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
------- |