August 2004
NSF 04/08/EPADWCTR
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water
Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals
Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS
with Actiguard AAFS50
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
<>EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
SEPA
ET
LA1V1 S\
-------
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the EPA, operates the Drinking Water Systems (DWS)
Center, one of seven technology areas under the ETV Program. The DWS Center recently evaluated the
performance of an adsorption media filter technology for the reduction of arsenic in drinking water. This
verification statement provides a summary of the test results for the Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals
Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard AAFS50 System. Gannett Fleming, Inc., an NSF-
qualified field testing organization (FTO), performed the verification testing. The verification report
contains a comprehensive description of the test.
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the Kinetico he. and Alcan Chemicals Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with
Actiguard AAFS50 arsenic adsorption media filter system was conducted at the Orchard Hills Mobile
Home Park (MHP) Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Carroll Township, Pennsylvania from April 22, 2003
through October 28, 2003. The source water was untreated groundwater from one of the MHP's
groundwater supply wells. The source water, with an average total arsenic concentration of 14 |jg/L and a
pH of 7.6, received no treatment or chemical addition prior to entering the treatment unit. When operated
under the manufacturers' specified site conditions at a flow rate of 1.9 gpm ±0.1 gpm, the Kinetico Inc.
and Alcan Chemicals Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard AAFS50 arsenic adsorption
media filter system removed arsenic from the feed water to less than the detection limit (2 |Jg/L) for
approximately 8,000 bed volumes, to less than 10 |jg/L for approximately 25,000 bed volumes, and to
less than the predetermined test endpoint (11 |Jg/L) after approximately 2,350 hours of total equipment
operation for a total of approximately 29,000 bed volumes.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description was provided by the manufacturer and has not been verified.
The arsenic adsorption media filter system included Kinetico Inc.'s Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS
filter unit, which includes two pressure filter tanks and a filter control module. The control module
houses water-driven gears and mechanically interconnected pulse-turbine meter and valves to
automatically initiate and control filter backwashes. The movement of the gears determines the position
of the filter valves. Following the throughput of a set total volume of water, the pulse-turbine meter
triggers the water-driven gears to manipulate valves, so that the operating mode of one filter is switched
from service to backwash, to purge, and finally returns to service. During a backwash event, one filter
supplies treated water for the backwashing filter and treated water effluent. The filter tanks operate in
parallel when both are in service. Each filter was loaded with Alcan Chemicals' Actiguard AAFS50
media, a proprietary granular iron-enhanced activated alumina media. Literature for Alcan Chemicals'
Actiguard AAFS50 media states that it is certified to NSF/ANSI 61.
The treatment unit is intended for use on groundwater supplies not under the influence of surface water
serving small communities having limited manpower and operating skills. However, the technology is
also scalable for serving larger systems. The filter system does not require electricity to operate and can
operate continuously or intermittently. The filter components are modular in nature and can be installed
by a qualified plumber. The tanks are freestanding, requiring only a level surface capable of supporting
the weight of the unit, maintenance of ambient temperature above 35°F (1.7°C), and a feed water pressure
between 30 and 125 psi.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The verification testing site was the Orchard Hills MHP WTP in Carroll Township, Pennsylvania. The
source water was untreated groundwater from the WTP Well No.l, which is one of three wells currently
04/08/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2004
VS-ii
-------
used to supply the MHP. The source water was of generally good quality, with relatively low turbidity,
slightly basic pH, and moderate hardness of about 99 mg/L. The source water had a high concentration of
manganese, 144 |jg/L on average; an average total arsenic concentration of 14 |Jg/L, ranging from a
minimum concentration of 12 ug/L to a maximum of 17 ug/L; an average iron concentration of 34 ug/L;
an average silica concentration of 19.0 mg/L; and an average alkalinity concentration of 89 mg/L.
Methods and Procedures
Operations, sampling, and analyses were performed to provide an accurate evaluation of the treatment
system under the field conditions. The verification testing was conducted in two phases. The first phase,
the Integrity Test, was designed to evaluate equipment operation reliability under the environmental and
hydraulic conditions at the WTP site during the initial two weeks of testing. The second phase, the
Capacity Test, included testing designed to evaluate the capacity of the arsenic adsorption media filter
system to remove arsenic from the Well No. 1 feed water.
The Integrity Test ran for 13 full days plus 8 hours, during which the field test operator was on-site to
record test data twice per day. The treatment system was operated continuously using the manual mode of
operation for Well No. 1 2 hours each day and operated intermittently during the remainder of each day.
During the Capacity Test, the treatment unit operated intermittently in concert with the WTP well
operation. The Capacity Test continued until an arsenic concentration of 11 |Jg/L was detected in the
treated water for a minimum of 3 consecutive samples.
Flow rate, production volume, and pressure were monitored and recorded twice per day. Grab samples of
feed and treated water samples were analyzed for pH, temperature, turbidity, alkalinity, calcium,
magnesium, hardness, and fluoride by the field test operator. Grab samples were collected and delivered
to the PADEP Laboratory for analysis of silica, aluminum, iron, manganese, chloride, sulfate, and total
phosphorus. Arsenic samples were collected and sent to the NSF Laboratories for analyses. Sample
collection for some water quality parameters was more frequent during the initial two-week Integrity Test
period. Arsenic samples were also collected more frequently as the treated water total arsenic
concentration approached the predetermined end-point concentration for a total number of 47 arsenic
samples. Three sets of samples were speciated for arsenic during the Integrity Test, to determine the
relative proportion of the total arsenic concentration that was soluble, that was in the As III species, and
that was in the As V species. Samples for arsenic speciation were also collected periodically during the
Capacity Test.
Complete descriptions of the verification testing results and quality assurance/quality control procedures
are included in the verification report.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
System Operation
The verification testing was conducted under the manufacturers' specified operating conditions. Contact
time is a critical parameter for arsenic adsorption efficiency and is dependent upon maintaining the flow
rate within the design range of 1.9 gpm ±0.1 gpm. A non-integral pressure regulating valve and
diaphragm valve on the treated water line were used to control and maintain the flow rate. A relatively
constant flow rate was maintained with minimal flow rate adjustments required.
The system was operated continuously for a 2-hour period each day for the first 13 days plus 8 hours as
part of the Integrity Test using the manual mode of operation for Well No. 1. The system operated
intermittently in concert with the Well No. 1 operation during the remainder of the Integrity Test and
throughout the Capacity Test. The filter unit operated for a total of 14.2 hours per day, on average.
04/08/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2004
VS-iii
-------
The filter control module automatically initiates and controls backwashes based on a preset throughput
volume. The treatment unit was set to backwash one filter following the throughput of approximately
10,500 gallons, plus or minus ten percent. A single filter was backwashed at a time. Therefore, each
filter was backwashed every 21,000 gallons. Using the setscrew on the control module, filter backwashes
were manually initiated at the end of the Integrity Test and monthly throughout the Capacity Test for the
purpose of measuring backwash volume and testing backwash water quality. These manually initiated
backwashes were performed for verification testing purposes only. Headless across the filter unit
averaged 1.1 psi during the test period, an amount only slightly greater than the 1.0 psi average headless
during the first two weeks of the test.
Water Quality Results
The feed water arsenic concentration averaged 14 |Jg/L, with approximately 4 |jg/L as the arsenic III
species and 10 |jg/L as the arsenic V species. Treated water arsenic concentrations were less than or
equal to the 2 |jg/L detection limit during the initial 5 weeks of testing, or approximately 8,000 bed
volumes of treated water. At the end of the verification test, the treated water arsenic concentration
reached 11 ug/L following approximately 2,350 hours of equipment operation and treatment of
approximately 28,800 to 29,200 bed volumes of water, based on the calculated media bed volume of 1.20
cubic feet. A steep breakthrough curve, which is typical with ion exchange processes, did not occur, as
presented in Figure VS-1. The arsenic breakthrough curve may have been slowed by mixing of the filter
media during filter backwashes.
Figure VS-1. Arsenic Breakthrough Curve
(Detection Limit = 2 (ig/L)
15,000 20,000
Treated Water Bed Volumes
I * Feed ^ Treated I
At the beginning of the test, the treatment process reduced the pH from 7.3 in the feed water to 6.8 in the
treated. As the media became conditioned by the feed water, the treated water pH increased such that, by
the end of the first week of testing, the pH of the treated water was 7.5 compared to a pH of 7.7 in feed
water. This pH reduction corresponded with a removal of alkalinity during the first two weeks of the test.
Initially, the feed water alkalinity of 88 mg/L was reduced by 43%. However, by the end of the first week
04/08/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iv
August 2004
-------
of testing, the feed and treated alkalinity levels were essentially equal. The initial reduction in these water
quality parameters was likely due to the acidic character of the coating on the virgin media.
Fluoride and silica were removed from the feed water initially, but as the total adsorption site area
decreased, the preferentially favored arsenic ions out-competed the ions of fluoride and silica for the
remaining adsorption sites. Initially, the feed water fluoride level of around 0.17 mg/L was reduced by up
to 88%. Removal of this ion rapidly declined, so that by the end of the first two weeks of operation,
fluoride was no longer being adsorbed by the media. Similarly, the initial feed water silica level of
approximately 18 mg/L was reduced by up to 83%. Silica removal decreased within the first two weeks of
operation to a range of 10% to 15% and remained at that level for approximately one month. Thereafter,
levels of feed water and treated water silica were essentially equal.
The average feed water manganese level of 144 ug/L, which is almost three times the secondary
maximum contaminant level of 50 ug/L, was reduced by an average 92% by the adsorption media. The
initial treated water sulfate level (29.2 mg/L) exceeded the feed water sulfate level by 180%. Presumably,
this was due to rinsing of excess coating from the media, which apparently contained a sulfate compound.
After the first week of operations, the treated level of sulfate was only approximately 10% higher than the
feed water sulfate. Thereafter, the feed and treated levels of sulfate were essentially equal.
The feed water total phosphorus level, which averaged 0.032 mg/L, was reduced during the entire period
of verification testing. During the first 6 weeks of testing, between 60% and 70% of the total phosphorus
was removed. Total phosphorus removal became more erratic thereafter, ranging between 20% and 68%.
Turbidity was also reduced during the treatment process. However, concentrations of calcium,
magnesium, hardness, aluminum, iron, and chloride were not significantly affected by the treatment
process. Data tables presenting the on-site and laboratory water quality parameters collected during the
Integrity Test and Capacity Test can be found in the verification report.
Operation and Maintenance Results
The two-phase verification test began on April 22, 2003 and ended following the conclusion cf the
Capacity Test on October 28, 2003. The treatment unit, including backwash cycles, operated
automatically throughout the test. However, manually initiated backwashes were also performed as part
of the testing process. Operator attention was required to verify and maintain a constant flow rate, to
check for leaks in the piping and filter unit, and to verify that backwashes occurred as required based on
throughput. Equipment operation required minimal operator attention.
Consumables and Waste Generation
No chemicals or electrical power were required. Wastewater from filter backwash, purge, and control
module drive water was discharged to a sanitary sewer. The total water usage of approximately 83
gallons per backwash cycle represents less than 1 percent of the total finished water production.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and California Waste Extraction Tests (CA WET)
were performed on spent Actiguard AAFS50 media. All concentrations of analyzed parameters were less
than the current regulatory limits. A complete summary of the TCLP and CA WET results are provided in
the verification report.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF provided technical and quality assurance oversight of the verification testing as described in the
verification report, including an audit of nearly 100% of the data. NSF personnel also conducted a
technical systems audit during testing to ensure the testing was in compliance with the test plan. A
complete description of the QA/QC procedures is provided in the verification report.
04/08/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2004
VS-v
-------
Original Signed by
Lawrence W. Reiter
09/08/04
Original Signed by
Gordon Bellen
09/23/04
Lawrence W. Reiter Date
Acting Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Gordon Bellen
Vice President
Research
NSF International
Date
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end-user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report is not an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned
herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic Removal
dated April 2002, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF report
#04/08/EPADWCTR) are available from the following sources:
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the verification report. Appendices are available
from NSF upon request.)
1. ETV Drinking Water Systems Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf. org/etv (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
04/08/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-vi
August 2004
-------
August 2004
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water
Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals
Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with
Actiguard AAFS50
Prepared for:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Prepared by:
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106-7100
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and
Development has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under
Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort was supported by the Drinking
Water Systems (DWS) Center, operating under the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program. This document has been peer reviewed, reviewed by NSF and EPA, and
recommended for public release.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Lawrence W. Reiter, Acting Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Verification Statement VS-i
Title Page i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms ix
Acknowledgements xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 2
1.2.1 NSF International 2
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization 2
1.2.3 Manufacturers 3
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories 4
1.2.5 PA Department of Environmental Protection 4
1.2.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5
1.3 Verification Testing Site 5
1.3.1 Source Water 6
1.3.2 Pilot Filter Discharges 7
Chapter 2 Equipment Description and Operating Processes 8
2.1 Equipment Description 8
2.1.1 Basic Scientific and Engineering Concepts of Treatment 8
2.1.2 Filter System Components 12
2.1.3 Photographs of Equipment 13
2.1.4 Drawing of Equipment 14
2.1.5 Data Plate 14
2.2 Operating Process 17
2.2.1 Operator Requirements 18
2.2.2 Required Consumables 18
2.2.3 Rates of Waste Product!on 19
2.2.4 Equipment Performance Range 19
2.2.5 Applications of Equipment 19
2.2.6 Licensing Requirements Associated with Equipment Operation 19
Chapter 3 Methods and Procedures 20
3.1 Experimental Design 20
3.1.1 Objectives 20
3.1.2 Equipment Characteristics 20
3.1.2.1 Qualitative Factors 20
3.1.2.2 Quantitative Factors 21
3.2 Equipment Operations and Design 21
3.3 Field Test Equipment 22
iv
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
3.4 Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment 22
3.5 Equipment Operation and Water Quality Sampling for Verification Testing 23
3.6 Recording Data 23
3.7 Recording Statistical Uncertainty for Assorted Water Quality Parameters 24
3.8 Verification Testing Schedule 24
3.9 Task 1: System Integrity Verification Testing 25
3.9.1 Introduction 25
3.9.2 Experimental Objectives 25
3.9.3 Work Plan 25
3.9.4 Analytical Schedule 27
3.9.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements 29
3.10 Task 2: Adsorption Capacity Verification Testing 30
3.10.1 Introduction 30
3.10.2 Experimental Objectives 30
3.10.3 Work Plan 30
3.10.4 Analytical Schedule 30
3.10.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements 33
3.11 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance 34
3.11.1 Introduction 34
3.11.2 Experimental Objectives 34
3.11.3 Work Plan 34
3.11.4 Schedule 34
3.11.5 Evaluation Criteria 35
3.12 Task 4: Data Management 35
3.12.1 Introduction 35
3.12.2 Experimental Objectives 35
3.12.3 Work Plan 35
3.13 Task 5: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 36
3.13.1 Introduction 36
3.13.2 Experimental Objectives 36
3.13.3 Work Plan 36
3.13.4 Analytical Methods 37
3.13.5 Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analysis 38
3.14 Operations and Maintenance 39
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 40
4.1 Introduction 40
4.2 Task 1: System Integrity Verification Testing 40
4.2.1 Equipment Installation, Startup, and Shakedown 40
4.2.2 Experimental Objectives 43
4.2.3 Integrity Test Operational Data 43
4.2.4 Integrity Test On-Site Water Quality Analyses 45
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
4.2.5 Integrity Test Laboratory Water Quality Analyses 50
4.2.6 Integrity Test Arsenic Analyses 52
4.3 Task 2: Adsorption Capacity Verification Testing 54
4.3.1 Experimental Objectives 54
4.3.2 Capacity Test Operational Data 54
4.3.3 Capacity Test On-Site Water Quality Analyses 56
4.3.4 Capacity Test Laboratory Water Quality Analyses 62
4.3.5 Capacity Test Arsenic Analyses 67
4.4 Equipment Operation 69
4.5 Backwash Water Quality, Quantity, and Flow Rate 69
4.6 Spent Media Analyses 71
4.7 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment 72
4.7.1 Introduction 72
4.7.2 Experimental Objectives 72
4.7.3 Operations and Maintenance 73
4.7.3.1 Operations 73
4.7.3.2 Maintenance 74
4.8 Task 4: Data Management 74
4.9 Task 5: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 74
4.9.1 Introduction 74
4.9.2 Data Quality Indicators 75
4.9.2.1 Representativeness 75
4.9.2.2 Accuracy 75
4.9.2.2.1 Split Samples 76
4.9.2.2.2 Performance Evaluation Samples for Water Quality
Testing 76
4.9.2.2.3 Spike Sample Analyses 77
4.9.2.3 Precision 77
4.9.2.4 Statistical Uncertainty 78
4.9.2.5 Completeness 78
Chapter 5 References 79
Chapter 6 Vendor Comments 80
Tables Page
1-1 Feed Water Quality during Testing 7
2-1 Manufacturing and Procedures Specific to Alcan Chemicals' Actiguard AAFS50
Adsorptive Media 9
2-2 Equipment Design Criteria 10
2-3 Alcan Chemicals' Actiguard AAFS50 Media Specifications 12
3-1 Field Analytical and Calibration Equipment 22
3-2 On-Site Equipment Operating Parameter Monitoring and Data Collection Schedule 27
VI
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Tables Page
3-3 Water Quality Sampling Schedule for System Integrity Verification Testing 28
3-4 Arsenic Sampling Plan 29
3-5 Water Quality Sampling Schedule for Media Adsorption Capacity Verification
Testing 32
3-6 Monitoring, Sampling, and Analyses for Backwash Wastewater, Purge Water, and
Control Module Drive Water 33
3-7 Schedule for Observing and Recording Equipment Operation and Performance Data 34
3-8 Water Quality Sampling Protocol 39
4-1 Preliminary Arsenic Speciation 41
4-2 Weight of Media Installed and Freeboard in Each Filter Tank 42
4-3 Integrity Test Operational Data 44
4-4 Integrity Test On-Site Water Quality Data 45
4-5 Integrity Test Laboratory Water Quality Data 50
4-6 Integrity Test Laboratory Arsenic Data 53
4-7 Capacity Test Operational Data 55
4-8 Capacity Test On-Site Water Quality Data 56
4-9 Capacity Test Laboratory Water Quality Data 62
4-10 Capacity Test Laboratory Arsenic Data 68
4-11 Backwash Water Characteristics 70
4-12 Purge Water Characteristics 70
4-13 Control Module Drive Water Characteristics 71
4-14 Spent Media Characterization 72
4-15 Field Instrument Calibration Schedule 75
4-16 Split-Samples (April 22, 2003) 76
4-17 Split-Samples (April 23, 2003) 76
Figures Page
2-1 Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard
AAFS50, as installed at the Orchard Hills MHP WTP 13
2-2 Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard
AAFS50, as installed at the Orchard Hills MHP WTP 14
2-3 Treated water line showing auxiliary flow control equipment as installed at the Orchard
Hills MHP WTP 14
2-4 Schematic of Kinetico Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08 AS with Actiguard AAFS50 and
appurtenances at Orchard Hills MHP 16
4-1 Integrity Test headloss and pressure as a function of cumulative run time 44
4-2 Integrity Test pH (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 46
4-3 Integrity Test temperature (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 46
4-4 Integrity Test turbidity (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 47
4-5 Integrity Test alkalinity concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 48
4-6 Integrity Test fluoride concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 49
4-7 Integrity Test silica concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 51
4-8 Integrity Test aluminum concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 52
4-9 Integrity Test arsenic concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03) 53
vn
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
4-10 Capacity Test headless and pressure as a function of cumulative run time 55
4-11 Capacity Test pH 57
4-12 Capacity Test temperature 57
4-13 Capacity Test turbidity 58
4-14 Capacity Test alkalinity concentration 59
4-15 Capacity Test fluoride concentration 60
4-16 Capacity Test calcium, magnesium, and total hardness 61
4-17 Capacity Test silica concentration 63
4-18 Capacity Test aluminum concentration 63
4-19 Capacity Test iron concentration 64
4-20 Capacity Test manganese concentration 65
4-21 Capacity Test chloride concentration 65
4-22 Capacity Test sulfate concentration 66
4-23 Capacity Test phosphorus concentration 67
4-24 Capacity Test arsenic concentration 68
Appendices
A Alcan Chemicals' Technical Bulletin for Actiguard AAFS50 and Media Marketing
Brochure
B AAFS50 Media MSDS
C Equipment Photographs
D Media Bed Volume Calculations
E Protocol for Arsenic Speciation
F Copies of Original Logbooks, Operational Data, and On-Site Water Quality Data
G PADEP Laboratory Water Quality Data and Sample Submission Forms
H PADEP Laboratory QA/QC Data
I On-Site Arsenic Analyses Procedure
J Spent Media TCLP and CA Wet Analyses
K Procedure for Media Replacement
L Media Gradation Analyses
M TCLP and CA Wet Methods
N Kinetico Owner's Manual and Installation Guide
O Preliminary Arsenic Speciation Analyses Reports and Sample Submission Forms
P Signed Media Installation Certification
Q NSF Laboratory Arsenic Data, Sample Submission Forms, and QA/QC Data
R Performance Evaluation Results
Vlll
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ANOVA
ANSI
AWWA
AA
BET
CAWET
cm
°C
c.u.
D
DQO
EBCT
EPA
ETV
°F
FRP
FTO
gpm
H
HazMat
HOPE
ICR
ISE
L
Ib
LCD
LED
m
M
MCL
MCLG
mg/L
MHP
mL
mm
MDL
MSDS
N/A
NA
ND
NEMA
NIST
Analysis of Variance
American National Standards Institute
American Water Works Association
Activated Alumina
Brunauer, Emmett and Teller
California Waste Extraction Tests
Centimeter
Degrees Celsius
Platinum-Cobalt Color Units
Depth
Data Quality Objectives
Empty Bed Contact Time
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Degrees Fahrenheit
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
Field Testing Organization
Gram
Gallons per Day
Gallons per Minute
Height
Hazardous Material
High Density Polyethylene
Information Collection Rule
Ion Selective Electrode
Liter
Pound
Liquid Crystal Diode
Liquid Emitting Diode
Meter
Mole
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Milligram per Liter
Mobile Home Park
Milliliter
Millimeter
Method Detection Level
Material Safety Data Sheets
Not Applicable
Not Analyzed
Not Detected
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
National Institute of Standards and Technology
IX
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms (continued)
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NR Not Reported
NSF NSF International (formerly known as National Sanitation Foundation)
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA Pennsylvania
PADEP PA Department of Environmental Protection
PE Performance Evaluation
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
PSM Process Safety Management
psi Pounds per Square Inch
PSTP Product Specific Test Plan
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCRA Resource and Recovery Act
RMP Risk Management Plan
SM Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SS Stainless Steel
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TSTP Technology Specific Test Plan
UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply
|j,g/L microgram per liter
W Width
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
x
-------
Acknowledgements
The Field Testing Organization, Gannett Fleming, Inc., was responsible for all elements in the
testing sequence, including collection of samples, calibration and verification of instruments,
data collection and analysis, data management, data interpretation, and the preparation of this
report.
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
P.O. Box 67100
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7100
(717) 763-7212, Ext. 2109
(717) 763-1808 FAX
Contact: William Allis, Project Manager
E-mail: wallis@gfnet.com
The laboratory selected for laboratory analyses of all of the ETV water quality parameters
(except arsenic) that were scheduled to be conducted by an EPA accredited and PADEP certified
laboratory was:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Laboratories
1500 North 3rd Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717)705-2197
(717) 783-1502 FAX
Contact: Ted Lyter, Inorganic Services Division Chief
E-mail: plyter@state.pa.us
Spent media toxicity analyses were performed by:
TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc.
5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49588
(616)975-4500
Contact: Michael W. Movinski, Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Email: mmtrimatrix@comcast.net
Arsenic analyses were performed by the NSF Laboratory:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(734)769-8010
(734) 769-0109 FAX
Contact: Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
E-mail: bartley@nsf.org
XI
-------
The manufacturers of the equipment (joint venture) were:
Kinetico Inc.
10845 Kinsman Road
P.O. Box 193
Newbury, OH 44065
(440) 564-9111 Ext. 233
(440) 564-4222 FAX
Contact: Mark Brotman, Research Scientist
E-mail: mbrotman@kinetico.com
Alcan Chemicals
525 S. Washington Street
Suite No. 9
Naperville, IL 60540-6641
(630)527-1213
(630) 527-1229 FAX
Contact: William Reid
E-mail: bill.reid@alcan.com
Gannett Fleming wishes to thank the following participants:
NSF International, especially Bruce Bartley, Dale Scherger, and Angela Beach, for providing
guidance and program management.
The Orchard Hills MHP WTP owner, Robert Goodling.
xn
-------
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 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; with 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 responsive to the needs of stakeholders, by 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.
The EPA has partnered with NSF International (NSF) under the ETV Drinking Water Systems
(DWS) Center to verify the performance of small drinking water systems that serve small
communities. A goal of verification testing is to enhance and facilitate the acceptance of small
drinking water treatment equipment by state drinking water regulatory officials and consulting
engineers, while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each location where the
equipment's use is contemplated. NSF meets this goal by working with manufacturers and NSF-
qualified Field Testing Organizations (FTOs) to conduct verification testing under the approved
protocols. It is important to note that verification of the equipment does not mean 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 FTO.
The DWS Center evaluated the performance of the Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals Para-
Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard AAFS50 System, which is an arsenic adsorption
media filter used in drinking water treatment system applications. The verification test evaluated
the ability of the absorptive media to remove arsenic from drinking water. This document
provides the verification test results for the Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals Para-Flo™ PF60
Model AA08AS with Actiguard AAFS50 System.
-------
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS
with Actiguard AAFS50 System was a cooperative effort between the following participants:
NSF International
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Kinetico Inc.
Alcan Chemicals
PA Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Orchard Hills Mobile Home Park (MHP)
The following is a brief description of each ETV participant and their roles and responsibilities.
1.2.1 NSF International
NSF is an independent, not-for-profit testing and certification organization dedicated to public
health and safety and to the protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, NSF has been instrumental in the development of consensus standards for the
protection of public health and the environment. NSF also provides testing and certification
services to ensure products bearing the NSF Name, Logo, and/or Mark meet those standards.
The EPA partnered with NSF to verify the performance of drinking water treatment systems
through the EPA's ETV Program.
NSF provided technical oversight of the verification testing. An audit of the field analytical, data
gathering, and recording procedures was conducted. NSF also performed all laboratory arsenic
water quality analyses and provided review of the Product Specific Test Plan (PSTP) as well as
this report.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: (734) 769-8010
Fax: (734)769-0109
Contact: Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
Email: bartley@nsf.org
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization
Gannett Fleming, Inc., a consulting engineering firm located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
conducted the verification testing of the Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals arsenic removal
system. Gannett Fleming is an NSF-qualified FTO for the ETV Drinking Water Systems Center.
-------
Gannett Fleming was responsible for conducting the Integrity Verification testing for 14 calendar
days (13 full days plus 8 hours) and for conducting Capacity Verification testing until a pre-
determined arsenic breakthrough concentration was achieved. Gannett Fleming provided all
needed logistical support, established a communications network, and scheduled and coordinated
activities of all participants. Gannett Fleming was responsible for ensuring the testing location
and feed water conditions were such that the verification testing could meet its stated objectives.
Gannett Fleming prepared the PSTP; oversaw the pilot testing; managed, evaluated, interpreted,
and reported on the data generated by the testing; and evaluated and reported on the performance
of the technology.
The Gannett Fleming field engineer conducted the on-site analyses (on-site or at the Gannett
Fleming Treatability Lab) and data recording during the testing. Oversight of the daily tests was
provided by Gannett Fleming's Project Manager.
Contact Information:
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
P.O. Box 67100
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7100
(717) 763-7212, Ext. 2109
(717) 763-1808 FAX
Contact: William Allis, Project Manager
E-mail: wallis@gfnet.com
1.2.3 Manufacturers
The treatment system is a joint venture, with the Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS filter unit
manufactured by Kinetico Inc. and the Actiguard AAFS50 adsorption filter media manufactured
by Alcan Chemicals.
The manufacturers were responsible for supplying a field-ready arsenic adsorption media filter
system equipped with all necessary components, including treatment equipment, instrumentation
and controls, and an operations and maintenance manual. The manufacturers were also
responsible for providing logistical and technical support as needed, as well as providing
technical assistance to the FTO during operation and monitoring of the equipment undergoing
field verification testing.
Contact Information:
Kinetico Inc.
10845 Kinsman Road
P.O. Box 193
Newbury, OH 44065
(440) 564-9111 Ext. 233
(440) 564-4222 FAX
Contact: Mark Brotman, Research Scientist
E-mail: mbrotman@kinetico.com
-------
Alcan Chemicals
525 S. Washington Street
Suite No. 9
Naperville, IL 60540-6641
(630)527-1213
(630) 527-1229 FAX
Contact: William Reid
E-mail: bill.reid@alcan.com
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories
The PADEP Laboratories performed all of the laboratory water quality analyses, excluding
arsenic.
Contact Information:
Department of Environmental Protection Laboratories
Inorganic Services Division
1500 North 3rd Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717)705-2197
(717) 783-1502 FAX
Contact: Ted Lyter, Inorganic Services Division Chief
E-mail: plyter@state.pa.us
NSF laboratories performed all laboratory arsenic water quality analyses.
Tri-Matrix Laboratories performed TCLP and CA WET analyses on the spent media.
Contact Information:
TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc.
5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49588
(616)975-4500
Contact: Mr. Michael W. Movinski, Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Email: mmtrimatrix@comcast.net
1.2.5 PA Department of Environmental Protection
The PADEP's mission is to protect Pennsylvania's air, land and water from pollution and to
provide for the health and safety of its citizens through a cleaner environment.
The PADEP is the state agency largely responsible for administering Pennsylvania's
environmental laws and regulations. Its responsibilities include: reducing air pollution, making
sure Pennsylvania's drinking water is safe, protecting water quality in Pennsylvania's rivers and
streams, making sure waste is handled properly, managing the Commonwealth's recycling
programs, and helping citizens prevent pollution and comply with the Commonwealth's
-------
environmental regulations. PADEP is committed to providing general environmental education
and encouraging effective public involvement in setting environmental policy.
The roles and responsibilities of PADEP included laboratory analyses for all of the ETV water
quality parameters (except arsenic) that were scheduled to be conducted by an EPA accredited
and PADEP certified laboratory.
The PADEP was also responsible for reviewing the test plan and final report because this testing
may also serve as a pilot study component of a water supply permit application for the
installation of a full-scale version of this type of process at this site. Also, because the site is
already a permitted public water supply, the PADEP needed to be involved with any
modifications.
1.2.6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA, through its Office of Research and Development, has financially supported and
collaborated with NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort
was supported by the DWS Center operating under the ETV Program. This document has been
peer reviewed, reviewed by NSF and EPA, and recommended for public release.
1.3 Verification Testing Site
The verification testing site was Orchard Hills MHP Water Treatment Plant (WTP) located off of
Windy Hill Road in Carroll Township, PA. The WTP is housed within a masonry block building
located within the MHP. The building is heated to a minimum temperature of 50°F. Bordering
the MHP boundary, in close proximity to the back of the WTP building, is land under
cultivation. The WTP, with a permitted capacity of 30 gpm, supplies approximately
200 domestic connections. The sources of supply for the WTP are Well Nos. 1, 11, and 12, of
which a portion of Well No. 1 discharge was used as the source water for the arsenic adsorption
media filter verification testing. Well No. 1 is located near the entrance to the MHP,
approximately 100 yards north of the WTP. The WTP process consists of five pressure
manganese greensand filters, two chlorine contact/finished water storage tanks, two finished
water pumps, and six hydropneumatic tanks.
Two chemicals are fed at the WTP: sodium hypochlorite for oxidation and disinfection, and
polyphosphate for sequestration and corrosion control. The chemical feed points are located
downstream of the arsenic adsorption media filter supply connection. The control of the
wells/filtration process is based on a level control system in two finished water storage tanks,
located within the WTP building. The well pumps operate based on level sensors in the finished
water storage tanks. Water from the finished water storage tanks is pumped to hydropneumatic
tanks via finished water pumps. Low- and high-pressure switches associated with the
hydropneumatic tanks activate and deactivate the finished water pumps. The hydropneumatic
tanks supply the distribution system and provide backwash water for the greensand filters.
The frequency and duration of well pump operation depends on distribution system demand and
well water level/production capacity. Average daily well run time, as observed during this test,
-------
was approximately 14 hours per day. The total combined WTP flow range for all wells, as
reported by the operator, is 10 to 20 gpm.
During the ETV test, a portion of Well No.l discharge, prior to any treatment, was diverted to
the arsenic adsorption media filter. The arsenic adsorption media filter was set up inside the
WTP building, directly in front of several of the manganese greensand filters. The treated water,
control module water, and backwash wastewater from the arsenic adsorption media filter were
discharged to an existing drainpipe inside the building and subsequently conveyed to the MHP
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
1.3.1 Source Water
The source water for the verification test was untreated groundwater from Orchard Hills WTP
Well No. 1.
Well No. 1 source water is generally of good quality, with relatively low turbidity, slightly basic
pH, and moderate hardness. The source water average manganese concentration of
approximately 144 (ig/L is almost three times the Secondary Standard for drinking water. Black
particles were frequently observed in the feed water samples. The feed water total arsenic
concentration averaged approximately 14 |J,g/L, approximately 4 [ig/L of which was in the form
of Arsenic III. The source water total arsenic concentration is below the current maximum
contaminant level (MCL) of 50 |J,g/L, but exceeds the future MCL of 10 ng/L that will become
effective in January 2006. A summary of the feed water quality information is presented in
Table 1-1 below. Additional feed water quality data are presented in Chapter 4.
Alcan Chemicals indicated that no pretreatment would be required for the arsenic adsorption
media system. Alcan stated: "Manganese is very far down on the selectivity series, and Alcan
Chemicals does not expect that it will be an issue. [Ion selectivity series is included in
Table 2-3.] Additional work has shown media adsorption capacity for arsenic to be independent
of the manganese in the water. In addition, iron is really only a problem if it is present in very
high amounts as it precipitates and clogs the bed. This is easily rectified with a backwash or
other type of agitation. This is a mechanical function that would be common to any granular
bed, not a chemical interference. Again, there is no indication that iron in solution has any
negative impact whatsoever on the media's ability to adsorb arsenic."
-------
Table 1-1. Feed Water
Parameter Units
Arsenic
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Calcium
Magnesium
Hardness
Fluoride
Silica
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Phosphorus
Mg/L
-
°C
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Quality during Testing
Number of
Samples Mean Minimum
47
198
184
184
84
27
27
27
39
40
40
28
28
28
28
28
14
7.6
13.8
0.25
89
26.0
8.3
99
0.17
19.0
203
34
144
18.7
10.5
0.032
12
7.3
11.5
0.10
84
24.8
7.3
96
0.13
17.4
<200
<20
36
16.8
10.1
0.024
Maximum
17
7.8
15.5
3.9
92
28.0
8.7
104
0.27
21.1
339
116
1481
20.4
11.2
0.043
Standard
Deviation
1.1
N/A
0.94
0.30
1.5
0.92
0.50
1.7
0.03
0.80
22.0
24
286
0.85
0.26
0.005
95%
Confidence
Interval
14-
7.6-
13.6-
0.20-
89-
25.6-
8.1-
98-
0.16-
18.7-
<200(1)
23-
16-
18.3-
10.4-
0.029 -
14
7.6
13.9
0.30
89
26.4
8.5
100
0.18
19.3
-212
45
272
19.1
10.6
0.034
TTT
The lower confidence interval level was calculated below the detection limit for this parameter.
1.3.2 Pilot Filter Discharges
The treated water, control module drive water, and backwash water from the arsenic adsorption
media filter unit were discharged to an existing drainpipe inside the building and subsequently
conveyed to the Orchard Hills WWTP. No discharge permits were required. At the request of
PADEP, backwash wastewater, purge water, and control module drive water were monitored,
sampled, and analyzed every second month to evaluate the quantity and quality of water
discharged to the WWTP. Treated water quality and the quantity, as well as the quality of all
backwash water discharged from the pilot filter unit to the MHP WWTP, are discussed in detail
in Chapter 4.
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description and Operating Processes
2.1 Equipment Description
The equipment tested was Kinetico Inc.'s and Alcan Chemicals' arsenic adsorption media filter
system. The model tested was the Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS filter unit with Actiguard
AAFS50 media. The major system components include two pressure filter tanks with adsorptive
filter media, a control module, filter media, feed water pipe, treated water pipe, feed water
sample tap, treated water sample tap, and two wastewater ports (rinse and backwash). The
system configuration and major components are described in more detail in the following
sections.
After the verification test, Kinetico renamed the tested model to reflect the use of a larger tank
inlet and outlet facilitating faster flow rates. Please refer to Chapter 6, Vendor Comments, for
additional details concerning these modifications.
2.1.1 Basic Scientific and Engineering Concepts of Treatment
The conceptual treatment process for the arsenic adsorption media filter is based on passing
arsenic-contaminated feed water through a bed of media having a strong affinity for arsenic.
Activated alumina media historically has provided cost-effective, reliable performance as a
material for producing a granular adsorbent media for removal of arsenic from feed water.
Actiguard AAFS50 is an iron-enhanced activated alumina media, which has been determined to
significantly promote the adsorption effectiveness of conventional activated alumina. As water
passes down through a filter vessel containing this media, the arsenic concentration declines until
it is no longer detectable. As the upper portion of the media becomes saturated, the treatment
band (mass transfer zone) progresses downward until all adsorptive capacity is used and arsenic
breakthrough occurs.
Adsorption is the attachment of the adsorbate (arsenic) to the surface of the adsorbent media
grains (activated alumina). The removal capacity and effectiveness of the arsenic removal media
is dependent on a number of factors, of which surface area is of primary importance. The
surface area is a function of the porosity of the media grains. Adsorbent media contains a large
quantity of very small pores throughout the media grains. Other factors determining the capacity
and effectiveness of adsorbent media are accessibility of the pore sites for arsenic ions, time
available for arsenic ions to migrate to pore sites, ions competing for pore sites, concentration of
arsenic in the feed water, pH of the feed water, oxidation state of arsenic, and flow
characteristics of the feed water conveying the arsenic into the bed of adsorbent media.
The Kinetico/Alcan Chemicals arsenic adsorption media filter system uses Actiguard AAFS50, a
proprietary, granular, iron-enhanced, activated alumina media. Tests performed by Alcan
Chemicals indicate that AAFS50 has up to five times(1) the arsenic adsorption capacity of
' As stated in the Alcan AAFS50 marketing brochure (see Appendix A).
-------
standard activated alumina and that iron enhancement also enables the removal of As (III).
Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 present information specific to this equipment and media.
Table 2-1. Manufacturing and Procedures Specific to Alcan Chemicals' Actiguard
AAFS50 Adsorptive Media
Item Manufacturing/Procedures
Raw Material (used to make adsorptive Activated Alumina and Iron
media)
Method of Manufacture Chemical Processes: Proprietary
Thermal Processes: Proprietary
Sizing/Screening Methods: Proprietary
Packaging Methods: Proprietary
Preconditioning Procedure Wetting Requirements: 10 Bed Volumes of Feed Water
Regeneration Procedure N/A
Regeneration Results N/A
Filter operations are automatically controlled by the filter control module. The control module
houses water-driven gears and mechanically interconnected pulse-turbine meter and valves. The
movement of the gears determines the position of the filter valves. Following the throughput of
a set total volume of water, the pulse-turbine meter triggers the water-driven gears to manipulate
valves so that the operating mode of one filter is switched from service to backwash, to purge,
and finally returns to service. The other filter remains in service, providing treated water for the
backwashing filter.
-------
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 present design criteria for the arsenic adsorption process and appurtenances.
Table 2-2. Equipment Design Criteria
Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS
No. of Filter Tanks
Filter Tank Dimensions
Inside Diameter (ID)
Height (including integral control module)
Height (vessel only)
Mode of Operation
Design Flow, Total
Flow Range, Total
Design Capacity, Total
Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) at 2 gpm
Minimum Recommended Feed Pressure
Filter Media
Depth
Freeboard Above Media
Volume Per Tank
Weight Per Tank
Volume, Total (2 tanks)
Mesh Size (Tyler mesh series)
Media Expansion during Backwash
Filter Tank Material
Backwash Control
Backwash
Flow Rate
Duration
Time Between Backwash and Rinse
Purge
Flow Rate
Duration
Pressure Gauges
Manufacturer
Type
Pressure Range
8 inches
46 inches
40 inches
Parallel
1.9±0.1 gpm
1.8 to 2.0 gpm
2.0 gpm
4.6 minutes
30psi
21 inches
17.5 inches
(Actual 18.25 inches)
0.70 cu. ft.
(Actual -0.60 cu. ft.)
39.76 Ibs
1.4cu. ft.
(Actual ~1.20 cu. ft.)
28x48
50%
Polyester, Vinylester
Automatic based on total
throughput of 10,500 gallons ±
10%
4.0 gpm
13 minutes
3 minutes
1.9gpm± 0.1 gpm
5 minutes
Ashcroft® Duralife
1084, Grade 2A
0-100 psi (accuracy of
±0.5%)
10
-------
Table 2-2. Equipment Design Criteria (continued)
Totalizer Meters
Manufacturer
Type
Series
Accuracy
Rotameter
Manufacturer
Model
Maximum Reading
Accuracy
Pressure, max
Treated Water Throttling Valve
Manufacturer
Type
Material of Construction
Size
Control
Three Way Regulating Valve
Manufacturer
Model No.
Maximum Inlet Pressure
Reduced Pressure Range
Y-Check Valve
Manufacturer
Size Code/Size
Material of Construction
ABB
Positive displacement
VI00 (feed)/C700 (filtrate)
± 1.5%
Blue-White
F-50376N
2.0 gpm
No Data
250 psi
George Fischer
Diaphragm
Type 304, DN25,PVC-U
1 inch
Manual
Watts Industries, Inc.
2A645
300 psi
3 to 50 psi
George Fischer
1 inch
Type 304, DN25, PVC-U
11
-------
Table 2-3. Alcan Chemicals' Actiguard AAFS50 Media Specifications
Chemical Constituents Weight, %
A12O3 + Proprietary Additive 83
Silicon as SiO2 0.020
Titanium as TiO2 0.002
Loss on Ignition 17
Physical Properties
Bulk Density 0.91 g/cm3 (56.8 lbs/ft3)
BET(1) Area 220 nf/g
Attrition 0.3%
Voids 48%
Pore Size No Data
Pore Volume <0.35 cm3/g
Abrasion Loss <5% (due to spray coating fines,
smaller than 48 mesh)
Moisture (weight) 0-300°C: 25%
300-1000°C: 10%
Sieve sizes, US sieve series 28 x 48
Particle Size No Data
Effective Size 0.37 mm
Uniformity Coefficient 1.48
Ionic Preference Series
• Amons: OH->HAsO4>Si(OH)3>O->F>HSeO3>SO42>CrO42>HCO3>Cr>NO3
• Cations: Th>Al>U(4)>Zr>Ce(4)>Fe(3)>Ce(3)>Ti>Hg>UO2>Pb>Cu>Ag>Zn>Co>
Fe(2)>Ni>Tl>Mn
Approvals
• Certified to NSF/ANSI 61
• Passed U.S. EPA TCLP
NSF/ANSI 61 and TCLP approvals are indicated in Alcan Chemicals' Technical Bulletin for AAFS50
Media and Media Marketing Brochure, included in Appendix A.
MSDS (See Appendix B)
2.1.2 Filter System Components
The arsenic adsorption media filter is a modular equipment process consisting of the following
components:
• Two pressure filter tanks (main and remote) piped for parallel operation;
The BET theory is used to estimate the number of molecules required to cover the absorbent surface with a
monolayer of adsorbed molecules, N^. Multiplying N^, by the cross-sectional area of an adsorbate molecule
yields the sample's surface area.
12
-------
• One control module situated on top of the main filter tank and consisting of a pulse-
turbine meter, water-driven gear mechanism, and valves to control the filter modes of
operation;
• One feed water sample tap and one treated water sample tap;
• One influent pipe and one effluent pipe connecting the main filter tank to the remote filter
tank;
• One feed water pipe connected to the control module;
• One treated water pipe connected to the control module;
• Alcan Chemicals' Actiguard AAFS50 media in each filter tank; and
• Two waste ports incorporated in the control module for backwash wastewater and gear
mechanism drive water discharge.
The following equipment was provided by Kinetico specifically for the ETV and is not normally
included with the arsenic adsorption media filter:
• Two pressure gauges, one located on the feed water pipe and one located on the treated
water pipe;
• One Y-check valve located on the feed water pipe, just upstream of the pilot filter;
• Two totalizer water meters, one located on the feed water pipe and one located on the
treated water pipe;
• One diaphragm valve for flow regulation located on the treated water pipe just upstream
of the rotameter;
• One rotameter located on the treated water pipe downstream of the diaphragm valve; and
• One pressure regulating valve located just upstream of the diaphragm valve on the treated
water pipe.
2.1.3 Photographs of Equipment
Photographs of the equipment installed at the WTP are included below. Additional photographs
are included in Appendix C.
Figure 2-1. Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals
Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard
AAFS50, as installed at the Orchard Hills MHP
WTP.
13
-------
Figure 2-2. Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals
Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard
AAFS50, as installed at the Orchard Hills MHP
WTP.
Figure 2-3. Treated water line showing auxiliary
flow control equipment, as installed at the Orchard
Hills MHP WTP.
2.1.4 Drawing of Equipment
A schematic drawing of the equipment is shown in Figure 2-4.
2.1.5 Data Plate
A data plate was installed on the arsenic adsorption media filter main tank to provide the
following information:
Equipment Name:
Para-Flo™ PF60 with Actiguard Media
Model Number: AA08AS
Media Number: AAFS50
Manufacturers' Names and Addresses:
Kinetico Incorporated Alcan Chemicals
10845 Kinsman Road 525 S. Washington Street
Newbury, Ohio 44065 Suite #9
Naperville, Illinois 60540
14
-------
Additional Information:
Serial Number: 0052690
Service flow: 1.8 - 2.0 gpm
Unit installed for NSF and EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program.
Call (440) 564.4233 for more information.
Warning and Caution Statements:
Testing in progress, please do not disturb.
This unit is designed to operate with minimum and maximum inlet pressures of 30 psi
and 125 psi, respectively.
15
-------
r
0
1
— : ••! '
f
Figure 2—4, Schematic of Kineifco Para-Flo™ PF60
Model .ViOHAS with Aatiguard AAF35D and appurtenances at Orchard Hills MHP.
16
-------
2.2 Operating Process
This modular filter system consists of dual, pressurized filter tanks designed for parallel
operation in the downflow mode. The filter system does not require electricity to operate. Both
filter tanks are in service except when one filter tank is off-line for backwashing. During a
backwash event, one filter tank supplies the treated water production, control module drive
water, and treated water for backwashing the other filter. The filter system can operate either
intermittently or continuously. Modes of operation are automatically controlled, based on
volume of throughput, using a proprietary control module containing a pulse-turbine meter.
Valve operation is controlled by a water-driven gear mechanism within the control module that is
mechanically interconnected with the pulse-turbine meter. The gear mechanism drive water is
required only during backwash and purge and is supplied by the filter remaining in service.
There are no other triggers for automatic initiation of operating modes. The control module has
a set-screw for manually adjusting the actuator to conduct a manual backwash; this procedure is
described in the proprietary Technical Manual, which was on file at NSF International and
Gannett Fleming during the test.
The combined total flow and flow rate from the filter tanks was monitored with two accessory
totalizer meters and a rotameter. Flow rate was adjusted with a nonintegral diaphragm valve,
located on the treated water side of the filter tanks. There are no flow gauges to monitor the rate
of backwash wastewater. This was checked using the "bucket and stopwatch" method.
Collection of backwash and purge water for volume determination and water quality analyses
was performed once during the Integrity Test and once every other month during the system
Capacity Test. The incremental throughput readings from each totalizer meter were used to
estimate the quantity of water used in backwash cycles for the instances when backwashes
occurred and the wastewater was not collected. The incremental feed water totalizer meter
reading minus the incremental treated water totalizer meter reading equals the estimated volume
of backwash, purge, and control module drive water used for both filter tanks. Also, two
totalizer meters provided redundancy. If one totalizer meter had failed, the other meter would
have served as a backup. The difference in feed water and treated water pressure readings
provided the determination of loss of head across both filters.
Grab samples for on-site and laboratory analyses were collected from the feed water and treated
water sample taps, located immediately upstream and downstream of the adsorption media filter
tanks, as shown on Figure 2-1. Samples from these taps were collected following the opening of
their respective ball valves and a flush period of approximately five seconds.
The manufacturer states that Actiguard AAFS50 is regenerable. However, the additional
adsorption capacity of this media compared to conventional activated alumina offers an
advantage, because regeneration may not be economical for a small system. Alternatively, the
media may be removed and replaced with new media prior to breakthrough, based on a
predetermined life of media for a specific site water quality. The manufacturer indicates the
media has passed the U.S. EPA TCLP test and is landfillable. Regeneration was not considered
for this test.
17
-------
2.2.1 Operator Requirements
The arsenic adsorption media filter was operated with Well No. 1 in an automatic on-demand
mode during the adsorptive media Integrity and Capacity Verification Tests. The MHP WTP
well pumps were controlled based on the finished water storage tank level, started on a low level
setpoint, and stopped on a high level setpoint. Therefore, operator attention was minimal during
the tests and consisted mainly of monitoring the equipment to confirm proper operation and data
collection.
Because Well No. 1 normally operated for only brief periods in automatic mode, the well pump
was operated manually by the Gannett Fleming field engineer during the 13-day plus 8 hour
Integrity Test for the required minimum of 2 hours of continuous operation on a daily basis. The
well supply and arsenic adsorption media filter operated automatically for the remainder of the
six-month Capacity Test, except during the backwashes observed by Gannett Fleming. During
the observed and monitored backwashes, Well No. 1 was operated manually by the Gannett
Fleming field engineer to produce continuous operation and to provide more accurate
measurement of backwash, purge, and drive water flow rates.
Spent Actiguard AAFS50 media can be removed and replaced by the operator following
breakthrough of arsenic. After the conclusion of the Capacity Test, data were generated
representing the volume of water treated by the Actiguard AAFS50 media and the resultant
treated water arsenic concentrations. The results of Capacity Testing are included in Chapter 4.
The system was designed to backwash automatically after a throughput of 10,500 gallons ± 10%.
Operator initiation was not required during automatic backwashes. The system also
automatically re-initiated service operation of the backwashed filter. The position of an indicator
dot on top of the control module actuator (see Figure 2-1) provided evidence that a backwash had
occurred during those periods when the plant was not staffed.
The manually initiated backwash required approximately 1.5 to 2.0 hours of operator time.
Operator time included setup, approximately 25 minutes of backwash time, on-site water quality
analyses, sample collection for laboratory water quality analyses, documentation, and equipment
cleanup. The manually initiated backwash, monitoring, and data collection were requested by
PADEP as special conditions of the test plan and are not general equipment operating
requirements.
2.2.2 Required Consumables
The system does not use electricity or chemicals during normal treatment operations and requires
only treated water for each backwash cycle. The required consumables are limited to the
adsorption media and treated water for backwash use, as described below:
• Actiguard AAFS50 activated alumina media: approximately 0.7 cubic feet per filter tank
(-1.4 cubic feet total) per manufacturer specifications. Approximately 1.20 cubic feet
were installed in the 2-filter test unit, based on volumetric calculations included in
Appendix D.
18
-------
• Treated water: 62 gallons of backwash and rinse per cycle per manufacturer
specifications. The actual treated water usage during backwash (including purge and
control module drive water) averaged approximately 83 gallons.
2.2.3 Rates of Waste Production
The manufacturer indicated approximately 62 gallons of filter backwash wastewater and purge
(rinse) wastewater would be generated for every 10,500 gallons ± 10% of throughput. The
observed wastewater volume was approximately 83 gallons, including approximately 9.75
gallons of control module drive water. The total volume of water used per filter unit backwash
was consistent for each manually initiated and observed backwash. Backwash water quantity
and water quality characteristics are described in more detail in Chapter 4.
2.2.4 Equipment Performance Range
The equipment flow range and minimum recommended pressure are presented in Table 2-2. The
manufacturer has stated their arsenic adsorption media system may not be appropriate for feed
water quality containing high levels of potentially interfering ions, such as sulfate, silica,
fluoride, and phosphate, depending on the feed water pH. However, the manufacturer has stated
these interferences can be mitigated by pretreatment, if necessary.
2.2.5 Applications of Equipment
The manufacturer stated the process is appropriate for groundwater not under the influence of
surface water at "very small" and "small" systems having limited manpower and operating skills.
It is also appropriate for "medium" systems. The EPA defines "very small" systems as those
systems serving a population of 25-500 people, "small" systems as those systems serving a
population 501-3,300 people, and "medium-size" systems as those serving 3,301 to 10,000
people.
MHP Well No. 1 has relatively high manganese levels that were not treated prior to passing
through the system. However, the manufacturers indicate the arsenic adsorption capacity is
independent of the manganese concentration in the feed water.
2.2.6 Licensing Requirements Associated with Equipment Operation
States generally require a specific grade of waterworks operator permit in order to operate a filter
process on a public water supply. However, this requirement did not apply for the ETV because
all treated water was discharged to waste.
In Pennsylvania, to operate a full-scale version of this treatment technology for the Orchard Hills
MHP public drinking water supply, a D9 license would be required; "D" refers to a capacity of
0.1 mgd or less and "9" refers to inorganics removal.
19
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
3.1 Experimental Design
This verification test was developed to provide verifiable information related to the performance
of the Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals arsenic adsorption media system. Field operations,
sampling, and analytical methodologies were performed in a manner assuring the quality of data
collected would provide an accurate evaluation of the treatment system under the field
conditions.
The ETV testing was conducted in two phases. The first phase, the Integrity Test, was designed
to evaluate the reliability of equipment operation under the environmental and hydraulic
conditions at the MHP WTP site during the initial two weeks of testing. The second phase, the
Capacity Test, included testing designed to evaluate the capacity of the arsenic adsorption system
to remove arsenic from the Well No. 1 feed water.
3.1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the verification test were:
• Produce data to meet the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) shaped by the manufacturers'
performance objectives;
• Present data on the impact of variations in feed water quality, such as turbidity, arsenic,
pH, silica, fluoride, iron, and manganese on equipment performance;
• Evaluate the logistical, human, and economic resources necessary to operate the
equipment;
• Evaluate the reliability, ruggedness, cost factors, range of usefulness, and ease of
operation of the equipment; and
• Evaluate the arsenic adsorption capacity of the equipment under field conditions.
3.1.2 Equipment Characteristics
3.1.2.1 Qualitative Factors. The equipment was operated in such a way as to maintain its
operating parameters within the manufacturers' recommendations. Contact time is a critical
parameter for arsenic adsorption efficiency and is dependent on maintaining flow within the
design range. The nature and frequency of the changes required to maintain the operating
conditions were used in the qualitative evaluation of the equipment.
Frequent and significant adjustments would have indicated a relatively lower reliability and
higher susceptibility to environmental conditions, as well as the degree of operator experience
that may be required. However, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, flow rate adjustments
were minimal. The effect of operator experience on the treatment results was evaluated.
The modular nature of the filter components, similar to a residential ion exchange water softener,
makes equipment installation easy and straightforward. The equipment can be installed by a
20
-------
qualified plumber. The equipment is also easy to move and reinstall at another location. The
filter tanks are freestanding, requiring only a level surface capable of supporting 210 pounds and
maintenance of ambient temperature above 35°F.
3.1.2.2 Quantitative Factors. The following factors were quantified for site-specific conditions,
based upon data collected during this testing program:
• Backwash water quantity and quality;
• Backwash and purge duration and frequency; and
• Estimated labor hours for operation and maintenance.
These quantitative factors were used as an initial benchmark to assess equipment performance
and to develop operation and maintenance costs.
3.2 Equipment Operations and Design
The EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic Removal, including
Chapter 6: Testing Plan - Adsorptive Media Processes for the Removal of Arsenic, specifies the
procedures used to ensure the accurate documentation of both equipment performance and
treated water quality. Strict adherence to these procedures result in the definition of verifiable
performance of the equipment. Chapter 5 includes information on the ETV Protocol and other
documents used in the preparation of this report.
21
-------
3.3 Field Test Equipment
Table 3-1 presents the analytical and calibration equipment used on-site.
Table 3-1. Field Analytical and Calibration Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer/Model/Specs
Turbidimeter
pH/ISE Meter
Thermometer
Arsenic Field Test Kit
Dead Weight Pressure Gauge Tester
Burettes (for analytical titrations)
Stopwatch and "Bucket"
Platform Scale
Hach Model 2100P Portable Ratio™ Optical System
(meets or exceeds USEPA Method 180.1 criteria)
Orion Model 290A with Tnode pH Electrode Model 91-
578N (resolution 0.1/0.01/0.001, accuracy ± 0.005); and
Fluoride Combination Electrode Model 96-09
(reproducibility ± 2%)
Miller & Weber (range 0-32°C; NIST traceable)
Industrial Test Systems (ITS), Inc. Model QUICK Low
Range II (optimum accuracy below 6 (ig/L)
Amthor Testing Instrument Co. Inc. (Type No. 460;
range 0-6000 psi)
50 mL capacity with 0.1 mL subdivisions and 1000 mL
reagent reservoir
Digital stopwatch and 2.0 L graduated cylinder with 10
mL increments for rotameter, totalizer meters, and
control module drive water calibration checks. Fifty
gallon container for backwash wastewater flow
calibration
Triner Scale Model 303, Serial No. 87D-065, Capacity
202 Ibs.
3.4 Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment
It was Gannett Fleming's responsibility to coordinate communication between all verification
testing participants. Gannett Fleming maintained all field documentation. Bound field logbooks
were used to record all water treatment equipment operating data. Each page was sequentially
numbered and labeled with the project name and number. Completed pages were signed and
dated by the individual responsible for the entries. Errors had one line drawn through them and
this line was initialed and dated. Any deviations from the approved final PSTP were thoroughly
documented in the field logbook. Copies of the logbook pages are included in the appendices of
this report.
All field activities were thoroughly documented using the following forms of record:
• Field Logbook
• Field Data Sheets
• Photographs
• Laboratory Submission Sheets and Reports
22
-------
Laboratory submission forms accompanied all samples shipped to the PADEP and NSF
Laboratories. Copies of laboratory submission forms for all samples are included in the
appendices of this verification report.
3.5 Equipment Operation and Water Quality Sampling for Verification Testing
The field activities conformed to requirements in the PSTP developed and approved for this
verification test. The sampling and sample analyses that occurred during this verification testing
program were performed according to the procedures detailed by Gannett Fleming in the PSTP.
Any unanticipated or unusual situations that altered the plans for equipment operation, water
quality sampling, or data quality were discussed with the NSF technical lead and PADEP. Any
deviations from the approved final PSTP were documented.
During routine operation, the following were documented daily:
• The number of hours the arsenic adsorption media filter was operated;
• The number of hours the operator was working at tasks at the treatment plant related to
the operation of the arsenic adsorption media filter; and
• Description of tasks performed during arsenic adsorption media filter operation.
3.6 Recording Data
The following information was recorded on-site:
• Experimental run number
• Water type (feed, treated, waste type)
• Hours of operation (calculated)
• Feed water flow rate
• Treated water flow rate
• Feed water production
• Treated water production
• Feed water pressure
• Treated water pressure
• Feed water temperature
• Treated water temperature
• Feed water turbidity
• Treated water turbidity
• Feed water pH
• Treated water pH
• Feed water arsenic concentration (qualitatively with field test kit)
• Treated water arsenic concentration (qualitatively with field test kit)
• Occurrence of a backwash
• Backwash water flow rate (when field engineer is present)
• Backwash duration (when field engineer is present)
• Backwash total volume (measured directly when field engineer is present)
23
-------
3.7 Recording Statistical Uncertainty for Assorted Water Quality Parameters
For the analytical data obtained during verification testing, 95% confidence intervals were
calculated by Gannett Fleming for arsenic data and for all other water quality data where the
sample set contains eight or more values.
The consistency and precision of water quality data were evaluated with the use of the
confidence interval. A confidence interval describes a population range in which any individual
population measurement may exist with a specified percent confidence. The following formula
was used for confidence interval calculation:
confidence interval = X±tn-i, \.- \SI-Jnj
where: X is the sample mean;
S is the sample standard deviation;
n is the number of independent measures included in the data set;
t is the t distribution value with n-1 degrees of freedom; and
a is the significance level, defined for 95% confidence as: 1 - 0.95 = 0.05.
According to the 95% confidence interval approach, the a term is defined to have a value of
0.05, thus simplifying the equation for the 95% confidence interval in the following manner:
95% confidence interval = X + tn -1,0.975 (S /Jn
Results of these calculations were expressed as the sample mean, plus or minus the width of the
confidence interval.
pH statistics were calculated on a log basis.
3.8 Verification Testing Schedule
Verification testing activities included equipment set up and shakedown, equipment Integrity
Verification Testing, Adsorption Capacity Testing, and water quality sampling and analysis. The
test schedule was developed to encompass all of these activities.
The Integrity Test began on April 22, 2003. The Integrity and Adsorption Capacity Verification
Tests were initiated simultaneously. The Integrity Verification Test ran for a 2-week (13 full
days plus 8 hours) period, ending May 5, 2003. The Adsorption Capacity Verification test
continued until 11 ng/L*^ of arsenic was detected in the treated water for a minimum of three
consecutive samples. Three consecutive treated water samples with arsenic concentrations
greater than or equal to 11 (ig/L were required to ensure the predefined endpoint had in fact been
Kinetico/Alcan Chemicals originally requested that 12 (ig/L be used as the stopping point to ensure the
threshold of 10 (ig/L had actually been crossed and the reading was not due to analytical error or method
variability. Due to relatively slow arsenic breakthrough and reduced feed water arsenic concentrations, the
manufacturer, NSF, and Gannett Fleming agreed to revise the stopping point to 11 (ig/L.
24
-------
reached and the end of the test would not be influenced an analytical error. The capacity test
ended on October 28, 2003. The equipment was disassembled by the manufacturer and filter
core samples were taken by Gannett Fleming on November 4, 2003.
3.9 Task 1: System Integrity Verification Testing
3.9.1 Introduction
During Task 1, Gannett Fleming evaluated the reliability of the equipment operation under the
environmental and hydraulic conditions at Orchard Hills MHP WTP Well No. 1. The Integrity
Verification Test was performed to determine whether the treatment objectives could be
achieved for arsenic removal at the design operating parameters for the arsenic adsorption media
system. The adsorption media filter was operated for Integrity Test purposes within the
operational range presented in the equipment design criteria.
3.9.2 Experimental Objectives
The experimental objectives for the Integrity Test phase of the verification testing are
summarized below:
• Evaluate equipment operational reliability under field conditions;
• Document feed water quality and arsenic concentration; and
• Collect operational and water quality data under field conditions.
3.9.3 Work Plan
Initial shakedown testing was performed on the adsorption filter unit to establish basic
operability. Two sets of feed and treated speciated arsenic samples were used to establish the
capability of the filter unit to remove arsenic from the feed water. Following the initial
shakedown testing, a pressure-reducing valve was added to the system upstream of the
diaphragm valve to maintain a constant flow rate under variable feed water pressures.
Prior to beginning the Integrity and Capacity Test phases, the manufacturer installed new
Actiguard AAFS50 media in each of the two adsorption filter tanks. A platform scale was used
to weigh the media prior to installation into each filter tank. The weight of the media and the
measurement of "freeboard" from the top of the media to the top of the unit (top of the opening
in each filter tank where the media is added) were recorded.
Following the protocol for startup, as detailed in the Alcan Chemicals' Technical Bulletin for
Actiguard AAFS50 in Appendix A, the initial 10 bed volumes of treated water (flushing water)
should be discounted prior to recording the totalizers' startup readings. The manufacturer
actually used approximately 350 gallons, or 36 bed volumes, during startup to wash the media
and to verify the operation of the filter control module. This water volume, used for startup, was
documented when recording the initial totalizer reading prior to initiation of the Integrity and
Capacity Tests.
25
-------
The Integrity Test monitoring and on-site data collection were performed at frequencies shown
in the schedule presented in Table 3-2. The treatment system primarily operated intermittently
due to the intermittent operation of Well No. 1. However, the treatment system was required to
operate continuously for at least 2 hours each day during the Integrity Test, as specified in the
test plan. The 2-hour continuous operation each day was performed and witnessed by the
Gannett Fleming field engineer and used the manual mode of operation for Well No. 1 at the
WTP well pump control panel.
Grab samples for on-site and laboratory analyses were collected according to the sampling
schedule presented in Table 3-3. The feed water and treated water sample taps were flushed for
at least five seconds prior to sample collection. A sampling plan for arsenic that includes the
Integrity Verification Test is presented in Table 3-4. Three days of the daily feed water and
treated water samples were collected to speciate arsenic, as specified in Table 3-4. The protocol
for arsenic speciation (from the TSTP) is presented in Appendix E. Daily and weekly samples
collected for on-site analysis were analyzed immediately after collection during the 2-hour
period of continuous operation. Alkalinity, total hardness, calcium hardness, and fluoride were
analyzed in the Gannett Fleming Treatability Lab within two hours of leaving the site. Sample
collection and handling procedures followed Standard Methods 3010 B. Daily and weekly
samples for laboratory analysis were collected during the 2-hour period of continuous operation.
At least one hour of operation occurred prior to sample collection for arsenic.
All of the samples were collected by the Gannett Fleming field engineer in appropriate sample
bottles prepared with preservatives, as required, specific to the analytical methods to be used.
Additionally, the samples were stored and shipped in accordance with appropriate procedures
and holding times, as specified by the PADEP and NSF. A water quality sampling protocol for
PADEP Laboratory analysis, describing volumes, preservation, holding times, and laboratory
sample identification for each water quality parameter, is presented in Table 3-8. The methods
used by the laboratory for the analytical procedures are presented in Section3.13.4 and described
in Task 5, Quality Assurance/Quality Control. All on-site data and observations were recorded
by the Gannett Fleming field engineer in a series of bound logbooks. Copies of the original
logbooks and on-site Water Quality Data are included as Appendix F. All PADEP Laboratory
water quality data and sample submission forms are included in Appendix G. PADEP
Laboratory QA/QC Summary Tables are included in Appendix H. Complete QA/QC
documentation is on file at NSF.
Two backwashes occurred during the System Integrity Verification Test, one of which was
manually initiated and witnessed by the field engineer. Backwash water flow, duration, and
volume were monitored volumetrically and recorded. Backwash water quality was analyzed as
listed in Table 3-6. Complete results and data analysis are presented in Chapter 4.
26
-------
3.9.4 A nalytical Schedu le
The arsenic adsorption media filter system operational data were monitored following the
procedures and at the frequencies prescribed in the test plan, as summarized below and in
Table 3-2.
• The treated water flow rate was monitored and adjusted, as needed, using the rotameter
and diaphragm valve located on the treated water pipe. The treated water flow rate was
recorded twice per day, before and after any necessary adjustment. The flow rate was set
and maintained at 1.9 gpm ± 0.10 gpm.
• The feed water and treated water production were monitored and recorded twice per day
at the totalizer meters located on the feed water and treated water pipes.
• Well pump run time is not totalized at the WTP motor control center. Therefore, run time
was back-calculated from the totalizer readings and flow rate.
• The feed water pressure was monitored twice per day at the pressure gauge located on the
feed water pipe. Minimum and maximum operating pressures for the filter tanks are 30
psi and 125 psi, respectively.
• The treated water pressure was monitored twice per day at the pressure gauge located on
the treated water pipe. This reading was performed at the same time as the feed water
pressure measurement. The difference between these values represents tie headloss
through the system.
Table 3-2. On-Site Equipment Operating Parameter Monitoring and Data Collection
Schedule
Parameter Monitoring Frequency Monitoring Method
Treated Water Flow Rate Check & record twice per day (adjust Rotameter
when 5% above or belo w target record
before and after adjustment)
Feed Water and Treated Water Check & record twice per day Feed and treated totalizer
Production meters
Hours of Production Calculate & record once per day Calculated from totalizer meter
and flow rate data
Feed Water Pressure Check & record twice per day Feed water pressure gauge
Treated Water Pressure Check & record twice per day Treated water pressure gauge
Water quality data were collected as described below:
• The water quality of the feed water and treated water were characterized by analysis of
the water quality parameters listed in Table 3-3. The water quality analyses presented in
Table 3-3 were conducted to provide state drinking water regulatory agencies with
background data on the quality of the feed water being treated and the quality of the
treated water.
• Samples were collected during the 2-hour period of continuous operation, following a
minimum of 1 hour of operation.
• Temperature, pH, turbidity, and qualitative arsenic were analyzed on-site.
27
-------
Table 3-3. Water Quality Sampling Schedule for System Integrity Verification Testing
Test Streams to be Sampled
Parameter
Sampling
Frequency
Standard
Method(1)
EPA
Method(2) Hach Method
On-Site Analyses
Arsenic ^
pH Twice Daily
Temperature Daily
Turbidity Daily
Alkalimty(4) Daily
Calcium''0 Weekly
Magnesium1-4-1 Weekly
Hardness™ Weekly
Fluonde(4) Daily
Laboratory Analyses
Arsenic'-5'1 Daily
Silica
Aluminum
Iron
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Manganese Weekly
Chloride Weekly
Sulfate Weekly
Total Weekly
Phosphorus
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
(See Appendix I)
4500-H+ B
2550 B
2130 B
8221
8222
Calculated
(8226-8222)
8226
4500-F'C
200.8
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
300.0
300.0
365.1
TOAPHA, AWWA and WPCF (1995). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th ed.
Washington, D.C. APHA.
(2) EPA Methods Source: EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. EPA Methods are available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
^ See Table 3-4. An arsenic field test kit was used for periodic qualitative arsenic checks.
'-4-1 Analyzed on-site or at the Gannett Fleming Treatability Lab.
'-5-1 The NSF Laboratory performed laboratory arsenic analyses. The PADEP Laboratory performed all other
laboratory analyses during the Integrity Test.
28
-------
Table 3-4. Arsenic
Test Period
Laboratory Analyses
Shakedown
Integrity
Verification
Adsorption
Capacity
Verification
Adsorption
Capacity
Verification
Sampling
Sample
Sources
Feed,
Treated
Feed,
Treated
Feed,
Treated
Feed,
Treated
Plan
Sample
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Sampling
Period
2 days
13 days
8 hours
First 6 months'-1-1
Final
2 months(1)
No. of Days
Samples
Speciated1-2-1 Hold Samples
2 None
3 None
2(2) None
1(2) 12 per week
Total No.
Analyses
12
40
56
min: 20
max: 124
On-Site Qualitative Analyses^'
Integrity
Verification
Adsorption
Capacity
Verification
Feed,
Treated
Feed,
Treated
Weekly
13 days
8 hours
Weekly First 6 months(1)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
48
Adsorption
Capacity
Verification
Feed,
Treated
3 /week
Final
2 months'-1'1
N/A
N/A
48
(3)
The estimated sampling period was 8 months. If breakthrough did not occur within 8 months, the test and
sampling plan would have continued until breakthrough occurred.
This was considered the minimum number of days samples are speciated during the capacity verification
testing. If arsenic was detected in the treated water, feed and treated water samples collected the following week
would have been speciated and analyzed.
Method procedure presented in Appendix I.
3.9.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements
A table and time series plots were produced to present all feed water and treated water quality
data which varied with time from the system Integrity Verification test. The system Integrity
Verification test demonstrates the initial ability of the adsorptive media to remove the feed water
arsenic concentration to below detectable levels in the treated water. All water quality
parameters, operational parameters, backwash flow rates, and quantities were tabulated and
plotted, as appropriate. The backwash waste stream and control module discharge flow rates
were tabulated. A plot of feed and treated water pressure and system headloss is presented.
System headloss information was used to infer power requirements for a system that will pump
directly through the treatment unit. No direct measurement of power was possible because the
system does not require electricity. Test results are summarized, plotted, and discussed in
Chapter 4. All raw data are included in appendices, as referenced in Chapter 4.
29
-------
3.10 Task 2: Adsorption Capacity Verification Testing
3.10.1 Introduction
The objectives of the Adsorption Capacity Test were to produce operational and water quality
data up through and including what Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals have defined as the
breakthrough arsenic level for their arsenic adsorption system. The performance of the
adsorptive media is a function of feed water quality, contact time, rest time, and type of
adsorptive media used. Arsenic breakthrough is highly dependent on the concentration and
adsorptive characteristics (isotherm) of the arsenic to be treated by the adsorptive media. Design
and empty bed contact time (EBCT) will help define the performance of the media for a given
feed water quality. Adsorption capacity verification testing was performed one time for the
arsenic adsorption media system, using the feed water from Well No. 1 at Orchard Hills MHP.
3.10.2 Experimental Objectives
The experimental objective was to provide equipment operating and water quality data related to
the adsorptive media capacity to remove arsenic from the feed water to the pre-defined arsenic
breakthrough concentration.
3.10.3 Work Plan
Task 2 Adsorption Capacity Verification Testing began simultaneously with Task 1, System
Integrity Verification Testing. The operating conditions were as stated under 3.9.3 Work Plan
for Task 1: System Integrity Verification Testing.
3.10.4 A nalytical Schedu le
• Operational Data Collection
o The treated water flow rate was monitored and adjusted, as needed, using the
rotameter and diaphragm valve located on the treated water pipe. The treated
water flow rate was recorded twice per day, before and after any necessary
adjustment. The flow rate was set and maintained at 1.9 gpm ±0.10 gpm.
o The feed water and treated water production was monitored and recorded twice
per day at the totalizer meters, located on the feed water and treated water pipes.
o Well pump run time is not totalized at the WTP motor control center. Therefore,
run time was back-calculated from the totalizer readings and flow rate.
o The feed water pressure was monitored twice per day at the pressure gauge
located on the feed water pipe. Minimum and maximum operating pressures for
the filter tanks are 30 psi and 125 psi, respectively.
o The treated water pressure was monitored twice per day at the pressure gauge
located on the treated water pipe. This was performed at the same time as the
feed water pressure measurement. The difference between these values represents
the headloss through the system.
30
-------
Sample Holding
o As indicated in Table 3-4, as the media approached 70% of its predicted capacity,
samples for laboratory arsenic analyses were collected on a daily basis and held
(approximately 2 weeks) pending the results of the weekly arsenic samples. This
was done in the event arsenic breakthrough was missed with the weekly sampling.
Arsenic hold samples for the final 4 weeks of the Capacity Test were submitted
for analysis. Fluoride, silica, iron, manganese, and aluminum samples were
collected weekly during Task 2.
Water Quality Data Collection
o The adsorptive media feed water quality, treated water quality, and wastewater
quality were characterized by the analysis of the water quality parameters listed in
Tables 3-5 and 3-6. The sampling frequency is also described in Tables 3-5 and
3-6. This frequency was intended to provide sufficient water quality data to
effectively characterize the breakthrough profile of arsenic and to develop a
representative wastewater quality profile.
o Grab samples of backwash wastewater were collected for water quality analyses
at the frequency presented in Table 3-6. The backwash and purge water collection
procedure is for one of the two filter tanks. The samples were mixed to maintain
a relatively homogenous suspension during sample collection.
Arsenic Speciation
The minimum arsenic speciation frequency is presented on Table 3-4.
Spent Media Analysis
o TCLP and CA WET were performed on spent Actiguard AAFS50 media, as
required by the test plan. The physical condition of the spent media was noted and
reported, along with the result of the TCLP and CA WET testing in Chapter 4 and
Appendix J.
o A 1.5-inch thin-walled copper tube, 4 feet in length, was used to core one sample
of spent Actiguard AAFS50 adsorption media from each of the two filter tanks.
The Kinetico procedure for media replacement in Appendix K was followed
through Step 8a. (with the exception of emptying the media into the bucket) to
gain access to the media contained in each filter tank and to decant the water out
of each tank. Following decanting, the copper tube was used to obtain a core
sample through the entire depth of the media from each tank. Each core was
discharged into a large plastic bag. The bag was vigorously shaken to provide a
homogenous media sample. The sample was used for TCLP and CA WET
analyses.
o A media gradation analysis was performed on the spent Actiguard AAFS50 media
and compared to the gradation analysis of new media, presented in Appendix L,
to determine the extent of media physical degradation, if any.
o The result of all testing on spent media are discussed in Chapter 4.
-------
Table 3-5. Water Quality Sampling Schedule for Media Adsorption Capacity Verification
Testing
Parameter
Sampling
Frequency
Test Streams to be Sampled
Standard EPA Hach
Method(1) Method(2) Method
On-Site Analyses
Arsenic
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalimty(4)
Calcium'4)
Magnesium1-4-1
Hardness(4)
Fluonde(4)
Laboratory Analyses
(3) Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Daily Adsorptive Media 4500-FT" B
Feed Water & Treated Water
Daily Adsorptive Media 2550 B
Feed Water & Treated Water
Daily Adsorptive Media 21 SOB
Feed Water & Treated Water
3/Week Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Weekly Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Weekly Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Weekly Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Weekly Adsorptive Media 4500-F" C
Feed Water & Treated Water
(See Appendix I)
8221
8222
Calculated
(8226-8222)
8226
Arsenic
Silica
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Chloride
Sulfate
Total Phosphorus
TCLP(6)
CA WET(6)
Weekly (5)
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Once
Once
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Adsorptive Media
Feed Water & Treated Water
Spent Actiguard AAFS50
Adsorptive Media
Spent Actiguard AAFS50
Adsorptive Media
200.8
200.7
200.7
200.7
200.7
300.0
300.0
365.1
SW-846
EPA 13 11
(See Appendix M)
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th ed. Washington, D.C. APHA.
EPA Methods Source: EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. EPA Methods are available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS).
An arsenic field test kit was used for periodic qualitative arsenic checks, as specified in Table 3-6.
Analyzed on-site or at the Gannett Fleming Treatability Lab.
See arsenic sampling plan in Table 3-4.
TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc. performed the TCLP and CA WET analyses.
32
-------
Table 3-6. Monitoring, Sampling,
and Control Module Drive Water
Purge and Backwash
Wastewater
Parameter Sample Type
Flow Rate
Volume
Duration
Turbidity
pH
Arsenic
Manganese
Iron
Aluminum
Volumetric
Direct
measurement
Manually timed
Grab«
Grab(1)
Grab(1)
Grab(1)
Grab«
Grab(1)
and Analyses for Backwash Wastewater, Purge Water,
Control Module
Drive Water
Sample Type Frequency® Method
Volumetric
Direct
measurement
Manually timed
Grab(1)
Grab'1'
Grab(1)
Grab(1)
Grab(1)
Grab(1)
Every second month
Every second month
(directly)
Every second month
Every second month
Every second month
Every second month
Every second month
Every second month
Every second month
"Bucket"(3)(4) &
stopwatch
Graduated
container1-3-1
Stopwatch
SM2130-B
SM4500-H+
EPA 200. 8
EPA 200. 7
EPA 200. 7
EPA 200.7
TTT
(4)
Grab samples were collected using a 2-liter beaker from a continuously mixed batch tank. Backwash and purge
wastewaters were collected in 50- and 30-gallon containers, respectively. Grab sample for control module drive
water were collected with a 2-liter beaker.
Frequencies indicated per request of PADEP.
The "buckets" were 50- and 30-gallon containers for calibrating backwash and purge flow rates, respectively.
Increments in liters were marked on the sides of these containers, based on incrementally filling the containers
beforehand with a 2-liter graduated cylinder.
A 2.0 graduated cylinder was the "bucket" for determining control module drive water discharge flow rate.
3.10.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements
The results of Adsorption Capacity Testing are presented in Chapter 4 and include the following:
• Record of Arsenic Removal:
o An arsenic breakthrough curve was plotted showing the adsorptive media treated
water concentrations versus volumes treated. Feed water arsenic concentrations
were included on the same plot.
o A spreadsheet of arsenic feed water concentrations and calculations of the average
feed water arsenic concentration was tabulated.
• Process Control:
o The adsorptive media feed water and treated water arsenic, pH, pressure, and
water production were tabulated and used to calculate incremental feed and
treated water production, differential pressure, and cumulative arsenic removed.
The adsorptive media feed water average, standard deviation, and confidence
interval were included for each parameter, when appropriate.
33
-------
3.11 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance
3.11.1 Introduction
During each day of verification testing, arsenic adsorption media filter operating conditions were
documented, including the rate of headloss gain. The volumetric flow rate through an adsorptive
media vessel is a critical parameter and was thoroughly monitored and documented. Adsorptive
media performance is affected by the EBCT, which varies directly with volumetric flow rate
through the vessel.
3.11.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task was to accurately and fully document the operating conditions and
performance of the equipment.
3.11.3 Work Plan
During the verification test, treatment equipment operating parameters were monitored and
recorded on a routine basis. This included a complete description of all applicable data.
3.11.4 Schedule
Table 3-7 presents the schedule for observing and recording equipment operation and
performance data.
Table 3-7. Schedule for Observing and Recording Equipment Operation and Performance
Data
Operational Parameter
Action
Treated water flow rate
Filter system feed water and treated water
pressures
Total hours operated per day
Tasks performed during equipment operation
Numb er of hours per day operator attends to all
tasks related to the treatment process
Totalizer Meter Readings
Check and record in logbook twice per day; adjust when >5%
above or below target. Record before and after adjustment.
Record in logbook: initial clean bed feed water and treated
water pressure at the start of the run; thereafter, record twice
per day.
Record at end of day or at beginning of the following
workday, as calculated from totalizer meter readings and flow
rate.
Record tasks performed daily in logbook.
Record number of hours required by operator to accomplish
all tasks.
Record totalizer meter readings twice daily.
34
-------
3.11.5 Evaluation Criteria
The data developed from the Integrity and Capacity Tests were used to evaluate the performance
of the adsorption media filter. An objective evaluation of the difficulty of operations was based
on an assessment of time required for process monitoring and hydraulic control.
3.12 Task 4: Data Management
3.12.1 Introduction
The data management system that was used in this verification involved the use of computer
spreadsheet software and manual recording of system operating parameters.
3.12.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task was to establish a viable structure for the recording and transmission of
field-testing data by Gannett Fleming, such that NSF received sufficient and reliable data for
verification purposes.
3.12.3 Work Plan
The following procedures were implemented for data handling and data verification by Gannett
Fleming:
The field-testing operator recorded operating and water quality data and calculations by hand in a
laboratory notebook.
• Daily measurements were recorded on specially prepared data log sheets.
• The logbook is permanently bound with consecutively numbered pages.
• The logbook indicates the starting and ending dates that apply to entries in the logbook.
• All pages have appropriate headings to avoid entry omissions.
• All logbook entries were made in black water-insoluble ink.
• All corrections in the logbook were made by placing one line through the erroneous
information and were initialed by the field-testing operator.
• The pilot operating logs include a description of the adsorptive media equipment,
description of test run(s), names of visitors, description of any problems or issues, etc;
such descriptions were provided in addition to experimental calculations and other items.
The original logbook was photocopied at least once per week and copies forwarded to the
Gannett Fleming project engineer. This protocol not only eased referencing of the original data,
but offered protection of the original record of results.
The database for this verification test program was set up in the form of custom-designed
spreadsheets. The spreadsheets were capable of storing and manipulating each monitored water
quality and operational parameter from each task, each sampling location, and each sampling
time. All data from the laboratory notebooks and data log sheets were entered into the
35
-------
appropriate spreadsheets. Data entry was conducted off-site by the designated field-testing
operator. All recorded calculations were also checked at this time. Following data entry, the
spreadsheet was printed out and the printout was checked against the handwritten data sheet by
another individual. Any corrections were noted on the hard copies and corrected on the screen;
then a corrected version of the spreadsheet was printed out. Each step of the verification process
was initialed by the field-testing operator or supervisor performing the entry or verification step.
Each experiment (e.g., each test run) was assigned a run number that was then tied to the data
from the experiment through each step of data entry and analysis. As samples were collected
and sent to the PADEP and NSF Laboratories, the data were tracked by use of a system of run
numbers. Data from the PADEP and NSF Laboratories were received and reviewed by the field-
testing operator. These data were entered into the data spreadsheets, corrected, and verified in
the same manner as the field data.
3.13 Task 5: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
3.13.1 Introduction
Quality assurance and quality control for the operation of the arsenic adsorption media filter and
the measured water quality parameters were maintained during the verification testing program,
as described in this section.
3.13.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task was to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during this
verification test. Maintenance of strict QA/QC procedures was important in that, if a question
were to arise when analyzing or interpreting data collected for the arsenic adsorption media
filter, it would be possible to verify the exact conditions at the time of testing.
3.13.3 Work Plan
Equipment flow rates were verified and recorded on a routine basis. A routine daily walk-
through during testing was established to verify each piece of equipment or instrumentation was
operating properly. The items listed below are in addition to any specified checks outlined in
the analytical methods.
It was extremely important that system flow rates be maintained at set values and monitored
frequently. Doing so allowed maintenance of a constant and known EBCT in the adsorptive
media. Adsorptive media performance is directly affected by the EBCT, which, in turn, is
proportional to the volumetric flow rate through the media. Therefore, an important QA/QC
objective was the maintenance of a constant volumetric flow rate through the adsorptive media
by frequent monitoring and documentation for possible needed adjustment. Documentation
included an average and standard deviation of recorded flow rates through the adsorptive media.
36
-------
• Weekly QA/QC Verifications
o In-line rotameter (clean any foulant buildup, as needed, and verify flow rate
volumetrically);
o In-line totalizer meters (clean any foulant buildup, as needed, and verify flow
rate); and
o Tubing (verify good condition of all tubing and connections; replace as
necessary).
3.13.4 Analytical Methods
The analytical methods utilized in this study for on-site and laboratory monitoring of adsorptive
media feed and treated water quality are described in the section below.
• Arsenic
Arsenic analyses were performed at the NSF Laboratory according to EPA Method
200.8. These analyses were the most critical for the entire ETV test. Minimum analytical
turnaround time was required to achieve optimum process control. This method required
ultra-pure (optimum) grade nitric acid be used, not reagent grade, to avoid the trace
amounts of arsenic, which can be present in reagent grade nitric acid.
Arsenic analyses were also performed on-site for qualitative purposes. These used the
Model QUICK Low Range II field test kit from Industrial Test Systems (ITS), Inc. The
arsenic field test kit has an optimum accuracy below 6 (ig/L and a reaction time of less
than 15 minutes. The complete method procedure is presented in Appendix I.
• pH
Analyses for pH were performed on-site according to Standard Method 4500-FTf B
(Electrometric Method). A three-point calibration of the pH meter used in this study was
performed once per day. Certified pH buffers 4.0, 7.0, and 10.0 were used. The pH
electrode was stored in an appropriate solution, as defined in the instrument manual.
• Alkalinity
Analyses for alkalinity were performed at the Gannett Fleming Treatability Lab
according to Hach Method 8221 (Buret Titration Method).
• Fluoride
Analyses for fluoride were performed at the Gannett Fleming Treatability Lab according
to Standard Method 4500-F" C (Ion-Selective Electrode Method).
• Chloride
Analyses for chloride were performed at the PADEP Lab according to EPA Method
300.0.
• Sulfate
Analyses for sulfate were performed at the PADEP Lab according to EPA Method 300.0.
37
-------
• Silica
Analyses for silica were performed at the PADEP Lab according to EPA Method 200.7.
• Aluminum
Analyses for aluminum were performed at the PADEP Lab according to EPA Method
200.7.
• Total Phosphorus
Analyses for phosphate were performed at the PADEP Lab according to EPA Method
365.1.
• Calcium
Analyses for calcium were performed at the Gannett Fleming Treatability Lab according
to Hach Method 8222 (Buret Method), with 0.020 N titrant.
• Hardness
Analyses for hardness were performed at the Gannett Fleming Treatability Lab according
to Hach Method 8226 (ManVer 2 Buret Titration), with 0.020 N titrant.
• Magnesium
Magnesium results were calculated by subtracting the calcium result (Hach Method
8222) from the Hardness result (Hach Method 8226).
• Iron
Analyses for iron were performed at the PADEP according to EPA Method 200.7.
• Manganese
Analyses for manganese were performed at the PADEP Lab according to EPA
Method 200.7.
• Turbidity
Turbidity analyses were performed on-site according to Standard Method 2130 B using a
portable turbidimeter.
• Temperature
Temperature was analyzed on-site according to Standard Method 2550 B.
3.13.5 Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analysis
Samples for inorganic analysis, including arsenic, chloride, sulfate, silica, aluminum, total
phosphorus, iron, and manganese, were collected and preserved in accordance with Standard
Method 3010 B. Particular attention was paid to the sources of contamination as outlined in
Standard Method 3010 C. The samples were refrigerated at approximately 2° to 8°C
immediately upon collection (except for the arsenic samples), shipped in a cooler, and
maintained at a temperature of approximately 2° to 8°C. The PADEP Lab maintained the
38
-------
samples at approximately 2° to 8°C until initiation of analysis. Table 3-8 presents the sampling
protocol followed during the ETV for samples analyzed by the PADEP Laboratory.
Table 3-8. Water Quality Sampling Protocol
Sequence
Niimhpr
Paramftfar
Laboratory
Aluminum &
Silica
Iron&
Manganese
Sulfate &
Chloride
Total
Phosphorus
TCLP
Sample
125 mL
HDPE
125 mL
HDPE
500 mL
HDPE
125 mL
HDPE
Plastic
Sample Sample
100 mL Nitric Acid to
pH <2.0; iced
100 mL Nitric Acid to
pH <2.0; iced
250 mL Iced
lOOmL SulfuncAcid
to
pH <2.0; iced
N/A
Sample
6 months 101
6 months 201
28 days 201
28 days 201
N/A N/A
SA£)
102 107
202 106
202 106
202 106
N/A 242
NSF
Tfiit Tracking TP
Bottle Collector Date/Time
Par* TTl Wn PnlWtp H Tnt^nrih7 Psn^it^
M 1749 I II
M 1749 * I II
N/A 1749 * I II
P 1749 * I II
N/A 1749 * N/A II
'-1-1 Information also required on sample bottle.
3.14 Operations and Maintenance
Gannett Fleming reviewed Kinetico's O&M Manual; comments related to the applicability of the
manual are included in Chapter 4. The Owner's Manual and Installation Guide are included in
Appendix N; the technical sheets are on file at Gannett Fleming and NSF. These manuals
present specific information on the mechanical operation of the filter tanks for a variety of media
types, including Actiguard AAFS50.
39
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
The ETV testing of Kinetico Inc.'s and Alcan Chemicals' arsenic adsorption filter system was
conducted in two phases, including an Integrity Verification Test and an Adsorption Capacity
Test. Prior to initiation of the Integrity and Capacity Testing, equipment shakedown was
performed; this included collection and analysis of two days of speciated feed and treated water
samples. The two-week (13 full days plus 8 hours) Integrity Verification Test was initiated on
April 22, 2003 and concluded on May 5, 2003. The initiation of the Adsorption Capacity Test
coincided with the Integrity Verification Test and continued until an arsenic breakthrough
concentration of 11 |J,g/L was detected in three consecutive treated water samples. Following
confirmed breakthrough of arsenic, the treatment unit was shutdown on October 28, 2003. Spent
media samples were collected on November 4, 2003, which concluded the verification test.
This section of the ETV report presents a summary of the equipment startup and preliminary
arsenic speciation sample analyses, results of the Integrity Verification Test, results of the
Adsorption Capacity Test, and a discussion of the results. The results and discussion encompass
the concentration and speciation of arsenic in the feed and treated water, analysis of other key
feed and treated water quality parameters, the quantity and rate of treated water production,
backwash water quantity and water quality, spent media analyses, and equipment operation
characteristics, as well as quality assurance and quality control procedures.
4.2 Task 1: System Integrity Verification Testing
The verification test site was the Orchard Hills MHP WTP, located in Carroll Township,
Pennsylvania. The WTP and arsenic adsorption filter system are described in detail in Chapter 2.
4.2.1 Equipment Installation, Startup, and Shakedown
The arsenic adsorption media filter system equipment was installed by Kinetico Inc. personnel in
September 2002. Initial arsenic speciation tests were performed on the feed and treated water in
December 2002, prior to PSTP fmalization. These initial arsenic tests were used to make a
preliminary assessment of the ability of the system to remove arsenic under the existing water
quality conditions at the site and to evaluate the speciation of arsenic in the feed water. During
the Integrity Verification Test, Gannett Fleming evaluated the reliability of equipment operation
under the environmental and hydraulic conditions at the Orchard Hills MHP WTP site, while the
equipment was supplied feed water by Well No. 1. The adsorption media filter was operated for
Integrity Verification testing purposes for 13 days plus 8 hours within the operational range
presented in the equipment design criteria.
Preliminary arsenic speciation analyses indicated a total feed water arsenic concentration of
approximately 17 ng/L. Arsenic III was not detected in the feed water above the 4 |j,g/L
detection limit. Arsenic was not detected in the treated water. Preliminary arsenic speciation
results are presented in Table 4-1. Analytical test reports and sample submission forms for the
40
-------
preliminary arsenic speciation analyses are included in Appendix O. The anion exchange resin
columns used for these preliminary arsenic speciations were later found, during later
performance evaluation testing, to be only approximately 70% effective in the recovery of
arsenic III. Laboratory arsenic analyses for the preliminary samples with an arsenic method
detection limit of 4 |j,g/L were performed at the PADEP Laboratory. Subsequent speciations
were made during the Integrity and Capacity Verification Tests, with a new batch of ion
exchange columns (prepared by NSF). The arsenic analyses were performed with a method
detection limit of 2 [ig/L at the NSF Laboratory. These analyses indicated an arsenic III
concentration of approximately 4 |j,g/L in the feed water as described later in this chapter.
Arsenic speciation using NSF-prepared ion exchange columns resulted in a 100% recovery of
arsenic III in performance evaluation testing. Performance evaluation testing results for arsenic
speciation and on-site water quality analyses are presented later in this chapter. The NSF-
prepared anion exchange resin columns were used for arsenic speciation during the Integrity
Verification and Adsorption Capacity testing.
Table 4-1. Preliminary Arsenic Speciation
Feed Water
Sample
Date
12/10/2002
12/11/2002
Total
Arsenic
(|jg/L)
16.7
17.2
Soluble
Arsenic
(|jg/L)
15.4
16.2
Arsenic III
(|jg/L)
<4.0
<4.0
Calculated
Arsenic V-1-1
(|jg/L)
>11.4
>12.2
Treated Water
Total
Arsenic
(|ig/L)
<4.0
<4.0
Soluble
Arsenic
(|jg/L)
<4.0
<4.0
Arsenic III
(|ig/L)
<4.0
<4.0
Calculated
Arsenic V
(|jg/L)
<4.0
<4.0
(' The laboratory minimum reporting limit is used for all statistical calculations. For preliminary (i.e., Shakedown)
arsenic analyses only, the laboratory minimum reporting limit is 4 |ig/L.
Several physical modifications were made to the system prior to the initiation of testing on
April 22, 2003. Modifications included installation of a second totalizer meter ahead of the
treatment unit, a Y-check valve, and a pressure regulating valve located downstream of the
treatment unit, but upstream of the diaphragm flow control valve. The pressure regulating valve
was added in response to the widely variable WTP pressures in order to maintain a constant
pressure at the diaphragm valve. A constant pressure at the diaphragm valve allows a constant
and adjustable flow rate to be maintained through the treatment unit. The second totalizer meter
was added to function as a backup to the treated water totalizer meter and to allow calculation of
the estimated volume of water used during a backwash cycle. The manufacturer also replaced
the treatment unit control module with a control module calibrated at their lab to automatically
initiate a filter backwash cycle at an interval of approximately 11,230 gallons of treated water.
The manufacturer installed new Actiguard AAFS50 media on February 11, 2003, prior to
initiation of the Integrity and Capacity Verification Testing. The media installation was
witnessed by Gannett Fleming. A platform scale and 5-gallon bucket were used to measure and
install 39.76 pounds of media in each of the two treatment unit tanks. Following the media
installation, the manufacturer certified that the media installation, including the total weight of
media installed into each tank, met the manufacturer's requirements. A copy of the signed
certification is included in Appendix P. The 39.76 pounds of dry, uncompacted media per unit
resulted in a "freeboard," or depth to the wetted, compacted media, of approximately 18-1/4
inches from the top of the media to the top of the opening in each filter tank, as summarized in
41
-------
Table 4-2. The optimum freeboard, based on the manufacturer's specifications, is 17-1/2 inches.
The freeboard was measured again following the Adsorption Capacity Test. At the end of the
testing, the depth to the wetted, compacted media was approximately 18-1/2 inches in the main
tank and 19-1/2 inches in the remote tank.
Table 4-2. Weight of Media Installed and Freeboard in Each Filter Tank
Tank Media Weight (Ib) Freeboard (in.)
Primary 39.76 18.25
Remote 39.76 18.25
Based on the reported media density of 56.8 pounds per cubic foot, the 39.76 pounds of media
installed per unit should have resulted in a bed volume of approximately 0.7 cubic feet per tank,
for a total bed volume of 1.4 cubic feet. However, given a total tank height of 40 inches and a
tank diameter of 8 inches, as reported by the manufacturer, the actual bed volume was estimated
to be approximately 0.63 cubic feet per tank, or approximately 1.27 cubic feet total. The media
volume was calculated without accounting for the tank wall thickness, the round bottom of the
tank, or subtraction of the volume of the internal flow distribution apparatus, all of which could
be significant. Therefore, the bed volume was more accurately measured following the test by
sealing the internal flow distributor and carefully measuring the amount of water required to
achieve the originally measured freeboard of 18-1/4 inches to the top of the tank. The media bed
volume, as determined by liquid measure, was 0.60 cubic feet per tank for a total media bed
volume of 1.20 cubic feet. Media bed volume calculations are included in Appendix D. The
PSTP indicated, "Data will be generated that will represent the actual volume of water treated by
the 1.4 cubic feet of Actiguard AAFS50 media...". This difference in bed volume could make a
significant difference in the apparent media capacity. Therefore, the more accurate total bed
volume of 1.20 cubic feet was used for media capacity calculations, included later in this chapter.
Equipment startup was performed by the manufacturer and witnessed by Gannett Fleming. The
protocol for startup is included in Alcan Chemicals' Technical Bulletin for Actiguard AAFS50 in
Appendix A. The manufacturer specified the initial 10 bed volumes of treated water should be
used as media flushing water and, therefore, should be discounted prior to recording the
totalizers' startup readings. The treated water totalizer meter reading during media installation,
prior to any flow through the newly installed media, was 471,665 gallons. Prior to initiation of
the Integrity Verification and Adsorption Capacity Testing on April 22, 2003, the totalizer meter
reading was 472,015 gallons, indicating 350 gallons had been used by the manufacturer during
startup. The corresponding feed water totalizer reading was 342 gallons. The initial feed water
totalizer reading at installation was 0.0 gallons. Based on an approximate media bed volume of
1.20 cubic feet, the actual volume of water wasted during startup was equal to approximately 39
bed volumes, which is 3.9 times the stated 10 bed volumes required to pre-wash the media. The
manufacturer indicated the additional water was used to verify proper operation of the filter unit
control module. Water used during startup was not included in the treated water volume used to
assess the capacity of the media.
42
-------
4.2.2 Experimental Objectives
As established in the PSTP, the experimental objectives for Integrity Verification testing were as
follows:
• Evaluate equipment operational reliability under field conditions;
• Document feed water quality and arsenic concentration; and
• Collect operational and water quality data under field conditions.
4.2.3 Integrity Test Operational Data
Following initiation of testing, the arsenic adsorption media filter system operated intermittently
in concert with the operation of Well No. 1. However, during the Integrity Verification Test, the
treatment system was operated continuously for at least 2 hours daily and operated intermittently
during the remaining 22 hours each day, as required in the ETV protocol. The 2 hours of
continuous operation per day were initiated using the manual mode of operation for Well No. 1
at the WTP control panel and were witnessed by the Gannett Fleming field engineer. During the
2-hour continuous operation period, a ball valve on the Well No. 1 discharge pipe was throttled
by the field engineer to provide the required minimum feed water pressure of 30 psi. Throttling
was necessary when only Well No. 1 was operating, because the low flow rate from a single well
resulted in Ittle headloss through the WTP piping and treatment process. The backpressure
measured at the treatment unit would have been less than 20 psi, which is less than the required
minimum operating pressure for the Kinetico treatment unit, without throttling the well discharge
ball valve. .
Monitoring and on-site data collection were performed, as scheduled, to verify the equipment
performance. Table 4-3 summarizes the arsenic adsorption media filter unit operational data
during the Integrity Verification Test. Copies of the original logbook data sheets and compiled
Integrity Test operational data are included in Appendix F.
The treatment unit operated for an average of 14 hours per day during the Integrity Test. The
combination of the pressure regulating valve and diaphragm valve maintained a relatively
constant flow rate, as shown. However, flowmeter calibration at the end of the Integrity
Verification Test indicated an actual flow rate of 2.0 gpm was produced when the rotameter
(flow rate meter) indicated a flow rate of 1.9 gpm. Therefore, the average flow rate during the
Integrity Test was higher than the target of 1.9 gpm, but was within the manufacturer's specified
range of 1.8 to 2.0 gpm. Following the Integrity Test, the flow rate set-point was adjusted and
verified to produce a rate of 1.9 gpm. The adjusted set-point was maintained during the
Adsorption Capacity Test.
The feed water pressure averaged 56.4 psi during the Integrity Test, which was well within the
manufacturer's specified operating pressure range of 30 psi to 125 psi. Headloss across the
treatment unit was relatively low, with a pressure differential averaging 1.0 psi, and did not
appear to vary significantly as a function of run time during the two-week test, as shown in
Figure 4-1. This indicates that, despite the particulate manganese and turbidity observed in the
43
-------
feed water as discussed in Section 4.2.4, headless did not significantly accumulate between filter
backwashes. Therefore, the production volume between backwashes could have been increased.
Table 4-3.
Integrity Test Operational
Flow Rate
Before Flow Rate After
Adjustment Adjustment
(gpm) (gpm)
Number of
Samples
Mean 1.99
Minimum 1.90
Maximum 2.00
Standard
Deviation
95% Confidence
T , 1 l.Vo ~ 2* \j\j
Interval
39
2.00
1.90
2.00
0.02
1.99-2.00
( ' During 2-hour continuous operation.
60 -
bU |
55 -
P.
2 1°
10 <
Data
Daily Run
Feed Treated Pressure Time
Pressure Pressure Differential Average
(psi) (psi) (psi) (hours/day)
30 30 30 39
56.4 55.4 1.0 13.8
53.0 51.5 0.5 12.6
60.0 59.0 1.5 24.0(1)
2.1 2.1 0.4 1.7
55.5-57.3 54.5-56.3 0.8-1.2 13.2-14.5
's^~\
r^f^^^
*^*^
•L •A'-.A'^dls. yfts. ..
-------
4.2.4 Integrity Test On-Site Water Quality Analyses
The results of on-site water quality analyses are summarized in Table 4-4. Copies of the original
logbook data sheets and compiled Integrity Test on-site water quality data are included in
Appendix F.
Table 4-4. Integrity Test On-Site Water Quality Data
Number of
Parameter Units Samples Mean Minimum
Feed Water
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Calcium
Magnesium
Hardness
Fluoride
Treated Water
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Calcium
Magnesium
Hardness
Fluoride
-
°C
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
-
°C
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
28
14
15
14
3
3
3
14
28
14
15
14
3
3
3
14
7.6
12.0
0.55
87
28.0
7.6
101
0.19
7.3
12.0
0.20
81
26.4
8.3
100
0.05
7.3
11.5
0.15
84
28.0
7.3
100
0.15
6.8
11.6
0.10
50
26.4
8.3
100
0.02
Maximum
7.7
12.3
3.9
90
28.0
8.3
104
0.27
7.6
12.3
0.75
90
26.4
8.3
100
0.12
Standard
Deviation
N/A
0.2
0.96
2 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.03
N/A
0.2
0.17
11
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.03
95%
Confidence
Interval
7.5-7.7
11.9-12.2
0- 1.2
86-89
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.17-0.21
7.2-7.5
11.9-12.2
0.10-0.30
74-89
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.03-0.07
N/A = Not Applicable. Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Intervals were not calculated for parameters with
data sets of fewer than 8 values.
45
-------
The pH was reduced within the treatment unit during the two-week Integrity Verification Test, as
shown in Figure 4-2. This reduction in pH is a function of the ion exchange process and
consumption of alkalinity, as shown in Figure 4-5.
7.80
7.60
4/21/03 4/23/03 4/25/03 4/27/03
4/29/03
Time
5/1/03
5/3/03
5/5/03
5/7/03
• Feed •
- Treated
Figure 4-2. Integrity Test pH (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
Due to a relatively short hydraulic detention time, the feed and treated water temperatures were
nearly equal throughout the test. Feed water temperature varied less than 1°C during the two-
week test period, as shown in Figure 4-3.
12.40
12.30
12.20
cr
^
12.10
12.00
g 11.90
S,
| 11-80
H
11.70
11.60
11.50
11.40
X
4/21/03 4/23/03 4/25/03 4/27/03 4/29/03 5/1/03
Time
5/3/03 5/5/03 5/7/03
| ^ Feed ^ Treated |
Figure 4-3. Integrity Test temperature (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
46
-------
Figure 4-4 shows the Integrity Test feed and treated water turbidity as a function of time. The
feed water turbidity was generally low, averaging approximately 0.55 NTU, but was somewhat
variable. The variability in feed water turbidity appeared to result from black particles, possibly
oxidized manganese, which periodically appeared in the feed water. Treated water turbidity was
consistently very low, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.10 to 0.30 NTU. The lower treated
water turbidity likely was due to physical removal or filtering by the filter unit media.
4.50
4.00
3.50
_
H
3.00
2.50
H 1.50
1.00
0.50
4/21/03
4/23/03
4/25/03
4/27/03
4/29/03
Time
5/1/03
5/3/03
5/5/03
5/7/03
• Feed •
• Treated
Figure 4-4. Integrity Test turbidity (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
47
-------
As shown in Figure 4-5, the media consumed approximately 38 mg/L as CaCCb of alkalinity
during the initial day of the test. Alkalinity consumption gradually decreased to nearly zero by
the end of the first week of operation.
4/21/03
4/23/03
4/25/03
4/27/03
4/29/03
Time
5/1/03
5/3/03
5/5/03
5/7/03
• Feed •
• Treated
Figure 4-5. Integrity Test alkalinity concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
48
-------
Initially, fluoride was nearly entirely removed through the treatment process, as shown in Figure
4-6. However, treated water fluoride levels gradually increased during the Integrity Test period.
The manufacturer has indicated that fluoride competes with HAsO/f for adsorption. However,
the media has a lower affinity for fluoride than for arsenic. Therefore, fluoride breakthrough
should be observed prior to arsenic breakthrough as the total adsorption site area is reduced,
resulting in arsenic out-competing fluoride for the remaining sites. Integrity Test results indicate
fluoride removal efficiency was decreasing as the Integrity Test ended.
0.30
0.25
0.20
"a
v
7s
o
I
7 V
0.15
0.10
4/21/03
4/23/03
4/25/03
4/27/03
4/29/03
Time
5/1/03
5/3/03
5/5/03
5/7/03
• Feed •
• Treated
Figure 4-6. Integrity Test fluoride concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
Water quality analyses results indicate calcium, magnesium, and total hardness concentrations in
the feed water were apparently unaffected by the treatment process. However, Integrity Testing
included only three tests for these parameters. The Capacity Test provided additional data.
Therefore, detailed analyses for hardness, calcium, and magnesium are included only in the
Capacity Test results (Section 4.3).
49
-------
4.2.5 Integrity Test Laboratory Water Quality Analyses
The results of Integrity Test water quality analyses performed at the PADEP Laboratory are
summarized in Table 4-5. Compiled data, copies of the analytical test reports, and sample
submission forms are included in Appendix G. The raw data are on file at NSF.
Table 4-5. Integrity Test Laboratory Water Quality Data
Number of
Parameter Units Samples Mean Minimum
Feed Water
Silica
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Phosphorus
Treated Water
Silica
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Phosphorus
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
14
14
2
2
2
2
2
14
14
2
2
2
2
2
18.9
210
23
306
18.9
10.3
0.027
10.1
<200
<20
42
18.9
20.3
0.010
17.9
<200
<20
79
18.8
10.3
0.024
3.00
<200
<20
15
18.5
11.3
0.010
Maximum
19.7
339
26
532
19.0
10.3
0.030
14.3
<200
<20
69
19.2
29.2
0.010
Standard
Deviation
0.50
37.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.42
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
95%
Confidence
Interval
18.6-19.3
<200-235
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.82-12.4
<200 -<200
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable. Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Intervals were not calculated for parameters with
fewer than 8 values.
Note: The laboratory minimum reporting limit was used for statistical calculations for sample results less than the
laboratory minimum reporting limit.
50
-------
The analyses indicate silica was initially removed from the feed water by the treatment process.
However, silica concentrations in the treated water increased, as shown in Figure 4-7, during the
two-week Integrity Test. Like fluoride, as discussed previously, silica competes with arsenic for
adsorption sites on the media. However, the media has a lower affinity for silica than for arsenic.
Therefore, the increasing treated water silica concentration indicates that, as the total adsorption
site area decreases, the arsenic ions out-compete silica ions for the remaining sites. The ionic
preference series for Actiguard AAFS50 media is included in Table 2-3.
25
20
3 15
£
2
I 10
o
4/21/2003 4/23/2003 4/25/2003 4/27/2003 4/29/2003 5/1/2003 5/3/2003
Time
5/5/2003 5/7/2003
• Feed —•— Treated
Figure 4-7. Integrity Test silica concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
51
-------
Aluminum concentrations were apparently unaffected by the treatment process. Only one feed
water sample result was greater than the MDL of 200 ng/L and no aluminum was detected in the
treated water. These data indicate the media was not releasing aluminum to the treated water
above detectable levels. The feed and treated water aluminum concentrations are shown in
Figure 4-8.
400
350
300
^25°
I 200
100
50
0
\
. . . /.\
4/21/2003 4/23/2003
4/25/2003 4/27/2003
4/29/2003
Time
5/1/2003
5/3/2003
5/5/2003
5/7/2003
Feed
Treated
Figure 4-8. Integrity Test aluminum concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
Only two samples were collected for laboratory analyses for iron, manganese, chloride, sulfate,
and phosphorus during the Integrity Test. Therefore, the description of results for these
parameters is included in the Capacity Test analyses (Section 4.3).
4.2.6 Integrity Test Arsenic Analyses
Feed water and treated water arsenic samples were collected daily during the Integrity
Verification Test. Three of the sample sets were speciated to determine the distribution of the
total soluble arsenic between the arsenic III and the arsenic V species. The fraction of arsenic III
in the feed water affects the treatability of the water, because arsenic III is non-ionic at normal
drinking water pH ranges and is therefore generally more difficult to remove by ion exchange
treatment processes. The results of the laboratory arsenic analyses performed at the NSF
Laboratory are summarized in Table 4-6. During the Integrity Test, the feed water total arsenic
concentration averaged 15 ng/L, with approximately 5 [ig/L as the arsenic III species and 10
Hg/L as the arsenic V species. Treated water arsenic concentrations were all less than or equal to
the 2 |j,g/L method detection limit during the Integrity Test. Approximately 2,337 bed volumes
were treated during approximately 178 hours of equipment run time. Feed and treated arsenic
concentrations, as a function of treated water bed volumes, are shown in Figure 4-9. Complete
arsenic analyses results including a summary table, analytical test reports, sample submission
forms, and raw data are included in Appendix Q.
52
-------
Table 4-6.
Integrity
Test Laboratory
Arsenic Data
Feed Water
Number of
Samples
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
Total
Arsenic
Qig/L)
14
15
14
17
0.83
95% Confidence . .
T , , 15-16
Interval
Soluble
Arsenic
Qig/L)
3
15
14
17
N/A
N/A
Arsenic
(HR/L;
3
5
4
6
N/A
N/A
Calculated
III Arsenic V
((jg/L)
3
10
8
12
N/A
N/A
Treated Water
Total
Arsenic
(|jg/L)
14
<2
<2
2
0
<2-<2
Soluble
Arsenic
((jg/L)
3
<2
<2
<2
N/A
N/A
Arsenic III
Qig/L)
3
<2
<2
<2
N/A
N/A
Calculated
Arsenic V
Qig/L)
3
<2
<2
<2
N/A
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable. Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Intervals were not calculated for parameters with
fewer than 8 values.
Note: The laboratory minimum reporting limit was used for statistical calculations for sample results less than the
laboratory minimum reporting limit.
10
2,000
0 500 1,000 1,500
Treated Water Bed Volumes
F*~Feed -•- Treated I
Figure 4-9. Integrity Test arsenic concentration (4/22/03 to 5/5/03).
Field arsenic analyses were also performed using the ITS QUICK Low Range II test kit to
monitor the feed and treated water arsenic concentrations onsite. On-site arsenic data is included
in the logbook copies in Appendix F.
53
-------
4.3 Task 2: Adsorption Capacity Verification Testing
Adsorption Capacity Testing began on April 22, 2003, coinciding with the initiation of Integrity
Verification Testing. Water quality sampling and analysis, system monitoring, and data
collection were performed as scheduled in the test plan and as described in Chapter 3. The
treated water arsenic concentration reached the pre-defined breakthrough concentration of 11
Hg/L on October 3, 2003. The treatment system was shutdown on October 28, 2003, following
receipt of laboratory arsenic analyses results indicating more than three consecutive treated water
arsenic samples with an arsenic concentration greater than or equal to 11 ng/L. The treated water
arsenic concentration reached 11 (ig/L following approximately 2,350 hours of equipment
operation and treatment of approximately 28,800 to 29,200 bed volumes of water, based on the
calculated media bed volume of 1.20 cubic feet. Spent media samples were collected by Gannett
Fleming, and the treatment unit was disassembled and removed by Kinetico Inc., on November
4, 2003. The results of the Adsorption Capacity Testing are detailed in the following sections.
Adsorption Capacity Test data include data collected during the Integrity Test.
4.3.1 Experimental Objectives
The experimental objective of the Adsorption Capacity Testing is to provide operating and water
quality data relative to the ability of the arsenic adsorption media filter system to remove arsenic
from feed water under field conditions.
4.3.2 Capacity Test Operational Data
The treatment unit operated intermittently in concert with the operation of Well No. 1 during the
Capacity Test. Well No. 1 was operated in manual mode only to provide continuous flow for the
filter backwashes, which were observed and sampled by Gannett Fleming. Monitoring and on-
site data collection were performed as scheduled to verify the equipment performance. Table 4-7
summarizes the arsenic adsorption media filter unit operational data during the Capacity Test.
Copies of the original logbook data sheets and compiled operational data are included in
Appendix F. The non-integral flow control system, consisting of a pressure regulating valve and
diaphragm valve, maintained a relatively constant flow rate averaging 1.9 gpm.
54
-------
Table 4-7. Capacity Test Operational Data
Number of
Samples
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
95% Confidence
Interval
Before
Flow Rate
Adjustment
(gpm)
384
1.90
0.00
2.00
0.11
1.89- 1.91
After
Flow Rate
Adjustment
(gpm)
385
1.91
1.80
2.00
0.04
1.90- 1.91
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
375
51.2
27.0
60.0
5.1
50.6-51.8
Treated
Pressure
(psi)
375
50.1
24.0
59.0
5.2
49.5-50.7
Pressure
Differential
(psi)
375
1.1
0.5
3.0
0.3
1.0- 1.1
Daily Run Time
Average
(hours/day)
384
14.2
12.6
24.0(1)
0.6
14.1 - 14.3
During 2-hour continuous operation.
The equipment operated approximately 14 hours per day, on average. The feed water pressure
was maintained within the manufacturer's recommended pressure limits of 30 to 125 psi, with
the exception of one day during which the recorded feed water pressure was only 27 psi. The
filter bed headloss did not accumulate significantly as a function of run time, as shown in Figure
4-10. Headloss across the treatment unit averaged 1.1 psi, only slightly greater than the 1.0 psi
average headloss observed during the two-week Integrity Test. However, the headloss became
more variable and reached the maximum pressure differential observed during the test as the
media capacity for arsenic removal reached exhaustion. The clean-bed headloss, observed at the
initiation of testing, was approximately 0.5 psi.
75
500
1000 1500 2000
Cumulative Run Time (hours)
2500
3000
"Feed Pressure
• Treated Pressure
•Headloss
Figure 4-10. Capacity Test headloss and pressure as a function of cumulative run time.
55
-------
4.3.3 Capacity Test On-Site Water Quality Analyses
The results of on-site water quality analyses are summarized in Table 4-8. Copies of the original
logbook data sheets and compiled Integrity Test on-site water quality data are included in
Appendix F.
Table 4-8. Capacity Test On-Site Water Quality Data
Number of
Parameter Units Samples Mean Minimum
Feed Water
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Calciun
Magnesium
Hardness
Fluoride
Treated Water
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Calciun
Magnesium
Hardness
Fluoride
-
°C
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
-
°C
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
198
184
184
84
27
27
27
39
198
184
184
84
27
27
27
39
7.6
13.8
0.25
89
26.0
8.3
99
0.17
7.5
13.8
0.15
88
25.8
8.4
99
0.12
7.3
11.5
0.10
84
24.8
7.3
96
0.13
6.8
11.6
0.05
50
24.0
7.3
96
0.02
Maximum
7.8
15.5
3.9
92
28.0
8.7
104
0.27
7.8
15.7
0.75
92
26.4
9.2
100
0.17
Standard
Deviation
N/A
0.94
0.30
1.5
0.92
0.50
1.7
0.03
N/A
0.94
0.10
5.4
0.58
0.41
1.3
0.05
95%
Confidence
Interval
7.6-
13.6-
0.20-
89-
25.6-
8.1-
98-
0.16-
7.5-
13.6-
0.10-
87-
25.6-
8.2-
99-
0.10-
7.6
13.9
0.30
89
26.4
8.5
100
0.18
7.6
13.9
0.15
89
26.1
8.6
100
0.14
As discussed in the Integrity Test results (Section 4.2.4), the treatment process significantly
reduced the pH from the feed water compared to the treated water, at the beginning of the test.
The pH reduction is likely a function of the removal of alkalinity. Following the initial period of
approximately two weeks of significant pH reduction, the feed and treated water pH were
essentially equal for the remainder of the Capacity Test, as shown in Figure 4-11. On average,
the treated water pH was nearly equal to the feed water pH.
56
-------
6.80
6.60
3/20/03
5/9/03
i/28/03 8/17/03
Time
10/6/03
11/25/03
"Feed
-Treated
Figure 4-11. Capacity Test pH.
Due to the relatively short hydraulic detention time, the feed and treated water temperatures were
nearly equal throughout the test, as shown in Figure 4-12. Due to seasonal temperature changes,
the water temperature varied by approximately 4°C during the test.
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
e.
g
4.00
2.00
3/20/03
5/9/03
6/28/03 8/17/03
Time
10/6/03
11/25/03
| ' Feed ' Treated |
Figure 4-12. Capacity Test temperature.
57
-------
With the exception of several brief feed water turbidity spikes, the feed water turbidity was
generally low, averaging less than 0.25 NTU. Black particles, believed to be oxidized
manganese particles, were often observed in the feed water during the turbidity spikes. The
treated water turbidity was also consistently low, averaging 0.15 NTU. The lower treated water
turbidity was likely due to filtering by the treatment unit. The feed water turbidity and treated
water turbidity observed during the Capacity Test are shown in Figure 4-13.
4.50
4.00
3.50
_
H
3
3.00
2.50
•a 2.00
1.50
3/20/03
5/9/03
6/28/03
8/17/03
10/6/03
11/25/03
Time
• Feed •
• Treated
Figure 4-13. Capacity Test turbidity.
58
-------
As discussed in the Integrity Test results, the treatment process consumed alkalinity during the
first week of operation. Following the first week of operation, the feed and treated water
alkalinity was essentially equal, as shown in Figure 4-14.
100
I
3/20/03
10/6/03
11/25/03
\ * Feed * Treated \
Figure 4-14. Capacity Test alkalinity concentration.
59
-------
Initially, fluoride was almost entirely removed through the treatment process. However, as
shown in Figure 4-15, treated water fluoride levels gradually increased during the Integrity Test
period. The manufacturer has indicated fluoride competes with HAsO/f for adsorption.
However, the media has a lower affinity for fluoride than for arsenic. Therefore, fluoride
breakthough should be observed prior to arsenic breakthrough, as arsenic ions out-compete
fluoride ions for the remaining sites. Capacity Test results indicate that complete fluoride
breakthrough occurred by the end of the third week of testing, following treatment of
approximately 3,600 bed volumes.
0.30
3/20/03
5/9/03
6/28/03 8/17/03
Date
10/6/03
11/25/03
• Feed " Treated |
Figure 4-15. Capacity Test fluoride concentration.
60
-------
Capacity test water quality analyses indicate calcium, magnesium, and total hardness
concentrations in the feed water were relatively consistent during the test period and were
apparently unaffected by the treatment process, as shown in Figure 4-16.
120.0
100.0
•S 60.0
g
o
40.0
20.0
3/20/03
5/9/03
6/28/03 8/17/03
Time
10/6/03
11/25/03
• Calcium Feed
Magnesium Treated
• Calcium Treated
• Hardness Feed
• Magnesium Feed
Hardness Treated
Figure 4-16. Capacity Test calcium, magnesium, and total hardness.
61
-------
4.3.4 Capacity Test Laboratory Water Quality Analyses
The results of water quality analyses performed at the PADEP Laboratory are summarized in
Table 4-9. Laboratory water quality data are summarized and the analytical test reports and
sample submission forms are included in Appendix G. The raw data are on file at NSF.
Table 4-9. Capacity Test Laboratory Water Quality Data
Number of
Parameter Units Samples Mean Minimum
Feed Water
Silica
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Phosphorus
Treated Water
Silica
Aluminum
Iron«
Manganese
Chloride
Sulfate
Total
Phosphorus
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
40
40
28
28
28
28
28
40
40
27
28
28
28
28
19.0
203
34
144
18.7
10.5
0.032
15.3
<200
21
12
18.8
11.3
0.014
17.4
<200
<20
36
16.8
10.1
0.024
3.00
<200
<20
<10
17.0
10.3
0.010
Maximum
21.1
339
116
1481
20.4
11.2
0.043
20.4
<200
32
69
20.2
29.2
0.023
Standard
Deviation
0.80
22.0
24
286
0.85
0.26
0.005
4.46
0
4
11
0.82
3.5
0.004
95%
Confidence
Interval
18.7-
<200-
23-
16-
18.3-
10.4-
0.029 -
13.7-
<200-
<20-
<10-
18.4-
9.7-
0.012-
19.3
-212
45
272
19.1
10.6
0.034
17.0
<200
-23
- 17
19.2
12.9
0.016
([) The treated water iron concentration of 666 (ig/L on 7/3/03, as reported by the laboratory, was believed to be in
error and was not included in the statistical analyses.
The analyses indicate silica was initially removed from the feed water by the treatment process.
However, as shown in Figure 4-17, silica concentrations in the treated water increased during the
capacity test, until a complete breakthrough was achieved and the feed and treated water silica
concentrations were equal. Like fluoride, as discussed above, silica competes with arsenic for
adsorption on the media. The media has a lower affinity for silica than for arsenic. Therefore,
the increasing treated water silica concentration indicates the total adsorption site area has
decreased to the point where arsenic ions out-compete silica ions for the remaining media sites.
The ionic preference series for Actiguard AAFS50 media is included in Table 2-3.
62
-------
3/20/2003
5/9/2003
6/28/2003
8/17/2003
10/6/2003
11/25/2003
Time
•Feed
-Treated
Figure 4-17. Capacity Test silica concentration.
Aluminum concentrations were apparently unaffected by the treatment process. Only one feed
water sample result was greater than the MDL of 200 ng/L and no aluminum was detected in the
treated water. These data indicate that the media was not releasing aluminum to the treated
water above detectable levels. The feed and treated water aluminum concentrations are shown in
Figure 4-18.
400
350
3/20/2003
5/9/2003
6/28/2003 8/17/2003
Time
10/6/2003
11/25/2003
| + Feed ^ Treated!
Figure 4-18. Capacity Test aluminum concentration.
63
-------
Treated water iron levels were reduced in the treatment process to at or near the MDL of 20
, as shown in Figure 4-19.
140
120
Note: The treated water iron concentration of 666 ug/L on 7/3/03
was believed to be erroneous and was not included in
the statistical calculations or in this data plot.
3/20/2003
5/9/2003
6/28/2003 8/17/2003
Time
10/6/2003
11/25/2003
-Feed -*- Ti
reated I
Figure 4-19. Capacity Test iron concentration.
The feed water manganese concentration averaged 144 (ig/L during the Capacity Test. Feed
water manganese concentrations were somewhat variable, with concentrations spiking during
periods when particles of oxidized manganese were observed in the feed water. As shown in
Figure 4-20, manganese in the feed water was removed in the treatment process to a
concentration at or below the MDL of 10 |j,g/L for most of the weekly water quality samples. A
portion of the manganese may have been removed as a result of physical removal (i.e., filtration)
of paniculate manganese. During the filter backwashes observed by Gannett Fleming, the
backwash water was black in color and had manganese concentrations of 5,620 to 17,500 ng/L.
These high levels of manganese in the backwash water indicate some manganese was physically
filtered from the water and was easily removed during backwash, rather than adsorbed onto the
filter media.
64
-------
1600
1400
3/20/2003
5/9/2003
6/28/2003 8/17/2003
Time
* Feed —B—Treated
10/6/2003
11/25/2003
Figure 4-20. Capacity Test manganese concentration.
Chloride concentrations were apparently unaffected by the treatment process, as shown in
Figure 4-21.
25
20 '
15
o
3 10
0
3/20/2003
5/9/2003
6/28/2003 8/17/2003
Time
10/6/2003
11/25/2003
| * Feed ~ ~Treated]
Figure 4-21. Capacity Test chloride concentration.
65
-------
Sulfate concentrations were apparently unaffected by the treatment process during most of the
Capacity Test, with an increase in the average sulfate concentration in the treated water of less
than 1 mg/L. However, as shown in Figure 4-22, during the first few weeks of operation, the
treated water sulfate concentration was greater than the feed water concentration, possibly
indicating the treatment equipment or media were contributing to the treated water sulfate
concentration.
1
3/20/2003
5/9/2003
6/28/2003
10/6/2003
11/25/2003
Time
Feed ^ Treated |
Figure 4-22. Capacity Test sulfate concentration.
66
-------
As shown in Figure 4-23, phosphorus was initially removed from the feed water to below the
MDL (0.010 mg/L). As the media adsorption capacity was consumed, phosphorus removal
efficiency decreased and the treated water phosphorus concentration began to approach the feed
water concentration.
0.05
3/20/2003
5/9/2003
6/28/2003 8/17/2003
Time
10/6/2003
11/25/2003
• Feed •
• Treated
Figure 4-23. Capacity Test phosphorus concentration.
4.3.5 Capacity Test Arsenic Analyses
The results of arsenic analyses performed by the NSF Laboratory are summarized in Table 4-10.
Feed water and treated water arsenic samples were collected daily during the Integrity
Verification Test and weekly during the Capacity Test. As the treated water arsenic
concentration approached the pre-defined breakthrough concentration of 11 ng/L, samples were
collected three times per week. Seven of the sample sets were speciated to determine the
distribution of total soluble arsenic between the arsenic III and the arsenic V species. The
fraction of arsenic III in the feed water affects the treatability of the water, because arsenic III is
generally more difficult to remove by known treatment processes. The feed water total arsenic
concentration averaged approximately 14 ng/L, with approximately 4 |j,g/L as the arsenic III
species and 10 ng/L as the arsenic V species. As described in the previous section, the feed
water manganese concentration was significant and was observed to include particulate
manganese, which could impact the apparent arsenic removal capacity of the media by
enhancing arsenic removal.
Treated water arsenic concentrations were all less than or equal to the 2 |j,g/L method detection
limit during the initial 5 weeks of testing, which included approximately 621 to 727 hours of
equipment operation and approximately 8,000 to 9,113 bed volumes of water treated. The
treated water arsenic concentration reached 11 |j,g/L following 2,350 hours of equipment
67
-------
operation and treatment of approximately 28,800 to 29,200 bed volumes of water, based on the
calculated media bed volume of 1.20 cubic feet. The treated water arsenic concentration
increased slowly to the pre-defined breakthrough concentration. A steep breakthrough curve,
which is typical with ion exchange process, did not occur. The arsenic breakthrough may have
been slowed by mixing of the filter unit media during filter backwashes. Feed and treated water
arsenic concentrations as a function of treated water bed volumes are shown in Figure 4-24.
Complete arsenic analyses results, including a summary table, analytical test reports, raw data,
and sample submission forms, are included in Appendix Q.
Table 4-10.
Capacity
Test Laboratory Arsenic Data
Feed Water
Number of
Samples
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
Total
Arsenic
0±g/L)
47
14
12
17
1.1
95% Confidence
T, -I IT- IT-
Interval
Soluble
Arsenic
(HgflO
7
14
13
15
N/A
N/A
Arsenic III
0±g/L)
7
4
<2
6
N/A
N/A
Calculated
Arsenic V
0±g/L)
7
10
8
12
N/A
N/A
Treated Water
Total
Arsenic
0±g/L)
47
6
<2
13
4
5-7
Soluble
Arsenic
0±g/L)
7
4
<2
10
N/A
N/A
Arsenic III
0±g/L)
7
<2
<2
<2
N/A
N/A
Calculated
Arsenic V
0±g/L)
7
3
1
8
N/A
N/A
N/A = Not Applicable. Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Intervals were not calculated for parameters with
fewer than 8 values.
15,000 20,000
Treated Water Bed Volumes
I * Feed ^ Treated I
Figure 4-24. Capacity Test arsenic concentration.
68
-------
4.4 Equipment Operation
During the Verification Test, minimal time and/or attention were required to operate the
equipment, although significant time was spent on-site for testing purposes. The time required
for daily operation of the treatment unit included a 5-minute check of the flow rate and
verification there were no leaks in the system. Permanent installation of the equipment would
also require periodic on-site arsenic analyses (requiring approximately 15 to 20 minutes to
perform), and/or collection of samples for laboratory arsenic analyses. The filter unit control
module automatically initiated filter backwashes, with no operator attention required.
4.5 Backwash Water Quality, Quantity, and Flow Rate
The filter unit control module automatically initiated filter backwashes, with no operator
attention required. The unit backwashed a single filter unit at an interval of 11,000 to
12,000 gallons of treated water. Therefore, each filter was backwashed at an interval of 22,000
to 24,000 gallons. The filter unit not being backwashed continued to operate and produce treated
water (for consumption, but discharged to waste for this test), treated water used for the filter
backwash and purge, and treated water used for control module drive water. During the filter
backwashes, which were witnessed by Gannett Fleming, it was observed that the high combined
flow rate through the unit resulted in a headloss of approximately 10 psi. During manually
initiated backwashes, Well No. 1 was operated in manual mode, with the well discharge ball
valve set to maintain a minimum pressure of 30 psi. Due to the additional headloss during the
backwash cycle, the treated water pressure was reduced to less than 20 psi, which was the setting
of the non-integral pressure-regulating valve used in the flow control system. Therefore, the
treated water production was reduced to approximately 1.2 gpm. Four filter backwashes were
initiated and witnessed by the Gannett Fleming field-test engineer. Backwash, purge, and
control module drive water flow rate, total quantity of flow, and water quality results are
summarized in Tables 4-11 through 4-13. The backwash water was generally highly turbid and
black in color, which correlates with the very high concentration of manganese detected in the
laboratory samples. The elevated level of iron in the backwash water was unexpected given that
feed and treated water iron analyses results were primarily less than the 20 (ig/L detection limit.
The backwash water iron concentration could be a result of the buildup of particulate iron from
the feed water on the media and/or the result of media attrition.
The backwash water arsenic concentration averaged 24 |J,g/L, which is significantly greater than
the average feed water arsenic concentration of approximately 14 ng/L. The increased arsenic
concentration in the backwash water could have resulted from the removal of adsorbed arsenic
buildup within the filter unit or, more likely, from the removal of arsenic associated with the iron
and manganese in the backwash. The source of arsenic in the backwash could also be media
attrition. The aluminum concentration in the backwash water was greater than concentrations in
the feed water for the first two backwashes sampled, indicating the media may have contributed
to the level of aluminum in the backwash water. The third and fourth sampled backwash water
aluminum samples had concentrations less than the MDL.
During the backwash cycle, a high flow rate of more than 4 gpm (backwash and production
flow) was passing through a single treatment unit tank. This flow rate is much greater than the
normal production rate of 1.9 gpm; the minimal contact time of less than 1 minute could be the
69
-------
cause of arsenic concentrations in the purge and drive water samples greater than those in the
treated water samples.
The automatic filter backwash process occurred regularly, as described in the manufacturer's
literature. However, the total volume of backwash water, flow rate, and time varied somewhat
from the manufacturer's specifications. The filter backwash duration was approximately
18.3 minutes at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm, compared to the specified filter backwash of 13 minutes
at 4.0 gpm. Similarly, the purge cycle spanned approximately 5.9 minutes at a flow rate of
approximately 3.0 gpm, compared to a specified flow rate of 1.9 gpm for a 5-minute period. The
time between the backwash and rinse (purge) stages was just under 1 minute, as opposed to the
specified 3-minute interval. Also, the total volume of backwash and rinse water was indicated in
the equipment specifications as 62 gallons. The actual water use for backwash and rinse was
approximately 73 gallons, with an additional 9.8 gallons used for control module drive water, for
a total usage of approximately 83 gallons for the entire backwash cycle. Given a total production
of approximately 11,000 to 12,000 gallons between filter backwash cycles, the quantity of
backwash water used represents less than 1% of the total production. Backwash water quality
characteristics are sourcewater-dependent. The impact of this backwash water on the wastewater
treatment plant NPDES permit requirements was not evaluated.
Table 4-11. Backwash Water Characteristics
Date/Time
5/5/2003
7/3/2003
9/25/2003
10/28/2003
Number of
Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Volume
(gallons)
55.5
55.0
56.0
55.0
4
55.4
55.0
56.0
Duration
(min.)
16.50
18.58
18.08
20.17
4
18.33
16.50
20.17
Flow Rate
(gpm)
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.7
4
3.0
2.7
3.1
pH
(unit)
7.48
7.55
7.56
7.50
4
7.5
7.5
7.6
Turbidity
(MTU)
42.9
31.0
15.5
15.0
4
26.1
15.0
42.9
Arsenic
(|ig/L)
24
23
27
21
4
24
21
27
Iron
(|ig/L)
2,690
1,250
1,111
1,440
4
1,623
1,111
2,690
Manganese
(|jg/L)
17,500
5,650
5,751
5,620
4
8,630
5,620
17,500
Aluminum
(|jg/L)
658
201
<200
<200
4
315
200
658
Silica
(mg/L)
17.1
19.3
18.7
18.4
4
18.4
17.1
19.3
Table 4-12. Purge Water Characteristics
Volume Duration Flow Rate pH
Date/Time (gallons) (min.) (gpm) (unit)
Turbidity Arsenic
(NTU)
Iron
Manganese Aluminum Silica
(mg/L)
5/5/2003
7/3/2003
9/25/2003
10/28/2003
Number of
Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
18.0
17.5
18.0
17.8
4
17.8
17.5
18.0
5.58
5.75
5.55
6.67
4
5.89
5.55
6.67
3.2
3.0
3.2
2.7
4
3.0
2.7
3.2
7.55
7.64
7.53
7.50
4
7.6
7.5
7.6
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.44
4
0.40
0.40
0.45
3
7
11
12
4
8
3
12
<20
25
44
46
4
34
<20
46
42
39
48
39
4
42
39
48
<200
<200
<200
<200
4
<200
<200
<200
15.0
19.1
17.9
18.2
4
17.5
15.0
19.1
70
-------
Table 4-13. Control Module Drive Water Characteristics
Date/Time
5/5/2003
7/3/2003
9/25/2003
10/28/2003
Number of
Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Volume
(gallons)
9.75
9.75
9.75
9.80
4
9.8
9.8
9.8
Duration
(min.)
24.50
26.60
25.80
29.00
4
26.48
24.50
29.00
Flow Rate
(gpm)
0.4
0.37
0.38
0.34
4
0.4
0.3
0.4
pH
(unit)
7.56
7.57
7.54
7.54
4
7.6
7.5
7.6
Turbidity
(MTU)
0.14
0.50
0.14
0.17
4
0.25
0.15
0.50
Arsenic
(|jg/L)
3
6
11
12
4
8
3
12
Iron
(|jg/L)
<20
368
<20
<20
4
107
<20
368
Manganese Aluminum
(Hg/L) (M-g^L)
<10 <200
<10 <200
<10 <200
<10 <200
4 4
<10 <200
<10 <200
<10 <200
Silica
(mg/L)
16.2
19.3
19.2
18.0
4
18.2
16.2
19.3
The original backwash operational and on-site water quality data are included in the logbook
copies in Appendix F. Laboratory water quality analyses reports are included in Appendix G and
Appendix Q.
4.6 Spent Media Analyses
Following completion of the Adsorption Capacity Test, spent media core samples were extracted
from each filter tank, for the purposes of verification testing, using a 1.5-inch diameter, thin-
walled copper tube. The core samples were combined and thoroughly mixed in a large plastic
bag, then divided into two separate samples, one for TCLP and CA WET analyses to verify the
spent media exhibits no toxicity characteristics, and one for a media gradation analysis.
The complete results of TCLP and CA WET analyses, including QA/QC data, are included in
Appendix J. The results are summarized in Table 4-14. Arsenic was not detected in the TCLP
analysis of the spent media. Only barium and cadmium were detected in TCLP analyses, both at
concentrations less than the regulatory limit (RCRA). The arsenic concentration detected by CA
WET analyses was 0.25 mg/L (250 ng/L), well below the regulatory limit of 5 mg/L. Other
metals detected by CA WET analyses included barium, cadmium, copper, and zinc. All
concentrations were less than the regulatory limits.
71
-------
Table 4-14. Spent Media Characterization
Parameter
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Result
(mg/L)
ND
4.12(3)
0.015
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
TCLP
Reporting Limit
(mg/L)
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.080
0.020
0.10
0.0004
0.010
0.010
0.20
CA
Result
(mg/L)
0.25
6.30(3)
0.032(3)
ND
0.13
ND
ND(3)
ND(3)
ND
0.32
WET
Reporting Limit
(mg/L)
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.050
0.010
0.10
0.0040
0.010
0.010
0.05
TCLP(1)
Regulatory Limit
(mg/L)
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
N/A
5.0
0.2
N/A
5.0
N/A
CAWET(2)
Regulatory Limit
(mg/L)
5.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
25
5.0
0.2
20
5.0
250
(1) 40 CFR 261.24 Toxicity Characteristics.
(2) California Regulations 66261.24.
^ Laboratory data qualifications included in Appendix J.
ND = Non-Detect.
N/A= Not Applicable.
Visual observation and comparison of the spent media and new media revealed no observable
physical degradation. This observation was supported by gradation analyses performed by
Gannett Fleming, the results of which indicated almost identical new and spent media particle
size distributions. Gradation analyses reports are included in Appendix L.
4.7 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
4.7.1 Introduction
During each day of verification testing, arsenic adsorption media filter operating conditions and
treatment equipment performance were documented, as described in Section 3.11. The
volumetric flow rate through an adsorptive media vessel is a critical parameter and was
thoroughly monitored and documented. Adsorptive media performance is affected by the EBCT,
which varies directly with volumetric flow rate through a vessel.
4.7.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task was to accurately and fully document the operating conditions and
performance of the equipment. This task was performed in conjunction with both the system
Integrity Verification Testing and the Adsorption Capacity Verification Testing.
72
-------
4.7.3 Operations and Maintenance
The following are recommendations for criteria to be included in the Para-Flo™ Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Manual for adsorptive media removal of arsenic, as described in the
Technology Specific Test Plan (TSTP) within the ETV Protocol.
4.7.3.1 Operations. Kinetico Inc. provided an Owner's Manual and Installation Guide, which
provided much of the data and information needed to conduct the test. Technical sheets intended
for Gannett Fleming and NSF review only and not for publication were also submitted. The
Owner's Manual and Installation Guide are included in Appendix N; the technical sheets are on
file at Gannett Fleming and NSF. These manuals present specific information on the mechanical
operation of the filter tanks for a variety of media types, which include Actiguard AAFS50.
Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals provided readily understood information on the required or
recommended procedures (task-specific SOPs) related to the proper operation of the arsenic
adsorption media filter. Gannett Fleming discussed the following issues with Kinetico Inc. and
Alcan Chemicals prior to testing:
• Monitoring of Preconditioning of Adsorptive Media
o Utilizing the manufacturer's specific procedure for Actiguard AAFS50 adsorptive
media, including backwashing initially with at least 10 bed volumes to remove
fines;
o Backwash parameters (flow rate and time);
o Volume of wastewater; and
o Wastewater disposal requirements.
• Monitoring of Operation
o Use of an arsenic field test kit for the purpose of monitoring feed and treated
arsenic levels;
o Feed water pressure;
o Treated water flow rate;
o Treated water pressure;
o Maintenance and operator labor requirements; and
o Spare parts requirements.
• Operability
During verification testing and during compilation of process operating data, attention
was given to the arsenic adsorption media filter operability aspects. Among the factors
that were considered are:
o Fluctuation of flow rates, as well as the time interval at which flow adjustment
was needed;
o Ease of adjusting the flow rate when outside the design range; and
o Contacting the state regulatory agency to acknowledge the volumes and nature of
wastewater residue from the preconditioning of the media and backwash
wastewater.
73
-------
4.7.3.2 Maintenance. Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals provided readily understood
information on the required or recommended maintenance schedule for each piece of operating
equipment including, but not limited to:
• manual valves
• on-line measuring instruments
• control module
Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals provided readily understood information on the required or
recommended maintenance schedule for non-mechanical or non-electrical equipment including,
but not limited to:
• adsorptive media vessels
• feed lines
4.8 Task 4: Data Management
The data management plan was executed as presented in Section 3.12.3. Data were entered into
computer spreadsheets and submitted in electronic and hard copies. QA/QC forms, field
notebooks, and photographs are included in the appendices of this report.
4.9 Task 5: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
4.9.1 Introduction
Appropriate quality assurance and quality control measures were performed to ensure the quality
and integrity of all measurements of operational and water quality parameters during the ETV
testing. QA/QC procedures for the operation of the arsenic adsorption media filter and the
measured water quality parameters were maintained during the verification testing program as
specified in the test plan, and as described in Section 3.13.
On-site QA/QC activities were recorded in the logbooks and are included as Appendix F.
QA/QC activities included fluoride electrode, pH meter, turbidimeter, flow meter, and rotameter
calibrations, as well as collection and analysis of duplicate, blank, and spike samples, as
specified in the PSTP.
QA/QC efforts also included review of laboratory raw data (run logs and bench sheets);
calibration of on-site analytical instrumentation; calibration of totalizer meters; calibration of the
flow meter; analyses of split samples to verify Hach Test Kit analyses for alkalinity, calcium,
and hardness; pressure gauge calibration; collection of duplicate samples for on-site and
laboratory analyses; and spiked sample analyses. Performance evaluation analyses were also
performed by Gannett Fleming to demonstrate proficiency and accuracy of the analytical
equipment and of the laboratory techniques required for all on-site water quality analyses. All
data entry performed by the field engineer was checked by a second person.
74
-------
An on-site system inspection and audit for sampling activities and field operations were
conducted by NSF. The Gannett Fleming QA officer also conducted an on-site inspection during
the first two weeks of operation.
4.9.2 Data Quality Indicators
Data quality indicators include the following:
• Representativeness
• Accuracy
• Precision
• Statistical Uncertainty
• Completeness
4.9.2.1 Representativeness. Representativeness refers to the degree to which the data accurately
and precisely represent the conditions or characteristics of the parameter represented by the data.
Representativeness was ensured by executing a consistent sample collections protocol, by using
each method to its optimum capability to achieve a high level of accuracy and precision, and by
collecting sufficient data to be able to detect a change in operations.
4.9.2.2 Accuracy. Accuracy refers to the difference between a sample result and the true or
reference value. Accuracy was optimized through equipment calibrations, performance
evaluation sample analysis, collection of split samples, analysis of duplicate samples, and
analysis of spiked samples, as specified in the PSTP. Periodic calibration of field test equipment
included calibration of pressure gauges, rotameter, totalizer meters, portable turbidimeter, pH
meter, and fluoride meter/electrode, as specified in Table 4-15.
Table 4-15 Field
Instrument
Pressure Gauges
Rotameter
Instrument Calibration Schedule
Calibration Method
Dead weight calibration tester
Volumetric "bucket & stop watch"
Frequency
Biannual
Weekly
Acceptable
Accuracy
± 10%
± 10%
Totalizer Meters
Portable Turbidimeter
Portable pH/ISE Meter with Combination
pH/Temperature Electrode
Thermometer (NIST-traceable)
Portable pH/ISE Meter with Fluoride Ion
Selective Electrode
Volumetric "bucket & stop watch" Weekly ± 1.5%
Secondary turbidity standards Daily PE sample
Primary turbidity standards Weekly
Three-point calibration using 4.0,7.0 Daily ±5%
and 10.0 buffers
Calibration not required N/A
0.1 mg/L or 0.5 mg/L fluoride standard, Daily ±2%
and 10.0 mg/L fluoride standard
75
-------
4.9.2.2.1 Split Samples. Split samples for alkalinity, calcium, and total hardness were
collected and analyzed by the PADEP Laboratory during each of the first two days of the
Integrity Test to verify the accuracy of the Hach methods for on-site analyses of these
parameters. The results of the split sample analyses by the PADEP Laboratory, as shown
in Tables 4-16 and 4-17, were within the allowable 30% limit of difference established by
NSF. As a result, the Hach methods were utilized for the remainder of the verification
test.
Table 4-16. Split-Samples (April 22, 2003)
Feed Water
Parameter
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
Calcium (mg/L)
Hardness (mg/L as CaCOs)
GFLab
88.0
28.0
100.0
PADEP Lab
94.8
24.5
95
% Difference
7.
14
5.
2%
.3%
3%
Treated Water
GFLab
50.
26.
100
0
4
.0
PADEP Lab
53.4
24.8
96
% Difference
6.4%
6.5%
4.2%
Table 4-17. Split-Samples (April 23, 2003)
Parameter
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO,)
Calcium (mg/L)
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)
GFLab
88.0
28.0
104.0
Feed Water
PADEP Lab %
97.8
24.0
93
Difference
10.0%
16.7%
12%
GFLab
66.0
26.4
100.0
Treated Water
PADEP Lab %
73.8
23.0
90
Difference
10.6%
14.8%
11%
4.9.2.2.2 Performance Evaluation Samples for Water Quality Testing. Performance
evaluation (PE) samples are samples of known concentration prepared by an independent
performance evaluation laboratory and provided as unknowns to an analyst to evaluate
his or her analytical performance. Analyses of laboratory PE samples were conducted
before the initiation of verification testing. The control limits for the PE samples were
used to evaluate the field analytical method performance.
A PE sample comes with statistics derived from the analysis of the sample by a number
of laboratories using EPA-approved methods. These statistics include a true value of the
PE sample, a mean of the laboratory results obtained from the analysis of the PE sample,
and an acceptance range for sample values. The field laboratory and the PADEP
Laboratory provided results from the analysis of the PE samples, which meet the
performance objectives of the verification testing.
PE sample results for the PADEP Laboratory and the results of PE checks for on-site
water quality parameters are included in Appendix R.
The results of arsenic speciation column performance evaluation tests are also included in
Appendix R. The initial speciation column test produced less than acceptable accuracy
for arsenic III recovery. It was determined that the speciation columns were not
functioning properly and a second batch of columns (prepared by NSF) were tested and
76
-------
provided acceptable accuracy. This second batch of columns was used for Integrity
Verification Test arsenic speciation.
4.9.2.2.3 Spike Sample Analyses. Matrix spikes were not performed for the on-site
water quality parameters, including alkalinity, calcium, hardness, and fluoride; however,
analysis of spiked blanks for each parameter were analyzed for accuracy at a 10%
minimum frequency. A summary of on-site water quality spike sample analyses,
including calculated percent recoveries for each test, is included in Appendix F. Percent
recoveries for all of the spiked blanks for the on-site water quality parameters were
within the acceptable accuracy range of 30%.
The results of spike sample analyses performed by the PADEP Laboratory are included
in the laboratory analysis summary tables included in Appendix H. Spike sample
analyses were performed by the PADEP Laboratory at a frequency of 10%. Spike sample
analysis percent recoveries for iron, manganese, aluminum, and silica were within the
acceptable accuracy range of 30%. Spike sample results for chloride and sulfate were
within the acceptable accuracy range of 20%, while total phosphorus was within the
acceptable accuracy range of 10%.
The results of NSF Laboratory spike sample analyses for arsenic are included in the
laboratory QA/QC data in Appendix Q. Percent Kcoveries for arsenic were within the
acceptable accuracy range of 30%.
4.9.2.3 Precision. Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual
measurements. It provides an estimate of random error and can be measured by replication of
analyses. The precision levels for all duplicate analyses were calculated.
On-site water quality relative percent deviation calculations are included with the on-site water
quality data in Appendix F. Duplicate analyses for on-site water quality parameters were
performed at a 10% minimum frequency. One set of duplicates for turbidity had a precision level
of 31%; all other precision levels for the on-site water quality data were within the acceptable
precision level of 30%.
PADEP Laboratory relative percent deviation calculations for field duplicates are included in
Appendix G. Field duplicates of PADEP Laboratory samples were collected at a 10% minimum
frequency. A single duplicate sample for iron was not within the acceptable level of precision of
30%, but all other field duplicate analyses performed by the PADEP Laboratory were well
within acceptable precision levels.
PADEP Laboratory relative percent deviation calculations for laboratory duplicates are included
in Appendix H. The PADEP Laboratory performed duplicates analyses at a 10% minimum
frequency. All PADEP Laboratory duplicate analyses were within the acceptable levels of
precision.
77
-------
NSF relative percent deviation calculations for field and laboratory arsenic duplicates are
included in Appendix Q. All NSF Laboratory arsenic duplicate analyses were within the
acceptable precision level of 30%.
4.9.2.4 Statistical Uncertainty. Statistical uncertainty of water quality parameters (for data sets
of eight or more parameters) was evaluated through the calculation of the 95% confidence
interval around the sample mean.
4.9.2.5 Completeness. Completeness refers to the amount of valid, acceptable data collected
from a measurement process compared to the amount expected to be obtained. The completeness
objective for data generated during this verification test was based on the number of samples
collected and analyzed for each parameter and/or method. Completeness was defined as the
following for all measurements:
%C = (V/T) X 100
where: %C = percent completeness;
V = number of measurements judged valid; and
T = total number of measurements.
Calculation of data completeness was made for on-site water quality measurements, PADEP
Laboratory water quality measurements, and arsenic measurements. These calculations are
presented in Appendices F, G, and Q of this report, respectively. During the Integrity Test, no
duplicates were collected for the on-site water quality parameters, including pH, temperature,
turbidity, alkalinity, and fluoride; however, the level of completeness fir these parameters was
deemed acceptable for the amount of data collected during the Capacity Test, which included
Integrity Test data. 94% completeness was achieved for the feed and treated water alkalinity
measurements during the Capacity Test, which is below the 95% completeness objective
outlined in the ETV protocol. The level of completeness for all other parameters either met or
exceeded the completeness objectives.
78
-------
Chapter 5
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this report:
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th ed. Washington, D.C. APHA.
1995.
U.S. EPA/NSF International. ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic
Removal, April 2002.
79
-------
Chapter 6
Vendor Comments
Kinetico Inc. submitted the following comments concerning the ETV test and report. These
statements were not validated in the verification test and are the opinion of Kinetico, Inc.:
"The Para-Flo™ PF60 Model AA08AS was tested in the ETV process. In the time between
submitting the equipment and the writing of this report, our marketing department has re-named
much of Kinetico's product line. The new model name for this arsenic treatment system is the
2060f-OD (UltrAsorb-A) with Actiguard AAFS50. Although the new name reflects the use of a
larger tank inlet and outlet to facilitate faster flow rates, the fact that the flow must be restricted
to obtain a minimum empty bed contact time means that the arsenic treatment process will not be
materially affected in any way."
80
------- |