THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
SERA
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
TEST LOCATION:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
CATCH BASIN INSERT
IN-DRAIN TREAMENT TECHNOLOGY
HYDRO-KLEEN™ FILTRATION SYSTEM
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
HYDRO COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT, INC.
912 NORTH MAIN STREET PHONE: (800)526-9629
SUITE 100 FAX: (734) 332-7972
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104
http:\\www.hydrocompli ance.com
hcm@hydrocompliance.com
NSF International (NSF) manages the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program.
NSF evaluated the performance of the Hydro Compliance Management, Inc. Hydro-Kleen™ Storm Water
Filtration System, a catch basin insert designed to mitigate hydrocarbon, suspended solids, and metals
concerns from storm water and human-generated surface runoff. Testing was completed at the NSF
laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
EPA created the ETV Program to facilitate the 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
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; stakeholder groups
consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with 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.
03/07AVQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
September 2003
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description is provided by the vendor and does not represent verified
information.
The Hydro-Kleen™ Filtration System is a patented, multi-media filtration system with sedimentation
containment and overflow bypass protection. The systems are designed to fit within existing catch basins
in locations such as parking lots, truck bays, and other paved areas. They are also sometimes placed
downstream from "hot spots" such as gas stations, parking lots, and other industrial/commercial sites with
higher contaminant loadings. Each system is custom manufactured, for retrofit or specification, to fit
specific catch basins or drain sumps. The tested system was designed to fit within an East Jordan Iron
Works Model 5105 catch basin frame.
The Hydro-Kleen™ system consists of a stainless steel rim attached to a molded polyethylene housing,
which is separated into two chambers. Water enters a sedimentation chamber, where heavy suspended
solids and debris passing through the grate are collected, then passes through transition outlets along the
top of the sedimentation chamber into the filtration chamber. The primary media in the filtration chamber
is designed to remove hydrocarbons by adsorption to a hydrophobic cellulose material (Sorb-44). The
secondary media in the chamber is a blend of activated carbon (AC-10) designed to remove most
remaining hydrocarbons and a variety of other contaminants from the water. Treated water then passes
through the bottom of the filtration chamber into the catch basin. In situations where the flow to the
system exceeds the capacity of the filtration chamber (up to an equivalent of one-half inch of rain per
hour), water is diverted through bypass outlets, preventing flooding or ponding at the catch basin. A
complete description of the system is provided in the verification report.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Methods and Procedures
The testing methods and procedures employed during the study were outlined in the Verification Test
Plan for Hydro Compliance Management, Inc. Hydro-Kleen™ Filtration System. The Hydro-Kleen™
system was placed in a specially designed testing rig to simulate a catch basin receiving surface runoff.
The rig was designed to provide for controlled dosing and sampling, and to allow for observation cf
system performance.
The Hydro-Kleen™ system was challenged by a variety of hydraulic flow and contaminant load
conditions to evaluate the system's performance under normal and elevated loadings. Two additional
tests were conducted at the vendor's request to determine the media's hydrocarbon capacity at continuous
flow, and to evaluate system performance at reduced suspended solids loading.
A synthesized wastewater mixture containing petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil,
and brake fluid), automotive fluids (antifreeze and windshield washer solvent), surfactants, and sediments
(sand, topsoil and clay), was used to simulate constituents found in surface runoff from a commercial or
industrial setting. Influent and effluent samples were collected and analyzed for several parameters,
including total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), oil & grease (O&G), and total suspended solids (TSS).
Complete descriptions of the testing and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures are
included in the verification report.
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
System Installation and Maintenance
The Hydro-Kleen™ system was found to be durable and easy to install, requiring no special tools. The
vendor made several modifications to the system housing during installation, including changes to the rim
and openings in the chambers of the housing. The modifications are described in the verification report,
and the vendor has indicated they will be included in new systems.
03/07AVQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2003
VS-ii
-------
Maintenance on the system during testing consisted of cleaning or replacing the filter media bags, and
removing sediment and water collected in the sediment chamber. Maintenance took approximately 15
minutes, with the most difficult activity being removal of the storm grate cover. The filter media bags
were observed to be slightly different in size and weight from bag to bag, but there was no indication that
this impacted the performance of the system.
Hydraulic Capacity
The hydraulic capacity of the Hydro-Kleen™ system was determined using clean water, synthetic
wastewater, and synthetic wastewater with spiked constituents. The capacity was identified as the
greatest flow rate achieved before wastewater exited the system through the bypass holes. The testing
determined the maximum treated effluent flow rates to be approximately 30 gallons per minute (gpm)
with clean water, 22 gpm with synthetic wastewater, and 12 gpm with synthetic wastewater containing
elevated (four times normal) constituent concentrations.
The influent flow rate was increased to the maximum flow attainable by the test rig (135 gpm) to
determine if the Hydro-Kleen™ system would cause the catch basin to surcharge and flood the surface
above the grate. The Hydro-Kleen™ system's bypass holes, which are designed to exceed the maximum
hydraulic capacity of the catch basin grate, allowed the entire flow to pass with no surface flooding.
Suspended Solids Removal
Suspended solids removal efficiency for the system was measured three ways: (1) analytically, by
comparing TSS concentrations sampled from the influent and treated effluent; (2) theoretically, by
comparing the calculated concentration of suspended solids in the influent (mass of suspended solids fed
into water divided by influent water volume) with the analytical concentration of solids in effluent TSS
samples; and (3) by a mass balance comparing the dry weight of suspended solids added to the influent
with the dry weight of suspended solids removed from the system (the two chambers and the media)
during cleaning. The different methods yielded results with a high degree of variability.
The mean influent TSS concentration was 400 mg/L. The analytical method showed a mean removal
efficiency of 51 percent, with a range of minus 60 to 100 percent. The theoretical method showed a mean
efficiency of 82 percent, with a range of 55 to 100 percent. These efficiency calculations do not take into
account the wastewater that bypassed filtration through the filter holes. The mass balance method showed
removal efficiency by the system between 46 and 75 percent.
Media Blinding/Bypass
During most tests, the system showed evidence of filter media blinding and bypass of untreated influent
before reaching the filter media's hydrocarbon capacity. The manufacturer's operation and maintenance
(O&M) manual includes a procedure, when media blinding is observed, of removing the filter media bags
from the housing, shaking them, and placing them back into the filtration chamber. This procedure was
tested and a temporary elimination of bypass flows was observed; however, the filter media blinded off
quickly when loading was resumed. This observation is shown graphically in Figure 1.
Tests conducted with varying influent hydrocarbon and TSS concentrations showed that the rate of
blinding was significantly impacted by the combination of TSS and hydrocarbons in the influent. An
additional test was run in which TSS and hydrocarbons were added to the influent for a day, followed by
a day of dosing where the hydrocarbons were removed from the influent. When hydrocarbons were not
injected into the synthetic wastewater, the rate of media blinding decreased and stabilized. When
hydrocarbons were reintroduced to the influent, media blinding resumed at the same rate as in the initial
period. No media blinding was observed during a test in which the influent wastewater was injected with
hydrocarbons, but no TSS.
03/07AVQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2003
VS-iii
-------
Filter media blinding can be related to the mass of hydrocarbon-impacted TSS entering the system. The
testing demonstrated that every three pounds of hydrocarbon-impacted TSS treated by the system reduced
the treated effluent flow rate by approximately 10 percent.
Effluent Flow (gpm)
-Influent Flow (gpm)
Time (Hours)
Figure 1. Influent versus effluent flows following filter media maintenance.
Hydrocarbon Removal
Hydrocarbon Reduction: Based on TPH and O&G analytical data, a comparison of influent and effluent
samples collected during all test phases showed that a properly maintained Hydro-Kleen™ system was
capable of reducing hydrocarbon concentrations in the treated effluent. The treatment efficiencies shown
in Table 1 do not take into account the wastewater that bypassed filtration. The vendor recommends
maintenance on the filter media bags whenever media blinding is observed; however, the test plan
restricted maintenance events to evaluate the rate of media blinding. Details on media blinding rates are
expressed further in the verification report.
Table 1. Treatment Efficiency Measured by TPH and O&G
TPH
O&G
Statistical measure
Average
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Standard Deviation
Influent
(mg/L)
48
47
88
10
24
Effluent
(mg/L)
13
11
22
<10
3.8
Percent
reduction
77
81
95
32
0.2
Influent
(mg/L)
62
65
126
7.8
31
Effluent
(mg/L)
13
14
19
5.5
4.6
Percent
reduction
78
78
97
29
0.2
Note: Statistical measures based on 17 sets of TPH samples and 15 sets of O&G samples.
Hydrocarbon Capacity: The hydrocarbon capacity test used a stock hydrocarbon solution (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil and brake fluid) having a density of 803 grams per liter (6.69 pounds/gallon).
Approximately 28,800 L (7,600 gal) of water was fed to the test unit during the capacity test. The stock
hydrocarbon solution was mixed into water to achieve a mean TPH concentration of 135 mg/L and a
mean O&G concentration of 173 mg/L. The TPH removal efficiency at the start of the test was 82
percent, dropping to 30 percent at the end of the test. Based on the TPH data, the hydrocarbon capacity of
the media was approximately 2,890 grams (6.36 pounds). The results for O&G followed a similar pattern,
03/07/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iv
September 2003
-------
with an initial removal efficiency of 84 percent and an ending removal efficiency of 22 percent. Based on
the O&G data, the hydrocarbon capacity of the media was approximately 2,930 grams (6.45 pounds).
Nutrient and Surfactant Treatment
The Hydro-Kleen™ system was ineffective at treating nutrients (e.g., nitrates, ammonia, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen) and surfactants (methylene blue active substances [MBAS]) in the wastewater, which was
consistent with the vendor's claims.
Metals Treatment
The vendor claims that the Hydro-Kleen™ system can treat organically bound metals, such as metals in
used oil, but is ineffective at treating metals dissolved in an aqueous solution. The synthetic wastewater
contained low concentrations of dissolved-phase metals, but no organically bound metals. Consistent
with vendor claims, the testing showed the Hydro-Kleen™ system to be ineffective at removing metals.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
During the testing, NSF personnel uninvolved with the test completed a technical systems audit to ensure
that the testing was in compliance with the test plan. NSF also completed a data quality audit of at least
10 percent of the test data to ensure that the reported data represented the data generated during testing.
In addition to QA/QC audits performed by NSF, EPA QA personnel conducted a quality systems audit of
NSF's QA Management Program.
Original signed by
Lee A. Mulkey
10/23/03
Lee A. Mulkey Date
Acting Director
National Risk Management Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Original signed by
Gordon Bellen
Gordon Bellen
Vice President
Research
NSF International
10/30/03
Date
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 is not an NSF
Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the Protocol for the Verification of In-Drain Treatment Technologies, April 2001, the
verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report #03/07/WQPC-SWP) are available
from the following sources:
ETV Water Quality Protection Center Program Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O.Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the verification report, but are available from NSF upon
request.)
03/07/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-v
September 2003
------- |