Stress Testing Procedures
During the verification test, one stress test was performed following every two months of
operation at the normal design loading. Five stress scenarios were run during the 12-month
evaluation period to test the ReCip® response to differing load conditions and a power/equipment
failure.
Stress testing included the following simulations:
• Washday stress
• Working parent stress
• Low load stress
• Power/equipment failure stress
• Vacation stress
Washday stress simulation consisted of three washdays in a five-day period, with each washday
separated by a 24-hour period of dosing at the normal design-loading rate. During a washday,
the system received the normal flow pattern; however, during the course of the first two dosing
periods per day, the hydraulic loading included three wash loads (three wash cycles and six rinse
cycles). The volume of wash load flow was 28 gallons per wash load. The hydraulic loading
rate was adjusted so that the loading on washdays did not exceed the design-loading rate.
Common detergent (Arm and Hammer Fabri-care) and non-chlorine bleach was added to each
wash load at the manufacturer-recommended amount.
18
-------
The working parent stress simulation consisted of five consecutive days when the ReCip was
subjected to a flow pattern where approximately 40 percent of the total daily flow was dosed
between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., and approximately 60 percent of the total daily flow was dosed
between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. This simulation also included one wash cycle and two rinse cycles
during the evening dose cycle. The hydraulic loading did not exceed the design loading rate
during the stress test period.
The low load stress simulation tested the unit at 50 percent of the target flow (250 gallons per
day) loading for a period of 21 days. Approximately 35 percent of the total daily flow was dosed
between 6 a.m. and 11 a.m.; approximately 25 percent of the flow was dosed between 11 a.m.
and 4 p.m.; and approximately 40 percent of the flow was dosed between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m.
The power/equipment failure stress simulation consisted of a standard daily flow pattern until 8
p.m. on the day the test was initiated. Power to the system was turned off at 9 p.m., and the flow
pattern was discontinued for 48 hours. After the 48-hour period, power was restored and the
system was dosed with approximately 60 percent of the total daily flow over a three-hour period,
which included one wash cycle and two rinse cycles.
The vacation stress simulation consisted of a flow pattern where, on the day that the stress was
initiated, approximately 35 percent of the total daily flow was dosed between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m.
and approximately 25 percent of the total daily flow was received between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.
The flow pattern was discontinued for eight consecutive days, with power continuing to be
supplied to the technology. Between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. of the ninth day, the technology was
dosed with 60 percent of the total daily flow, which included three wash loads of three wash
cycles and six rinse cycles.
3.4.3.3 Sampling Locations, Approach, and Frequency
3.4.3.3.1 Influent Sampling Location
Influent wastewater was sampled from the dosing channel at a point near the ReCip® dosing
pump intake, approximately 4 to 6 inches from the channel floor to ensure a representative
sample of the wastewater was obtained. The influent sampling site was selected based on the
layout of the dosing channel at the MASSTC facility. Screened wastewater enters the 65-foot-
long dosing channel via two pipes located midway between the channel end and the channel
outlet. Dosing pumps for individual systems are located in-line along the dosing channel.
3.4.3.3.2 ReCipR Effluent Sampling Location
For the ReCip® effluent, the sampling site was located in the normal 4-inch effluent pipe from
the treatment unit at the point nearest the effluent discharge. A concrete containment structure
was installed so that the effluent from the ReCip® discharged into a clean collection cup, from
which the autosampler collection tube drew a sample. The cup was drained between sampling
events. The collection cup was located so that it could be cleaned of any attached and settled
solids. Cleaning the sampling location, by brushing to remove any accumulated solids, was
19
-------
performed prior to each sampling period to remove the biomass that tended to grow in the
effluent pipe during the weeks between sampling events. Cleaning would not be required in a
normal system, as the sampling location in the discharge pipe was installed for the verification
test only and would not be present in a normal installation.
3.4.3.3.3 Sampling Procedures
Both grab and 24-hour flow-weighted composite samples were collected at the influent and
effluent sampling locations. Grab samples were collected from both locations to measure pH,
DO, and temperature. DO was measured at the treated effluent location when flow across the
sampling point was occurring. The grab samples were collected by dipping a sample collection
bottle into the flow at the same location as the automatic sampler used for composite sample
collection. The sample bottles were labeled with the sampling location, time, and date. All pH,
DO, and temperature measurements were performed at the on-site laboratory immediately after
sample collection.
Composite samples were collected using automated samplers at each sample collection point.
The automated samplers were programmed to draw equal volumes of sample from the waste
treatment stream at the same frequency and timing as influent wastewater doses. Samples taken
in this manner were therefore flow-proportional. The effluent sampler timing was set to
correspond to the passage of a flow through the ReCip® discharge line. The automatic samplers
were calibrated before each use and the volume of sample collected was checked to ensure that
the proper number of individual samples was collected in the composite container. Detailed
sampling procedures are described in the MASSTC SOPs (Appendix B).
Table 3-2 shows a summary of the sampling matrix for the verification test.
Table 3-2. Sampling Matrix
Parameter
BOD5
CBOD5
Suspended solids
pH
Temperature (°C)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
DO
TKN (as N)
NH3-N
Total NO3" (as N)
Total NO2- (as N)
Sample -
Type
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Sample
Influent
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Location
Effluent
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Testing
Location
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Test Site
Test Site
Laboratory
Test Site
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
20
-------
3.4.3.3.4 Sampling Frequency
Table 3-3 shows a summary of the sampling schedule followed during the test. Sample
frequency followed the VTP, and included sampling on a monthly basis under design flow
conditions and more frequent sampling during special stress-test periods.
Normal Monthly Frequency
Samples of the influent and effluent were collected at least once per month during the
verification test period (January 2003 through December 2003).
Stress Test Frequency
Samples were collected on the day each stress simulation was initiated and when approximately
50 percent of each stress sequence was completed. For the vacation and power/equipment
failure stresses, there was no midpoint sampling. Beginning 24 hours after the completion of
washday, working parent, low load, and vacation stress scenarios, samples were collected for six
consecutive days. Beginning 48 hours after the completion of the power/equipment failure
stress, samples were collected for five consecutive days.
Final Week
Samples were also collected for five consecutive days at the end of the yearlong evaluation
period.
3.4.3.3.5 Sample Handling and Transport
In the automatic samplers, ice was placed around the sample bottle to keep the sample cool. The
composite sample container was retrieved at the end of the sampling period, shaken vigorously,
and poured into new bottles that were labeled for the various scheduled analyses. Sample bottles
used for TKN and NHs-N analyses were supplied by the laboratory with preservative. Sample
container type, sample volumes, holding times, and sample handling and labeling procedures
were detailed in the VTP (Appendix A) and in the MASSTC SOP, Attachment I (Appendix B).
BCDHE personnel transported the samples to the BCDHE laboratory via automobile. The
samples were packed in ice in coolers to maintain a temperature of 4°C. Subsamples analyzed at
GAI were transported from the BCDUE laboratory to GAI by GAI personnel. Travel time from
the test facility to BCDUE was approximately 40 minutes. Travel time from BCDUE to GAI
was approximately 45 minutes.
21
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule for ReCip
®
Month/Day
Sampling Event(s)
November 13 and 26, 2002; December 4, 11,
and 12, 2002
January 8, 2003
January 29, 2003
February 18 through March 1, 2003
March 20, 2003
April 16, 2003
April 22 through May 3, 2003
May 21,2003
June 25, 2003
July 2 through July 28, 2003
August 21,2003
September 10, 2003
September 16 through 26, 2003
October 15, 2003
October 22, 2003
November 12, 2003
November 14, 2003
November 18 through December 4, 2003
December 16 through December 21, 2003
Startup - 5 sampling events
Normal monthly sample
Normal monthly sample
Washday stress - 8 samples
Normal monthly sample
Normal monthly sample
Working parent stress - 8 samples
Normal monthly sample - extra
Normal monthly sample
Low load stress - 8 samples
Normal monthly sample
Normal monthly sample - extra
Power/equipment failure stress - 6 samples
Normal monthly sample
Normal monthly sample - extra
Normal monthly sample
Normal monthly sample
Vacation stress - 6 samples
Final week sampling - 5 samples
3.4.3.4 Residuals Monitoring and Sampling
The ReCip® was inspected at the end of the test for solids buildup in the area below the medium
and near the pump in both cells. Based on visual observation, there was no solids buildup in the
cells, and, therefore, residuals samples could not be collected. The ETV protocol does not
include sampling residuals in the septic tanks when the septic tank is separate from the device
and not included as part of the system sold by the manufacturer. Therefore, residuals in the
septic tank were not collected and analyzed.
3. 4. 4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping
®
As shown in Table 3-3, 53 samples of the influent and effluent for the ReCip unit were
collected during the verification period. Samples included grab and composite samples for each
sampling day. Industry standard procedures (EPA Methods (5,6) or Standard Methods (1)) were
used for all sample analysis. The methods used for each constituent are shown in Table 3-4.
Temperature, DO, and pH were measured on-site. Off-site laboratories performed all other
analyses. The BCDJTE laboratory performed the analyses for alkalinity, TSS, BODs, CBODs,
NO2", and NO3". GAI was responsible for the TKN and NH3-N analyses.
22
-------
Table 3-4. Summary of Analytical Methods and Precision and Accuracy Requirements
Acceptance Acceptance
Criteria Criteria
Parameter
pH
DO
Temperature (°C)
Alkalinity
BOD5/CBOD5
TSS
Total NO2- (as N)
Total NO3- (as N)
NH3-N (as N)
TKN (as N)
Facility
On-site
On-site
On-site
BCDHE laboratory
BCDHE laboratory
BCDHE laboratory
BCDHE laboratory
BCDHE laboratory
GAI laboratory
GAI laboratory
Duplicates
N/A
N/A
N/A
±20
±30
±20
±20
±20
±20
±20
Spikes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60-140
60-140
80-120
80-120
Analytical
Method
SM #423
SM #4500
SM#2550
SM #2320
SM#5210B
SM #2540 D
EPA 353. 3
EPA 353. 3
SM #4500-NH3
EPA 35 1.2
Industry standard procedures were used for all sample analyses, as described in EPA Methods (4,5), or Standard
Methods (1).
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed as part of the VTP, and provided
QA/QC requirements and systems to ensure the integrity of all sampling and analysis. Precision
and accuracy limits for the analytical methods are shown in Table 3-4. The QAPP included
procedures for sample chain of custody, calibration of equipment, laboratory standard operating
procedures, method blanks, and the corrective action plan. Additional details are provided in the
VTP (Appendix A). One laboratory audit was also performed during the verification test to
confirm that the analytical work was being performed in accordance with the methods and the
established QC objectives. This audit took place on June 19, 2003.
The results of all analyses from the off-site laboratories were reported to the TO by hardcopy
laboratory reports. The off-site laboratories also provided QA/QC data for the data sets. These
data and the laboratory reports are included in Appendix C. The on-site laboratory maintained a
laboratory logbook to record the results of all analyses performed at the site. Copies of the on-
site laboratory logbook are provided in Appendix D.
The data received from the laboratories were summarized in a spreadsheet by BCDHE personnel.
The data were checked against the original laboratory reports by the site staff and checked by
NSF to ensure the data were accurately entered. The spreadsheets are included in Appendix E.
3.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Performance
The verification test evaluated both quantitative and qualitative performance of the ReCip®. A
field log noted all observations made during the startup of the unit and throughout the
verification test. Observations regarding the condition of the system, operation, or any problems
that required resolution were recorded in the log by field personnel. Copies of the field log are
provided in Appendix F.
23
-------
Observation and measurement of operating parameters included electric use, chemical use, noise,
odor, mechanical components, electrical/instrumentation components, and residuals volumes and
characteristics.
3.4.5.1 Electric Use
Electric use was monitored by a dedicated electric meter serving the ReCip®. The meter reading
was recorded at least twice weekly in the field log by BCDHE personnel. The meter
manufacturer, model number, and any claimed accuracy for the meter were recorded in the field
log. At the end of the testing period, the electric meter was returned to the manufacturer for
calibration and the calibration data entered in the field log.
3.4.5.2 Chemical Use
The ReCip® did not use any process chemicals to achieve treatment.
3.4.5.3 Noise
Noise levels associated with mechanical equipment were measured with a decibel meter once
during the verification period. The meter was calibrated prior to use. Meter readings were
recorded in the field log. Measurements were taken 1 meter from the unit and ll/2 meters above
the ground, at 90° intervals in four directions. Meter readings were recorded in the field log.
Duplicate measurements at each quadrant were made to account for variations in ambient sound
levels.
3.4.5.4 Odors
Odor observations were made 13 times during the verification test, beginning in January 2003
and ending in October 2003. The observation was qualitative, based on odor strength (intensity)
and type (attribute). Intensity was stated as not discernable; barely detectable; moderate; or
strong. Observations were made during periods of low wind velocity (<10 knots) while standing
upright at a distance of approximately 1 meter (3 feet) from the treatment unit, at 90° intervals in
four directions. All observations were made by the same BCDHE employee.
3.4.5.5 Mechanical Components
Performance and reliability of the mechanical components, such as wastewater pumps, were
observed and documented in the field log during the test period. These observations recorded
equipment failure rates, replacement rates, and the existence and use of duplicate or standby
equipment.
3.4.5.6 Electrical/Instrumentation Components
Electrical components, particularly those that might be adversely affected by the corrosive
atmosphere of a wastewater treatment process, and instrumentation and alarm systems were
24
-------
monitored for performance and durability during the course of verification testing. Observations
of any physical deterioration were noted in the field log, as were any electrical equipment
failures, replacements, and the existence and use of duplicate or standby equipment.
25
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
Evaluation of the ReCip® at MASSTC began on October 29, 2002. The septic tank was filled
with wastewater, the dosing pumps were activated, and the initial dosing cycles were started.
The startup period continued until December 31, 2002. Five samples of influent and effluent
were collected during the startup period. Verification testing began on January 1, 2003, and
continued until December 21, 2003. During the verification test, 53 sets of samples of influent
and effluent were collected to determine system performance. At the end of the verification test
period, BioConcepts requested that monthly monitoring be continued for four months, from
January 2004 through April 2004.
This chapter presents the results of the sampling and analysis of the influent and effluent to/from
the unit, a discussion of the results, and observations on the operation and maintenance of the
unit during startup and normal operation. Summary of the results are presented in these sections,
while complete copies of all spreadsheets, with individual daily, weekly, or monthly results, are
presented in Appendix E.
4.2 Startup Test Period
®
The startup period provided time for the ReCip to develop a biological growth and acclimate to
the site-specific wastewater, and to be adjusted, if needed, to optimize performance at the site.
These first nine weeks of operation also provided site personnel with an opportunity to become
familiar with system operation and maintenance requirements. Samples were collected during
weeks 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the startup period.
4.2.1 Startup Flow Conditions
®
The flow conditions for the ReCip were established at the target capacity of 500 gpd in
accordance with the VTP. The dosing pump was set to deliver 15 doses per day at
approximately 33.3 gallons per dose. Five doses were delivered between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., four
doses between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., and six doses between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. The average flow
for the startup period was 497 gpd, which was within the ±10 percent (450-550 gpd) of the
design flow on a monthly basis specified for the test. The volume of wastewater dosed to the
unit during the startup remained mostly constant and only minor adjustments to the dosing pump
runtime were required. Table 4-1 shows a summary of the flow volumes during the startup
period. The daily flow records are in Appendix E.
26
-------
Table 4-1. Flow Volume Data - Startup Period
Average Actual Daily Volume
Date
October 29 to 3 1,2002
November 1 to 30, 2002
December 1 to 3 1,2002
Doses/day
15
15
15
Gallons/dose
33.4
33.1
33.2
(gallons)
501
496
499
4.2.2 Startup Analytical Results
The results of the influent and effluent monitoring during the startup period are shown Tables 4-
2 and 4-3. The first sets of samples were taken sixteen days after the unit was started. The initial
data showed that the unit reduced the CBODs and TSS to 41 mg/L and 19 mg/L, respectively,
and the ReCip® was removing some of the total nitrogen (37 mg/L in the influent, 30 mg/L in the
effluent). Observations and additional sampling to determine the condition of the unit continued
over the next six weeks. The treatment performance remained steady through the end of the
startup period.
After nine weeks of startup, the verification test period began. The biological growth appeared
to be established in the unit, although the nitrification/denitrification processes were not yet
achieving anticipated results. As will be shown in the discussion of the verification results, the
nitrification and denitrification populations took an additional few weeks to become more fully
established. Wastewater and ambient air temperatures were falling throughout the startup period
and may have slowed the development of the nitrifying and denitrifying organisms. On the last
sample collected during the startup period (12/12/02), the CBODs of the effluent was 43 mg/L
(86% reduction) and TSS was 22 mg/L (approximately 88 percent reduction). The unit was
removing a small amount of organic and NHa-N. NO2" and NOs" concentrations were low,
indicating that any NH3-N being converted to MV or NOs" was being removed by denitrification
in the unit.
Table 4-2. Influent Wastewater Quality - Startup Period
Date
11/13/02
11/26/02
12/4/02
12/11/02
12/12/02
BOD5
(mg/L)
270
300
230
300
300
TSS Alkalinity pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (S.U.)
120
N/A
140
140
180
160
180
160
160
160
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.6
NH3-N
(mg/L)
21
26
25
24
27
TKN
(mg/L)
37
36
39
38
37
TN
(mg/L)
37
36
39
38
37
DO
(mg/L)
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
Influent
Temp. (°C)
16
15
13
12
11
N/A - not analyzed.
27
-------
Table 4-3. ReCip® Effluent Quality - Startup Period
„ . CBODg
Date , _ ,
(mg/L)
11/13/02
11/26/02
12/4/02
12/11/02
12/12/02
41
97
58
50
43
TSS
(mg/L)
19
11
20
19
22
Alkalinity pH
(mg/L) (S.U.)
190
180
180
180
180
7.2
7.6
7.1
7.5
7.6
NH3-N
(mg/L)
20
24
22
22
25
TKN
(mg/L)
30
27
28
30
30
N03
(mg/L)
<0.10
0.10
O.10
O.10
0.10
NO2
(mg/L)
O.05
0.09
O.05
0.09
0.05
TN
(mg/L)
30
27
28
30
30
DO Discharge
(mg/L) Temp. (°C)
1.4
1.3
2.1
2.3
1.3
11
12
8
8
9
4.2.3 Startup Operating Conditions
®
The ReCip was started using BioConcepts' recommended settings. The standard operating
sequence calls for a two-hour rest period between 15-minute pumping periods. When the pump
timer is activated, the pump in cell one turns on and pumps for 15 minutes or until the float
switch on the pump indicates that the wastewater has been transferred from cell one to cell two,
whichever comes first. After the two-hour rest period, the cell two pump is activated and
transfers the wastewater back to cell one, pumping for 15 minutes or until the float switch shuts
the pump off. Regular observations throughout the startup period indicated that the pumps were
operating properly.
On December 21, 2002, BioConcepts requested that the timing be changed to a one-hour rest
period. This change was made to improve treatment performance. The new setting was
maintained until the start of the verification test on January 1, 2003, when the setting was
returned to the original setting of a two-hour rest period for approximately three weeks. On
January 22, the timer was reset to a one-hour rest period at the request of BioConcepts.
4.3 Verification Test
The verification test was started officially on January 1, 2003. The last startup sample was
collected on December 12, 2002. All results for the remainder of the test were considered part of
the verification test period. The summary data presented for the verification results do not
include data from the startup period.
Two changes were made to system operating conditions during the verification test. On January
22, 2003, the rest period timer was changed to a one-hour rest period. BioConcepts requested
this change to improve system performance by introducing additional air (oxygen) to the unit by
increasing the number of pump cycles between the cells. The timer settings, one-hour rest
periods (time between cell wastewater transfers) and 15-minute pumping times remained
constant until August 11, 2003. On August 1 1, the rest period timer was changed to a one half-
hour rest period. Activation of the pumps to recycle wastewater every one half hour continued
until the end the verification test and through the extra four months of testing that followed the
verification period.
28
-------
4.3.1 Verification Test - Flow Conditions
The standard dosing sequence (15 doses per day, 33.3 gallons per dose) was performed every
day from January 1, 2003, through December 21, 2003, except during the stress periods.
Following completion of the 12-month verification test, the unit continued in operation at the
same dosing levels and settings for four additional months, January through April 2004. Volume
per dose and total daily volume varied only slightly during the verification test. Table 4-4 shows
the average monthly volumes for the verification period. As these data show, the actual
wastewater volume dosed to the ReCip® was very close to the targeted volume of 500 gpd for the
entire verification test. All monthly averages meet the requirement of being within ±10 percent
of the target. Daily flow volumes are presented in Appendix E.
29
-------
Table 4-4. ReCip" Influent Volume Summary
Target Average Monthly
Month - Year Gallon/dose Doses/day Gallon/dose Gallon/day
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
32.8
32.6
32.5
32.9
34.4
34.4
34.6
34.9
32.9
34.3
33.3
32.5
34.4
34.1
33.9
33.7
33.5
34.9
32.5
0.92
492
488
487
493
515
515
518 l
524
495 2
514
500 3
488
516
512
508
506
502
524
487
14
(1) July 2 - July 22: Low load test run in July; average flow data does not include the low flow days.
Only normal flow days are included. During the low load test, flow was set at 50 percent of
normal flow. Actual average flow during the low load test was 255 gpd.
(2) September 16 (p.m.) through September 18 (p.m.): During the power failure stress test, there was
one day with no flow and one day with reduced flow. These data points were not included in the
monthly average.
(3) November 13 - November 22: Vacation stress test, a 9-day test with 8 days of no flow. No/low
flow days excluded from the calculations.
4.3.2 BODs/CBODs and Suspended Solids Results
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the influent and effluent BOD5/CBOD5 and TSS concentrations during
the verification test. Table 4-5 presents the same results with a summary of the data (mean,
median, maximum, minimum, standard deviation). CBOD5 was measured in the effluent as
required in the protocol. The use of the CBOD5 analysis was specified because the effluent from
nutrient reduction systems is expected to be low in oxygen-demanding organics and have a large
number of nitrifying organisms, which can cause nitrification to occur during the five days of
analysis. The CBOD5 analysis inhibits nitrification and provides a better measurement of the
oxygen-demanding organics in the effluent. The BODs test was used for the influent, which had
much higher levels of oxygen-demanding organics, and was expected to have a very low
30
-------
population of nitrifying organisms. In the standard BODs test, it is assumed that little
nitrification occurs within the five days of the test. Therefore, the oxygen-demanding organics
are the primary compounds measured in the wastewater influent. Comparing the BOD5 of the
influent and the CBOD5 of the effluent demonstrates how effectively the system removes
oxygen-demanding organics.
The influent wastewater had a mean BODs of 200 mg/L and a median BODs of 190 mg/L. The
mean and median influent TSS was 130 mg/L. The ReCip® effluent had a mean CBOD5 of 28
mg/L and a median CBODs of 26 mg/L. The mean effluent TSS concentration was 13 mg/L,
with a median concentration of 12 mg/L. The ReCip® achieved a mean of 86 percent reduction
for BODs/CBOD,5 with a median removal of 87 percent. The mean TSS removal was 90 percent
over the 12-month period, with a median removal of 91 percent.
The change from two-hour to one-hour rest periods between cell pumping cycles made on
January 22, 2003, appears to have improved BOD5 removal. By the start of the first stress test,
the washday stress (February 18 to 22, 2003), the unit was producing effluent concentrations of
26 mg/L CBODs and 12 mg/L for TSS. Overall, washday stress did not appear to have an
impact on CBOD5 and TSS performance. Post-stress-period monitoring snowed consistent
performance into April 2003. Effluent CBODs was in the range of 22 to 38 mg/L and TSS
ranged from 9 to 14 mg/L.
The working parent stress test started on April 22 and was completed on April 26, 2003. The
initial results during the stress test and for the first two days after the stress test showed little or
no impact on the CBOD5 and TSS concentrations in the effluent. The last four sampling days
(April 30 to May 3, 2003) in the post-stress-test period did show an increase in CBODs and TSS
in the effluent. During May, the removal of CBOD5 continued to be slightly lower than during
the previous four months. Improved removal of CBOD5 was achieved in June and at the
beginning of the low load stress test.
Data collected during and following the low load stress test (July 2 to July 22, 2003) showed no
major change in overall removal of CBOD5 and TSS. The effluent concentrations did show a
wider range of results, but there was no clear trend or impact due to the stress test.
The monthly sample collected on August 21, 2003, showed a decrease in CBOD5 and TSS in the
effluent. This improvement occurred after the pump cycle was changed to one-half hour rest
periods between pumping cycles from the one-hour rest periods that had been set on January 22,
2003. The improved performance continued through the power/equipment failure stress test
performed from September 16 to 18, 2003. The improved performance continued after the stress
test with effluent CBODs concentrations in the 12 to 17 mg/L range and TSS concentrations in
the 7 to 12 mg/L range.
The vacation stress test started on November 18. Effluent CBOD5 concentration showed an
increasing trend (16 to 46 mg/L) after the end of the stress period, indicating that the stress test
may have impacted effluent quality. During the vacation stress test, there was an eight-day
period with no flow to the system, although power was maintained. The ReCip® pumps
-------
continued to cycle during this stress test, but there was no flow or new food source to the unit. It
is possible that the bacterial population adjusted to the lower organic levels during the stress test
and then needed time to recover when flow and organic loading retuned to normal. Whatever the
cause of the increase in effluent CBOD5, the performance improved rapidly in the next two
weeks, and levels of CBODs were in the <2 to 12 mg/L range during the December sampling
period.
32
-------
350
c-
,./
o?>cv>cx?>cv>cx?>cv>cx?>cx?> cv> o?>
Date
, Influent Effluent
Figure 4-1. ReCip BOD5/CBOD5 results.
33
-------
250
200
D)
CO
CO
150
100
^^^y
Date
•Influent Effluent
Figure 4-2. ReCip" total suspended solids results.
34
-------
®
Table 4-5. ReCip* BOD5/CBOD5 and TSS Results
Date
1/8/03
1/29/03
2/19/03
2/21/03
2/24/03
2/25/03
2/26/03
2/27/03
2/28/03
3/1/03
3/20/03
4/16/03
4/23/03
4/25/03
4/28/03
4/29/03
4/30/03
5/1/03
5/2/03
5/3/03
5/21/03
6/25/03
7/2/03
7/12/03
7/23/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/26/03
7/27/03
7/28/03
BODS
Influent
(mg/L)
200
180
180
250
120
170
190
240
240
200
270
260
150
190
270
280
360
240
180
150
190
210
190
140
290
260
340
220
210
240
CBODg
Effluent
(mg/L)
45
38
26
32
31
31
35
22
38
22
37
28
33
25
31
38
52
47
57
45
53
38
21
14
34
40
12
67
35
38
Removal
(%)
78
79
86
87
74
82
82
91
84
89
86
89
78
87
89
86
86
80
68
70
72
82
89
90
88
85
96
70
83
84
Influent
(mg/L)
84
120
130
130
100
120
130
150
120
140
130
94
140
190
95
180
230
170
100
88
95
140
150
130
200
100
160
130
100
120
TSS
Effluent
(mg/L)
18
12
12
10
12
10
11
14
14
9
19
12
13
12
12
13
17
17
16
19
8
14
13
14
22
26
17
28
20
21
Removal
(%)
79
90
91
92
88
92
92
91
88
94
85
87
91
94
87
93
93
90
84
78
92
90
91
89
89
74
89
78
80
83
(continued)
35
-------
®
Table 4-5. ReCip BOD5/CBOD5 and TSS Results (continued)
Date
8/21/03
9/10/03
9/16/03
9/22/03
9/23/03
9/24/03
9/25/03
9/26/03
10/15/03
10/22/03
11/12/03
11/14/03
11/19/03
11/30/03
12/1/03
12/2/03
12/3/03
12/4/03
12/16/03
12/17/03
12/18/03
12/19/03
12/21/03
Samples
Mean
Median
Max
Min
Std. Dev.
BOD5
Influent
(mg/L)
190
190
130
170
200
200
150
98
190
150
160
200
140
170
160
190
240
200
170
150
150
200
180
53
200
190
360
98
52
CBOD5
Effluent
(mg/L)
14
19
15
14
13
14
14
12
17
15
28
21
20
16
19
22
32
46
24
<2
8
12
12
53
28
26
67
<2
14
Removal
(%)
93
90
88
92
94
93
91
88
91
90
83
90
86
91
88
88
87
77
86
>99
95
94
93
53
86
87
>99
68
6.9
Influent
(mg/L)
92
110
130
120
130
120
100
110
140
190
130
130
150
110
150
140
160
120
200
110
140
82
130
53
130
130
230
82
32
TSS
Effluent
(mg/L)
8
8
10
12
10
10
10
7
10
9
8
9
8
6
9
10
13
16
10
10
8
10
11
53
13
12
28
6
4.7
Removal
(%)
91
93
92
90
92
92
90
94
93
95
94
93
95
95
94
93
92
87
95
91
94
88
92
53
90
91
95
74
4.7
Note: Values below the detection limit were set to zero for concentration averages.
36
-------
4.3.3 Nitrogen Reduction Performance
4.3.3.1 Results
Figures 4-3 through 4-5 present the results for TKN, NHs-N, and TN in the influent and effluent
during the verification test. Figure 4-6 shows the results for NCV and NOs" in the effluent from
the ReCip®. Table 4-6 presents all of the nitrogen results with a summary of the data (mean,
median, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation).
The influent wastewater had a mean TKN concentration of 36 mg/L and an average NH3-N
concentration of 23 mg/L, with median concentrations of 36 mg/L and 23 mg/L, respectively.
The average TN concentration in the influent was 36 mg/L (median of 36 mg/L), based on the
generally accepted assumption that NCV and N(V concentrations in the influent were negligible.
The ReCip® effluent had an average TKN concentration of 13 mg/L, with a median of 14 mg/L.
The average NHs-N concentration in the effluent was 10 mg/L, with a median concentration of
10 mg/L. The N(V concentration in the effluent averaged 0.18 mg/L, with a median
concentration of 0.12 mg/L. Effluent NOs" concentrations averaged 1.6 mg/L over the 12-month
test, with a median concentration of 0.8 mg/L. TN was determined by adding the concentrations
of the TKN (organic plus NH3-N), N(V, and N(V, resulting in an average TN in the ReCip®
effluent of 15 mg/L for the 12-month verification period, with a median concentration of 15
mg/L. The ReCip® averaged 58 percent reduction of TN for the verification test period, with a
median removal of 60 percent.
Alkalinity, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature were measured during the verification
test. These parameters can provide insight into the condition of the system and can impact total
nitrogen removal. Table 4-7 shows the results for alkalinity, DO, and pH. Temperature
measurements are shown in Figure 4-7.
The pH of the influent was very consistent throughout the test, ranging from pH 7.0 to 7.6. The
effluent from the ReCip® showed a slight decrease in pH, but in a similar range, consistently
remaining in the pH 7.2 to 7.6 range. The alkalinity of the influent averaged 180 mg/L as CaCOs
with a maximum concentration of 220 mg/L and minimum of 96 mg/L. The effluent alkalinity
was generally lower than the influent (as expected when nitrification/denitrification is occurring),
with an average concentration of 140 mg/L and a median concentration of 130 mg/L. The
effluent alkalinity did vary based on the performance of the nitrification and denitrification
process.
The DO in the influent wastewater to the septic tank was low, as would be expected, averaging
0.3 mg/L. The ReCip® is designed to operate as both an aerobic and anaerobic system, with air
being drawn in through the vents during pump cycles. The DO in the effluent from the system
ranged from 0.3 to 5.2 mg/L and averaged 1.6 mg/L.
37
-------
4.3.3.2 Discussion
At the beginning of the verification test, TN removal was 29 percent and NH3-N removal 14
percent. Following the timer change to a one-hour rest period on January 22, 2003, the
performance began to improve. TN removal reached 50 percent by February. NH3-N removal
increased more slowly, reaching 50 percent removal in mid-April when wastewater temperatures
also increased. TN, TKN, and NH3-N removals all showed a generally improved performance as
the test continued. NH3-N removal improved in the second half of the test, August through
December. This improvement occurred after the pump rest period was changed from a one-hour
rest period to a one-half-hour rest period.
The washday stress test (February 18 to 22, 2003) did not impact the nitrogen removal
performance. The working parent stress test (April 22 to 26, 2003) also did not have a
significant negative impact on nitrogen removal. In fact, NH3-N removal and TN removal
improved in the post-stress-test monitoring period. This sampling period coincided with an
increase in wastewater temperature from 6°C in March to 9 to 10°C in the second half of April.
The temperature increase may have improved conditions for the growth of nitrifying organisms,
leading to improved NH3-N removal.
The low load stress test began on July 2 and ended on July 22, 2003. During this period, the
flow to the system was half the normal flow (250 gpd versus 500 gpd). NH3-N, TKN, and TN
removal all decreased during post-stress-test monitoring. The reason for the decreased
performance is not known. However, the ReCip™ recovered within the next three weeks as
shown by the August 21, 2003, results. The pump rest period was changed to one-half-hour
between pumping cycles on August 11, which appears to have contributed to improved
performance for CBOD5 and NH3-N. Removal percentages for NH3-N and TN were consistently
higher during September compared to previous periods of the test. The power/equipment failure
stress test was conducted from September 16 to 18, 2003. and showed no impact on the unit.
The vacation stress test was started on November 18 and continued until November 27, 2003.
During this period, there was no influent flow to the system for eight days. NH3-N and TKN
removal showed lower removal during the last days of the post-stress-test monitoring period.
However, performance improved within two weeks. On the first day of post-stress monitoring
(November 30), the NO3" level in the effluent increased to 11 mg/L, which was the highest level
found during the entire verification test. The NO3" concentration steadily decreased over the next
several days. It is apparent from the increase in NO3" and the corresponding decrease in alkalinity
(denitrification produces alkalinity) that something upset the denitrification process. Flow to the
unit had been returned to normal for four days after the stress test, so it is not clear if the vacation
stress test had a direct impact on the denitrification process. It is more likely that something else
caused the decrease in denitrification.
The system performance returned to the same general levels achieved in September and October
during the final week of sampling from December 16 to 21, 2003, with effluent NH3-N and TKN
concentrations of less than 10 mg/L (in the 3.8 to 5.1 mg/L and 7.6 to 9.2 mg/L ranges,
38
-------
respectively). After a peak of 11 mg/L on November 30, 2003, the N(V levels improved to
between 3.0 and 4.1 mg/L in late December.
39
-------
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
?^ <^\^ ^^ ^r^ ^^^^ ^ ^
Date
1 Influent
Effluent
Figure 4-3. ReCip" Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen results.
40
-------
c
Ol
O)
2
o
35 -
30 -
25
20
15-
10 -
5 -
o
Date
Influent
-Effluent
®
Figure 4-4. ReCip ammonia nitrogen results.
41
-------
O)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-S$>
-S$>
Date
-S$>
• Influent
Effluent
Figure 4-5. ReCip" total nitrogen results.
42
-------
O)
£
Q.
-S
£
12.00
10.00 -
8.00 -
6.00 -
4.00 -
2.00 -
0.00
Date
Figure 4-6. ReCip NO2 an(j NO 3 effluent concentrations.
43
-------
s
2
Ol
Q.
Ol
30
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
y^t*^
Date
Influent
-Effluent
Figure 4-7. ReCip" influent temperature
44
-------
®
Table 4-6. ReCip Influent and Effluent Nitrogen Data
TKN
(mg/L)
Date Influent Effluent
1/8/03
1/29/03
2/19/03
2/21/03
2/24/03
2/25/03
2/26/03
2/27/03
2/28/03
3/1/03
3/20/03
4/16/03
4/23/03
4/25/03
4/28/03
4/29/03
4/30/03
5/1/03
5/2/03
5/3/03
5/21/03
6/25/03
7/2/03
7/12/03
7/23/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/26/03
7/27/03
7/28/03
o o
38
38
33
35
24
30
37
33
34
37
38
32
36
39
40
44
44
38
36
34
27
38
44
36
39
32
33
36
31
39
27
18
16
14
16
14
15
16
15
17
19
15
14
13
14
16
15
16
17
17
13
14
11
12
17
16
17
22
18
22
NH3-N
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
21
27
22
24
15
19
24
20
22
23
25
22
24
25
26
28
28
26
25
24
20
26
35
26
21
23
23
23
23
23
18
18
15
13
13
10
11
12
13
12
16
11
10
9.6
11
12
12
12
13
12
9.6
11
8.0
8.3
14
14
13
14
14
15
TN
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
38
38
33
35
24
30
37
33
34
37
38
32
36
39
40
44
44
38
36
34
27
38
44
36
39
32
33
36
31
39
27
19
16
16
16
15
16
16
16
18
19
15
16
13
14
16
15
16
17
17
16
14
14
12
17
16
19
24
20
24
N03
(mg/L)
Effluent
O.10
O.10
0.10
1.5
0.10
O.10
0.10
0.10
O.10
0.10
O.10
0.10
O.10
0.10
O.10
O.10
0.10
O.10
0.10
O.10
2.7
0.36
3.4
0.10
0.14
0.10
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.8
NO2
(mg/L)
Effluent
0.12
0.86
0.48
0.48
0.34
0.58
0.59
0.37
0.56
0.60
0.41
0.25
O.05
0.15
0.19
0.22
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
0.05
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
0.05
(Continued)
45
-------
®
Table 4-6. ReCip Influent and Effluent Nitrogen Data (continued)
Date
8/21/03
9/10/03
9/16/03
9/22/03
9/23/03
9/24/03
9/25/03
9/26/03
10/15/03
10/22/03
11/12/03
11/14/03
11/19/03
11/30/03
12/1/03
12/2/03
12/3/03
12/4/03
12/16/03
12/17/03
12/18/03
12/19/03
12/21/03
Samples
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
TKN
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
36
33
25
38
36
35
41
38
36
37
37
36
37
40
40
40
36
34
39
36
35
39
52
36
36
44
24
4.1
10
8.2
7.5
8.5
8.8
8.7
9.7
8.6
10
9.3
7.8
8.3
5.4
7.7
7.9
15
21
8.3
8.2
8.3
9.2
7.6
52
13
14
27
5.4
4.7
NH3-N
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
20
23
20
23
23
24
24
29
24
23
21
21
25
22
24
21
21
18
22
24
22
51
23
23
35
15
3.1
7.2
6.4
6.2
5.3
5.4
6.2
6.4
6.6
7.7
6.6
5.7
6.7
3.4
4.9
4.9
10
17
5.1
4.0
4.0
5.1
3.8
52
10
10
18
3.4
4.0
TN
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
36
33
25
38
36
35
41
38
36
37
37
36
37
40
40
40
36
34
39
36
35
39
52
36
36
44
24
4.1
11
10
8.2
9.4
10
10
11
10
13
13
11
3.0
12
17
18
15
17
21
12
13
12
12
11
53
15
15
27
3.0
4.2
N03
(mg/L)
Effluent
0.61
1.9
0.62
0.80
0.97
1.2
0.97
1.6
2.5
3.5
3.4
2.8
3.0
11
9.8
7.1
1.5
0.05
3.9
4.1
3.7
3.0
3.4
53
1.7
0.8
11
0.10
2.3
NO2
(mg/L)
Effluent
O.05
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.06
<0.05
0.08
0.19
0.15
0.10
0.22
0.30
0.15
0.19
0.23
0.09
0.06
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.16
53
0.18
0.12
0.86
0.05
0.20
Values below the detection limit were set equal to zero for statistical calculations.
N/R—not reported.
46
-------
®
Table 4-7. ReCip Alkalinity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen Results
Date
1/8/03
1/29/03
2/19/03
2/21/03
2/24/03
2/25/03
2/26/03
2/27/03
2/28/03
3/1/03
3/20/03
4/16/03
4/23/03
4/25/03
4/28/03
4/29/03
4/30/03
5/1/03
5/2/03
5/3/03
5/21/03
6/25/03
7/2/03
7/12/03
7/23/03
7/24/03
7/25/03
7/26/03
7/27/03
7/28/03
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCO3)
Influent Effluent
160
170
160
180
96
150
160
160
170
150
170
170
160
180
190
200
180
190
180
180
150
190
210
180
170
180
180
180
180
180
160
140
120
150
150
130
120
130
130
130
140
130
140
130
140
140
140
140
140
140
120
150
140
150
170
170
160
160
160
160
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
0.1
0.1
1.4
0.4
3.4
2.0
0.9
1.5
1.0
1.1
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
1.6
2.2
3.2
2.1
1.9
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.7
5.2
0.9
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.3
2.5
0.9
2.1
1.7
0.5
1.4
1.0
0.8
1.8
0.9
0.3
pH
(S.U.)
Influent Effluent
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.1
7.3
7
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
(Continued)
47
-------
®
Table 4-7. ReCip Alkalinity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen Results (continued)
Date
8/21/03
9/10/03
9/16/03
9/22/03
9/23/03
9/24/03
9/25/03
9/26/03
10/15/03
10/22/03
11/12/03
11/14/03
11/19/03
11/30/03
12/1/03
12/2/03
12/3/03
12/4/03
12/16/03
12/17/03
12/18/03
12/19/03
12/20/03
Samples
Mean
Median
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCO3)
Influent Effluent
180
180
170
190
200
190
200
200
190
200
210
210
190
210
200
200
220
210
170
190
200
200
200
53
180
180
Maximum 220
Minimum
Std. Dev
96
21
130
140
130
130
140
130
140
130
130
130
130
130
130
100
110
120
170
200
110
110
110
120
110
53
140
130
200
100
19
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
Influent Effluent
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
53
0.3
0.1
3.4
O.I
0.6
1.6
1.0
4.8
2.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.9
2.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
2.5
3.0
1.2
1.3
0.8
0.9
1.9
2.0
1.5
2.5
3.4
53
1.6
1.4
5.2
0.3
1.0
pH
(S.U.)
Influent Effluent
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
53
N/A
7.4
7.6
7.0
0.1
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.3
53
N/A
7.3
7.6
7.2
0.1
N/A - not applicable.
N/R - not reported.
48
-------
4.3.4 Residuals Results
The ReCip® was inspected at the end of the test for solids buildup in the area below the medium
and near the pump in both cells. Based on visual observation, there was no solids buildup in the
bottom of the cells or near the pumps, and, therefore, residuals samples were not collected.
Observation of the pump cycles and the pump placement suggests that solids will not typically
settle or accumulate in the cells, as they are constantly being pumped back and forth between the
cells. This water movement by the pumps appears to keep the solids from settling in the cells.
4.4 Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance performance of the ReCip® was monitored throughout the
verification test. A field log was maintained that included all observations made over the 12-
month test period. Data were collected on electrical and chemical usage, noise, and odor.
Observations were recorded on the condition of the system, any changes in setup or operation
(pump adjustments, cleaning, etc.) or any problems that required resolution. A complete set of
field logs is included in Appendix F. There were no major mechanical component failures
during the verification test. The float on the pump in cell one did stick on two occasions. The
pump was removed from the cell, cleaned, and placed back in service, and sampling was not
affected.
4.4.1 Electric Use
A dedicated electric meter was used to monitor electrical usage by the ReCip®. BCDHE
personnel recorded the meter reading at least biweekly in the field log. Table 4-8 shows a
summary of the electrical use during the verification test (January 2003 through December
2003). The complete set of electrical readings is presented in a spreadsheet in Appendix E. The
system tested used two pumps; one pump in cell one and one pump in cell two. There were no
other electrical devices, such as a fans or heaters used in the unit. Power use was directly related
to the timer setting controlling the frequency of pumping between cells.
49
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of ReCip® Electrical Usage (kW/day)
Readings
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Two-hour rest
between pump
cycles
13
1.4
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.49
One-hour rest
between pump
cycles
126
2.2
2.0
3.0
1.0
0.47
One-half-hour
rest between
pump cycles
68
3.9
4.0
5.0
2.0
0.57
Note: All usage in kW/day.
4.4.2 Chemical Use
The ReCip® did not require or use any chemical addition as part of normal unit operation.
4.4.3 Noise
Noise levels associated with mechanical equipment were measured once during the verification
period. A decibel meter was used to measure the noise level. Measurements were taken 1 meter
from the unit and V/2 meters above the ground, at 90° intervals in four directions. The meter was
calibrated prior to use. Two measurements were taken near the laboratory trailer and averaged to
provide background data. Table 4-9 shows the results from this test.
Table 4-9. ReCip® Noise Measurements
Location
Background
East
South
West
North
All Locations
Reading
(decibels)
85.0
93.4
97.2
77.9
84.7
88.0
Decibels are a log scale so averages are calculated
on a log basis
4.4.4 Odor Observations
Monthly odor observations were made during the verification test. Each odor observation was
qualitative based on odor strength (intensity) and type (attribute). Intensity was stated as not
discernable, barely detectable, moderate, or strong. Observations were made during periods of
low wind velocity (<10 knots). The observer stood upright at a distance of three feet from the
50
-------
treatment unit, and recorded any odors at 90° intervals in four directions (minimum number of
points). The same BCDHE employee made all observations. Table 4-10 summarizes the results
of the odor observations. There were no discernible odors found during any of the observation
periods.
Table 4-10. Odor Observations
Date
Number of
Points Observed
Observation
11/26/02
12/22/02
1/19/03
1/26/03
2/20/03
3/9/03
4/13/03
5/10/03
5/31/03
6/14/03
8/24/03
9/7/03
10/18/03
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
No discernable odor
4.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Observations
During the test, very few problems were encountered with the mechanical operation of the
system. BioConcepts checked the system in October 2002 just before the official startup period.
The unit had been running for three months prior to the official startup to check out the entire test
system. During the October cleanup and check, BioConcepts changed the medium in the unit,
plastic "bioballs", to a new medium that was an expanded slate aggregate. Once the unit was
started in October, the only maintenance performed was to clean the floats on the pump in cell
one. On two occasions, March 1 and August 2, 2003, it was noted that the pumps were not
cycling properly. This was caused by the low water shutoff float becoming stuck and not
allowing the pump to operate. The pump was pulled using the procedures described in the O&M
manual. The float was cleaned and the pump reinstalled. This solved the problem in both cases.
One recommendation in the O&M Manual is that the homeowner or a hired service contractor
should check the pump cycle and the water levels in the two cells once per month. The procedure
is easy and well described in the O&M Manual: visual observation of the water depth in each
cell and cycling the pumps manually if required. While the procedure is easy, it is important that
it be followed on a regular (at least monthly) basis. A pump failure for any reason will affect the
treatment performance, as the cells will not receive the oxygen from the air that is normally
drawn into the cell during active pumping periods.
51
-------
The O&M Manual (considered proprietary) supplied by BioConcepts to MASSTC and NSF
personnel provided a basic overview of the process and sufficient information for the test center
staff to operate the unit. After the system configuration overview and two good system
diagrams, BioConcepts presents a simple description of the system function with reference to
nitrification and denitrification processes. There is a good description of the control panel timer
and alarm controls. The troubleshooting section focuses entirely on troubleshooting the two
pumps in the system. There is a detailed description of how to tell if either pump is not working
properly and describes how to remove the pumps and check the float switches. There is no
assistance given for troubleshooting the biological process should treatment performance
deteriorate. Also, there is no guidance on when the timer settings should be adjusted from the
default values of 15 minutes of pumping followed by a two-hour rest period. BioConcepts
recommends that a qualified service provider be hired to check the system and service as needed.
The installation section is one paragraph long indicating that the system is easy to install. It is
clearly stated that homeowners should never try to install the unit themselves, but that a licensed
installer should be hired to perform the installation. Based on this information, it must be
assumed that the licensed installer will be provided with additional information on the proper
installation methods for the unit. The contractor hired for the installation at MASSTC did not
have any problem installing the unit.
In the opinion of the test site operators, the system was easy to operate and maintain. In fact, the
only operational change that can be made is to change the timer settings to adjust the runtime on
the pumps and the rest period between pump cycles. It is important that the water depth in the
cells be checked on a regular basis (at least once per month) to ensure that the pumps are
operating properly. A homeowner can perform this simple check, in addition to checking for and
being aware of unusual noises (or lack of sound from the system), alarms, or any unusual odors.
Removing the pump and cleaning the float, as was done twice during the test, is also
straightforward and easy enough for a homeowner to do. However, there are electrical and
biological hazards that need to be taken into consideration when performing this type of activity.
It is important that the screens on the vents be kept clean and clear so that air can flow in and out
of the cells. These screens remained clear during the verification test, but do need to be checked
on a regular basis. The MASSTC operators believe quarterly or semi-annual maintenance
checks of the system by a qualified service contractor would be adequate and appropriate to
address any anticipated problems and ensure good system performance. Based on 12 months of
observation, it is estimated that normal maintenance checks would require less than one hour to
ensure that the system is in good operating condition. The skill level needed is the equivalent of
a Class II Massachusetts treatment plant operator.
Maintenance activities, provided by a qualified service provider, should include cleaning the
screens on the vents and checking the water level in the cells. The pumps should be cycled, and
alarms and floats should be checked for proper operation. Samples of the treated water should be
collected as needed to verify treatment performance.
52
-------
A qualified service provider should also check the septic tank for solids depth, and if solids have
built up in the tank, pumping the septic tank should be scheduled. The ReCip® O&M Manual
recommends an annual check of the septic tank, which should be adequate. There is no guidance
on the solids depth in the septic tank that would indicate that the tank should be pumped.
The verification test ran for a period of 12 months, which provided sufficient time to evaluate the
overall performance of the unit. The equipment seemed to be properly constructed and used
appropriate materials of construction for wastewater treatment applications. The use of
aluminum and PVC components, pumps designed for wastewater service, and the overall design
of the system would indicate that it should have reasonable life expectancy. The verification did
not run long enough to truly evaluate length of equipment life or provide life cycle information.
The basic components of the system appear durable.
No particular design considerations are necessary relative to placement, as most of the unit is
below grade (vents are above grade) and the noise level from the pumps is moderate to low.
4.5 Post-Verification Test Data
Following the verification test period, the ReCip® was operated for an additional four months at
the vendor's request, to obtain additional performance data for the system. These data are
presented in Tables 4-11 and 4-12.
53
-------
Table 4-11. Post-Verification Test Period Data - CBOD5, TSS, TKN, NH3-N, TN, NO3, NO2
CBOD5
Date
1/21/04
2/18/04
3/24/04
3/31/04
4/07/04
4/21/04
4/28/04
Table 4-12
Influent
(mg/L)
150
260
130
120
89
120
120
Effluent
(mg/L)
<2
61
24
11
19
10
16
. Post-Verification
TSS
Influent Effluent
(mg/L) (mg/L)
110 7
160 14
130 10
110 9
47 7
130 4
180 10
Test Period Data
TKN
Influent
(mg/L)
32
29
32
32
30
38
42
Effluent
(mg/L)
6.5
24
14
16
16
6.4
13
- Alkalinity, DO,
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCO3)
Date
1/21/04
2/18/04
3/24/04
3/31/04
4/07/04
4/21/04
4/28/04
Influent
160
160
170
170
170
180
180
Effluent
110
170
120
130
130
110
130
NH3-N
Influent
(mg/L)
14
15
19
26
21
24
23
pH
DO
Effluent
(mg/L)
3.4
18
11
11
11
4.7
8.0
(mg/L)
Influent
0.8
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
Effluent
1.7
1.7
4.5
5.2
1.4
0.8
1.1
Influent
(mg/L)
32
29
32
32
30
38
42
pH
(S.U.)
TN
Effluent
(mg/L)
9.1
24
15
17
17
8.7
14
N03
Effluent
(mg/Ljtj0
2.5
O.02
0.95
0.90
1.0
2.3
1.0
2
Effluent
, (mg/L)
0.10
0.04
0.40
0.13
O.05
0.05
O.05
Influent Effluent
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
54
-------
4.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The VTP included a QAPP that identified critical measurements and established data quality
objectives (DQO). The verification test procedures and data collection followed the QAPP, and
summary results are reported in this section. The full laboratory QA/QC results and supporting
documentation are presented in Appendix C.
4.6.1 Audits
In June 2003, NSF conducted an audit of the MASSTC and the BDCHE Laboratory. This audit
found that the field and laboratory procedures were being followed as presented in the VTP.
The audit found that the procedures being used in the field and the laboratory were in accordance
with the established QAPP. The laboratory had a firmly established QA/QC program, and
observation of the analyses and a records review found that appropriate QC was being performed
with the analyses. All members of the testing team were reminded that an ETV evaluation
requires that copies of all logs and raw data records be delivered to NSF at the end of the project.
Internal audits of the field and laboratory operations were also conducted at least quarterly by
BCDHE. These audits specifically reviewed procedures and records for the ETV project. Any
shortcomings found during these internal audits were corrected as the test continued.
4.6.2 Daily Flows
One critical data quality objective was to dose the unit on a daily basis to within 10 percent of
the design flow, or 500 gpd ±10 percent, based on a monthly average of the daily flows. The
dose volume was calibrated twice per week and if the volume changed by more than 10 percent,
the dosing pump runtime was adjusted in the PLC. The objective was met for all 12 months of
the verification test period. The monthly averages were presented in Table 4-4. The daily flows
for all months and the twice per week calibration data are presented in spreadsheet format in
Appendix E.
4.6.3 Precision
Measurements to monitor the overall precision of the sample collection processes and laboratory
analyses were performed throughout the verification test by the collection and analysis of
duplicate samples. The test plan did not differentiate between laboratory precision and field
precision. Field duplicate samples were analyzed for all parameters except pH, temperature, and
DO at a frequency of at least one duplicate for every ten samples analyzed or one per batch if
less than ten samples in a batch. The results for the duplicate samples are presented in the data
reports received from the laboratory and are available in spreadsheet format in Appendix E.
Summaries of the duplicate data used to determine whether the precision objectives for the
verification test were met are presented in Tables 4-14 and 4-15.
55
-------
Relative percent difference (RPD) between a sample and its duplicate was calculated using the
standard formula as follows:
RPD = [(Ci- C2) -*- ((Ci + C2)/2)] x 100%
Where:
Ci = Concentration of the compound or element in the sample
C2 = Concentration of the compound or element in the duplicate
Table 4-13. Acceptance Criteria for Duplicates
Acceptance Limits
Parameter (RPD)
TSS 20
Alkalinity 20
BOD5/CBOD5 30
TKN 20
NH3-N 20
NO2" 20
NO3" 20
56
-------
Table 4-14. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - Nitrogen Compounds
Statistics
Number
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Deviation
TKN
Rep 1 Rep 2
(mg/L) (mg/L)
22 22
20 21
16 18
40 38
7.6 7.4
11 10
RPD Rep 1
(%) (mg/L)
22 22
4.9 15
4.6 14
19.9 25
0.0 3.8
5.5 7.2
NH3-N
Rep 2
(mg/L)
22
14
14
25
3.9
7.1
RPD
(%)
22
3.8
3.2
13
0.0
4.0
Statistics
Number
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Deviation
NO2
Rep 1 Rep 2
(mg/L) (mg/L)
15 15
0.22 0.22
0.2 0.2
0.86 0.85
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 0.2
RPD Rep 1
(%) (mg/L)
15 15
1.3 1.2
0.0 3.1
7.7 7.1
0.0 <0.10
2.6 2.1
N03
Rep 2
(mg/L)
15
1.2
3.1
7.1
<0.10
2.1
RPD
(%)
15
0.76
0.0
8.7
0.0
2.3
Values below the detection limit were set equal to zero for statistical calculations.
Table 4-15. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - CBOD, BOD, Alkalinity, TSS
Statistics
Number
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Deviation
BOD5/CBOD5
Rep 1 Rep 2
(mg/L) (mg/L)
22 22
91 90
39 38
290 270
7.8 5.6
96 94
RPD Rep 1
(%) (mg/L)
22 22
12 47
8.1 14
33 140
0.0 8.0
10 52
TSS
Rep 2
(mg/L)
22
48
14
140
8.0
54
RPD
(%)
22
4.2
2
17
0.0
5.5
Statistics
Number
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Deviation
Repl
(mg/L as CaCO3)
22
150
140
200
110
28
Alkalinity
Rep 2
(mg/L as CaCO3)
22
150
140
200
110
28
RPD
(%)
22
2.4
1.5
11
0.0
2.6
Values below the detection limit were set equal to zero for statistical calculations.
57
-------
The RPD results for the field duplicate samples and the analytical samples were within the
acceptance criteria for all samples, with the exception of one BOD sample, which was equal to
the upper acceptance limit (5/21/03 influent sample = 30 RPD).
4.6.4 Accuracy
Method accuracy was determined and monitored using a combination of matrix spikes and lab
control samples (with a known concentration of an analyte in blank water), depending on the
method. When matrix spike samples were analyzed as part of a batch of samples, the spiked
sample was not necessarily an ETV sample. Recovery of the spiked analytes was calculated and
monitored during the verification test. Recoveries for all matrix spikes and lab control samples
were within the established windows, with the exception of one set of NH3-N matrix spikes and
one set of NCV matrix spikes, for which recoveries were low. Each data set was examined and
each data set was judged valid and useable. Tables 4-16 and 4-17 show a summary of the
recovery data. The results for the matrix spike and lab control samples are available in
spreadsheet format in Appendix E.
The equations used to calculate the recoveries for spiked samples and laboratory control samples
are as follows.
Matrix Spike Samples:
Percent Recovery = (Cr-C0)/Cf x 100%
Where:
Cr = Total amount detected in spiked sample
C0 = Amount detected in un-spiked sample
Cf = Spike amount added to sample.
Lab Control Sample:
Percent Recovery = (Cm/CknOWn) x 100%
Where:
Cm = measured concentration in the spike control sample
Cknown = known concentration
58
-------
Table 4-16. Accuracy Results - Nitrogen Analyses
Statistics
Statistics
TKN
(% Recovery)
Lab Control
Matrix Spike Sample
NH3-N
(% Recovery)
Lab Control
Matrix Spike Sample
Number
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
3
99
95
115
87
14
45
103
103
113
88
7.5
3
84
85
98
70
14
42
100
101
119
83
6.9
NO2
(% Recovery)
Lab Control
Matrix Spike Sample
N03
(% Recovery)
Lab Control
Matrix Spike Sample
Number
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
27
98
102
120
10
22
4
107
108
110
101
4.0
28
105
105
134
65
15
6
101
102
108
90
7.5
Table 4-17. Accuracy Results - Alkalinity, BOD5, CBOD5
Statistics
Number
Average
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Alkalinity
(% Recovery)
Lab Control
Sample
46
102
100
112
92
4.1
BOD5/CODS
(% Recovery)
Lab Control
Sample
54
102
100
135
77
10
The balance used for TSS analysis was calibrated routinely with weights that were NIST-
traceable. Calibration records were maintained by the laboratory and inspected during the on-
site audit. The temperature of the drying oven was also monitored using a thermometer that was
calibrated with a NIST-traceable thermometer. The pH meter was calibrated using a three-point
calibration curve with purchased buffer solutions of known pH. Field temperature measurements
were performed using a thermometer that was calibrated using a NIST-traceable thermometer
provided to the field lab by the BCDHE laboratory. The dissolved oxygen meter was calibrated
daily using ambient air and temperature readings in accordance with the SOP. The noise meter
59
-------
was calibrated prior to use and all readings were recorded in the field logbook. All of these
traceable calibrations were performed to ensure the accuracy of measurements.
4.6.5 Representativeness
The field procedures, as documented in the MASSTC SOPs (Appendix B), were designed to
ensure that representative samples were collected of both influent and effluent wastewater. The
composite sampling equipment was calibrated on a routine basis to ensure that proper sample
volumes were collected to provide flow weighted sample composites. Field duplicate samples
and supervisor oversight provided assurance that procedures were being followed. The field
duplicates showed that there was some variability in the duplicate samples. However, based on
22 sets of field duplicates, the overall average TSS of the replicates was very close (47 and 48
mg/L). These data indicated that while individual sample variability may occur, the long-term
trend in the data was representative of the concentrations in the wastewater.
The laboratories used standard analytical methods and written SOPs for each method to provide
a consistent approach to all analyses. Sample handling, storage, and analytical methodology
were reviewed during the on-site and internal audits to verify that standard procedures were
being followed. The use of standard methodology, supported by proper quality control
information and audits, ensured that the analytical data was representative of the actual
wastewater conditions.
4.6.6 Completeness
The VTP set a series of goals for completeness. During the startup and verification test, flow
data was collected for each test day and the dosing pump flow rate was calibrated twice a week
as specified. The flow records were 100 percent complete.
Electric meter readings were performed twice a week and are summarized in a spreadsheet in
Appendix E. Of 104 required biweekly readings, five readings were not taken (during the weeks
of 8/3 to 8/9/03, 8/24 to 8/30/03, and 10/12 to 10/16/03), giving a completeness of 95 percent,
which exceeds the minimum completeness requirement for the test of 83 percent.
The goal set in the VTP for sample collection completeness for both the monthly samples and
stress test samples was 83 percent. All monthly samples were collected and all stress test
samples were collected in accordance with the VTP schedule. Therefore, sample collection was
100 percent complete.
A goal of 83 percent was set for the completeness of analytical results from the BCDHE
laboratory and GAL All scheduled analyses for delivered samples were completed and found to
be acceptable, useable data. Completeness is 100 percent for the laboratory.
60
-------
Appendices
®
A BioConcepts ReCip Verification Test Plan
B MASSTC Field SOPs
C Lab Data and QA/QC Data
D Field Lab Log Book
E Spreadsheets with Calculation and Data Summary
F Field Operations Logs
Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are available from NSF
upon request.
61
-------
Glossary
Accuracy - a measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a number
of measurements to the true value and includes random error and systematic error.
Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in one
direction.
Commissioning - the installation of the nutrient reduction technology and start-up of the
technology using test site wastewater.
Comparability - a qualitative term that expresses confidence that two data sets can contribute to
a common analysis and interpolation.
Completeness - a qualitative and quantitative term that expresses confidence that all necessary
data have been included.
Precision - a measure of the agreement between replicate measurements of the same property
made under similar conditions.
Protocol - a written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, scope and procedures for
the study. A protocol shall be used for reference during Vendor participation in the verification
testing program.
Quality Assurance Project Plan - a written document that describes the implementation of
quality assurance and quality control activities during the life cycle of the project.
Residuals - the waste streams, excluding final effluent, which are retained by or discharged
from the technology.
Representativeness - a measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or
environmental condition.
Standard Operating Procedure - a written document containing specific procedures and
protocols to ensure that quality assurance requirements are maintained.
Technology Panel - a group of individuals established by the Verification Organization with
expertise and knowledge in nutrient removal technologies.
Testing Organization - an independent organization qualified by the Verification Organization
to conduct studies and testing of nutrient removal technologies in accordance with protocols and
test plans.
Vendor - a business that assembles or sells nutrient reduction equipment.
62
-------
Verification - to establish evidence on the performance of nutrient reduction technologies under
specific conditions, following a predetermined study protocol(s) and test plan(s).
Verification Organization - an organization qualified by EPA to verify environmental
technologies and to issue Verification Statements and Verification Reports.
Verification Report - a written document containing all raw and analyzed data, all QA/QC data
sheets, descriptions of all collected data, a detailed description of all procedures and methods
used in the verification testing, and all QA/QC results. The Verification Test Plan(s) shall be
included as part of this document.
Verification Statement - a document that summarizes the Verification Report and is reviewed
and approved by EPA.
Verification Test Plan - A written document prepared to describe the procedures for conducting
a test or study according to the verification protocol requirements for the application of nutrient
reduction technology at a particular test site. At a minimum, the Verification Test Plan includes
detailed instructions for sample and data collection, sample handling and preservation, and
quality assurance and quality control requirements relevant to the particular test site.
63
-------
References
Cited References
1.) APHA, AWWA, and WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19th Edition. 1998. Washington, DC.
2.) NSF International. Protocol for the Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment
Technologies for Nutrient Reduction. November 2000. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
3.) NSF International. Test Plan for The Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test
Center for Verification Testing of ReCip* Nutrient Reduction Technology. December,
2002.
4.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. Revised March 1983.
5.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods and Guidance for Analysis of
Water. 1999. EPA 821-C-99-008. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
6.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Manual for Nitrogen Control. 625/R-
93/010. 1993.
7.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet
Trickling Filter Nitrification. EPA 832-F-00-015. September 2000. Office of Water,
Washington DC.
Additional Background References
8.) ANSI/ASQC.: Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data
Collection and Environmental Technology Programs (E4. 1994.
9.) NSF International. Environmental Technology Verification—Source Water Protection
Technologies Pilot Quality Management Plan. 2000. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
10.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Technology Verification
Program—Quality and Management Plan for the Pilot Period (1995-2000). EPA/600/R-
98/064. 1998. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
11.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5. EPA/600/R-98-018. 1998. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
12.) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for the Data Quality
Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4 EPA/600/R-96-055. 1996. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
64
------- |