March 2004
04/14/WQPC-HS
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Treatment of Wastewater Generated
During Decontamination Activities
UltraStrip Systems, Inc. Mobile
Emergency Filtration System
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
r/EFW
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
ETV Joint Verification Statement
NSF International
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
TEST LOCATION:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
Decontamination Wastewater Treatment
Homeland Security
UltraStrip Systems, Inc. Mobile Emergency Filtration System
EPA Test & Evaluation Facility, Cincinnati, Ohio
UltraStrip Systems, Inc.
3515 S.E. Lionel Terrace PHONE: (772)287-4846
Stuart, Florida 34997
http:\\www.ultrast rip.com
info@ultrastrip.com
FAX: (772) 781-4778
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 UltraStrip™ Systems, Inc. (USS) Mobile Emergency Filtration System
(MEFS), a portable modular wastewater treatment device designed to remove solids, chlorine, organics,
pesticides, and metals from wastewater. Testing was completed at the EPA's Test & Evaluation Facility
in Cincinnati, Ohio, which is operated by Shaw Environmental, Inc. Testing was conducted from
November 19, 2003 through January 5, 2004.
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.
04/14/WQPC-HS The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
March 2004
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description is provided by the vendor and was not represent verified
information.
UltraStrip Systems, Inc., an ISO 9001-registered company, manufactures the patent-pending MEFS. The
MEFS is an easily portable, self-contained wastewater treatment system designed for treating wastewater
generated from decontamination of sites contaminated by biological or chemical agents. The MEFS
utilizes multiple treatment processes to neutralize or remove contaminants in the wastewater and has the
capacity to treat approximately 26 gallons per minute (100 Lpm) on a batch or continuous flow basis.
The MEFS includes the following unit processes:
• Chlorine removal system (CRS) for chemical neutralization (dechlorination);
• Centrifuge for solids removal;
• Media filtration, including sand and activated carbon to remove small particles and dissolved organic
compounds, and Bayoxide E33, a granular filter media formulated to remove metals;
• Ultrafiltration (UF) to remove fine particulates; and
• Reverse osmosis (RO) to remove very fine particulates, large microorganisms, and dissolved salts.
The MEFS is equipped with valves and piping to provide flexibility in operation so that individual unit
processes can be bypassed. The system is also equipped with meters to monitor various performance
parameters, such as flow rates, reject rates, pressures, and water temperatures. USS claims that the system
will treat wastewater from decontamination operations involving highly chlorinated water or chemical
agent contamination, to meet surface water discharge or reuse criteria.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Methods and Procedures
The testing methods and procedures used during the testing are detailed in the Verification Test Plan for
Treatment of Wastewater Generated During Decontamination Activities, UltraStrip Systems, Inc.
(October, 2003). Three separate 10-day test phases were completed, during which the MEFS was
challenged with a wastewater mixture including partially-treated sewage, used motor oil, surfactants,
sediments, and a primary constituent of concern, depending on the testing phase:
• Trivalent arsenic, to simulate decontamination wastewater from an inorganic chemical agent
(Lewisite) event;
• Methyl parathion, to simulate decontamination wastewater from an organic chemical nerve agent
event; and
• Sodium hypochlorite (bleach), to simulate decontamination wastewater from a biological agent event,
where chlorine dioxide and bleach were used to disinfect the affected area.
During each test day, influent and effluent samples were collected and analyzed for the primary
constituents, secondary fouling parameters, and water quality indicator parameters. Primary analytical
parameters included total arsenic, organo-phosphorous pesticides, and free and total chlorine. Secondary
analytical parameters consisted of alkalinity, surfactants (MBAS), oil and grease (O&G), total suspended
solids (TSS), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus. Indicator parameters included pH, turbidity, and
temperature. The system was evaluated to determine maximum flow rate, bypass flow rates from the UF
and RO systems, ease of setup and installation, and operation and maintenance requirements.
Complete descriptions of the verification testing results and quality assurance/quality control procedures
are included in the verification report.
04/14/WQPC-HS The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. March 2004
VS-ii
-------
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION SUMMARY
System Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
The system was delivered to the site on a flatbed trailer and was inspected by USS personnel to ensure
that system components were not damaged during shipping. The system underwent a wet test with clean
water to check that it was watertight and operating properly. After USS personnel performed a few minor
piping adjustments to accommodate the testing facility, the system was ready for operation.
Maintenance during testing consisted primarily of filling treatment chemical containers, replacing filter
pads or activated carbon, and daily backwashing of the media filters. Backwashing took approximately 30
minutes and consisted of running clean water through the treatment processes and the clean-in-place loop,
then running the rinseate water back through the treatment processes.
USS provided three equipment operators to operate the system during testing. Two operators were
required to run the system, while the third provided backup or general assistance.
When used, the CRS system restricted the pumping ability of the primary influent pump, and an auxiliary
pump was required to maintain rated flow rates. No other operational issues with the MEFS were noted.
Flow Capacity
The wastewater was mixed each morning in a tank supplied by the testing organization with a nominal
volume of 10,000 gallons, and an operating volume of approximately 9,100 gallons. Due to the
configuration of the piping hookups on the influent supply tank, the MEFS was unable to pump the last
five inches (approximately 500 gallons) out of the bottom of the tank. Therefore, during each test day the
MEFS treated approximately 8,600 gallons of wastewater.
The influent and bypass volumes and operating duration times were recorded for each test day, and were
used to calculate the treated effluent volume and the average daily flow rate. During most test days, the
MEFS achieved a flow rate ranging from approximately 21 to 24 gallons per minute (gpm), just below the
system's rated capacity of 26 gpm (100 Lpm). There were two situations where decreased flow rates were
noted. During the first four days of the inorganic chemical event test, when the centrifuge was bypassed,
flow rates decreased to a range of 15 to 18 gpm. After the media filters were backwashed and the
centrifuge brought on-line, the flow rate recovered. Also, the flow rate decreased steadily during the
organic chemical event test, from an initial flow rate of 23 to 24 gpm to a final flow rate of 21 to 23 gpm.
Treatment Capability
Inorganic chemical event—The centrifuge (during the first four test days), CRS, and RO processes were
bypassed for this test event. Decreased flow rates prompted USS to utilize the centrifuge in the final six
days of the test event.
The target influent arsenic concentration was 5 mg/L, and the actual arsenic concentration ranged from
4.0 to 5.7 mg/L, with a mean of 5.0 mg/L. The effluent arsenic concentration was below detection limits
(<0.010 mg/L) for the first four days of test event, and incrementally increased from 0.02 to 0.06 mg/L
during the fifth through tenth days. This resulted in a mean treatment efficiency greater than 99.6 percent.
Organic chemical event—The CRS, Bayoxide E33 media filter, and RO processes were bypassed during
this test event. The target influent concentration for methyl parathion was 1 mg/L.
The influent methyl parathion concentration ranged from 0.55 to 0.93 mg/L and averaged 0.72 mg/L. The
effluent concentration increased incrementally from 0.00028 to 0.013 mg/L over the course of the test
event, resulting in treatment efficiencies that ranged from 98.4 to greater than 99.9 percent, and averaged
greater than 99.4 percent.
Biological agent event—Only the Bayoxide E33 media filter process was bypassed for this test event.
04/14/WQPC-HS The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. March 2004
VS-iii
-------
Effluent samples collected from the water treated by the RO process were analyzed for free chlorine,
while samples for the rest of the analytical parameters were collected from the RO bypass. On one test
day, effluent samples were collected from both the RO effluent and RO bypass. The target influent
concentration for free and total chlorine was 5,000 mg/L as C12.
The influent free chlorine and total chlorine concentration ranged from 3,700 to 6,700 mg/L (averaging
5,500 mg/L), with the free and total chlorine concentrations being essentially equal. The effluent free
chlorine concentrations were below detection limits (<0.02 mg/L) for 13 of 20 samples, with the
remaining seven samples ranging from 0.02 to 0.14 mg/L. The total chlorine detection limit (0.10 mg/L)
was five times higher than the free chlorine detection limit. Since the effluent free chlorine concentration
exceeded the total chlorine detection limit on only one sample (0.14 mg/L), the TO did not analyze the
effluent for total chlorine.
Secondary and indicator parameters—The secondary and indicator parameters did not vary significantly
between the three test events. Table 1 summarizes the secondary analytical parameters. The MEFS raised
the water temperature by approximately 2°C, pH remained neutral, and turbidity dropped by
approximately 74 to 87 percent.
Table 1. Secondary Analytical Parameter Summary
Mean Influent
Parameter Concentration (mg/L)
Treatment Efficiency (Percent)1
Inorganic Organic Biological
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
MBAS
Ammonia (as N)
Oil & Grease
TKN (as N)
Total phosphorus (as P)
TSS
1,700
46
48
0.86
13
7.0
11
1.1
23
46
89
81
62
16
48
7.8
98
92
35
77
71
21
-2.4
58
-2.1
78
77
95 3
69 2
-2,800 2
-33
33
72
-110
61
52
1 One-half the method detection limit was used when concentrations were below detection limits.
2 The chlorinated and dechlorinated BOD5 and COD samples were flagged as unreliable.
3 Sodium hypochlorite is dissolved in an alkaline solution which is neutralized during dechlorination.
UF and RO Reject Flow Rates
The reject flows generated by the UF and RO processes were monitored and discharged to the test site's
sewer, in compliance with facility-specific permit requirements. In the field, reject water likely would be
pumped back to the influent storage tank for retreatment. During the inorganic chemical event test, the UF
reject flow ranged from 6 to 16 percent of the influent volume, with no distinct trend or pattern. During
the organic chemical event test, the UF reject flow started at approximately 9 percent, and increased to 12
to 14 percent by the end of testing. During the biological event test, when both the UF and RO processes
were used, the reject flow ranged from 53 to 74 percent.
Consumables and Waste Generation
Over the course of the three test events, the MEFS consumed an average of approximately 180 kilowatt
hours (kWh) of electricity per test day, and ranged from 113 to 221 kWh, and the system was run an
average of 6.5 hours. The lowest readings were recorded during the first four days of the inorganic
chemical event test, when the centrifuge was not run.
During the biological event test phase, CRS (calcium thiosulfate) was used for dechlorination. The MEFS
used between 88 and 160 gallons and averaged 120 gallons of CRS per test day, and 34 to 90 liters of
sodium hydroxide to maintain a caustic pH. During all three test phases, the MEFS used muriatic
04/14/WQPC-HS The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iv
March 2004
-------
(hydrochloric) acid (50 to 1,000 mL/day), 50 percent alum flocculent (4 to 5 L/day), and a UF/RO
membrane cleaner (6 L total) in the treatment process.
Over the course of the three test events, the MEFS generated 52 pounds (dry weight) of used oil-sorbent
pads, which were located before the centrifuge to prolong the functionality of the activated carbon. The
centrifuge generated 163 pounds of sludge. The activated carbon was replaced after both the inorganic
chemical event and the organic chemical events. The spent carbon filled two 55-gallon drums per change
out. These waste materials were classified non-hazardous, as determined by TCLP testing.
RO Membrane Integrity Test
The RO membrane and housing were evaluated using a pressure decay test to determine the physical
integrity of the process. The test procedures are outlined in the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Designation D 6908-03, "Standard Practice for Integrity Testing of Water Filtration
Membrane Systems, Practice A—Pressure Decay and Vacuum Decay Tests." The test estimates the
ability of an RO system to reject particles in the one to two micron range. Tests were run before and after
the biological event test phase and the results were used to assess whether processing the dechlorinated
wastewater through the RO system impaired its treatment capabilities. The test results showed that the
system could achieve a 3.7 log reduction for 1.4 micron particles, and that the wastewater did not impair
the RO system.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF personnel completed a technical systems audit during testing 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 personnel conducted an audit of NSF's QA Management Program.
Original Signed By Original Signed By
E. Timothy Oppelt April 28, 2004 Gordon E. Bellen May 4, 2004
E. Timothy Oppelt Date Gordon E. Bellen Date
Director Vice President
National Homeland Security Research Center Research
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
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 Verification Test Plan for Treatment of Wastewater Generated During
Decontamination Activities, UltraStrip Systems, Inc., October 2003, the verification statement,
and the verification report (NSF Report #04/14/WQPC-HS) are available from:
ETV Water Quality Protection Center Program Manager (hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/erv (electronic copy)
EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/erv (electronic copy)
Appendices are not included in the verification report, but are available from NSF upon request.
04/14/WQPC-HS The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. March 2004
VS-v
-------
Verification Report
For
UltraStrip Systems, Inc. Mobile Emergency Filtration System
Prepared for
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan
and
The Environmental Technology Verification Program
of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey
By
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan
and
Scherger Associates
Ann Arbor, Michigan
March 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) on this
verification under a Cooperative Agreement. This effort was supported by the ETV Water
Quality Protection Center of the EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program.
This document has been peer reviewed, reviewed by NSF and EPA, and recommended for public
release. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the EPA for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test
performed for NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The verification test for the UltraStrip Systems, Inc. (USS) Mobile Emergency Filtration
System (MEFS) was conducted from November 19, 2003 through January 5, 2004, at the EPA's
Test and Evaluation (T&E) Facility, in Cincinnati, Ohio, operated by Shaw Environmental, Inc.
The 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-i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Contents iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Acknowledgements viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2
1.2.2 NSF International—Verification Organization (VO) 2
1.2.3 Shaw Environmental—Testing Organization (TO) 3
1.2.4 Vendor 4
1.3 Verification Testing Site 4
Chapter 2 MEFS Description and Operating Processes 6
2.1 Equipment Description 6
2.2 Test Unit Specifications 6
2.2.1 Chemical Neutralization 8
2.2.2 Internal Water Storage Tanks 8
2.2.3 Centrifuge System 9
2.2.4 Media Filtration 9
2.2.5 Ultrafiltration System 10
2.2.6 Reverse Osmosis System 10
2.2.7 Controls, Flowmeters andPLC Alarm Equipment 11
2.3 USS Claims and Criteria 12
Chapter 3 Methods and Test Procedures 14
3.1 Test Phases 14
3.2 MEFS Setup and Startup 15
3.3 Test Apparatus 15
3.4 General Test Procedures 15
3.4.1 MEFS Preparation 15
3.4.2 Synthetic Wastewater Preparation 16
3.4.3 Initiate System Operation 17
3.4.4 Sample Collection 17
3.4.5 Conclude Operation 17
3.4.6 System Component Operation and Maintenance 17
3.5 Synthetic Wastewater Composition 17
3.5.1 Inorganic Chemical Event- Arsenic Compound 19
3.5.2 Organic Chemical Event- Organo-Phosphorus Compound 19
3.5.3 Biological Event- Chlorine Compound 19
3.6 Laboratory Analytical Constituents 19
iv
-------
3.6.1 Analytical Parameters -All Tests 20
3.6.2 Test Phase-Specific Analytical Parameters 20
3.7 Flow Monitoring 21
3.8 Residuals 21
3.9 Operation and Maintenance 22
3.10 Additional Test Not Specified in the VTP 22
Chapter 4 Verification Testing Results and Discussion 23
4.1 Synthetic Wastewater Composition 23
4.2 Inorganic Chemical Event—Arsenic 24
4.2.1 Treatment Process 24
4.2.2 Analytical Data 25
4.2.3 Flow Data 26
4.2.4 Consumables and Residual Generation 27
4.3 Organic Chemical Event—Methyl Parathion 28
4.3.1 Treatment Process 28
4.3.2 Analytical Data 29
4.3.3 Flow Data 30
4.3.4 Consumables and Residual Generation 31
4.4 Biological Event—Chlorine Compound 32
4.4.1 Treatment Processes 32
4.4.2 Analytical Data 33
4.4.3 Flow Data 36
4.4.4 Consumables and Residual Generation 36
4.5 Additional Test Not Specified in the VTP 38
4.5.1 Installation and Operation & Maintenance Findings 39
Chapter 5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 41
5.1 Audits 41
5.2 Verification Test Data - Data Quality Indicators (DQI) 41
5.2.1 Precision 41
5.2.2 Accuracy 43
5.2.3 Completeness 44
References 47
Glossary of Terms 48
Appendices 50
A Verification Test Plan 50
B Operations and Maintenance Manual 50
C Analytical Data 50
D Testing Logs and Notes 50
E ASTM Test Logs and Calculations 50
F Audit Reports 50
-------
Figures
Figure 2-1. Exterior view of the UltraStrip Mobile Emergency Filtration System 6
Figure 2-2. Schematic diagram oftheUSS treatment processes 7
Figure 2-3. View of UltraStrip's CRS dechlorination system 8
Figure 2-4. Centrifuge (a) photograph and (b) cross-section 9
Figure 2-5. Media filtration devices 10
Figure 2-6. View of the ultrafiltration system 11
Figure 2-7. Views of the reverse osmosis system 12
Figure 2-8. View of the PLC Panel 12
Figure 3-1. Testing rig schematic 15
Figure 3-2. Views of the influent tank 16
Tables
Table 2-1. USSWastewater Treatment Claims 13
Table 3-1. Secondary Effluent—Base Characteristics 18
Table 3-2. Synthetic Wastewater—Target Characteristics 18
Table 3-3. Summary of Base Sample Collection and Analysis for All Verification Tests for All
Three Challenge Wastewater Types -Influent and Effluent 20
Table 3-4. Summary of Special Sample Collection and Analysis for Verification Tests 21
Table 4-1. Synthetic Wastewater Secondary Parameter Concentration Ranges 24
Table 4-2. Arsenic Analytical Data Summary 25
Table 4-3. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Secondary Analytical Data Summary 26
Table 4-4. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Indicator Parameter Data Summary 26
Table 4-5. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Flow Data Summary 27
Table 4-6. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Power and Chemical Consumption 28
Table 4-7. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Residual Generation Summary 28
Table 4-8. Methyl Parathion Analytical Data Summary 29
Table 4-9. Organic Chemical Test Phase Secondary Analytical Data Summary 30
Table 4-10. Organic Chemical Test Phase Indicator Parameter Data Summary 30
Table 4-11. Organic Chemical Test Phase Flow Data Summary 31
Table 4-12. Organic Chemical Event Phase Power and Chemical Consumption Summary 32
Table 4-13. Organic Chemical Test Phase Residual Generation Summary 32
Table 4-14. Free and Total Chlorine Data Summary 34
Table 4-15. Biological Test Phase Secondary Parameter Analytical Data Summary 35
Table 4-16. Effluent Analytical Results—December 23, 2003 35
Table 4-17. Biological Test Phase Indicator Parameter Data Summary 36
Table 4-18. Biological Event Test Phase Flow Data Summary 37
Table 4-19. Biological Event Phase Power and Chemical Consumption Summary 37
Table 4-20. Biological Event Phase Power and Chemical Consumption Summary 38
Table 4-21. RO System Pressure Decay Test Summary 39
Table 5-1. Analytical Precision Based on MS/MSD Recovery 42
Table 5-2. Analytical Precision Based on Field Duplicates 43
Table 5-3. Accuracy Results - Laboratory Control Samples 44
VI
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BOD5
°C
COD
CRS
DQI
EPA
ETV
ft2
gal
gpm
ISO
Kg
kWh
L
Ib
Lpm
MB AS
MEFS
MSD
NRMRL
mg/L
mL
ND
NSF
O&M
ORP
PLC
QA
QC
uss
RCRA
RO
RPD
SOP
T&E
TKN
TO
TP
TOC
TSS
UF
VO
VTP
5-day biochemical oxygen demand
Celsius degrees
Chemical oxygen demand
Chlorine removal system
Data quality indicators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Square foot (feet)
Gallon
Gallon per minute
International Organization for Standardization
Kilogram
Kilowatt hour
Liter
Pound
Liter per minute
Methylene blue active substances
Mobile Emergency Filtration System
Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Milligram per liter
Milliliter
Microgram per liter
Not detected
NSF International
Operation and maintenance
Oxidization/reduction potential
Programmable logic controller
Quality assurance
Quality control
UltraStrip Systems, Inc.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reverse osmosis
Relative percent deviation
Standard operating procedure
EPA's Test and Evaluation Facility
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Testing Organization (Shaw Environmental)
Total phosphorus
Total organic carbon
Total suspended solids
Ultrafiltration
Verification Organization (NSF)
Verification test plan
vn
-------
Acknowledgements
NSF International, Shaw Environmental, and Scherger Associates were responsible for all
elements in the testing sequence, including test setup, calibration and verification of instruments,
data collection and analysis, data management, data interpretation, and the preparation of this
report.
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Contact Person: Patrick Davison
Shaw Environmental
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contact Person: E. Radha Krishnan, P.E., or Rajib Sinha, P.E.
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Contact Person: Dale Scherger
The vendor of the equipment is:
UltraStrip Systems, Inc.
3515 S.E. Lionel Terrace
Stuart, Florida 34997
Contact Person: Mickey Donn, Sr.
Vlll
-------
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 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 (TOs);
stakeholder groups that consist 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/quality control (QA/QC) protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality
are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) operates the ETV Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) in
cooperation with EPA. The WQPC evaluated the performance of the UltraStrip Systems, Inc.
(USS) Mobile Emergency Filtration System (MEFS), which is a portable wastewater treatment
system, incorporating chemical pretreatment, centrifuge, media filtration, ultrafiltration, and
reverse osmosis in the treatment system. This document provides the verification test results for
the MEFS.
It is important to note that verification of the equipment does not mean that the equipment is
"certified" by NSF or "accepted" by EPA. Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the
equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations for those conditions tested by
the TO.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the MEFS was a cooperative effort between the following participants:
• EPA
• NSF International
• Shaw Environmental, Inc.
• Scherger Associates
• Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.
• UltraStrip Systems, Inc.
-------
1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Branch, Water
Supply and Water Resources Division, NRMRL, provides administrative, technical, and QA
guidance and oversight on all ETV WQPC activities. This peer-reviewed document has been
reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public release.
The key EPA contact for this program is:
Mr. Ray Frederick, Project Officer, ETV Water Quality Protection Center
(732) 321-6627 e-mail: Frederick.Ray@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. EPA, NRMRL
Urban Watershed Management Research Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837
1.2.2 NSF International—Verification Organization (VO)
NSF is EPA's verification partner organization for administering the WQPC. NSF is a not-for-
profit testing and certification organization that has been instrumental in the development of
consensus standards for the protection of public health and the environment.
NSF personnel provided technical oversight of the verification process, and audited the
analytical laboratory, data gathering, and recording procedures. NSF also prepared the
verification test plan (VTP) and this verification report.
NSF's responsibilities as the VO included:
• Preparation of the VTP;
• Qualify the TO and review the quality systems of all parties involved with the TO;
• Oversee the TO activities related to the technology evaluation and associated laboratory
testing;
• Complete on-site audits of test procedures and the analytical laboratory;
• Develop the verification report and verification statement;
• Coordinate with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement; and,
• Provide QA/QC review and support for the TO.
-------
The key contacts at NSF for the VTP and program are:
Mr. Thomas Stevens, Program Manager
(734) 769-5347 e-mail: Stevenst@nsf.org
Mr. Patrick Davison, Project Coordinator
(734) 913-5719 e-mail: davison@nsf.org
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
(734) 769-8010
1.2.3 Shaw Environmental—Testing Organization (TO)
The TO for this verification process was Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw) of Cincinnati, Ohio,
with support from Scherger Associates of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Shaw operates the T&E Facility
under contract to the EPA and provides personnel necessary to perform experiments at this
facility.
The responsibilities of the TO included:
• Provide all needed logistical support, establish a communications network, and schedule
and coordinate activities of all participants;
• Ensure that the test conditions meet the stated objectives of the verification testing.
• Assist in preparation of the VTP;
• Oversee testing, including taking measurements and recording data;
• Manage, evaluate, interpret, and report the data generated by the testing; and
• Report on the performance of the technology.
Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc., in Amherst, New York, and North Canton, Ohio, provided the
analytical laboratory services for the testing program.
The key personnel and contacts for the TO are:
Shaw- Program Manager
Mr. E. Radha Krishnan, P.E.
(513)782-4730 e-mail: radha.krishnan@shawgrp.com
Shaw- Project Manager
Mr. Rajib Sinha, P.E.
(513)782-4694 e-mail: rajib.sinha@shawgrp.com
Shaw Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
-------
Scherger Associates -
Mr. Dale Scherger
(734)213-8150 e-mail: daleres@aol.com
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Severn Trent Laboratories Contact:
Ms. Verl D. Preston, Quality Manager
(716) 691-2600 e-mail: vpreston@stl-inc.com
Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. Buffalo Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. Canton
10 Hazelwood Drive 4101 Shuffel Drive NW
Amherst, New York 14228 North Canton, Ohio 44720
1.2.4 Vendor
UltraStrip Systems, Inc. is the vendor of the MEFS. The vendor was responsible for supplying
and providing technical information during development of the VTP. USS personnel operated
the MEFS during the testing.
The vendor contact is:
Mr. Mickey Donn, Sr., Senior Vice President of Operations
(772)287-4846 e-mail: mdonn@ultrastrip.com
UltraStrip Systems, Inc.
3515 S.E. Lionel Terrace
Stuart, Florida 34997
1.3 Verification Testing Site
This verification test was performed at the EPA National Risk Management Research
Laboratory's (NRMRL) Test and Evaluation (T&E) Facility located on the grounds of the
Cincinnati Municipal Sewer District's Mill Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. Completed in 1979,
the T&E Facility has a 24,000 square foot high bay area for both bench and pilot scale research,
supported by 14,000 square feet of laboratories, office space, and chemical storage.
The T&E Facility conducts hazardous waste treatment studies and is permitted by the State of
Ohio as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facility (TSDF). The T&E Facility also holds a state Treatability Exclusion that permits the
conduct of treatability studies in diverse matrices using any technology for small quantities of all
categories of hazardous wastes.
-------
The testing site was responsible for:
• Providing space and utilities for the verification test;
• Providing piping, pumps, valves, flowmeters, tanks, etc. needed to set up the test; and,
• Providing wastewater discharge location for effluent.
The EPA contact for the T&E Facility is:
Mr. John Ireland, Manager
Phone: (513)569-7051 e-mail: ireland.john@epa.gov
EPA NRMRL EPA T&E Facility
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive 1600 Gest Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Cincinnati, Ohio 45204
-------
Chapter 2
MEFS Description and Operating Processes
The information contained in this chapter is provided by the vendor and does not represent
verified information. It is intended to provide the reader with a description of the UltraStrip
Systems, Inc. Mobile Emergency Filtration System and to explain how the technology operates.
The verified performance characteristics of the UltraStrip™ system are described in Chapter 4.
2.1 Equipment Description
UltraStrip Systems, Inc. (ISO 9001-2000) manufactures the patent-pending MEFS. The unit is a
portable, self-contained wastewater treatment system designed for flexibility with an ability to
treat contaminants from biological or chemical terrorist attacks. Multiple treatment processes are
utilized to neutralize or remove contaminants in the wastewater generated during cleanup or
decontamination activities. The MEFS has the capacity to treat approximately 26 gallons per
minute (100 Lpm) on a batch or continuous flow basis. Figure 2-1 shows an exterior view of the
steel container used to house the main treatment components.
Figure 2-1. Exterior view of the UltraStrip Mobile Emergency Filtration System.
2.2 Test Unit Specifications
The MEFS contains a number of different unit processes. The processes used for treating
wastewater are dependent on the nature of the contaminants in the wastewater. The system
includes the following unit processes:
• Chlorine removal system (CRS) for chemical neutralization/dechlorination;
• Centrifuge for solids removal;
• Media filters to remove dissolved organic and inorganic compounds and particulates;
-------
• Ultrafiltration (UF) to remove fine particulates;
• Reverse osmosis (RO) to remove very fine particulates, large microorganisms, and
dissolved salts; and,
• Optional ultraviolet disinfection (not utilized in this study).
The MEFS is equipped with valves and piping that provide flexibility in operation in that
individual processes can be bypassed, if required. The system is also equipped with meters to
monitor various performance parameters, such as flow rates, pressures, and water temperature.
The schematic diagram of the treatment processes is shown in Figure 2-2. A summary of the
system specifications was included in the VTP (Appendix A).
CRS
Dosing
Tank
Untreated
Water Tank
t& ^
\
H
i
' 1
r
o
c
Sys
Aj
Bypass
Influent Water
Tank
Flocculent Dosing Tank
Bypass
Centrifuge
Centrifuge Waste
Perma Clean
Dosing Tank
Filtered
Water
Tank
^ -^
H
d
r
ace
I ^
E33
V J
1
f ^
E33
^ J
r^
Carbon
„ A -A TV
/"
Sc
V
4 1
Media Filtration Tanks
>• Effluent
UF/RO Reject Water
Figure 2-2. Schematic diagram of the USS treatment processes.
-------
The system is equipped with a generator, so no electrical hookup is necessary. However, since
testing took place indoors, it was not practical to operate the generator during the verification
testing, so the generator was removed from the tested unit. The entire system is housed in a
40-foot long inter-modal modular steel container unit that can be brought to a site ready for use.
2.2.1 Chemical Neutralization
The CRS was used to dechlorinate the wastewater during the biological (high chlorine
wastewater) challenge, described further in Chapter 3. Dechlorination was achieved by mixing a
neutralizing agent containing calcium thiosulfate into the wastewater in a mixing chamber filled
with packing to provide adequate mixing and reaction time. According to the vendor, the CRS
has a contact time of approximately two minutes at the MEFS's rated flow capacity of 100 Lpm
(26 gpm); this process does not generate waste materials that require special handling or
disposal. Figure 2-3 provides a photograph of the calcium thiosulfate dosing pumps and contact
tanks of the CRS.
Figure 2-3. View of UltraStrip's CRS dechlorination system.
2.2.2 Internal Water Storage Tanks
The MEFS is equipped with intermediate water storage tanks positioned ahead of the various
treatment processes. The tanks are designed to buffer water flow between treatment processes
and to allow for the addition and mixing of chemical additives, such as pH adjustment or
flocculants, when necessary. The storage tanks are constructed of 2 to 3 mm thick Grade 304
stainless steel, were sized to fit a system with a maximum flow capacity of 26 gpm (100 Lpm).
-------
2.2.3 Centrifuge System
The centrifuge system is designed to remove suspended solids and contaminants associated with
these solids from the wastewater. Separation is accomplished by the inertial forces imparted by
spinning the centrifuge, which propels heavier particles to the periphery of the unit where they
are removed from the system with a rotation internal auger. The separation takes place within a
cylindrical truncated cone-shaped rotating drum, as shown in Figure 2-4. The solids removed by
the centrifuge are collected in an open-top 55-gallon drum. The centrifuge was for a portion of
the inorganic challenge test and used continuously for the organic and biological challenge tests.
(b)
Figure 2-4. Centrifuge (a) photograph and (b) cross-section.
2.2.4 Media Filtration
Effluent from the centrifuge is pumped to the media filtration system. This system consists of
four 30-inch diameter, 60-inch tall stainless steel filter tanks that operate in series, as shown in
Figure 2-5. One canister, filled with a graded sand and garnet, is designed to remove solids down
to approximately 5 microns (um). A second tank, filled with granular activated carbon, is used to
remove dissolved organics from the wastewater. Two tanks were filled with Bayoxide E 33 filter
media, which is formulated to treat arsenic and other metals; they were used only during the
inorganic chemical agent test, described in Chapter 3. The filters have a design capacity of
26 gpm.
-------
Figure 2-5. Media filtration devices.
The media filters have an automatic backwash system that is activated at periodic time intervals.
The backwash water is returned to the centrifuge inlet. Water used for backwash is piped from
the reservoir tank positioned after the media and carbon filters, and is injected with a flocculent
to assist in the backwash process. Valves in the system allow the filters to operate
simultaneously, in parallel or individually, so that wastewater can continue to be processed
through one filter unit while the other unit is in backwash mode.
2.2.5 Ultrafiltration System
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a technique of cross-flow filtration that minimizes filtration surface
fouling. UF uses membranes to remove particles ranging in size from 0.003 to 0.02 um. The
membranes are made of cellulose acetate and operate under a pressure of 65 pounds per square
inch (psi) at the filtration surface. This degree of filtration will remove virtually all particulate
material that would be classified as suspended solids.
A high-pressure pump feeds the UF system from a reservoir tank containing the carbon
adsorption effluent. The design flow is 26 gpm, and the reject flow rate is approximately 2.1 gpm
(8 Lpm). The UF system was continuously utilized during all three challenge tests. Figure 2-6
shows a view of the UF system.
2.2.6 Reverse Osmosis System
The USS is configured with a reverse osmosis (RO) system following the UF system. The UF
wastewater can be passed through the RO unit when required, or it can bypass the RO unit. RO is
a technique of cross-flow filtration that uses a composite polyamide membrane to remove
molecules ranging in size from 0.01 to 0.002 um. The RO unit can provide removal of dissolved
salts and dissolved metals such as arsenic and lead. In addition, the RO membranes may also
reject certain dissolved organics.
10
-------
Figure 2-6. View of the ultrafiltration system.
The RO unit has a design flow of 26 gpm to match the overall system design flow, with a reject
rate of approximately 5.3 gpm (20 Lpm). The RO system operates at a pressure of approximately
130 psi. Figure 2-7 shows the RO system used in the MEFS.
According to the vendor, the combined reject flow rate from the RO and UF systems ranges from
20 to 30 percent, depending on the wastewater's characteristics. The rejected RO wastewater is
discharged from the MEFS through a separate discharge point. During testing, the RO/UF reject
wastewater was discharged to the sanitary sewer at the T&E Facility. In a field setting, RO and
UF reject water could be piped back to the influent storage tank and get retreated, or it could be
discharged to a location separate from the treated effluent discharge point.
2.2.7 Controls, Flowmeters andPLCAlarm Equipment
A programmable logic controller (PLC), which retains equipment setting and operating
processes, operates the MEFS. The PLC is equipped with a serial port so data can be downloaded
to a laptop computer. The PLC panel is shown in Figure 2-8.
The MEFS is equipped with two analog totalizing flowmeters that report flow rate (gpm) and
total processed volume (gallons). The influent flowmeter is located ahead of the RO and
ultrafiltration units, while the effluent flowmeter is located in-line with the treated effluent
discharge pipe.
11
-------
Figure 2-7. View of the reverse osmosis system.
2.3 USS Claims and Criteria
The MEFS is designed to be user-friendly and easily maintained. The system can be operated by
one or two operators, depending on the application. The MEFS will treat wastewater from
decontamination operations involving highly chlorinated water or chemical agent
decontamination to meet surface water discharge or reuse criteria. Effluent quality achievable by
the system for different water quality parameters is outlined in Table 2-1.
Figure 2-8. View of the PLC panel.
12
-------
Table 2-1. USS Wastewater Treatment Claims
Parameter Influent Treated Effluent
BOD5 100 mg/L < 10 mg/L
TSS 100 mg/L < 5 mg/L
Total coliform 106 to 108/100 mL <2.2/100mL
Total chlorine 100,000 mg/L (10%) <1.0mg/L
13
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Test Procedures
A VTP was prepared and approved for the verification of the UltraStrip system and is attached in
Appendix A. This VTP details the procedures and analytical methods used to perform the
verification test. The VTP includes tasks designed to verify the treatment capability of the
UltraStrip System and to obtain information on the setup, operation, and maintenance
requirements of the system.
The testing elements performed during the technology verification, including equipment
operation, sample collection procedures, and analytical methods, are described in this section.
Quality assurance and quality control procedures and data management methods are discussed in
detail in the VTP.
3.1 Test Phases
The verification test was divided into three distinct testing phases. The basis for all three test
phases was a standard synthetic wastewater consisting of effluent from the secondary clarifiers
of a sewage treatment plant, hydrocarbons typically found on road surfaces and paved parking
areas (used motor oil), surfactants (commercial cleaning and degreasing products), and
sediments (sand and solids). These materials are used to simulate typical contributors to a
wastewater stream from sites such as buildings, parking lots, roadways, subways, etc. The test
phases were differentiated by the primary challenge constituent added to the synthetic
wastewater to simulate wastewater generated from three different decontamination scenarios:
1. Chemical events with an inorganic chemical agent. In this case, remediation of a Lewisite
(a chemical warfare agent) release was assumed where trivalent arsenic remains as a
decontamination byproduct. A soluble arsenic salt (arsenic trioxide or sodium meta
arsenite) was added to the synthetic wastewater to simulate this condition.
2. Chemical events with an organic chemical nerve agent, where remediation utilizes water-
based cleaning solutions and neutralizing chemical(s). For this test, an organo-
phosphorus pesticide (methyl parathion) was used as the surrogate and was added to the
synthetic wastewater.
3. Biological events, where remediation utilizes chlorine-based materials, including chlorine
dioxide, followed by washing with a bleach solution. For this test, sodium hypochlorite
(bleach) was added to the synthetic wastewater. An active biological surrogate was not
used for this test.
Each test phase followed the same testing approach. The primary challenge constituent was
added to the synthetic wastewater and the MEFS was challenged over the course of a 10-day
operating period. Influent and effluent samples were collected from the system and analyzed for
various contaminants (including the primary challenge constituent) or contaminant indicators.
The results were used to calculate removal efficiencies and system capacities, and to determine
the system's treatment effectiveness. Data was also collected on the residues or waste products
14
-------
generated by the treatment processes, consumables, power consumption, and operation and
maintenance requirements.
3.2 MEFS Setup and Startup
The MEFS is a self-contained modular system that arrived at the test site ready to be set up and
operated. Timers and pump cycles on the various unit processes were checked and adjusted as
needed. A clean water test of the system piping, connections, valves, etc. was completed to
assure that the system was ready to begin testing.
3.3 Test Apparatus
The MEFS was set up inside the T&E Facility. Figure 3-1 shows the process flow diagram and
equipment configuration for the test setup. A stock tank with a nominal volume of 10,000
gallons (operating volume of approximately 9,200 gallons) was used to contain the synthetic
wastewater challenge mixture. The tank was circulated to keep the contents mixed, and was
calibrated so that the volume of water in the tank could be measured with a dipstick. Sample
ports were installed so that influent, treated effluent, and RO/UF reject liquid samples could be
collected easily. A kilowatt-hour (kWh) meter was installed on the main electrical feed line to
monitor power requirements.
Secondary
effluent
I
Challenge
constituent
Oil, surfactant and
sediment
MEFS
Circulated stock feed tank Sample
(10,000 gal. nominal volume) port
-^- Treated effluent
Centrifuge
waste
Sample port
(^Totalizer
RO/UF reject
Sample port
Figure 3-1. Testing rig schematic.
3.4 General Test Procedures
The procedures described in this section were conducted for each of the three test phases.
3.4.1 MEFS Preparation
The test rig and MEFS components were inspected by USS personnel prior to each test day.
Readings from the power meter, totalizer, and other related devices were recorded in the project
logbook. Once the stock feed tank was adequately prepared and its volume measured, the TO
informed USS personnel that the test was ready to begin.
15
-------
3.4.2 Synthetic Wastewater Preparation
The synthetic wastewater was prepared in the mixed stock feed tank, shown in Figure 3-2. As
outlined in Section 3.5, the tank was filled with secondary effluent, sediment, used oil,
surfactant, and the primary challenge agent. When a stock solution was prepared, the mass of
chemicals and volume of secondary effluent was recorded by the TO. The contents of the tank
were kept mixed throughout the run by a submersible pump that drew the wastewater from one
end of the tank and discharged the pumped water through a perforated PVC pipe at the other end.
(a) Side view.
(b) Front view.
(c) Inside view.
Figure 3-2. Views of the influent tank.
16
-------
3.4.3 Initiate System Operation
Prior to the start of operations each day, the TO recorded the totalized flow readings from
flowmeters on each pumped line and within the MEFS, and the totalized kWh meter. USS
personnel established the unit operating processes necessary to treat the particular challenge
wastewater being processed on that day and the MEFS was started. For the organic and inorganic
event tests, a feed pump in the MEFS pumped the challenge wastewater from the stock feed tank
to the system. For the biological event test, a submersible pump in the stock feed tank pumped
the water to the MEFS.
3.4.4 Sample Collection
Influent and effluent water samples were collected as outlined in the VTP. Sample collection
procedures and analytical parameters are summarized in Section 3.6 of this report. The same
influent and effluent sample locations were utilized throughout the tests with samples collected
from additional locations as necessary. In test runs with the RO systems operating, a sample of
the reject water was collected. Relevant sampling information was recorded in the testing logs.
3.4.5 Conclude Operation
At the conclusion of operations on each test day, the MEFS feed pump was shut off and USS
personnel performed routine maintenance as specified in the MEFS O&M manual (such as filter
backwashing). These activities followed the same routine that would be followed in actual field
conditions. The time that the tests were concluded, the final volume of water in the stock tank,
the kilowatt-hour meter reading, and other relevant information were recorded in the testing logs.
3.4.6 System Component Operation and Maintenance
The overall system performance was measured both quantitatively and qualitatively throughout
the testing program. Qualitative measures were assessed by observations of, and experience with,
the unit during the setup and testing phases. Records were maintained on the ease and time of
installation, maintenance, and other operating observations. Throughout the course of the testing
day, the MEFS was regularly inspected to ensure that equipment was functioning properly.
Operating parameters, such as dosing tank feed rates, residue or bypass generation rates,
operating pressures, and process flow rates were routinely monitored and recorded by USS
operators. Maintenance actions, if necessary, were completed and recorded in the logbook. These
observations, experiences and records provide the basis for evaluating the system performance in
terms of operation and maintenance.
3.5 Synthetic Wastewater Composition
The synthetic wastewater reflected general constituents that would be expected in a wastewater
stream generated by the decontamination of sites such as buildings, parking lots, roadways, or
subway or bus stations. The base water for the test challenge wastewater was obtained from the
effluent of the secondary clarifiers of the Mill Creek Sewage Treatment Plant of the Greater
Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). This secondary effluent wastewater was piped
17
-------
directly to the T&E Facility. The base characteristics of the secondary effluent were determined
from analytical data from approximately 70 sampling events that occurred between November
2000 and February 2001; these are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Secondary Effluent—Base Characteristics
Mean Concentration Concentration Range
Parameter (mg/L) (mg/L)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Carbonaceous BOD (CBOD)
Alkalinity
Total phosphorus (as P)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN, as N)
Ammonia (NHa-N) (as N)
Nitrates and nitrites (NO2/NO3, as N)
36
26
124
21
219
1
18
14
1
31-44
19-31
120-130
14-25
210-230
ND-5
1-36
ND-31
ND-20
ND - Not detected.
The secondary effluent was augmented with used motor oil, sediment (diatomaceous earth), and
surfactants to better mimic likely real-world conditions. Before being added to the tank, the
specific quantities of used oil and surfactant were measured in laboratory beakers and the
sediment was weighed using a calibrated scale. Table 3-2 shows the target characteristics for the
synthesized wastewater.
Table 3-2. Synthetic Wastewater—Target Characteristics
Parameter Concentration (mg/L)
TSS 50-100
BOD5 40-100
COD 100-200
Oil & grease (O&G) 10-20
Total phosphorus (as P) 0.5-5
TKN (as N) 0.4-40
NH3-N (as N) 0.4-40
Surfactants (MBAS) 10
pH 6.0-8.0
18
-------
The verification challenge consisted of three different test phases in which a primary challenge
constituent was added to synthetic wastewater.
3.5.1 Inorganic Chemical Event — Arsenic Compound
The verification of wastewater treatment from a hypothetical chemical attack involving Lewisite
was based on the assumption that the cleanup process will use inactivation solutions to clean and
deactivate the Lewisite, resulting in a wastewater with elevated arsenic concentrations.
Concentrations of arsenic for testing purposes were targeted at approximately 5 mg/L. An arsenic
salt (arsenic trioxide or sodium meta arsenite) was added to the synthetic wastewater challenge to
serve as the primary challenge agent.
3.5.2 Organic Chemical Event - Organo-Phosphorus Compound
The verification of treatment of the wastewater from the cleanup of a hypothetical organic
chemical attack was based on the assumption that the cleanup process would entail oxidizing the
chemical, followed by a thorough cleaning of all surfaces. Testing assumed that there was less
than complete reaction between the oxidant and the active chemical, resulting in the need to
remove the chemical from the waste stream. It is common to use a surrogate to simulate the
presence of a nerve agent or similar chemicals. Organo-phosphorus pesticides, such as methyl
parathion, have been used for this purpose. The verification of this event included the addition of
methyl parathion to the challenge wastewater to achieve a target contaminant concentration of
one (1) mg/L to serve as the primary challenge agent.
3.5.3 Biological Event - Chlorine Compound
The verification of wastewater treatment from a hypothetical biological attack was based on the
assumption that a chlorine-based chemical (chlorine dioxide or bleach) would be the main
chemical used to deactivate a biological agent. The use of household bleach (5.25 percent
sodium hypochlorite solution) at a ratio of one part bleach per ten parts water is typically
recommended as a wiping agent to disinfect solid surfaces. A 1:10 solution of bleach and water
would have a total chlorine concentration of approximately 2,500 mg/L (as Cl). For this test
phase, bleach was measured by volume, based on a volumetric calibration on the container (500-
gallon tote), and poured into the stock feed tank to raise the chlorine concentration of the
wastewater to approximately 2,500 mg/L (as Cl), as specified in the VTP, or 5,000 mg/L as Cb.
The common reporting practice for free and total chlorine concentrations are as Cb, so the
testing results will be expressed with chlorine results as Cb.
3.6 Laboratory Analytical Constituents
The primary locations used to assess the treatment capabilities of the MEFS were the untreated
wastewater influent and the treated effluent. During a portion of the biological agent testing in
which the RO/UF reject rates were very high, effluent samples were collected from the RO/UF
reject water in place of or in addition to treated effluent. This is explained in detail in Chapter 4.
19
-------
3.6.1 Analytical Parameters -All Tests
The sampling and analytical program consisted of collecting and analyzing samples for a number
of indicator and secondary parameters for all three test phases, with special analytical parameters
added based on the specific testing event being performed. Table 3-3 summarizes the sample
collection and analysis program for each of the three tests.
Table 3-3. Summary of Base Sample Collection and Analysis for All Verification Tests for
All Three Challenge Wastewater Types - Influent and Effluent
Parameter
Indicator Parameters
PH
Temperature
Turbidity
Secondary Parameters
Alkalinity
O&G
TSS
COD
BOD5
MB AS (surfactants)
TKN
Ammonia
Total phosphorus
Sample
Type
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite2
Composite2
Composite2
Composite2
Composite2
Composite2
Composite2
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
3 per week
3 per week
3 per week
3 per week
3 per week
Number of
Days
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
18
18
18
18
18
Number of
Samples *
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
36
36
36
36
36
1 Number of samples was based on two primary sampling locations: untreated influent and treated effluent.
2 All composite samples were flow proportional, using grab samples of equal volume at predetermined treated
water volumes.
3.6.2 Test Phase-Specific Analytical Parameters
The sampling and analysis plan included specific parameters based on the primary challenge
constituent for each test phase.
• Sampling and analysis for total arsenic was added to the sampling schedule for the ten
days of the inorganic chemical event challenge verification testing.
• Sampling and analysis for organo-phosphorus pesticide (methyl parathion) was added to
the sampling schedule for the ten days of the organic chemical event challenge
verification testing.
20
-------
• Sampling and analysis for total residual chlorine and free chlorine was added to the
sampling schedule for the ten days of the biological event challenge verification testing.
These additional parameters are summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Summary of Special Sample Collection and Analysis for Verification Tests
„ , Sample „ Number of Estimated Number
Parameter _, Frequency _ ,.„ ,
Type ^ J Days of Samples
Chemical - Arsenic Compound
Total arsenic Composite1 Daily 10 20
Chemical - Organo Phosphorus Compound
Organo-phosphorus „ . l _ .. 1A OA
~.. .< Composite1 Daily 10 20
pesticide
Biological - Chlorine Compound
Total residual chlorine
Free chlorine
Grab
Grab
Twice daily
Twice daily
10
10
40
40
1 Composite samples were flow proportional, using grab samples of equal volume at predetermined treated water
volumes.
3.7 Flow Monitoring
The MEFS was equipped with totalizing flowmeters to measure the influent, treated effluent, and
RO/UF reject effluent. The TO verified the performance of these totalizers by using recorded
influent and RO/UF reject water volumes to complete a mass balance. The volume of influent
entering the MEFS was determined by measuring the water level inside the stock tank before and
after each day of testing. A calibrated totalizing flowmeter was installed on the RO/UF reject
water discharge line to determine the volume of water rejected by the RO and UF systems. The
treated water volume was determined by subtracting the RO/UF reject volume from the influent
volume. The volume of water in the centrifuge waste was sufficiently low to be neglected. The
average daily flow rate was determined by dividing the treated water volume by the run time.
The flow rates were recorded in the operating log.
3.8 Residuals
Solids were removed from the centrifuge on a continuous basis and deposited into a 55-gallon
waste drum. The solids concentration and total volume of solids from the centrifuge were
monitored during testing. Residuals generated during testing were accumulated and disposed of
appropriately at the end of the testing program.
21
-------
3.9 Operation and Maintenance
The MEFS was started and operated in accordance with the O&M manual provided by USS. A
copy of the manual is included as Appendix B. USS personnel operated, maintained, and
monitored the system during the test period, with oversight from the TO. The TO maintained
records showing operating conditions and maintenance performed.
USS operators used the USS preventative maintenance checklist to record checks on the system.
Unit processes were visually inspected for any signs of incorrect performance or abnormal
conditions. Maintenance performed was logged in the on-site maintenance log.
In addition to the operating records kept at the site, the PLC monitored several critical
parameters for the operation of the USS unit processes. The PLC monitored pump cycles, flow,
electrical components, and the operation of floats and sensors related to MEFS operation. These
conditions could be adjusted if needed. Flow rates, volume of water processed, amount of
chemical solutions pumped from the feed tanks, power consumption, backwash flow rates, and
related operational data were recorded by the TO and USS operators in separate logbooks.
Power consumption was monitored on a daily basis with a standard electrical power meter
(kilowatt-hour meter). Meter readings were taken at least daily throughout the test and recorded
in the logbook.
The quantities of consumable supplies and the need for related equipment expenses were
recorded in the operating log. Personnel time to complete O&M activities was also recorded in
the logbook by the TO.
Any other observations relating to the operating condition of unit processes, or the test system as
a whole, were recorded by the TO in the logbook. Observations of changes in effluent quality
based on visual observations, such as color change, oil sheen, obvious sediment load, etc., were
also recorded by the TO in the logbook.
3.10 Additional Test Not Specified in the VTP
After the VTP had been approved, an integrity test for the ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis
processes was added to the verification test procedures to verify the soundness of membranes
and housings. The integrity test procedures followed the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D 6908-03, Standard Practice for Integrity Testing of Water
Filtration Membrane Systems. The test determined the integrity of the RO device (membranes,
seals, connections, etc.) using an air-based pressure decay test. The test was conducted before the
first day and after the last day of the biological contaminant test phase. The first test determined
whether the UF and RO systems' membranes and housings were sound. The test at the end of the
ten-day time period provided an indication of whether the exposure to the high chlorine content
wastewater impacted the membranes or seals, reducing the effectiveness of the systems. The
simplicity and ease of the test allowed it to be completed at any time during actual operation of
the system to assure the integrity of the systems.
22
-------
Chapter 4
Verification Testing Results and Discussion
This chapter summarizes the data collected during each of the three test phases, as well as
information regarding the synthetic wastewater composition, setup, installation, and operation.
The data from the three test phases are presented in the following manner:
• Treatment process: this indicates which treatment processes were utilized or bypassed
during each test.
• Analytical data: these are separated into three classifications:
o Primary data, where the analytical data for the primary constituents (arsenic,
methyl parathion, or chlorine) are summarized. The influent and effluent
concentrations and treatment efficiency for each test day are reported.
o Secondary data, where wastewater indicator parameters (such as BOD5 and
alkalinity) or the parameters detecting the presence of the fouling compounds
(such as O&G and TSS) are summarized. The influent and effluent concentrations
are summarized into mean and range and the efficiency based on the mean is
reported.
o Indicator data, where screening parameters monitored with field monitoring
devices as the MEFS is being operated and samples are being collected, including
pH, temperature, and turbidity are summarized. The data points are summarized
into mean or median and range.
• Flow data: this includes the total water volume processed, the reject water from the UF or
RO systems, and the flow rate.
• Consumables/waste generation: this includes items such as power consumption, treatment
process chemicals, and waste materials generated from spent filter media, centrifuge
sludge, etc.
4.1 Synthetic Wastewater Composition
The VTP established target concentrations for the analytical parameters, as presented in
Table 3-2. The TO strived to maintain consistent constituent concentrations in the synthetic
wastewater during the course of testing so that the system would be properly challenged. The
weights of constituents added to the challenge water were used to calculate the constituent
loadings and are presented in the field notes (Appendix D). The constituent analytical
concentrations are summarized in Table 4-1.
23
-------
Table 4-1. Synthetic Wastewater Secondary Parameter Concentration Ranges
Target Influent Ranges by Test Phase
Parameter
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
MB AS
Ammonia (as N)
Oil & Grease
TKN (as N)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
TSS
Range (mg/L)
N/A
40 - 100
100-200
10
0.4 - 40
10-20
0.4 - 40
0.5-5.0
50- 100
Inorganic
140 - 1,200
7.3 - 22
42-81
<0.2 - 7.2
5.4-28
<5.0- 10
6.3- 15
1.8-2.5
14-39
Organic
160-280
3.7- 17
21 -96
O.2-2.3
19-39
<5.0-16
14-33
<0.1 -0.81
<4.0-41
Biological
2,900 - 5,200
<2.0-3801
100 - 9701
<0.2- 1.7
O.04-0.35
<5. 0-5.2
1.2-2.4
<0.10-0.40
<5.0-23
1 Apparent matrix interferences were noted with the BOD5 and COD data during the biological event test.
With the exception of ammonia, TKN, and phosphorous, the secondary parameter concentrations
were lower than the target range. The sodium hypochlorite added to the synthetic wastewater
during the biological event test phase significantly increased alkalinity, and decreased ammonia
and TKN concentrations. The laboratory reported difficulties during the biological event test
phase in performing the analyses for BOD5 and COD data; consequently this data is flagged to
be used with caution.
4.2 Inorganic Chemical Event—Arsenic
As described in Section 3.5.1, arsenic trioxide or sodium meta arsenite was added to the
synthetic wastewater during this test so that the resulting arsenic concentration in the wastewater
was approximately 5 mg/L.
4.2.1 Treatment Process
Prior to mobilization of the unit, the MEFS's media filtration devices were filled with new filter
media (sand, Bayoxide E33, and carbon). Once the system was on-site, a series of short
shakedown tests were performed using potable water and secondary effluent wastewater. These
shakedown tests were to confirm that the system was operating properly mechanically.
UltraStrip designated the treatment process for the inorganic treatment test (arsenic removal) to
include the centrifuge, media filtration (sand, activated carbon, and Bayoxide E33), and
ultrafiltration. The CRS and RO systems were bypassed during the test.
After observing the synthetic wastewater characteristics, UltraStrip decided to use oil sorbent
pillows in the influent water tank to remove hydrocarbons and reduce usage and potential fouling
of the activated carbon. On the first four days of test, UltraStrip also decided to bypass the
centrifuge. After four days of testing, the solids loading in the wastewater caused a significant
24
-------
decrease in the flow rate through the system, so the centrifuge was returned to the treatment
process for the duration of the test. Thus, the final system configuration included oil absorbent
pillows on the surface of the first tank to control oil, followed by the centrifuge, sand filtrations,
activated carbon, Bayoxide E33 media, and ultrafiltration.
4.2.2 Analytical Data
The arsenic analytical data are summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Arsenic Analytical Data Summary
Run
Number
1
2
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
Influent
(mg/L)
5.4
5.0
4.0
5.3
5.5
4.9
5.7
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
Effluent
(mg/L)
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.022
0.021
0.025
0.030
0.044
0.061
0.024
Efficiency1
(percent)
>99.9
99.9
99.9
>99.9
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.5
99.1
98.8
>99.6
1 One-half of the method detection limit was used to
calculate mean efficiency for analytical results below
detection limits.
The MEFS was able to treat arsenic to concentrations below detectable limits for the first four
days (approximately 36,000 gallons) of testing. From the fifth to tenth day of testing, arsenic
concentrations increased from 0.022 mg/L to 0.061 mg/L, indicating that some breakthrough was
occurring, but high removal efficiencies were still being achieved.
The secondary inorganic chemical test phase analytical data are summarized in Table 4-3. A
summary of the analytical data and the completed analytical data packages are enclosed in
Appendix C. The effluent data for O&G, TSS, and total phosphorus were all below detection
limits, resulting in high treatment efficiencies. The MEFS was able to reduce BODs and COD to
near or below the quantification limits, yielding calculated treatment efficiencies in the 80 to 89
percent range. Low reductions of TKN and ammonia concentrations were recorded.
25
-------
Table 4-3. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Secondary Analytical Data Summary
Parameter
Influent (mg/L)
Mean Range
Effluent (mg/L) Mean Efficiency1
Mean Range (percent)
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
MB AS
Ammonia (as N)
O&G
TKN (as N)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
TSS
330
14
60
0.98
13
5.1
11
2.3
25
140 - 1,200
7.3 - 22
42-81
<0.2 - 7.2
5.4-28
<5.0- 10
6.3 - 15
1.8-2.5
14-39
180
1.6
11
0.37
11
<5.0
9.8
<0.1
<4.0
110-380
<2.0-3.2
<10-21
O.2-2.2
4.5- 19
<5.0-<5.0
5.5- 16
<0.1 -<0.1
<4.0 - <4.0
46
89
81
62
16
51
7.8
98
92
1 One-half of the method detection limit was used to calculate mean efficiency for analytical results below detection
limits.
The indicator parameter inorganic chemical test phase data are summarized in Table 4-4. The
average water turbidity level dropped approximately 87 percent as a result of treatment
processes. The temperature increased to some extent and had no significant impact on pH.
Table 4-4. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Indicator Parameter Data Summary
Parameter (units)
Influent
Median Range
Effluent
Median Range
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Turbidity (NTU)
6.9
18.0
15.2
6.2-7.6
17.3 -20.7
6.1 -34
6.9
19.7
1.3
6.0-7.4
18.8-22.0
0- 11
4.2.3 Flow Data
The flow data are summarized in Table 4-5. USS personnel initially thought the solids
concentration in the synthetic wastewater was low enough to bypass the centrifuge from the
treatment process. This decision resulted in a noticeable decrease in the flow rate. The mean flow
rate was much lower when the centrifuge was not used (16.6 gpm) as compared to when the
centrifuge was used (23.0 gpm). The difference between the influent totalizer on the MEFS and
the control reading (water drawn from the influent feed tank) varied between -5.0 percent and
6.3 percent, but averaged 1.4 percent variance over the course of the 10-day run. The effluent
totalizer deviation had a wider range (-14.6 percent to 8.9 percent), but a lower average over the
10-day run (-0.4 percent). The UF reject rate varied between 6 percent and 16 percent. The 16
percent rejection rate was recorded when the centrifuge was not operating, and the high rate may
be the result of the UF system rejecting solids that passed through the earlier treatment processes.
26
-------
Table 4-5. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Flow Data Summary
Influent (gal) Effluent (gal) UF Mean
MEFS Control Variance MEFS Control Variance Reject Flow Rate3
Day Reading Reading1 (percent) Reading Reading2 (percent) (percent) (gpm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
9,484
7,662
8,083
8,585
8,347
8,797
7,713
8,189
8,453
7,925
83,238
9,499
7,969
7,917
8,176
8,550
8,655
8,234
8,444
8,655
8,339
84,438
0.2
3.9
-2.1
-5.0
2.4
-1.6
6.3
3.0
2.3
5.0
1.4
8,770
7,661
7,634
7,264
7,396
8,162
7,238
7,238
7,528
6,789
75,680
8,584
7,164
6,662
7,683
7,564
7,877
7,365
7,405
7,755
7,449
75,508
-2.2
-6.9
-14.6
5.5
2.2
-3.6
1.7
2.3
2.9
8.9
-0.4
10
10
16
6
12
9
11
12
10
11
11
17.9
15.6
16.0
16.9
22.5
22.4
21.1
23.8
23.9
24.2
20.4
1 Influent control reading taken from the challenge water tank volume.
2 Effluent control reading determined by subtracting the metered UF/RO reject volume from the influent
control reading.
3 Mean flow rate calculated by dividing the USS influent reading by test run duration (see daily monitoring
logs in Appendix D).
4.2.4 Consumables and Residual Generation
The power and treatment chemicals consumed during the inorganic chemical event test phase are
summarized in Table 4-6. Muriatic (hydrochloric) acid was used for pH adjustment, and alum
was used as a flocculent. Both chemicals were injected into the storage tank inside the MEFS
located before the centrifuge. The power consumption was generally lower when the centrifuge
was not operated (113 to 139 kWh) versus when it was operated (139 to 176 kWh).
The residuals generated during the inorganic chemical event test phase are summarized in Table
4-7. The spent carbon was classified as non-hazardous, as determined by Toxicity Characteristic
Leachate Procedure (TCLP). The spent carbon was transported to a Type II landfill for disposal.
The TCLP data are included in Appendix C. The centrifuge sludge and oil absorbent pads from
this test were accumulated with the sludge and pads from the other tests and discarded as a single
waste stream. The disposal arrangements for these materials are summarized in Section 4.3.4.
In addition to the centrifuge sludge, spent carbon, and oil absorbent pads, approximately 7,500
gallons of UF reject water was generated during the inorganic chemical event test phase. For the
purposes of verification testing, this water was discharged to a sanitary sewer at the T&E
Facility, in accordance with the facility-specific sanitary discharge permit. In a field setting, the
UF reject water can be piped back to the influent storage tank and re-filtered, or discharged to a
location separate from the treated effluent discharge location.
27
-------
The residual material disposal arrangements were based on specific waste characteristics and
applicable regulations, and may not be indicative of the disposal requirements in a field setting.
Table 4-6. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Power and Chemical Consumption
Day
1
2
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Test Power Muriatic
Duration Consumption Acid
(hr) (kWh) (mL)
9.33
8.50
8.42
8.23
6.33
6.42
6.50
6.25
6.75
5.75
1161
1351
1131
1391
176
172
156
158
164
171
50
50
50
30
50
50
50
50
500
1,000
50%
Alum
(L)
5
4
4.5
4
4
4.5
3
4
4
4
1 The centrifuge was not ran during the first four days.
Table 4-7. Inorganic Chemical Test Phase Residual Generation Summary
Residual When Generated Quantity
Centrifuge sludge
Oil absorbent pads
Spent carbon
Continuously
Daily
End of test
57 Ibs.
181bs.
Two 5 5 -gal drums
4.3 Organic Chemical Event—Methyl Parathion
As described in Section 3.5.2, methyl parathion was added to the synthetic wastewater during the
organic chemical event test phase. The target methyl parathion concentration in the wastewater
was 1 mg/L.
4.3.1 Treatment Process
USS designed the treatment process for the organic chemical test to include the centrifuge, media
filtration (sand and activated carbon), and ultrafiltration. The CRS, Bay oxide E33, and RO
systems were bypassed during this test. Oil sorbent pillows in the influent water tank in the
MEFS helped to remove hydrocarbons and prolong the effectiveness of the activated carbon.
28
-------
USS replaced the activated carbon in the activated carbon media filter canister after the inorganic
chemical event test, and prior to the organic chemical test.
4.3.2 Analytical Data
The methyl parathion analytical data are summarized in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8. Methyl Parathion Analytical Data Summary
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
Influent
(mg/L)
0.64
0.84
0.93
0.63
0.80
0.80
0.55
0.73
0.56
0.71
0.72
Effluent
(mg/L)
0.00028 J
0.00033 J
0.00066 J
0.00099 J
0.0013
0.0021
0.0056
0.0058
0.0089
0.013
0.0039
Efficiency
(Percent)
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.8
99.8
99.7
98.9
99.2
98.4
98.2
>99.4
1 Estimated value, concentration was below the laboratory reporting
limit, but above the method detection limit.
Similar to the arsenic test, the methyl parathion test showed greater than 99.9 percent removal
efficiency during the first three days of testing, followed by an incremental increase in methyl
parathion concentrations during the fifth through tenth days of testing.
The secondary organic chemical test phase analytical data are summarized in Table 4-9. The
MEFS reduced BOD5 and COD to near or below the quantification limits, yielding calculated
treatment efficiencies in the 71 to 77 percent range. The lower percentile efficiency reflects the
low influent BOD5 and COD concentrations. Low reductions of TKN and ammonia
concentrations were recorded. Effluent data for O&G samples were below detection limits, while
many of the TSS and total phosphorus effluent concentrations were also below detection limits.
The indicator parameter inorganic chemical test phase data are summarized in Table 4-10. The
median water turbidity level dropped approximately 71 percent. The treatment processes had a
negligible impact on pH and temperature.
29
-------
Table 4-9. Organic Chemical Test Phase Secondary Analytical Data Summary
Influent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) Mean Efficiency1
Parameter Mean Range Mean Range (percent)
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
MB AS
Ammonia (as N)
O&G
TKN (as N)
Total Phosphorus (as P)
TSS
240
10
61
1.0
28
5.9
22
0.35
18
159-284
3.7-17
21 -96
O.2-2.3
19-39
<5.0- 16
14-33
<0.1 -0.81
4.0-41
157
2.4
18
0.80
28
<5.0
23
<0.1
4.1
112-238
1 -4.1
5.0-28
O.2-2.2
24-38
<5.0-<5.0
14-34
O.1-0.19
<4.0 - 23
35
77
71
21
-2.4
58
-2.1
78
77
1 One-half of the method detection limit was used to calculate mean efficiency for analytical results below
detection limits.
Table 4-10. Organic Chemical Test Phase Indicator Parameter Data Summary
Influent Effluent
Parameter Mean Range Mean Range
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Turbidity (NTU)
7.1
18.0
13.1
6.8-7.4
16.1 - 19.8
6.4 - 24.4
7.2
20.0
3.8
6.8-
18.6-
0-i
7.4
21.8
5.6
4.3.3 Flow Data
The flow data for the organic chemical test phase is summarized in Table 4-11. The flow rate
decreased sequentially from approximately 24 gpm on the first day to 21.5 gpm on the tenth day,
and was as low as 20.7 gpm (a 15 to 16 percent decrease). The UF reject water volume and
percentage increased from approximately 780 gal (9 percent) on the first day to approximately
1,150 gal (13 percent) on the tenth day.
30
-------
Table 4-11. Organic Chemical Test Phase Flow Data Summary
Influent (gal) Effluent (gal) UF Mean
MEFS Control Variance MEFS Control Variance Reject Flow Rate3
Reading Reading1 (Percent) Reading Volume2 (Percent) (Percent) (gpm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
8,375
8,453
8,506
8,268
8,585
8,189
8,321
8,612
8,374
8,585
84,268
8,445
8,972
8,550
8,445
8,603
8,444
8,444
8,550
8,497
8,550
85,500
0.8
5.8
0.5
2.1
0.2
3.0
1.5
-0.7
1.4
-0.4
1.4
8,030
8,057
8,136
7,898
7,925
7,476
7,317
7,370
7,476
7,951
77,636
7,659
8,192
7,816
7,703
7,758
7,596
7,401
7,390
7,379
7,402
76,296
-4.8
1.6
-4.1
-2.5
-2.2
1.6
1.1
0.3
-1.3
-7.4
-1.8
9
9
9
9
10
10
12
14
13
13
11
24.2
23.3
23.5
23.8
22.9
22.8
20.7
21.4
23.6
21.5
22.8
1 Influent control reading taken from the challenge water tank volume.
2 Effluent control reading determined by subtracting the metered UF/RO reject volume from the influent
control reading.
3 Mean flow rate calculated by dividing the USS influent reading by test run duration (see daily
monitoring logs in Appendix D).
4.3.4 Consumables and Residual Generation
Power and chemical consumption information for the organic chemical event test phase is
summarized in Table 4-12. The power, muriatic acid, and 50 percent alum consumption rate
remained fairly steady and constant throughout the ten-day testing period.
Residual generation for the organic chemical event test phase is summarized in Table 4-13. The
residuals associated with this test phase were classified as hazardous, due to the use of methyl
parathion, and carried the P071 (methyl parathion) hazardous waste code. The centrifuge solids
and oil absorbent pads from this test were combined with the sludge and pads from the other
tests and discarded. These residual materials were transported to a hazardous waste incinerator
for destruction.
In addition to the centrifuge sludge, spent carbon, and oil absorbent pads, approximately 6,600
gallons of UF reject water were generated during the organic chemical event test phase. For the
purposes of verification testing, this water was discharged to a sanitary sewer at the T&E
Facility, in accordance with the facility-specific sanitary discharge permit. In a field setting, the
UF reject water can be piped back to the influent storage tank and re-filtered, or discharged to a
location separate from the treated effluent discharge location.
The residual material disposal arrangements were based on specific waste characteristics and
applicable regulations, and may not be indicative of the disposal requirements in a field setting.
-------
Table 4-12. Organic Chemical Event Phase Power and Chemical Consumption Summary
Power 50%
Length of Consumption Muriatic Alum
Day Run(hr) (kWh) Acid (L) (L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5.88
6.30
6.25
6.05
6.33
6.17
6.90
6.35
6.00
6.58
175
158
171
165
190
180
194
185
187
210
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Table 4-13. Organic Chemical Test Phase Residual Generation Summary
Residual When Generated Quantity
Centrifuge sludge
Oil absorbent pads
Spent carbon
Continuously
Daily
End of test
36 Ib.
18 Ib.
2 5 5 -gal drums
4.4 Biological Event—Chlorine Compound
As described in Section 3.5.3, sodium hypochlorite (bleach) was added to the synthetic
wastewater during this test to produce wastewater having free and total chlorine concentrations
of approximately 5,000 mg/L (Cb). These concentrations were achieved by adding between 300
and 473 gallons of commercial bleach containing 10 percent sodium hypochlorite. The active
chlorine species is the hypochlorite ion (OC1"), which was formed when chlorine bleach was
dissolved in water. The concentration of active hypochlorite was approximately 2,500 mg/L as
Cl, as stated in the VTP.
4.4.1 Treatment Processes
The treatment processes used for the biological event test phase targeted chlorine removal, and
included the CRS (dechlorination), centrifuge, media filtration (sand and activated carbon),
ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. Oil sorbent pillows were inserted in the influent water tank to
remove hydrocarbons to prolong the effectiveness of the activated carbon. The vendor replaced
the activated carbon in the media filter with fresh carbon prior to the biological event test. The
Bay oxide E33 media filters were bypassed during this test.
32
-------
The CRS was positioned before the USS influent pump. The suction head loss through the CRS
reduced the influent feed pump capacity, resulting in a reduction of the flow rate. An auxiliary
submersible pump in the stock feed tank was utilized to overcome the head loss in the CRS.
The biological event test phase began on December 20, 2003. The first day of testing was a
startup/shakedown to resolve difficulties with the test equipment, pumps, etc. The CRS was
optimized to ensure chemical feeds were operating properly. There were no samples collected or
analyzed on December 20, but operational and flow data was recorded and are presented in this
section. The first day of complete testing was December 21, 2003, and the last test day was
January 6, 2004. Testing did not occur during the Christmas and New Year holidays. The result
is ten days of analytical data and eleven days of operational and flow data. The MEFS did not
require special shutdown or restart procedures during the holidays.
4.4.2 Analytical Data
During the biological event test phase, the TO collected effluent samples to be analyzed for free
chlorine from the RO effluent, while the secondary and indicator parameters were collected from
the UF and RO reject water. On one of the ten test days, a sample was also collected from the
treated effluent and analyzed for most of the secondary parameters. Free and total chlorine
samples were collected and analyzed twice daily, as specified in the VTP.
The free and total residual chlorine analytical data are summarized in Table 4-14. Free and total
chlorine concentrations in the influent wastewater were virtually identical, which indicates there
were no chloramines in the influent. The high concentration of chlorine added to the wastewater
reacted with the low concentrations of ammonia and drove the chloramines past the breakpoint
(breakpoint chlorination), resulting in only free chlorine in the wastewater.
Since there were no chloramines in the influent, chloramines were not expected in the effluent;
the effluent samples were analyzed only for free chlorine. Free chlorine concentrations were
below detection limits for 13 of the 20 samples, with the remaining seven samples ranging from
0.02mg/Lto0.14mg/L.
33
-------
Table 4-14. Free and Total Chlorine Data Summary
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
Influent Chlorine Effluent Chlorine
(mg/L as C12) (mg/L as C12)
Total Free Free
6,800
6,300
6,300
6,300
5,900
6,000
6,500
6,700
5,700
6,200
6,700
6,000
5,600
4,900
4,100
4,400
4,000
3,700
4,000
3,900
5,500
6,600
6,500
5,800
6,400
5,900
5,700
6,500
6,700
6,000
6,000
6,600
6,000
5,700
5,200
4,100
4,000
4,100
3,600
4,000
3,900
5,500
0.05
<0.02
0.14
<0.02
0.04
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.04
<0.02
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.03
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.02
Free Chlorine
Treatment Efficiency1
(percent)
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
>99.999
1 One-half of the method detection limit was used to calculate mean efficiency for
analytical results below detection limits.
The secondary parameters (sampled from the RO/UF reject water) are summarized in
Table 4-15. The analytical laboratory reported difficulty with analyzing the BODs and COD in
the sterile (influent) and oxidized (effluent) samples. The BOD5 and COD data were flagged due
to these analytical problems and are not considered to be a reliable performance indicator.
Alkalinity concentrations in the influent were higher than observed during the other two test
phases, due to the sodium hydroxide in the bleach, and treatment by the MEFS significantly
reduced alkalinity concentrations. MBAS and TKN concentrations showed an increase, though
the influent and effluent concentrations for both parameters were low.
34
-------
Table 4-15. Biological Test Phase Secondary Parameter Analytical Data Summary
Parameter
Units
Influent
Mean Range
Effluent
Mean Range
Mean Efficiency1
(percent)
Alkalinity
BOD52
COD2
MB AS
Ammonia
O&G
TKN
Phosphorus
TSS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L as P
mg/L
4,200
120
24
0.58
0.19
10
0.79
0.52
23
2,900 - 5,200
<2.0-380
5- 140
<0.20- 1.8
0.061 -0.56
<5.0-33
0.49- 1.3
0.18-0.86
<4.0-55
220
36
680
0.77
0.13
<5.0
1.7
0.21
11
130-290
<2.0 - 200
100 - 970
<0.2- 1.7
O.04-0.35
<5. 0-5.2
1.2-2.4
O.10-0.4
5.0-23
95
69
-2,800
-33
33
72
-110
61
52
One-half of the method detection limit is used to calculate values below detection limits.
2 BOD5 and COD samples during the biological event test phase appear to be greatly influenced by matrix
interferences and are not considered a reliable indication of performance of the MEFS.
On December 23, 2003, one effluent sample of water treated by the RO unit was analyzed for
secondary parameters except MB AS and BOD5. Samples for MB AS and BOD5 were not
collected because the analytical laboratory would not have been able to analyze the samples
within the hold time due to the Christmas holiday. The results are summarized in Table 4-16.
Table 4-16. Effluent Analytical Results—December 23, 2003
Parameter
Alkalinity
COD
Ammonia
O&G
TKN
Phosphorus
TSS
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L as P
mg/L
RO/UF
Reject
290
101
0.072
<5.0
1.6
<0.1
5.0
Treated
Effluent
26.2
<10
<0.04
<5.0
0.32
<0.1
6.0
Based on this sample, the RO membrane further reduced the alkalinity, COD, ammonia, and
TKN concentrations in the wastewater. Oil & grease and phosphorous concentrations were
below detection limits for both the RO/UF reject and treated effluent, while TSS showed a slight
increase, though both concentrations were close to the method detection limit (4.0 mg/L).
The indicator parameters are summarized in Table 4-17.
35
-------
Table 4-17. Biological Test Phase Indicator Parameter Data Summary
Influent Effluent
Parameter Median Range Median Range
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Turbidity (NTU)
9.3
17.5
43.1
8.8-9.7
15.0- 19.7
0-68.8
7.8
23.3
6.8
5.4-8.4
20.8-27.3
0-23.6
There was some increased variability in the turbidity data, but for all tests the data shows that the
MEFS reduced the mean turbidity by approximately 84 percent. The influent pH, effluent
temperature, and turbidity values were slightly higher during the chlorine test as compared to the
arsenic and methyl parathion tests. This is because bleach has a relatively high pH, the
dechlorination chemical reaction is exothermic, and the chlorine wastewater was more turbid.
4.4.3 Flow Data
The flow data for the biological event test phase are summarized in Table 4-18. The UF/RO
reject water rate varied between 53 and 73 percent, due in part to the RO system rejecting salts
generated from the CRS process. The difference between the USS totalizer and the influent
drawn from the tank ranged from -0.7 to 1.5 percent. At the end of the last day, there was a 0.1
percent deviation between the two values. The effluent totalizer showed a wide variance with the
control volume from day to day (-24.1 to 4.0 percent), but a relatively small deviation over the
course of the 11-day period (-2.7 percent). The average daily flow rate remained steady
throughout the test period, ranging from 23.1 gpm to 24.6 gpm.
4.4.4 Consumables and Residual Generation
Power and chemical consumption information for the biological event test phase is summarized
in Table 4-19.
The power consumption increased slightly, as compared to the other two test phases, due likely
to the additional pumps utilized to operate the Captor and RO systems. As stated in Section
4.1.1, the influent feed pump was not used during this test phase. The submersible pump used to
pump water to the MEFS was not connected to the power consumption meter.
Captor (calcium thiosulfate) was used to dechlorinate the wastewater, while sodium hydroxide
was used to keep the pH high (around 10) so that calcium thiosulfate would react efficiently.
Perma Clean 77 was used to clean the membranes in the UF and RO units. Three liters of
muriatic acid were used on the eighth day of testing to descale the MEFS.
36
-------
Table 4-18. Biological Event Test Phase Flow Data Summary
Influent (gal)
MEFS Control Variance
Day Totalizer Volume1 (percent)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Totals
8,215
8,295
8,269
8,321
8,400
8,480
8,506
8,374
8,321
8,400
8,427
92,007
8,339
8,367
8,367
8,339
8,444
8,444
8,444
8,367
8,339
8,339
8,339
92,128
1.5
0.9
1.2
0.2
0.5
-0.4
-0.7
-0.1
0.2
-0.7
-1.1
0.1
Effluent (gal)
MEFS Control Variance
Totalizer Volume2 (percent)
3,804
3,329
2,800
2,668
3,170
2,827
2,351
2,694
3,275
3,090
3,275
33,283
3,946
3,252
2,918
2,150
3,234
2,763
2,291
2,668
3,318
3,052
3,055
32,647
3.6
-2.4
4.0
-24.1
2.0
-2.3
-2.6
-1.0
1.3
-1.2
-7.2
-2.7
UF/RO
Reject
(percent)
53
61
65
74
62
67
73
68
60
63
63
65
Mean
Flow Rate3
(gpm)
23.4
23.4
24.2
24.1
24.1
23.1
24.3
24.6
24.4
24.5
24.3
24.1
1 Influent control reading taken from the challenge water tank volume.
2 Effluent control reading determined by subtracting the metered UF/RO reject volume from the influent control
reading.
3 Mean flow rate calculated by dividing the USS influent reading by test run duration (see daily monitoring logs
in Appendix D).
Table 4-19. Biological Event Phase Power and Chemical Consumption Summary
Day
1
2
O
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Length of Power CRS
Run Consumption Agent
(hr) (kWh)1 (gal)
6.30
5.82
5.77
5.77
5.83
6.10
5.78
5.67
5.67
6.37
5.72
182
171
203
218
210
218
221
194
195
214
197
119
137
120
120
160
120
130
125
100
98
88
Sodium
Hydroxide
(L)
90
70
65
60
60
60
60
50
37
34
34
Perma
Clean 77
(L)
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
Muriatic
Acid (L)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1 The power consumption from the submersible pump was not measured.
37
-------
Residual generation information for the biological event test phase is summarized in Table 4-20.
Table 4-20. Biological Event Phase Power and Chemical Consumption Summary
Waste Item When Generated Quantity
Centrifuge sludge
Oil absorbent pads
Spent carbon
Continuously
Daily
End of test
70 Ibs.
161bs.
Two 5 5 -gal drums
In addition to the centrifuge sludge, spent carbon, and oil absorbent pads, approximately 58,700
gallons of UF and RO reject water was generated during the biological event test phase. For the
purposes of verification testing, this water was discharged to a sanitary sewer at the T&E
Facility, in accordance with the facility-specific sanitary discharge permit. In a field setting, the
UF/RO reject water can be piped back to the influent storage tank and re-filtered, or discharged
to a location separate from the treated effluent discharge location.
The residual material disposal arrangements were based on specific waste characteristics and
applicable regulations, and may not be indicative of the disposal requirements in a field setting.
4.5 Additional Test Not Specified in the VTP
As noted in Section 3.10, a pressure decay integrity test was conducted on the RO unit before
and after the biological event challenge. The objectives of the pressure decay test for the ETV
testing were twofold:
1. To determine the integrity of the RO system by calculating the log reduction value for a
particle size that a typical RO unit should reject.
2. To determine the impact, if any, the chlorinated wastewater from the biological event test
phase has on the RO system.
The test followed the procedures outlined in the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Designation D 6908-03, Standard Practice for Integrity Testing of Water Filtration
Membrane Systems, Practice A—Pressure Decay and Vacuum Decay Tests. This test provides a
determination of the minimum equivalent diameter of a potential defect in the membrane or a
seal that could allow water and particulates to pass through the system untreated. According to
the ASTM procedure, this pressure decay test should detect defects larger than 1 to 2 um. The
test procedure also calculates the log reduction value for a particle the size of the smallest
equivalent diameter.
The tests were conducted before the first day and after the last day of the biological event test.
The testing procedure utilized for the MEFS followed the ASTM test procedure. The RO system
was temporarily operated with clean water at its normal operating pressure. It was drained of
liquid on the upstream or influent side of the membrane, and the downstream or effluent side of
the RO system was opened so that the downstream pressure was equal to the atmospheric
38
-------
pressure. The upstream side was then pressurized with compressed air to pre-determined test
pressures, and the pressure decay on the upstream side was monitored over time. A variety of
recordings, including test pressures, time, test water and ambient air temperature, and
atmospheric pressure were recorded and used in calculations to identify potential defects in the
RO system greater than or equal to the minimum equivalent diameter.
Working with USS personnel, the TO conducted the tests using four different test pressures in
the following order: 10, 15, 20, and 30 pounds per square inch (psi). The lower pressure tests
were conducted first to ensure that the test did not damage the RO system. The higher test
pressure produces a lower equivalent defect diameter, so the higher test pressure was used as the
basis for calculating the smallest possible defects.
The data were calculated using the test conducted at the highest pressure (30 psi). The results
from the first test day would provide an estimate of the equivalent defect diameter and log
reduction value. Comparing the log reduction value results from the first and second test days
identifies a defect caused by operating the RO system during the biological event test phase. The
testing results are summarized in Table 4-21.
Table 4-21. RO System Pressure Decay Test Summary
Minimum Defect Log Reduction
Test Date Diameter (um)
12/19/03
1/6/04
1.4
1.4
Value
3.7
3.7
The test pressure data set on the first test day indicates that the RO system was capable of
creating a 10"37 reduction in particles with a diameter conservatively estimated at 1.4 um during
both tests. This would indicate that the RO system was not adversely affected by the wastewater
treated during the biological event test phase.
4.5.1 Installation and Operation & Maintenance Findings
The MEFS required little set up once it was brought to the test site, and there were no
performance issues noted with the system during any point of testing. The equipment, piping,
and wiring inside the MEFS were well organized. The wastewater treatment equipment, auxiliary
tanks, and PLC components were indelibly labeled, as were the pipes, valves, and fittings. The
treatment components could be visually monitored by operating personnel, although there was
not a great deal of free space within the MEFS.
The MEFS's flow rate did not achieve its rated capacity of 26 gpm (100 Lpm); the average daily
flow rates for the three test phases ranged from 21 to 24 gpm. There were two situations
encountered that resulted in moderate flow rate reductions. The first was at the beginning of the
inorganic chemical test phase, when the centrifuge was bypassed, flow rates dropped to 16 to 18
gpm. The second was toward the end of the organic chemical test phase, when flow rates
39
-------
dropped to 21 to 23 gpm. During both tests, the likely cause of the decrease in flow rate was an
increase of sediment being treated by the media filters or UF system.
The ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis treatment systems generated reject water at varying
volumes. The UF system was used during the inorganic and organic chemical event test phases,
and with UF and RO were used during the biological event test phase. The UF system rejected
water at a rate ranging from 6 to 16 percent of the influent flow during the inorganic and organic
chemical event test phases. During the biological event test phase, the combined UF and RO
reject rate increased to 53 to 74 percent of the influent flow.
Power use by the MEFS ranged from approximately 113 to 221 kWh of electricity during the
three test phases, which lasted from approximately 5.67 to 9.3 hours. According to the vendor,
the MEFS is typically equipped with a diesel-powered electric generator, but USS removed it for
this test because it was not practical to run a generator inside the enclosed building where the
testing was conducted. The system power requirement is non-standard for North American use
and a frequency converter and transformer was necessary for this installation.
The CRS was used only for the biological event test phase. The MEFS used approximately 90 to
160 gallons of neutralizing agent to treat a volume of wastewater of approximately 8,400 gallons
having free and total chlorine concentrations of approximately 5,500 mg/L (as C12). Aside from
the CRS neutralizing agent, the MEFS used sodium hydroxide, muriatic acid, flocculants, and
defouling chemicals to treat wastewater.
The MEFS generated residuals consisting of centrifuge solids, used oil absorbent pads, spent
activated carbon, and reject water from the RO and UF units. Disposal arrangements made for
the residual materials were based on characterizations performed on the materials
USS supplied three operators to run the system during testing, though the system could, and
often was, controlled by two operators. The MEFS required minimal maintenance during testing.
Maintenance consisted primarily of filling treatment chemical containers, replacing filter pads or
activated carbon, and daily backwashing of the media filters. Backwashing consisted of running
clean water through the treatment processes in the opposite direction and through the clean-in-
place loop, then running the rinseate water back through the treatment processes before
discharging it through the effluent discharge pipe. This procedure took approximately 30
minutes, and was conducted after the end of each day of testing.
The CRS was positioned before the USS influent pump. The suction head loss through the CRS
reduced the influent feed pump capacity, resulting in a reduction of the flow rate. An auxiliary
submersible pump in the stock feed tank was used to overcome head loss in the CRS.
The treatment system did not have a pH and oxidization/reduction potential (ORP) meter in the
CRS outlet to monitor completion of the chemical reaction in the CRS. The reaction of calcium
thiosulfate and bleach could generate chlorine gas and hydrogen sulfide at very low pH levels.
Therefore, it is important that the system include adequate means of monitoring pH and ORP to
maintain the correct chemical feed rates for adequate hypochlorite reaction without generating
toxic gases.
40
-------
Chapter 5
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The VTP established the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program to be used during
verification testing to ensure that data and procedures are of measurable quality and support the
quality objectives for this verification test. This plan was tailored to this specific VTP and
requirements for verification of the USS in this application. The plan was developed with
guidance from the EPA's "Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans" and "Guidance for the
Data Quality Objectives Process." Verification test procedures and data collection followed the
QAPP, and a summary of the results are reported in this section. The full laboratory QA/QC
results and supporting documentation are presented in Appendix C.
5.1 Audits
Prior to the commencement of testing, the VO conducted audits of the laboratories responsible
for analysis of samples collected during the testing program. Severn Trent Laboratory (STL) in
North Canton, Ohio, analyzed the methyl parathion samples. The STL laboratory in Buffalo,
New York, analyzed all remaining analytical laboratory parameters. The TO analyzed samples
for the indicator parameters, and conducted the free and total chlorine analyses. The VO also
conducted two audits on the TO; first during equipment setup, and second during testing.
The audits found that the field and laboratory procedures were followed, and that the overall
approaches being used were in accordance with the established QAPP. Recommendations for
changes or improvements were made, and the responsible parties responded quickly to the
recommendations.
5.2 Verification Test Data - Data Quality Indicators (DQI)
Several DQIs had been identified as key factors in assessing the quality of the data and in
supporting the verification process. These indicators were:
• Precision
• Accuracy
• Representativeness
• Comparability
• Completeness
In the following sections, a description of each DQI is presented, along with a statistical
verification of the performance measurement for each quantitative DQI for precision and
accuracy.
5.2.1 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and provides
an estimate of random error. Analytical precision is a measurement of how far an individual
41
-------
measurement may deviate from a mean of replicate measurements. Precision is determined from
analysis of field and laboratory duplicates and spiked duplicates. The standard deviation,
relative standard deviation and/or relative percent difference (RPD) recorded from sample
analyses are methods used to quantify precision. Relative percent difference is calculated by the
following formula:
C -C
*~i *-:
RPD = c
x 100%
Where:
Q = Concentration of the compound or element in the sample.
C^ = Concentration of the compound or element in the duplicate.
C = Mean of samples.
Field duplicates of both influent and effluent samples were collected at a frequency of one
duplicate for every ten influent and effluent samples collected. The laboratory ran duplicate
samples as part of the laboratory QA program. Duplicates were analyzed on a frequency of one
duplicate for every ten samples analyzed. The laboratory also performed matrix spike/matrix
spike duplicates (MS/MSD) for certain analytical parameters. The data quality objective for
precision is based on the type of analysis performed. The analytical precision based on MS/MSD
is summarized in Table 5-1, while analytical precision based on laboratory duplicates is
presented in Table 5-2.
Table 5-1. Analytical Precision Based on MS/MSD Recovery
No. of Percent Recovery Percent RPD
Parameter Samples Mean Max Min Std. Dev. Mean Max Min Std. Dev.
Arsenic
BOD5
COD
MB AS
O&G
Alkalinity
4
4
2
2
25
2
136
46
140
34
91
98
178
97
148
34
118
98
102
0
131
34
80
98
38.41
53.27
12.02
0.00
9.62
0.00
6.9
5.4
12.2
0
9.8
0
11.9
10.9
12.2
0
33.7
0
1.9
0
12.2
0
0
0
7.0
7.7
0
0
9.8
0
42
-------
Table 5-2. Analytical Precision Based on Field Duplicates
Parameter
Ammonia
Arsenic
BOD5
COD
MB AS
O&G
Alkalinity
TKN
Total phosphorous
TSS
Methyl parathion
Total chlorine1
Free chlorine
No. of
Samples
3
2
5
6
5
6
6
3
O
6
2
1
2
Mean
58.18
2.42
23.12
145.97
18.84
11.82
1.38
9.71
32.49
30.93
12.65
1.68
33.33
Percent
Max
172.71
2.53
89.16
529.00
58.06
44.73
5.48
14.29
88.89
115.79
17.89
NA
66.67
RPD
Min
0.00
2.30
1.75
15.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.76
3.17
0.00
7.41
NA
0.00
Std. Dev.
99.19
0.16
37.23
192.15
23.27
18.45
2.13
4.30
48.86
43.35
7.41
NA
47.14
1 Precision for total chlorine was based on a single set of samples. The RPD value for total
chlorine is expressed in the "Mean" column, and the other statistics are not applicable (NA).
As can be seen from this data, field duplicates showed a much higher degree of variability for all
general water quality parameters, and much lower variability for the key parameters of arsenic,
methyl parathion, and chlorine.
5.2.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is defined for water quality analyses as the difference between the measured or
calculated sample value and the true value of the sample. Spiking a sample matrix with a known
amount of constituent and measuring the recovery obtained in the analysis is a method of
determining accuracy. Using laboratory performance samples with a known concentration in a
specific matrix can also monitor the accuracy of an analytical method for measuring a constituent
in a given matrix. Accuracy is usually expressed as the percent recovery of a compound from a
sample. The following equation will be used to calculate percent recovery:
Percent Recovery = [( AT-A; ) / As ] x 100% (5-2)
Where:
AT = Total amount measured in the spiked sample.
A; = Amount measured in the un-spiked sample.
As = Spiked amount added to the sample.
43
-------
During verification testing, the laboratory ran matrix spike samples at a frequency of one spiked
sample for every ten samples analyzed. The laboratory also analyzed liquid and solid samples of
known concentration as lab control samples. Laboratory control samples are summarized in
Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Accuracy Results - Laboratory Control Samples
Parameter
Ammonia
BOD5
COD
MB AS
n-hexane extractable material1
Alkalinity
TKN
Total phosphorus
TSS
Arsenic
No. of
Samples
9
24
17
12
1
14
14
11
12
9
Mean
101
99
99
105
96
102
102
99
99
101
Percent RPD
Max Min Std. Dev
106
120
120
132
NA
108
108
108
100
103
90
83
83
96
NA
95
95
92
96
98
5.50
9.77
8.68
9.35
NA
3.84
3.84
4.58
1.30
1.92
QC
. Limit
90-110
85-115
90-110
90-110
78-114
90-110
90-110
90-110
88-110
85-115
1 Accuracy for n-hexane extractable material was based on a single set of samples. The RPD value for
total chlorine is expressed in the "Mean" column, and the other statistics are not applicable (NA).
5.2.3 Completeness
Completeness is a measure of the number of valid samples and measurements that are obtained
during a test period. Completeness will be measured by tracking the number of valid data results
against the specified requirements of the test plan.
Completeness will be calculated by the following equation:
Percent Completeness =(V7T)xlOO% (5-3)
Where:
V = Number of measurements that are valid.
T = Total number of measurements planned in the test.
The goal for this data quality objective was to achieve minimum 80 percent completeness for
samples scheduled in the test plan. The primary indicator parameters evaluated in this test
program were arsenic, methyl parathion, and chlorine. For each of these parameters, there were
no rejected results, resulting in a completeness of 100 percent.
The BODs and COD results for the biological event test, while acceptable for analytical
accuracy, were not used in the evaluation of verification testing because of analytical problems
44
-------
associated with performing these tests on a sample that had been sterilized and oxidized by
bleach.
No results were rejected for any of the other sampling parameters; however, detailed QA/QC
examination of the data revealed the following issues:
BOD
• Sample USETV-E-120401 and USETV-E-12041 field duplicates were initially analyzed
within the analytical holding time for BOD; however all of the QC failed low. The
results could not be quantified accurately. The sample was reanalyzed outside of holding
time and exhibited compliant results .
• Sample USETV-E-120201 was initially analyzed within the analytical holding time for
BOD, however the oxygen was insufficiently depleted. The results could not be
accurately quantified. The sample was reanalyzed outside of holding time and exhibited
compliant results. One surrounding continuing calibration verification was low, but the
batch QC was compliant.
• Sample USETV-E-120501 was initially analyzed within the holding time for BOD,
however the oxygen was insufficiently depleted. The results could not be quantified
accurately. The sample was reanalyzed outside of holding time and exhibited compliant
results.
• USETV-I-010401, USETV-E-010401, USETV-I-010301, and USETV-E-010301 were
analyzed outside their hold time.
COD
TKN
The recovery of sample USETV-I-12030 matrix spike duplicate exhibited results above
the quality control limits for COD. However, the laboratory control sample was
acceptable.
The recovery of sample USETV-E-112501 matrix spike exhibited results above the
quality control limits for COD. The recovery of sample USETV-E-112501 matrix spike
duplicate exhibited results above the quality control for COD. However, the laboratory
control sample was acceptable.
The recovery of sample USETV-I-120301 matrix spike exhibited results below the
quality control limits for TKN. The recovery of sample USETV-I-120301 matrix spike
duplicate exhibited results below the quality control limits for TKN. However, the
laboratory control sample was acceptable.
45
-------
TSS
• Initial TSS results for samples USETV-I-120801, USETV-I-120802, and USETV-E-
120801 were incorrectly reported by the laboratory, due to a manual data entry error. The
laboratory subsequently revised the data report, and the corrected results were used in the
verification report.
MBAS
• The recovery of sample USETV-I-120303 matrix spike exhibited results below the
quality control limits for MBAS. The recovery of sample USETV-I-120303 matrix spike
duplicate exhibited results below the quality control limits for MBAS. However, the
laboratory control sample was acceptable.
• Samples USETV-I-122001 and USETV-E-122001 were originally analyzed for MBAS
within the required holding time, however, the QC failed high. Reanalysis was performed
outside holding time and the values obtained confirmed that the high QC did not bias the
results high.
• The recovery of sample USETV-E-11250 matrix spike exhibited results below the quality
control limits for MBAS. The recovery of sample USETV-E-11250 matrix spike
duplicate exhibited results below the quality control limits for MBAS. However, the
laboratory control sample was acceptable.
• Samples USETV-I-010301 and USETV-E-010301 were analyzed outside their hold time.
These issues are appropriately flagged in the analytical reports and the data used in the final
evaluation of the MEFS.
46
-------
References
1. NSF International, Verification Test Plan for Treatment of Wastewater Generated During
Decontamination Activities, UltraStrip Systems, Inc., October 2003, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Practice for Integrity Testing of
Water Filtration Membrane Systems, Designation D 6908-03
3. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Technology Verification
Program - Quality and Management Plan for the Pilot Period (1995 - 2000),
USEPA/600/R-98/064, 1998. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
4. NSF International, Environmental Technology Verification - Source Water Protection
Technologies Pilot Quality Management Plan, 2000. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Methods and Guidance for Analysis of
Water, EPA 821-C-99-008, 1999. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, Revised March 1983, EPA 600/4-79-020.
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods 3rded- 4 vols., November 1986, Final Update IIB
and Proposed Update III, January 1995.
8. APHA, AWWA, and WEF: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998. Washington, DC.
9. United States Environmental Protection Agency: USEPA Guidance for Quality
Assurance Project Plans, USEPA QA/G-5, USEPA/600/R-98-018, 1998. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
10. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for the Data Quality
Objectives Process, USEPA QA/G-4, USEPA/600/R-96-055, 1996. Office of Research
and Development, Washington.
47
-------
Glossary of Terms
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.
Comparability - a qualitative term that expresses confidence that two data sets can contribute to
a common analysis and interpolation.
Completeness - a qualitative 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.
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 with expertise and knowledge of wastewater
treatment and homeland security issues.
Testing Organization - an organization qualified by the Verification Organization to conduct
studies and testing of technologies in accordance with protocols and test plans.
Vendor - a business that assembles or sells wastewater treatment equipment.
Verification - to establish evidence on the performance of in drain treatment 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.
48
-------
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 Test Plan(s) shall be included as part
of this document.
Verification Statement - a document that summarizes the Verification Report reviewed and
approved by USEPA.
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 treatment
technology. At a minimum, the Test Plan shall include detailed instructions for sample and data
collection, sample handling and preservation, precision, accuracy, goals, and quality assurance
and quality control requirements relevant to the technology and application.
49
-------
Appendices
A Verification Test Plan
B Operations and Maintenance Manual
C Analytical Data
D Testing Logs and Notes
E ASTM Test Logs and Calculations
F Audit Reports
50
------- |