January 2003
03/9204/EPADWCTR
Environmental Technology
Verification Protocol
Drinking Water Systems Center
PROTOCOL FOR EQUIPMENT
VERIFICATION TESTING FOR
INACTIVATION OF
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Prepared by
ฎ
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
eiVetVeiV
-------
EPA/NSF ETV
PROTOCOL FOR EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING
FOR INACTIVATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Recommended by
the Steering Committee for the Verification of
Package Drinking Water Treatment Systems/Plants
on August 9, 1999
Modified in January 2003
With support from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification Program
Copyright 2003 NSF International 40CFR35.6450.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce all or part of this work, subject
to the limitation that users may not sell all or any part of the work and
may not create any derivative work therefrom. Contact ETV Drinking
Water Systems Center Manager at (800) NSF-MARK with any questions
regarding authorized or unauthorized uses of this work.
-------
NSF INTERNATIONAL
Mission Statement:
NSF International (NSF), an independent, not-for-profit organization, is dedicated to public
health safety and protection of the environment by developing standards, by providing education
and providing superior third party conformity assessment services while representing the
interests of all stakeholders.
NSF Purpose and Organization
For more than 52 years, NSF has been in the business of developing consensus standards that
promote and protect public health and the environment and providing testing and certification
services to ensure manufacturers and users alike that products meet those standards. Today,
millions of products bear the NSF Name, Logo and/or Mark, symbols upon which the public can
rely for assurance that equipment and products meet strict public health and performance criteria
and standards.
Limitations of use of NSF Documents
This protocol is subject to revision; contact NSF to confirm this revision is current. The testing
against this protocol does not constitute an NSF Certification of the product tested.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Throughout its history, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated
technologies to determine their effectiveness in preventing, controlling, and cleaning up
pollution. EPA is now expanding these efforts by instituting a new program, the Environmental
Technology Verification Program---or ETV-to verify the performance of a larger universe of
innovative technical solutions to problems that threaten human health or the environment. ETV
was created to substantially accelerate the entrance of new environmental technologies into the
domestic and international marketplace. It supplies technology buyers and developers,
consulting engineers, states, and U.S. EPA regions with high quality data on the performance of
new technologies. This encourages more rapid availability of approaches to better protect the
environment.
ETV Drinking Water Systems Center:
Concern about drinking water safety has accelerated in recent years due to much publicized
outbreaks of waterborne disease and information linking ingestion of arsenic to cancer incidence.
The U.S. EPA is authorized through the Safe Drinking Water Act to set numerical contaminant
standards and treatment and monitoring requirements that will ensure the safety of public water
supplies. However, small communities are often poorly equipped to comply with all of the
requirements; less costly package treatment technologies may offer a solution. These package
plants can be designed to deal with specific problems of a particular community; additionally,
they may be installed on site more efficientlyrequiring less start-up capital and time than
traditionally constructed water treatment plants. The opportunity for the sales of such systems in
other countries is also substantial.
The EPA has partnered with NSF, a nonprofit testing and certification organization, to verify
performance of small drinking water systems that serve small communities. It is expected that
January 2003
Page ii
-------
both the domestic and international markets for such systems are substantial. EPA and NSF have
formed an oversight stakeholders group composed of buyers, sellers, and states (issuers of
permits), to assist in formulating consensus testing protocols. 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 use is contemplated. NSF will meet this goal
by working with equipment manufacturers and other agencies in planning and conducting
equipment verification testing, evaluating data generated by such testing, and managing and
disseminating information. The manufacturer is expected to secure the appropriate resources to
support their part of the equipment verification process, including provision of equipment and
technical support.
The verification process established by the EPA and NSF is intended to serve as a template for
conducting water treatment verification tests that will generate high quality data for verification
of equipment performance. The verification process is a model process that can help in moving
small drinking water equipment into routine use more quickly. The verification of an
equipment's performance involves five sequential steps:
1. Development of a verification/Product-Specific Test Plan;
2. Execution of verification testing;
3. Data reduction, analysis, and reporting;
4. Performance and cost (labor, chemicals, energy) verification;
5. Report preparation and information transfer.
This verification testing program is being conducted by NSF International with participation of
manufacturers, under the sponsorship of the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD),
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Water Supply and Water Resources Division
(WSWRD) - Cincinnati, Ohio. NSF's role is to provide technical and administrative leadership
and support in conducting the testing. It is important to note that verification of the equipment
does not mean that the equipment is "certified" by NSF or EPA. Rather, it recognizes that the
performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations.
Partnerships
The U.S. EPA and NSF cooperatively organized and developed the ETV Drinking Water
Systems Center to meet community and commercial needs. NSF and the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators have an understanding to assist each other in promoting and
communicating the benefits and results of the project.
January 2003
Page iii
-------
ORGANIZATION AND INTENDED USE OF PROTOCOL AND TEST PLANS
NSF encourages the user of this protocol to also read and understand the policies related to the
verification and testing of package drinking water treatment systems and equipment.
The first Chapter of this document describes the Protocol required in all studies verifying the
performance of equipment or systems inactivating microbiological contaminants, the public
health goal of the Protocol. The remaining chapters describe the additional requirements for
equipment and systems using specific technologies to attain the goals and objectives of the
Protocol: the inactivation of microbiological contaminants.
Prior to the verification testing of a package drinking water treatment systems, plants and/or
equipment, the equipment manufacturer and/or supplier must select an NSF-qualified Field
Testing Organization (FTO). This designated FTO must write a "Product-Specific Test Plan".
The equipment manufacturer and/or supplier will need this protocol and the test plans herein and
other ETV Protocols and Test Plans to develop the Product-Specific Test Plan depending on the
treatment technologies used in the unit processes or treatment train of the equipment or system.
More than one protocol and/or test plan may be necessary to address the equipment's capabilities
in the treatment of drinking water.
Testing shall be conducted by an NSF-qualified FTO that is selected by the Manufacturer. Water
quality analytical work to be completed as a part of an ETV Testing Plan shall be contracted with
a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by a State, a third-party organization (i.e.,
NSF), or the U.S. EPA. For information on a listing of NSF-qualified FTOs and State, third-
party organization (i.e., NSF), or the U.S. EPA- accredited laboratories, contact NSF.
January 2003
Page iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The U.S. EPA and NSF would like to acknowledge those persons who participated in the
preparation, review and approval of this Protocol. Without their hard work and dedication to the
project, this document would not have been approved through the process which has been set
forth for this ETV project.
Chapter 1: Requirements for All Studies
Writer: Joe Jacangelo, Montgomery Watson
Technical reviewer: Jim Malley, University of New Hampshire
Chapter 2: Test Plan for Ozone-Based and Advanced Oxidation Processes
Writers: Holly Shorney and Gary Logsdon, Black & Veatch
Technical reviewer: Steve Duranceau, Boyle Engineering Corporation
Chapter 3: Test Plan for On-Site Halogen Generation Disinfectants
Writers: Anne Braghetta and Joe Jacangelo, Montgomery Watson
Technical reviewers: Jim Goodrich, U.S. EPA and Joan Rose, University of South
Florida
Chapter 4: Test Plan for Ultraviolet Radiation Processes
Writers: John Dyksen, United Water New Jersey; Jennifer Clancy, Clancy
Environmental Consultants, Inc.; and Joan Oppenheimer, Montgomery Watson
Technical reviewer: Jim Malley, University of New Hampshire
Steering Committee Members that voted on the document:
Mr. Jim Bell Dr. Gary S Logsdon
Mr. Jerry Biberstine, Chairperson Mr. David Pearson
Mr. Stephen W. Clark Mr. Renee Pelletier
Mr. John Dyson Mr. Dallas Post
Mr. Joe Harrison Mr. John Trax
Dr. Joseph G. Jacangelo
January 2003
Page v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Inactivation of
Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements for All Studies 1-1
Chapter 2: EPA/NSF ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan - Ozone-Based and
Advanced Oxidation Processes for Inactivation of Microbiological Contaminants 2-1
Chapter 3: EPA/NSF ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan - On-Site Generation of
Halogen Disinfectants for Inactivation of Microbiological Contaminants 3-1
Chapter 4: EPA/NSF ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan - Ultraviolet Radiation
Technologies for Inactivation of Microbiological Contaminants 4-1
January 2003
Page vi
-------
CHAPTER 1
EPA/NSF ETV
PROTOCOL FOR EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING FOR
INACTIVATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL STUDIES
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Copyright 2003 NSF International 40CFR35.6450.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce all or part of this work, subject
to the limitation that users may not sell all or any part of the work and
may not create any derivative work therefrom. Contact ETV Drinking
Water Systems Center Manager at (800) NSF-MARK with any questions
regarding authorized or unauthorized uses of this work.
January 2003
Page 1-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-4
1.1 Objectives 1-6
1.2 Scope 1-6
2.0 EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING RESPONSIBILITIES 1-7
2.1 Verification Testing Organization and Participants 1-7
2.2 Organization 1-8
2.3 Verification Testing Site Name and Location 1-8
2.4 Site Characteristics 1-8
2.5 Responsibilities 1-8
3.0 EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES AND DESCRIPTION 1-9
3.1 Equipment Capabilities 1-9
3.2 Equipment Description 1-10
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 1-11
4.1 Objectives 1-11
4.2 Equipment Characteristics 1-12
4.2.1 Qualitative F actors 1-12
4.2.2 Quantitative Factors 1-12
4.2.3 Evaluation of Reactor Hydrodynamics 1-13
4.3 Water Quality Considerations 1-13
4.3.1 Feedwater Quality 1-14
4.3.2 Treated Water Quality 1-14
4.3.3 Analysis of Disinfectant Residuals 1-15
4.4 Microbial Inactivation Challenge Organisms 1-15
4.5 Spiking of Challenge Organisms for Seeding Studies 1-17
4.6 Recording Data 1-19
4.7 Recording Statistical Uncertainty for Assorted Water Quality Parameters 1-20
4.8 Verification Testing Schedule 1-21
5.0 FIELD OPERATIONS PROCEDURES 1-22
5.1 Equipment Operations and Design 1-22
5.2 Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment 1-22
5.3 Initial Operations 1-23
5.4 Equipment Operation and Water Quality Sampling for Verification Testing 1-23
January 2003
Page 1-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP) 1-24
6.1 Purpose and Scope 1-24
6.2 Quality Assurance Responsibilities 1-24
6.3 Data Quality Indicators 1-24
6.3.1 Representativeness 1-25
6.3.2 Accuracy 1-25
6.3.3 Precision 1-26
6.3.4 Statistical Uncertainty 1-27
6.4 Water Quality and Operational Control Checks 1-27
6.4.1 Quality Control for Equipment Operation 1-27
6.4.2 Water Quality Data 1-27
6.4.2.1 Duplicate Analysis of Selected Water Quality Parameters 1-28
6.4.2.2 Method Blanks 1-28
6.4.2.3 Spiked Samples 1-28
6.4.2.4 Travel Blanks 1-28
6.4.2.5 Microbiological Travel Samples 1-28
6.4.2.6 Performance Evaluation Samples for On-Site Water Quality
Testing 1-28
6.5 Microbial Viability 1-29
6.6 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 1-29
6.6.1 Data Reduction 1-29
6.6.2 Data Validation 1-29
6.6.3 Data Reporting 1-30
6.7 System Inspections 1-29
6.8 Reports 1-30
6.8.1 Status Reports 1-30
6.8.2 Inspection Reports 1-30
6.9 Corrective Action 1-30
7.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING 1-31
7.1 Data Management and Analysis 1-31
7.2 Report of Equipment Testing 1-32
8.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES 1-32
9.0 REFERENCES 1-33
January 2003
Page 1-3
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is the protocol to be used for verification testing of equipment designed to
achieve inactivation of microbiological contaminants. The equipment Field Testing Organization
(FTO) must adhere to the requirements of this protocol in developing a Product-Specific Test
Plan (PSTP). The final submission of the PSTP shall:
include the information requested in this protocol;
conform to the format identified herein; and
conform to the specific NSF International (NSF) Equipment Verification Testing Plan or
Plans related to the statement or statements of objectives that are to be verified.
The testing of new technologies and materials that are unfamiliar to the NSF/EPA will not be
discouraged. It is recommended that resins or membranes or any other material or chemical in
the equipment conform to NSF International/American National Standards Institute
(NSF/ANSI) Standard 60 and 61.
The PSTP may conform to the requirements of more than one Testing Plan. For example, testing
might be undertaken to verify performance of a system employing oxidants or mixed disinfection
processes, ultraviolet (UV) radiation (thermal or light irradiation), or other processes for
inactivation of microbiological contaminants.
This protocol document is presented in two fonts. The non-italicized font provides the rationale
for the requirements and background information that the Field Testing Organization may find
useful in preparation of the PSTP. The italicized text indicates specific study protocol
deliverables that are required of the Field Testing Organization and that must be incorporated in
the PSTP.
The following glossary terms are presented here for subsequent reference in this protocol:
Distribution System - a system of conduits by which a potable water supply is conveyed
to consumers, typically by a network of pipelines.
EPA - The United States Environmental Protection Agency, its staff or authorized
representatives.
Equipment - Testing equipment for use in the Verification Testing Program may be
defined as either a package plant or modular system.
Field Testing Organization (FTO) - An organization qualified to conduct studies and
testing of package plants or modular systems in accordance with protocols and test plans.
The role of the Field Testing Organization is to complete the application on behalf of the
company; to enter into contracts with NSF, as discussed herein, arrange for or conduct
the skilled operation of a package plant or modular system during the intense period of
testing during the study and the tasks required by the protocol.
Manufacturer - a business that assembles and/or sells package plant equipment and/or
modular systems. The role of the Manufacturer is to provide the package plant and/or
modular system and technical support during the Verification Testing Program. The
January 2003
Page 1-4
-------
Manufacturer is also responsible for providing assistance to the third party testing
organization during operation and monitoring of the package plant or modular system in
the Verification Testing Program.
Modular System - A functional assembly of components for use in a drinking water
treatment system or packaged and/or modular plant, each part of which provides a limited
form of treatment of the feedwater(s) and which is discharged to another packaged and/or
modular plant module or the final step of treatment.
NSF - NSF International, its staff, or other authorized representatives.
Plant Operator - the person working for a small water system who is responsible for
operating water treatment equipment to produce treated drinking water. This person may
also collect samples, record data and attend to the daily operations of equipment
throughout the testing periods.
Package plant - a complete water treatment system including all components from
connection to the feedwater(s) through discharge to the distribution system.
Product-Specific Test Plan (PSTP) - A written document of procedures for on-site/in- line
testing, sample collection, preservation, and shipment and other on-site activities
described in the EPA/NSF ETV Protocol(s) and Test Plan(s) that apply to a specific make
and model of a package plant/modular system.
Protocol - A written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, and scope of the
study as well as the test plan(s) for the conduct of the study. Protocol will be used for
reference during Manufacturer participation in Verification Testing Program.
Report - A written document that includes data, test results, findings, and any pertinent
information collected in accordance with a protocol, analytical methods, procedures, etc.,
in the assessment of a product whether such information is preliminary, draft or final
form.
Testing Plan - A written document that describes the procedures for conducting a test or
study for the application of water treatment technology. At a minimum, the test plan will
include detailed instructions for sample and data collection, sample handling and sample
preservation, precision, accuracy, and reproducibility goals, and quality assurance and
quality control requirements.
Testing Laboratory - An organization certified by a third-party independent organization,
federal agency, or a pertinent state regulatory authority to perform the testing of drinking
water samples. The role of the testing laboratory in the verification testing of equipment
is to analyze the water samples in accordance with the methods and meet the pertinent
quality assurance and quality control requirements described in the protocol, test plan and
PSTP.
Verification - to establish the evidence on the range of performance of equipment and/or
devices under specific conditions following a predetermined study protocol.
January 2003
Page 1-5
-------
Verification Statement - A written document that summarizes a final report reviewed and
approved by NSF on behalf of the EPA or directly by the EPA.
Water System - the water system that operates using water treatment equipment to
provide potable water to its customers.
1.1 Objectives
The scope of this protocol is designed to address drinking water systems that use innovative
technologies to achieve inactivation of microbiological contaminants. The specific objectives of
the verification testing may be different for each system, depending upon the statement of
objectives of the specific equipment to be tested. The performance objectives are used to
establish data quality objectives (DQOs) in order to develop the experimental design of the
verification test. The broader the performance objectives, the more comprehensive the PSTP
must become to achieve the DQOs. Verification testing conducted at a single site may not
represent every environmental situation which may be acceptable for the equipment tested, but it
will provide data of sufficient quality to make a judgment about the application of the equipment
under conditions similar to those encountered in the verification testing. The objectives
developed by each Manufacturer will be defined and described in detail in the PSTP developed
for each piece of equipment. The objectives of the equipment verification testing may include:
Generation of field data appropriate for verifying the performance of the equipment;
Evaluation of new advances in equipment and equipment design.
An important aspect in the preparation of verification testing is to describe the procedures that
will be used to develop field data, and verify performance, reliability, and costs of the water
treatment equipment. The PSTP shall incorporate the Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) elements needed to provide data of appropriate quality sufficient to reach a defensible
position regarding the equipment performance. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) shall
describe quality control and assurance procedures in detail and shall be provided by the Field
Testing Organization as part of the PSTP.
1.2 Scope
This protocol outlines the verification process for equipment designed to achieve inactivation of
microbiological contaminants. The scope of this protocol includes Testing Plans for drinking
water treatment systems designed to achieve inactivation of microbiological contaminants.
These contaminants include but are not limited to protozoa, bacteria and viruses. Verification of
the inactivation of protozoan cyst and oocyst contaminants may be performed but methods for
determining the viability of cysts and oocysts are interim and subject to change.
An overview of the verification process and the elements of the PSTP to be developed by the
Field Testing Organization are described in this protocol. Specifically, the PSTP shall define the
following elements of the verification testing:
Roles and responsibilities of verification testing participants;
Procedures governing verification testing activities such as equipment operation and
process monitoring; sample collection, preservation, and analysis; and data collection and
interpretation;
January 2003
Page 1-6
-------
Experimental design of the Field Operations Procedures;
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for conducting the
verification testing and for assessing the quality of the data generated from the
verification testing; and,
Health and safety measures relating to biohazard, chemical hazard, electrical, mechanical
and other safety codes.
Content of Product-Specific Test Plan:
The structure of the PSTP must conform to the outline below. The required components of the
PSTP are described in greater detail in the sections following the outline. The required content
of the PSTP and the responsibilities of participants are listed at the end of each section.
TITLE PAGE
FOREWORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS - The Table of Contents for the PSTP should include the
headings provided in this document although they may be modified as appropriate for a
particular type of equipment to be tested.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - The Executive Summary describes the contents of the PSTP
(not to exceed two pages). A general description of the equipment and the statement of
performance objectives which will be verified during testing shall be included, as well as
the testing locations, a schedule, and a list of participants.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS - A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in
the PSTP should be provided.
EQUIPMENT VERIFICA TION TESTING RESPONSIBILITIES (described in the sections
below)
EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES AND DESCRIPTION (described in the sections below)
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (described in the sections below)
FIELD OPERATIONS PROCEDURES (described in the section below)
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (described in the section below)
DA TA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS (described in the section below)
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (described in the section below)
2.0 EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 Verification Testing Organization and Participants
Manufacturers and their designated Field Testing Organization shall provide a table including the
name, affiliation, and mailing address of each participant, a point of contact, description of
participant's role, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address in the PSTP.
The equipment provided by the Manufacturer shall explicitly meet all the requirements of
Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA), Underwriters Laboratory (UL), NSF and other appropriate agencies in
order to ensure operator safety during Verification Testing.
January 2003
Page 1-7
-------
2.2 Organization
The Field Testing Organization in its application on behalf of the Manufacturer shall provide the
organizational structure for the verification testing showing lines of communication.
2.3 Verification Testing Site Name and Location
This section discusses background information on the verification testing site(s), with emphasis
on the quality of the feedwater, which in some cases may be the source water at the site. The
PSTP must provide the site names and locations at which the equipment will be tested. In some
cases, the equipment will be demonstrated at more than one site. The equipment may be tested
under different conditions of feedwater quality (or source water quality) and a range of seasonal
climate and weather conditions.
2.4 Site Characteristics
The PSTP must include a description of the test site. This shall include a description of where
the equipment will be located. If the feedwater to the equipment is the source water for an
existing water treatment plant, describe the raw water intake, the opportunity to obtain raw water
without the addition of any chemicals, and the operational pattern of raw water pumping at the
full-scale facility (is it continuous or intermittent?). If applicable, the Field Testing Organization
shall also describe in the PSTP how the water flow to the test equipment will be separated from
the existing treatment facilities with such equipment as backflow preventers, air gaps, break
tanks, etc.
The source water characteristics shall be described and documented. The PSTP shall also
describe facilities to be used for handling the treated water and wastes (i.e., residuals) produced
during the Verification Testing. Can the required water flows and waste flows produced be dealt
with in an acceptable way? Are water and air pollution discharge permits needed?
2.5 Responsibilities
This section identifies the organizations involved in the testing and describes the primary
responsibilities of each organization. The responsibilities of the Manufacturer will vary
depending on the type of verification testing. Multiple Manufacturers testing at one time is also
an option.
The Field Testing Organization shall be responsible for:
Providing needed logistical support, establishing a communication network, and
scheduling and coordinating the activities of all verification testing participants;
Ensuring that locations selected as test sites have feedwater quality consistent with the
objectives of the verification testing (Manufacturer may recommend a verification testing
site(s));
Managing, evaluating, interpreting, and reporting on data generated by the verification
testing;
January 2003
Page 1-8
-------
Evaluating and reporting on the performance of the microbiological inactivation
technologies.
The manufacturer shall be responsible for provision of the equipment to be evaluated.
Content of PSTP Regarding Equipment Verification Testing Responsibilities:
The Field Testing Organization, shall be responsible for including the following elements in the
PSTP:
Definition of the roles and responsibilities of appropriate verification testing
participants;
A table which includes the name, affiliation, and mailing address of each participant, a
point of contact, description of participant's role, telephone andfax numbers, and e-mail
address;
Organization of operational and analytical support;
List of the site name(s) and location(s);
Description of the test site(s), the site characteristics and identification of where the
equipment will be located.
Manufacturer Responsibilities:
Provision of complete, field-ready equipment for verification testing;
Provision of logistical, and technical support, as required;
Provision of technical assistance to the qualified testing organization during operation
and monitoring of the equipment undergoing verification testing.
3.0 EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES AND DESCRIPTION
3.1 Equipment Capabilities
The Manufacturer and their designated Field Testing Organization shall identify the water
quality objectives to be achieved in the statement of performance objectives of the equipment to
be evaluated in the verification testing. The statement of performance objectives shall be clearly
stated in the PSTP. The statement of performance objectives must be specific and verifiable by a
statistical analysis of the data. An example of a satisfactory statement of performance objectives
would be:
"This system is capable of achieving inactivation of 99.9% (3-log removal) of Giardia
muris protozoa in feedwaters with total organic carbon concentrations less than 5.0 mg/L
and turbidities less than 1 NTU (Nephelometric turbidity units)."
A statement of performance objectives such as: "This system will achieve inactivation of
microbiological contaminants in accordance with the requirement of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule on a consistent and dependable basis," would not be acceptable.
The Manufacturer shall be responsible for identification of which microbiological contaminants
shall be monitored for inactivation under the statement of performance objectives. The statement
January 2003
Page 1-9
-------
of performance objectives prepared by the Field Testing Organization in collaboration with the
Manufacturer shall also indicate the range of water quality under which the equipment can be
challenged while successfully treating the feedwater. Statements of performance objectives that
are too easily met may not be of interest to the potential user, while performance objectives that
are overstated may not be achievable. The statement of performance objectives forms the basis
of the entire equipment verification testing and must be chosen appropriately. Therefore, the
design of the PSTP should include a sufficient range of feedwater quality to permit verification
of the statement of performance objectives.
Statements should also be made in the PSTP regarding the applications of the equipment, the
known limitations of the equipment and what advantages it provides over existing equipment.
3.2 Equipment Description
Description of the equipment for verification testing shall be included in the PSTP. Data plates
shall be permanent and securely attached to each production unit. The data plate shall be easy to
read in English or the language of the intended user, located on the equipment where it is readily
accessible, and contain at least the following information:
a. Equipment Name
b. Model #
c. Manufacturer's name and address
d. Electrical requirements - volts, amps, and Hertz
e. Serial Number
f. Warning and Caution statements in legible and easily discernible print size
g. Capacity or output rate (if applicable)
In addition, the equipment provided by the Manufacturer shall be provided with all OSHA
required safety devices (e.g., safety shields or shrouds, emergency shut-off switches, etc.).
Content of PSTP Regarding Equipment Capabilities and Description:
The PSTP shall include the following documents:
Description of the equipment to be demonstrated including photographs from relevant
angle or perspective;
Brief introduction and discussion of the engineering and scientific concepts on which the
microbiological inactivation capabilities of the water treatment equipment are based;
Description of the equipment and each process included as a component in the modular
system including all relevant schematics;
Brief description of the physical construction/components of the equipment, including the
general environmental requirements and limitations, required consumables, weight,
transportability, ruggedness, power and other needed, etc.;
Statement of typical rates of consumption of chemicals, a description of the physical and
chemical nature of wastes, and rate of waste generation (concentrates, residues, etc.);
Definition of the performance range of the equipment;
Identification of any special licensing requirements associated with the operation of the
equipment;
Description of the applications of the equipment and the inactivation capabilities of the
treatment system relative to existing equipment. Comparisons shall be provided in such
January 2003
Page 1-10
-------
areas as: treatment capabilities, requirements for chemicals and materials, power, labor
requirements, suitability for process monitoring and operation from remote locations,
ability to be managed by part-time operators;
Discussion of the known limitations of the equipment. The following operational details
shall be included: the range of feedwater quality suitable for treatment with the
equipment, the upper limits for concentrations of microorganisms that can be inactivated
to concentrations below the manufacturer-specified level, level of operator skill required
to successfully use the equipment.
Manufacturer Responsibilities:
Provision of complete, field-ready equipment with the following information explicitly
provided: Equipment Name, Model #, Manufacturer's name and address, Electrical
requirements (e.g., volts, amps, and Hertz), Serial Number, Warning and Caution
statements in legible and easily discernible print size, Capacity or output rate (if
applicable)
Provision of equipment complete with all OSHA required safety devices (e.g., safety
shields or shrouds, emergency shut-off switches, etc.) verification testing.
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
This section discusses the objectives of the verification testing, factors that must be considered to
meet the performance objectives, and the statistical analysis and other means that NSF will use to
evaluate the results of the verification testing.
4.1 Objectives
The objectives of verification testing are to evaluate equipment in the following areas: 1)
performance relative to the manufacturer's stated range of equipment objectives; 2) the impacts
of variations in feedwater quality (such as turbidity, particle concentration, background microbial
concentration, temperature, pH, alkalinity, iron, manganese and/or other appropriate inorganics,
etc.) on equipment performance; 3) the logistical, human, and economic resources necessary to
operate the equipment; and 4) the reliability, ruggedne ss, cost, range of usefulness, and ease of
operation.
A PSTP shall include those treatment tests (seeding studies) listed in ETV test plans that are
most appropriate. For example, if equipment is only intended for inactivation of viruses, there
would be no need to conduct testing to evaluate the inactivation of Giardia and
Cryptosporidium.
The Field Testing Organization must prepare a statistical design of experiments which identifies
independent and dependent variables, numbers of experimental runs to be performed, QA/QC of
the data, and statistical techniques that will be used to analyze the data and draw meaningful
conclusions. This design will be evaluated by NSF staff to insure that it can adequately address
the statement of performance objectives stated in the PSTP.
January 2003
Page 1-11
-------
4.2 Equipment Characteristics
This section discusses factors that will be considered in the design and implementation of the
equipment verification testing. These factors include ease of operation, degree of operator
attention required, response of equipment and treatment process to changes in feedwater quality,
electrical requirements, system reliability features including redundancy of components, feed
flow requirements, discharge requirements, spatial requirements for the equipment (footprint),
unit processes included in treatment train, chemical consumption requirements, and the response
of the treatment process and equipment to intermittent operation.
Verification testing procedures must simulate routine conditions. This can be achieved by field
testing or by laboratory testing under conditions that simulate field operations as closely as
possible.
4.2.1 Qualitative Factors
Some factors, while important, are difficult or impossible to quantify. These are
considered qualitative factors. Important factors that cannot easily be quantified are the
portability of equipment, the modular nature of the equipment, the safety of the
equipment and the logistical requirements necessary for using it.
Typical qualitative factors to be discussed are listed below, and others may be added.
The PSTP shall discuss those factors that are appropriate to the test equipment.
Reliability or susceptibility to environmental conditions
Equipment safety
Effect of operator experience on results.
4.2.2 Quantitative Factors
Many factors of the equipment characteristics can be quantified by various means in this
Verification Testing Program. Some can be measured while others cannot be controlled.
Typical quantitative factors to be discussed are listed below, and others may be added.
The PSTP shall discuss those factors that are appropriate to the test equipment.
Power and consumable supply (such as chemical and materials) requirements
Cost of operation, expendables, and waste disposal
Hydrodynamics of equipment
Length of operating cycle
Estimated labor hours (and labor classification) for operation and maintenance.
These quantitative factors will be used as an initial benchmark to assess equipment
performance.
January 2003
Page 1-12
-------
4.2.3 Evaluation of Reactor Hydrodynamics
Characterization of the reactor hydrodynamics within each system is essential to define
the contact time of feedwaters with chemical or physical mechanisms for microbiological
inactivation. This characterization shall be accomplished through tracer tests conducted
on each component of the inactivation equipment under the flow, temperature, and water
quality conditions that shall be employed during microbiological inactivation
experiments.
The Manufacturer shall propose a tracer test methodology in the PSTP that shall be used
to demonstrate the flow conditions through the microbiological contaminant inactivation
equipment. It is recommended that the tracer testing be conducted using a pulse-feed
(slug-dose) method, with a known volume of an appropriate tracer material. The goal of
tracer testing is to provide a profile of the tracer concentration as a function of time
through the reactor. For appropriate tracer test methods, the Manufacturer is referred to
the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) study
"Experimental Methodologies for the Determination of Disinfection Effectiveness" (Haas
et al., 1993) and to Appendix C of the Guidance Manual (GM) for Compliance with the
Filtration and Disinfection Requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule for Public
Water Systems using Surface Water Sources (USEPA, 1989). The latter Appendix
document provides a discussion of alternative tracer test methods and indicates the
frequency at which samples shall be taken to adequately define the residence time
distribution.
The duration of each tracer test shall be based on the expected hydraulic conditions
within the reactor. It is difficult to precisely determine the tracer testing duration for a
particular reactor a priori, because the hydrodynamic characteristics of a particular
reactor are not known until tracer testing is conducted. Therefore, tracer studies
conducted in this Verification Testing Program shall be performed to include sampling
over a minimum time period of three Hydraulic Detention Times (HDTs). Details of
each tracer study shall be addressed in individual equipment Testing Plans.
4.3 Water Quality Considerations
The primary treatment goal of the equipment employed in this Verification Testing Program is to
achieve inactivation of microbiological contaminants found in feedwaters (or raw waters) such
that product waters are of acceptable microbiological quality. The experimental design in the
PSTPs shall be developed so the relevant questions about water treatment equipment capabilities
can be answered.
Manufacturers should carefully consider the capabilities and limitations of their equipment and
assist the Field Testing Organization in preparing PSTPs that sufficiently challenge their
equipment. The Manufacturer should adopt an experimental approach to verification testing that
would provide a broad market for their products, while recognizing the limitations of the
equipment, and not conducting microbiological inactivation testing that would be beyond the
capabilities of the equipment. A wide range of contaminants or water quality problems that can
be addressed by water treatment equipment varies, and some treatment equipment can address a
broader range of problems than other types. Manufacturers shall use ETV Testing Plans as the
basis for the specific PSTPs.
January 2003
Page 1-13
-------
4.3.1 Feedwater Quality
One of the key aspects related to demonstration of equipment performance in verification
testing is the range of feedwater quality that can be treated successfully. The
Manufacturer and Field Testing Organization should consider the influence of feedwater
quality on the quality of treated waters produced by the equipment, such that product
waters meet the microbiological water quality goals or regulatory requirements. As the
range of feedwater quality that can be treated by the equipment becomes broader, the
potential applications for treatment equipment with verified performance objectives may
also increase.
The specific water quality parameters to be monitored in the Verification Testing
Program shall be specified by the Field Testing Organization in the PSTP. The following
feedwater quality constituents may be important for treatment equipment intended to
inactivate microbiological contaminants:
density (concentration) of microorganisms (bacteria, viruses and protozoa)
turbidity, particles
dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total organic carbon (TOC), or UV-254
absorbance
biological dissolved organic carbon (BDOC) or assimilable organic carbon
(AOC)
temperature, with temperatures near freezing having potential for the most
difficult treatment conditions
pH and alkalinity
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen
total dissolved solids (TDS), and other individual inorganic parameters
presence of background microbial populations including algae and other
organisms
iron, manganese, and hardness
4.3.2 Treated Water Quality
Production of treated water of a high quality in terms of microbiological constituents
shall be the primary goal of the water treatment systems included in this Equipment
Verification Program. The statement of performance objectives provided by the Field
Testing Organization shall be related to the inactivation of viruses and bacteria.
In addition, the Field Testing Organization may wish to make a statement about
performance objectives of the equipment for removal or inactivation of other
contaminants. Other water quality parameters that are useful for assessing equipment
performance may be considered in the Field Testing Organization's statement of
objectives. These may include:
particle count or concentration
total and fecal coliform bacteria
heterotrophic plate count bacteria (HPC)
concentrations of disinfectant by-products (i.e., trihalomethanes (THMs)
haloacetic acids (HAAs), aldehydes)
January 2003
Page 1-14
-------
BDOC or AOC
Giardia and Cryptosporidium inactivation
Furthermore, some water treatment equipment can be used to meet aesthetic goals.
Water quality considerations that may be important for some small systems include:
color, taste and odor
total dissolved solids
iron and manganese
corrosivity
4.3.3 Analysis of Disinfectant Residuals
In the case that chemical disinfectants are employed in the microbiological contaminant
inactivation equipment, measurement of chemical disinfectant residuals shall be
performed on the treated waters where appropriate. Methods for water sampling and the
analysis of disinfectant residuals (as well as disinfectant by-products) shall be included in
the PSTP. At a minimum, measurement of chemical disinfectant residuals shall be
performed at times corresponding to the initial, midpoint, and final times for each
microbiological inactivation experiment, with testing at additional intermediate times as
deemed necessary. Where appropriate, techniques included in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater shall be employed for measurement of
disinfectant residuals. Analysis of Disinfection By-Products for this Verification Testing
Program shall be conducted according to the appropriate Standards Methods or EPA
laboratory techniques.
4.4 Microbial Inactivation Challenge Organisms
The general types of microbiological challenge organisms for which the inactivation protocol
may be demonstrated are listed below:
bacteria or bacterial spores
viruses
protozoan cysts or oocysts (only interim non-standard methods available)
In the Product-Specific Test Plan, the Field Testing Organization shall indicate which
microorganisms will be used as test organisms for the microbiological inactivation challenge
studies. Cryptosporidium and Giardia may be obtained from: Waterborne Inc., 6047 Hurst
Street, New Orleans, LA 70118-6129 or equivalent. Bacteria, viruses and phages shall be
obtained from: American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), 12301 Parklawn Drive, Rockville,
MD 20852 or equivalent. The following criteria are recommended for demonstrating
equivalency:
(a) use of the same isolate strain
(b) use of the same host species
(c) use of same processing and cleanup techniques
(d) demonstration of comparable ID50 value
Appropriate methodologies for handling and spiking of microorganisms is provided in the
section below. The PSTP shall state a standard method for assessing the viability of the
January 2003
Page 1-15
-------
microbiological species (only non-standard methods available for protozoan cysts or oocysts)
employed for inactivation challenge experiments prior to initiation of the seeding studies.
Requirements for determination of microbial viability are discussed further in Section 6.5 of this
Protocol and the notice below. The procedures for evaluation of microbial viability shall be
thoroughly described by the Field Testing Organization in the PSTP. Analysis for detection,
enumeration and viability of microbiological contaminants shall be performed according to
standard or EPA-approved methodologies, at a state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited
laboratory.
A peer-reviewed standard method is not available for protozoan cyst or oocyst inactivation. At
present, animal infectivity is considered the gold standard and will be the only method that will
be accepted for ETV testing. Use of an alternate method, such as cell culture, will be considered
if sufficient data is presented to demonstrate the equivalency of this method to animal infectivity
for the intended application. Guidelines for demonstrating method equivalency are available
from EPA's Alternative Test Procedure (ATP) protocol.
The animal infectivity protocol used by the FTO must be described in the FOD and must meet
the following minimum requirements:
(1) The source of the oocysts and cysts must be fully documented with respect to: (a)
inoculum isolate used; (b) breed, strain, age and supplier of host animal; (c) harvesting and
cleanup techniques used, age of cyst/oocysts used in the disinfection experiments; (d) how
the cysts/oocysts were stored and maintained prior to use. Cysts/oocysts should be no more
than four weeks old at the time of the disinfection studies and the viability of the
cysts/oocysts used in pilot-scale or full-scale seeding studies must be demonstrated. This
demonstration must be performed by verifying that the positive control data obtained by
infectivity measurements is at least 80 percent of the hemacytometer count data.
(2) The mechanics of the assay procedure must be fully documented with respect to the
breed and strain and age and supplier of the host animals receiving the inoculant, inoculant
procedures, the cohort size used for each experimental condition, the date of inoculation and
sacrifice of host animals, the portion of the animal and processing used for isolation of
cysts/oocysts, and the microscopy technique used to determine presence of cysts/oocysts.
(3) The host infectivity dose-response model must be fully described. Either a linear
transformation of a logistic dose-response with model parameter estimation using maximum
likelihood (Finch et al., 1994) or a Most Probable Number (MPN) method with MPN
calculations made using the Thomas formula approximation or solution of the full MPN
equation (Oppenheimer et al., 2000) must be used. For either method, it is imperative that
the ID50 value required to calculate the concentration of cysts/oocysts is either directly
measured for each batch of cysts/oocysts utilized, or that only reduction of infectivity before
and after disinfection is reported from the dose-response data. Because this reduction is
based on the rD50 value appearing in both the numerator and the denominator, it is not
necessary to know the actual value, provided that the same batch of cysts/oocysts is ised
with and without disinfection.
(4) The QA/QC criteria must be fully detailed and all data produced outside of these
criteria must be flagged as suspect. The following minimum checks must be performed: (a)
each disinfection study must include a positive control; (b) the assay calculated value of
January 2003
Page 1-16
-------
"infectious" cysts/oocysts for the positive control must fall within one log of the
hemacytometer counts for total number of cysts/oocysts spiked; (c) hemacytometer counts
must be performed for all disinfection samples and these counts should not differ by more
than 0.25 log.
NOTICE:
An expert workshop on the state of disinfection research for the control of Cryptosporidium in
drinking water was convened under the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the AWWA Research Foundation (AWWARF) in Washington, DC, from January 12
to 14, 1998. Information on this workshop can be found on the internet at the web site:
http://www.awwarf.com/newprojects/crypwksp/crypwksp.htm
The goals and objectives for this workshop were:
Discuss the existing data on Cryptosporidium inactivation;
Determine a common frame of reference for the variety of studies;
Determine what information is missing or controversial.
Among other issues discussed was the definition of viability:
"For no microorganism, is the definition of viability unambiguous. Different endpoints
may yield different results. Hence a procedure for incorporating experimental data
obtained using different endpoints would be desired.
"Animal infectivity is a reference method. There is a pressing need for developing a
secondary reference method for disinfection testing that is easier to perform and less
costly to maintain.
"Interpretation of data taken by alternative (non-reference) methods must be grounded in
the development of a quantitative relationship between a reference method and the
alternative methods."
4.5 Spiking of Challenge Organisms for Seeding Studies
In the PSTP, the Field Testing Organization shall thoroughly describe the methodology to be
used for conducting any microbiological inactivation challenge studies with the equipment. In
this section, a general protocol for conducting microbiological contaminant seeding or challenge
studies is described below, as based upon the methods developed in the AWWARF study
"Experimental Methodologies for the Determination of Disinfection Effectiveness" (Haas et al.,
1993).
In spiking of challenge microorganisms to the inactivation equipment, a concentrated mixture of
microorganisms shall be prepared and fed to the main water stream at a known feed rate. The
dilution of the concentrated microbial suspension is based upon the density of microorganisms in
the concentrated mixture, the flow rate of water to the equipment, and the desired concentration
of microorganisms in the disinfection reactor. The following equation shall be used by the Field
Testing Organization prior to initiation of the seeding studies in order to provide a crude
estimation of the appropriate flowrate and concentration of enumerable challenge organisms to
be employed during the spiking of challenge microorganisms:
January 2003
Page 1-17
-------
Qm -
Dm
Cm Dm
IQ-
i =1
where: Qm
Qwi
Dm
Cn
is the flow rate of concentrated microbiological contaminant suspension (L/min)
is the sum of the flow rates of raw water and any other added flows to the
equipment (Qwi, Qw2, -,Qwi) such as disinfectant solutions (L/min)
is the desired initial steady-state concentration of microorganisms in the
disinfection reactor following dilution and prior to any inactivation (infectious
units/L)
is the concentration of enumerable microorganisms in the feed suspension
(infectious units/L)
The appropriate flowrate and concentration of enumerable microorganisms shall be initially
estimated based upon Equation 1; however, the final influent density of microorganisms shall be
measured directly from the feedstream to the disinfection system.
A control experiment with the challenge microorganisms in the absence of disinfectant shall be
conducted in order to obtain a mass balance on microorganisms through the inactivation
equipment, and to evaluate the potential losses of microorganisms through the system. The Field
Testing Organization shall provide an SOP as an Appendix m to the PSTP that confirms with the
outline provided below.
SOP for Conducting Microbial Challenge Tests
Stated Objective: The stated objective must agree with the statement of performance
objectives to be verified provided in the PSTP. It must specify:
(a) the reactor to be tested (manufacturer, model, and scale),
(b) the flowrate(s) to be challenge tested,
(c) the number of lamps and lamp settings to be challenge tested,
(d) the challenge organism,
(e) the targeted level of inactivation.
Description of the Challenge Organism:
(a) Discuss the rationale for utilizing the selected organism,
(b) Safety factors and precautions needed in working with the organism,
(c) Supplier and catalog number or host and harvest and processing protocols,
(d) Proper storage, handling, and disposal techniques,
(f) Methodology of verifying the viability throughout usage.
Description of the Spiking Protocol:
(a) Quantity of organisms or criteria for quantity of organisms required per seeding,
(b) Duration of each seeding experiment and required feed stock volume,
(c) Detailed descriptions of challenge organism feed storage and mixing conditions and
injection techniques,
(d) Flow measurement techniques and target flow values for feed stock and influent to
achieve steady state conditions,
(e) Requirement for any modifications to influent water quality (i.e. dechlorination, pH
adjustment, etc.),
(f) Cleaning protocols for all equipment utilized in challenge study.
January 2003
Page 1-18
-------
Description of the Challenge Protocol:
(a) Number of replicates and sample collection points,
(b) Time and cleaning required between seedings to achieve uncontaminated steady state,
(c) Sample collection techniques and containers,
(d) Chain of custody protocols and handling requirements and holding times,
(e) Name and credentials of laboratory performing analysis,
(f) Citation of analytical methodology,
(g) Total number of replicates and experimental conditions to be tested.
Description of Experimental Quality Control
(a) Required number and type of positive and negative controls (at least one negative
control with reactor non-operational, one positive control verifying feed stock
concentration, and one trip blank per day's operation is required),
(b) Discussion of schedule and sequence for collection of controls during performance
challenge experiments,
(c) Laboratory precision and accuracy acceptance criteria for release of data.
4.6 Recording Data
For all microbiological challenge experiments, data should be maintained on the pH, temperature
and other water quality parameters listed in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 above. The following items
of information shall also be maintained for each experiment:
Disinfectant type and dose. In the case where multiple chemical disinfectants are used,
the type of disinfectants must also be specified (e.g. ozone, chlorine, monochloramine,
etc.);
Water type (raw water, pretreated feedwater, product water, waste water);
Experimental run (e.g. 1st run, 2nd run, 3rd run, etc.);
Contact time; initial time is considered the time at which microorganisms and disinfectant
come into contact with reactor vessel. If reactor vessel is not appropriate terminology,
Manufacturer shall explain mechanism of inactivation and design of inactivation
chamber;
UV intensity readings; UV intensity shall be recorded at the time each sample is
withdrawn from the reactor for processes that rely on UV irradiation.
Residual; residual disinfectant concentrations are measured for each sample withdrawn
from the reactor vessel. This is only applicable to technologies that use a residual for
disinfection. Not applicable for UV irradiation or other non-chemical disinfection
techniques;
Microbiological Contaminant Concentration; this value is a derived quantity equal to the
number of organisms divided by the equivalent volume examined;
Dilution factor; for the microbial analytical techniques the dilution or concentration
factor should be expressed as a decimal fraction (0.2 means that one volume of the
diluted material is equivalent to 0.2 volumes of original material);
Analyzed volume of sample actually plated or examined for microorganism counts; this
volume of sample is important for accurate reporting of microbial analytical techniques.
Number of organisms; the counted number of bacterial colonies, plaque forming units or
cysts shall be recorded;
Power input where appropriate for selected microbiological inactivation techniques;
January 2003
Page 1-19
-------
Power fluctuations (surges, brown outs, etc.) during testing; these power factors are
particularly important for determining the inactivation effectiveness of
electrotechnologies.
4.7 Recording Statistical Uncertainty for Assorted Water Quality Parameters
For the analytical data obtained during verification testing, 95% confidence intervals shall be
calculated by the Field Testing Organization for the log transformation of the inactivation data
(i.e., log{N/No}) and also for water quality parameters in which eight or more samples were
collected. The specific testing plans shall specify which water quality parameters shall be
subjected to the requirements of confidence interval calculation. Data quality objectives and the
vendor's performance objectives shall be used to assess which water quality parameters are
critical and thus require confidence interval statistics.
For the broad range of water quality parameters, the consistency and precision of water quality
data can be evaluated with use of the confidence interval. As the name implies, a confidence
interval describes a population range in which any individual population measurement may exist
with a specified percent confidence. The following formula shall be employed for confidence
interval calculation:
confidence interval =Xฑt \S/^Jn) (2)
2
where: X is the sample mean;
S is the sample standard deviation;
n is the number of independent measurements included in the data set;
t is the Student's 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 the value of
0.05, thus simplifying the equation for the 95% confidence interval in the following manner:
95%) confidence interval = X ฑ tn_x 0 975 (s / V//") (3)
With input of the analytical results for pertinent water quality parameters into the 95%
confidence interval equation, the output will appear as the sample mean value plus or minus the
width of the confidence interval. The results of this statistical calculation may also be presented
as a range of values falling within the 95% confidence interval. For example, the results of the
confidence interval calculation may provide the following information: 520 +/- 38.4 mg/L, with
a 95% confidence interval range described as (481.6, 558.4).
Calculation of confidence intervals shall not be required for equipment performance results (e.g.,
filter run length, cleaning efficiency, in-line turbidity or in-line particle counts, etc.) obtained
during the equipment testing verification program. However, as specified by the Field Testing
Organization, calculation of confidence intervals may be required for such analytical parameters
as feedwater microbiological contaminant concentration, TOC, DOC, grab samples of turbidity,
THMs, HAAs. In order to provide sufficient analytical data for statistical analysis, the Field
Testing Organization shall collect three discrete water samples at one set of operational
January 2003
Page 1-20
-------
conditions for each of the specified water quality parameters during a designated testing period.
The procedures and sampling requirements shall be provided in detail in the Verification Testing
Plan.
4.8 Verification Testing Schedule
Verification testing activities include equipment set-up, initial operation, verification operation,
and sampling and analysis. Initial operations are intended to be conducted so that equipment can
be tested to be sure it is functioning as intended. If feedwater (or source water) quality
influences operation and performance of equipment being tested, the initial operations period
serves as the shake-down period for determining appropriate operating parameters. The schedule
of testing may also be influenced by coordination requirements with a utility.
For water treatment equipment involving chemical/physical inactivation of microbiological
contaminants, an initial period of bench-scale testing of feedwater followed by treatment
equipment operation may be needed to determine the appropriate disinfectant dosages,
disinfectant type where appropriate, and pH values of feedwater that will result in successful
functioning of the process train.
A minimum of one verification testing period shall be performed. Additional verification testing
periods may be necessary to verify the manufacturer's objectives, such as in the treatment of
surface water where additional testing during each season may assist in verifying an objective.
For systems treating solely groundwater or surface waters of consistent quality due to
pre-treatment, one verification testing period may be sufficient. If one verification testing period
is selected, the feed water should represent the worst-case concentrations of contaminants which
can challenge the manufacturer's objectives. For example, climatic changes between rainy and
dry seasons may produce substantial variability in feedwater turbidity, TOC, and other water
quality parameters. Cold weather operations will be an important component of seasonal water
quality testing because of the impact of cold temperatures on water viscosity and inactivation
efficacy. Cold water temperatures (1ฐC to 5ฐC) have been shown to have an adverse affect on
some water treatment processes due to the increase in water viscosity and alteration of
diffusional processes at cold temperatures. Cold temperature considerations may be particularly
important for thermal inactivation processes. Although one testing period satisfies the minimum
requirement of the ETV program, manufacturers are encouraged to use additional testing periods
to cover a wider range of water quality conditions.
Content of PSTP Regarding Experimental Design:
The PSTP shall include the following elements:
Identification of the qualitative and quantitative factors of equipment operation to be
addressed in the Verification Testing Program, including estimated costs of operation
and labor.
Detailed development of the statistical design for the Verification Testing with
identification of dependent and independent variables, number of experimental runs to be
performed, QA/QC of the data and statistical techniques that will be used to analyze the
data.
Description of hydrodynamic tracer study to be conducted on the microbial inactivation
equipment;
January 2003
Page 1-21
-------
Identification and discussion of the particular water treatment issues and microbiological
contaminants that the equipment is designed to address, how the equipment will solve the
problem, and who would be the potential users of the equipment;
Identification of the range of key water quality parameters, given in applicable ETV
Testing Plans, which the equipment is intended to address andfor which the equipment is
applicable;
Identification of the key parameters of treated water quality and analytical methods that
will be used for evaluation of equipment performance during the inactivation of
microbiological contaminants. Parameters of significance for treated water quality were
listed above in Sections 4.3.2 and in applicable ETV Testing Plans;
Description of data recording protocol for equipment operation, water quality
parameters, and microbial water quality parameters;
Description of the confidence interval calculation procedure for selected water quality
parameters;
Detailed description of the methodologies to be used for conducting the microbiological
inactivation challenge studies with the equipment.
Detailed outline of the verification testing schedule.
5.0 FIELD OPERATIONS PROCEDURES
5.1 Equipment Operations and Design
The ETV Testing Plan specifies procedures that shall be used to ensure the accurate
documentation of both equipment performance and treated water quality. Careful adherence to
these procedures will result in definition of verifiable performance of equipment. The specific
reporting techniques, methods of statistical analysis and the QA/QC of microbial data and
inactivation procedures shall be stated explicitly by the Field Testing Organization in the PSTP
before initiation of the Verification Testing Program. (Note that this protocol may be associated
with a number of different ETV Testing Plans for different types of microbiological inactivation
process equipment.)
The design aspects of water treatment process equipment often provide a basis for approval by
state regulatory officials and can be used to determine if equipment evaluated in the Verification
Testing Program can be employed under higher or lower flow rate conditions. The field
operations procedures and testing conditions provided by the Field Testing Organization shall
therefore be specified in the PSTP to demonstrate treatment capabilities over a broad range of
operational conditions and feedwater qualities.
5.2 Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment
The successful implementation of the verification testing will require detailed coordination and
constant communication between all verification testing participants.
All field activities shall be thoroughly documented. Field documentation will include field
logbooks, photographs, field data sheets, and chain-of-custody forms. The Field Testing
Organization shall be responsible for maintaining all field documentation. Field notes shall be
kept in a bound logbook. Each page shall be sequentially numbered and labeled with the project
name and number. Field logbooks shall be used to record all water treatment equipment
January 2003
Page 1-22
-------
operating data. Completed pages shall be signed and dated by the individual responsible for the
entries. Errors shall have one line drawn through them and this line shall be initialed and dated.
All photographs shall be logged in the field logbook. These entries shall include the time, date,
direction, subject of the photograph, and the identity of the photographer. Any deviations from
the approved final PSTP shall be thoroughly documented in the field logbook at the time of
inspection and in the verification report.
Original field sheets and chain-of-custody forms shall accompany all samples shipped to the
analytical laboratory. Copies of field sheets and chain-of-custody forms for all samples shall be
provided at the time of the QA/QC inspection and included in the verification report.
As available, electronic data storage and retrieval capabilities shall be employed in order to
maximize data collection and minimize labor hours required for monitoring. The guidelines for
use of data-loggers, laptop computers, data acquisition systems etc., shall be detailed by the Field
Testing Organization in the PSTP.
5.3 Initial Operations
Initial operations of the microbiological inactivation equipment will allow Field Testing
Organizations to refine their operating procedures and to make operational adjustments as
needed to successfully treat the feedwater. Information generated through this period of
operation may be used to revise the PSTP, if necessary. A failure at this point in the verification
testing could indicate a lack of capability of the process equipment and the verification testing
might be canceled.
5.4 Equipment Operation and Water Quality Sampling for Verification Testing
All field activities shall conform to requirements provided in the PSTP that was developed and
approved for the verification testing being conducted. All sampling and sample analysis
conducted during the Verification Testing Program shall be performed according to the
procedures detailed by the Field Testing Organization in the PSTP.
If unanticipated or unusual situations are encountered that may alter the plans for equipment
operation, water quality sampling, or data quality, the Field Testing Organization must discuss
the situation and planning modifications with the NSF technical lead. Any deviations from the
approved final PSTP shall be thoroughly documented.
During routine operation of water treatment equipment, the total number of hours during which
the equipment is operated each day shall be documented. In addition, the number of hours each
day during which the operator was working at the treatment plant performing tasks related to
water treatment and the operation of the treatment equipment shall be documented. Furthermore,
the tasks performed during equipment operation shall be described by the Field Testing
Organization, the Water System or the Plant Operator.
January 2003
Page 1-23
-------
Content of PSTP Regarding Field Operations Procedures:
The PSTP shall include the following elements:
A table summary of the proposed time schedule for operating and testing,
Field operating procedures for the equipment and performance testing, based upon the
ETV Testing Plan with listing of operating parameters, ranges for feedwater quality, and
the sampling and analysis strategy.
Provision of detailed sampling and analysis plan for water quality and microbial
parameters.
Manufacturer Responsibilities:
Provision of all equipment neededfor field work associated with this verification testing;
Provision of a complete list of all equipment to be used in the verification testing. A table
format is suggested;
Provision of field operating procedures.
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
The QAPP for this verification testing specifies procedures that shall be used to ensure data
quality and integrity. Careful adherence to these procedures will ensure that data generated from
the verification testing will provide sound analytical results that can serve as the basis for
performance verification.
6.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this section is to outline steps that shall be taken by operators of the equipment
and by the analytical laboratory to ensure that data resulting from this -verification testing is of
known quality and that a sufficient number of critical measurements are taken.
6.2 Quality Assurance Responsibilities
A number of individuals may be responsible for monitoring equipment operating parameters and
for sampling and analysis QA/QC throughout the verification testing. Primary responsibility for
ensuring that both equipment operation and sampling and analysis activities comply with the
QA/QC requirements of the PSTP (Section 6) shall rest with the Field Testing Organization.
QA/QC activities for the state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited analytical laboratory
that analyzes samples sent off-site shall be the responsibility of that analytical laboratory's
supervisor. If problems arise or any data appear unusual, they shall be thoroughly documented
and corrective actions shall be implemented as specified in this section. The QA/QC
measurements made by the off-site analytical laboratory are dependent on the analytical methods
being used.
6.3 Data Quality Indicators
The data obtained during the verification testing must be of sound quality for conclusions to be
drawn on the equipment. For all measurement and monitoring activities conducted for
January 2003
Page 1-24
-------
equipment verification, the NSF and EPA require that data quality parameters be established
based on the proposed end uses of the data. Data quality parameters include four indicators of
data quality: representativeness, accuracy, precision, and statistical uncertainty.
Treatment results generated by the equipment and by the laboratory analyses must be verifiable
for the purposes of this program to be fulfilled. High quality, well documented analytical
laboratory results are essential for meeting the purpose and objectives of this verification testing.
Therefore, the following indicators of data quality shall be closely evaluated to determine the
performance of the equipment when measured against data generated by the analytical
laboratory.
6.3.1 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. In this
verification testing, representativeness will be ensured by executing consistent
microbiological challenge spiking procedures and consistent sample collection
procedures, including sample locations, timing of sample collection, sampling
procedures, sample preservation, sample packaging, and sample shipping.
Representativeness also will be ensured by using each method at its optimum capability
to provide results that represent the most accurate and precise measurement it is capable
of achieving. For equipment operating data, representativeness entails collecting a
sufficient quantity of data during operation to be able to detect a change in operations.
6.3.2 Accuracy
For water quality analyses, accuracy refers to the difference between a sample result and
the reference or true value for the sample. Loss of accuracy can be caused by such
processes as errors in standards preparation, equipment calibrations, loss of target analyte
in the extraction process, interferences, and systematic or carryover contamination from
one sample to the next. Loss of accuracy for microbial species can be caused by such
factors as error in dilution or concentration of microbiological organisms, systematic or
carryover contamination from one sample to the next, improper enumeration techniques,
etc. The Field Testing Organization shall discuss the applicable ways of determining the
accuracy of the chemical and microbiological sampling and analytical techniques in the
PSTP.
For equipment operating parameters, accuracy refers to the difference between the
reported operating condition and the actual operating condition. For water flow, accuracy
may be the difference between the reported flow indicated by a flow meter and the flow
as actually measured on the basis of known volumes of water and carefully defined times
(bucket and stopwatch technique) as practiced in hydraulics laboratories or water meter
calibration shops. For mixing equipment, accuracy is the difference between an
electronic readout for equipment RPMs and the actual measurement based on counted
revolutions and measured time. Accuracy of head loss measurement can be determined
by using measuring tapes to check the calibration of piezometers for gravity filters or by
checking the calibration of pressure gauges for pressure filters. Meters and gauges must
be checked periodically for accuracy, and when proven to be dependable over time, the
time interval between accuracy checks can be increased. In the PSTP, the Field Testing
January 2003
Page 1-25
-------
Organization shall discuss the applicable ways of determining the accuracy of the
operational conditions and procedures.
From an analytical perspective, accuracy represents the deviation of the analytical value
from the known value. Since true values are never known in the field, accuracy
measurements are made on analysis of QC samples analyzed with field samples. QC
samples for analysis shall be prepared with laboratory control samples, matrix spikes and
spike duplicates. It is recommended for verification testing that the PSTP include
laboratory performance of one matrix spike for determination of sample recoveries.
Recoveries for spiked samples are calculated in the following manner:
%Recoveiy= 100(SSR-SR)
SA
where: SSR = spikes sample result
SR = sample result
SA = spike amount added.
Recoveries for laboratory control samples are calculated as follows:
, 100( found concentration)
% Recovery = -
true concentration
For acceptable analytical accuracy under the verification testing program, the recoveries
reported during analysis of the verification testing samples must be within control limits,
where control limits are defined as the mean recovery plus or minus three times the
standard deviation.
6.3.3 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and
provides an estimate of random error. Analytical precision is a measure of how far an
individual measurement may be from the mean of replicate measurements. The standard
deviation and the relative standard deviation recorded from sample analyses may be
reported as a means to quantify sample precision. The percent relative standard deviation
may be calculated in the following manner:
5(l00)
% Relative Standard Deviation = -
Xaverage
where: S = standard deviation
Xaverage = the arithmetic mean of the recovery values.
Standard Deviation is calculated as follows:
January 2003
Page 1-26
-------
Standard Deviation =
1
i= 1
n- 1
where: X, = the individual recovery values
X = the arithmetic mean of then recovery values
n = the number of determinations.
For acceptable analytical precision under the verification testing program, the percent
relative standard deviation for drinking water samples must be less than 30%.
6.3.4 Statistical Uncertainty
Statistical uncertainty of the water quality parameters analyzed shall be evaluated through
calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the sample mean. Description of the
confidence interval calculation is provided in Section 4.7 - Recording Statistical
Uncertainty.
6.4 Water Quality and Operational Control Checks
This section describes the QC requirements that apply to both the treatment equipment and the
on-site measurement of water quality parameters. It also contains a discussion of the corrective
action to be taken if the QC parameters fall outside of the evaluation criteria.
The quality control checks provide a means of measuring the quality of data produced. The
Manufacturer may not need to use all the ones identified in this section. The selection of the
appropriate quality control checks depends on the equipment, the experimental design and the
performance goals. The selection of quality control checks will be based on discussions among
the Manufacturer and the NSF.
6.4.1 Quality Control for Equipment Operation
This section will explain the methods to be used to check on the accuracy of equipment
operating parameters and the frequency with which these quality control checks will be
made. If the quality of the equipment operating data cannot be verified, then the water
quality analytical results may be of no value. Because water cannot be adequately treated
if equipment is not operating within specifications, obtaining valid equipment operating
data is a prime concern for verification testing.
An example of the need for QC for equipment operations is an incident of state rejection
of test data because the treatment equipment had no flow meter to use for determining
engineering and operating parameters related to flow.
6.4.2 Water Quality Data
After treatment equipment is operating within specifications and water is being treated,
the results of the treatment are interpreted in terms of water quality. Therefore the quality
of water sample analytical results is just as important as the quality of the equipment
January 2003
Page 1-27
-------
operating data. Therefore, the QAPP must emphasize the methods to be employed for
sampling and analytical QA. The important aspects of sampling and analytical QA are
given below:
6.4.2.1 Duplicate Analysis of Selected Water Quality Parameters. Duplicate samples
must be analyzed for selected water quality parameters to determine the precision of
analysis. The procedure for determining samples to be analyzed in duplicate shall be
provided with the frequency of analysis and the approximate number.
6.4.2.2 Method Blanks. Method blanks are used for selected water quality parameters to
evaluate analytical method-induced contamination, which may cause false positive
results. Method blanks shall not be employed for microbiological analyses.
6.4.2.3 Spiked Samples. The use of spiked samples will depend on the testing program,
and the contaminants to be removed. If spiked samples are to be used specify the
procedure, frequency, acceptance criteria, and actions if criteria are not met. Spiked
samples shall not be employed for microbiological analyses.
6.4.2.4 Travel Blanks. Travel blanks for selected water quality parameters shall be
provided to the analytical laboratory to evaluate travel-related contamination. Travel
blanks shall not be employed for microbiological analyses.
6.4.2.5 Microbiological Travel Samples. If analysis is not conducted at the site of
verification testing and sampling, the laboratory conducting microbiological analysis
shall perform a travel viability and enumeration study at the start of the Verification
Testing Program by shipping samples dosed with microbial concentrations to the test site
and having the bottles returned after 24 hours on site. At the time of return receipt by the
laboratory, the viability of the organisms shall be determined at this time.
6.4.2.6 Performance Evaluation Samples for On-Site Water Quality Testing.
Performance evaluation (PE) samples are samples of unknown concentration prepared by
an independent PE lab and provided as unknowns to an analyst to evaluate his or her
analytical performance. Analysis of PE samples shall be conducted for selected water
quality parameters before testing is initiated by submission of samples to the analytical
laboratory. The control limits for the PE samples will be used to evaluate the equipment
testing organization's and analytical laboratory's method performance. One kind of PE
sample that would be used for on-site QA in most studies done under this protocol would
be a series of either protozoa, bacteria or virus PE samples.
PE samples come with statistics about each sample which have been 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
analytical laboratory is expected to provide results from the analysis of the PE samples
that meet the performance objectives of the verification testing.
January 2003
Page 1-28
-------
6.5 Microbial Viability
Control experiments for each test organism must be conducted to evaluate the stability of
microbiological viability in the absence of any disinfectant. These control experiments shall be
conducted in a manner identical to the disinfection experiments except that no disinfectant shall
be added to the reactor. The results of the control experiments will allow for quantification of
the microbiological viability in the absence of any disinfectant over the time course of the
disinfection experiments. Microbial viability testing shall also be performed on microbiological
travel samples in order to confirm \iability of organisms from point of addition to laboratory
analysis.
The Field Testing Organization shall establish procedural controls in terms of the level of
acceptable microbial viability for the challenge experiments. Die-away of organisms during
shipping is sometimes observed. However, if greater than one log of microbial die-away is
observed through the microbiological travel sample study, then the procedures for provision of
organisms to the site for seeding studies will be evaluated and corrective action will be taken.
6.6 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
To maintain good data quality, specific procedures shall be followed during data reduction,
validation, and reporting. These procedures are detailed below.
6.6.1 Data Reduction
Data reduction refers to the process of converting the raw results from the equipment into
concentration or other data in a form to be used in the comparison. The procedures to be
used will be equipment and data dependent. The purpose of this step is to provide data
which will be used to verify the statement of performance objectives. These data shall be
obtained from logbooks, instrument outputs, and computer outputs as appropriate.
Microorganism data shall be transformed by taking the logio of the data unless data
analysis demonstrates an alternative distribution than a logarithmic distribution.
6.6.2 Data Validation
The operator shall verify the completeness of the appropriate data forms and the
completeness and correctness of data acquisition and reduction. The field team
supervisor or another technical person shall review calculations and inspect laboratory
logbooks and data sheets to verify accuracy and completeness. Calibration and QC data
will be examined by the individual operators and the laboratory supervisor. Laboratory
and project managers shall verify that all instrument systems are in control and that QA
objectives for accuracy, completeness, and method detection limits have been met.
Analytical outlier data are defined as those QC data lying outside a specific QC objective
window for precision and accuracy as determined by the state-certified or third party- or
EPA-accredited laboratory for a given analytical method. Should QC data be outside of
control limits, the analytical laboratory or field team supervisor will investigate the cause
of the problem. If the problem involves an analytical problem, the sample will be
reanalyzed or another sample will be collected and analyzed. If the problem can be
January 2003
Page 1-29
-------
attributed to the sample matrix, the result will be flagged with a data qualifier. This data
qualifier will be included and explained in the final analytical report.
6.6.3 Data Reporting
The data reported during the Verification Testing Program shall be explicitly defined by
the Field Testing Organization in the PSTP. At a minimum, the data tabulation shall list
the results for feedwater and treated water quality analyses, the results of microbiological
analyses (logio data transformation), microbiological inactivation achieved (logio data
transformation) and equipment operating data. All QC information such as calibrations,
blanks and reference samples are to be included in an appendix. All raw analytical data
shall also be reported in an appendix. All data shall be reported in hardcopy and
electronically in a common spreadsheet or database format.
6.7 System Inspections
On-site system inspections for sampling activities, field operations, and laboratories shall be
conducted as specified by the ETV Testing Plan. These inspections will be performed by the
NSF to determine if the ETV Testing Plan is being implemented as intended. Separate
inspections reports will be completed after the inspections and provided to the participating
parties.
6.8 Reports
6.8.1 Status Reports
The Field Testing Organization shall prepare periodic reports to pertinent parties, e.g.,
manufacturer, community. These reports shall discuss project progress, problems and
associated corrective actions, and future scheduled activities associated with the
verification testing. Each report shall include an executive summary a the beginning of
the report to introduce the salient issues of the testing period. When problems occur, the
Manufacturer and Field Testing Organization project managers shall discuss them, and
estimate the type and degree of impact, and describe the corrective actions taken to
mitigate the impact and to prevent a recurrence of the problems. The frequency, format,
and content of these reports shall be outlined by the Field Testing Organization in the
PSTP.
6.8.2 Inspection Reports
Any QA inspections that take place in the field or at the analytical laboratory while the
verification testing is being conducted shall be formally reported by the Field Testing
Organization to the Verification entity and Manufacturer.
6.9 Corrective Action
Each PSTP must incorporate a corrective action plan. This plan must include the predetermined
acceptance limits of microbial viability and key analytical parameters (to be reviewed by NSF),
the corrective action to be initiated whenever such acceptance criteria are not met, and the names
of the individuals responsible for implementation.
January 2003
Page 1-30
-------
Routine corrective action may result from common monitoring activities, such as:
Performance evaluation inspections
Technical systems inspections
Content of PSTP Regarding Quality Assurance Project Plan:
The PSTP shall include the following elements:
Description of methodology for measurement of accuracy;
Description of methodology for measurement ofprecision;
Description of the methodology for use of blanks, the materials used, the frequency, the
criteria for acceptable method blanks and the actions if criteria are not met;
Description of any specific procedures appropriate to the analysis of the PE samples. It
has to be clear how these samples are going to be used in the verification testing;
Outline of the procedure for determining samples to be analyzed in duplicate, the
frequency and approximate number;
Description of procedures to be used for determination of microbial viability and for the
spiking of microorganisms over the equipment during control studies;
Description of the procedures used to assure that the data are correct;
Definition of data to be reported during the Verification Testing Program, in terms of
analytical parameter type andfrequency;
Listing of techniques and/or equations used to quantify any necessary data quality
indicator calculations in the analysis of water quality parameters, microbiological
contaminants or operational conditions (e.g., flow rates, mixer speeds, detention times).
These include: representativeness, completeness, accuracy, precision (e.g., relative
percent deviation, standard deviation);
Outline of the frequency, format, and content of reports in the PSTP;
Development of a corrective action plan in the PSTP.
Provision of all QC information such as calibrations, blanks and reference samples in an
appendix. All raw analytical data shall also be reported in an appendix;
Provision of all data in hardcopy and electronic form in a common spreadsheet or
database format.
Description of all techniques to establish (where applicable) the representativeness,
completeness, accuracy and precision of methods in the analysis of water quality
parameters, microbiological contaminants or operational conditions (e.g., flow rates,
mixer speeds, detention times).
7.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING
7.1 Data Management and Analysis
A variety of data will be generated during a verification testing. Each piece of data or
information identified for collection in the ETV Testing Plan will need to be provided. The data
management section of the PSTP shall describe what types of data and information needs to be
collected and managed. It shall also describe how the data will be reported to the NSF for
evaluation.
January 2003
Page 1-31
-------
Laboratory Analyses: The raw data and the validated data must be reported. These data shall be
provided in hard copy and in electronic format. As with the data generated by the innovative
equipment, the electronic copy of the laboratory data shall be provided in a spreadsheet. In
addition to the sample results, all QA/QC summary forms must be provided.
Other items that must be provided include:
field notebooks;
photographs, slides and videotapes (copies);
results from the use of other field analytical methods.
7.2 Report of Equipment Testing
The Field Testing Organization shall prepare a draft report describing the verification testing that
was carried out and the results of that testing. This report shall include the following topics:
Introduction
Executive Summary
Description and Identification of Product Tested
Procedures and Methods Used in Testing
Results and Discussion
Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Appendices
PSTP
QA/QC Results
Content of PSTP Regarding Data Management and Analysis, and Reporting:
The PSTP shall include the following:
Description of what types of data and information needs to be collected and managed.
Description of how the data will be reported.
8.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES
The safety procedures shall address safety considerations, including the following as applicable:
storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous chemicals including acids, caustic and
oxidizing agents.
conformance with electrical code
chemical hazards and biohazards, if pathogenic microorganisms are used in testing
ventilation of equipment or of trailers or buildings housing equipment, if gases generated
by the equipment could present a safety hazard (one example is ozone).
January 2003
Page 1-32
-------
Content of PSTP Regarding Safety:
The PSTP shall address safety considerations that are appropriate for the equipment being
tested andfor the challenge organisms, if any, being used in the verification testing.
9.0 REFERENCES
Haas, C. N., J. C. Hornberger, U. Anmangandla, M. Heath, and J. Jacangelo (1993).
Experimental Methodologies for the Determination of Disinfection Effectiveness. AWWA
Research Foundation and American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
USEPA, Science and Technology Branch, "Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration
and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Utilities using Surface Water Sources", October
1989.
January 2003
Page 1-33
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
January 2003 Page 1-34
-------
CHAPTER 2
EPA/NSF ETV
EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN FOR
OZONE AND ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESSES FOR
INACTIVATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Prepared By:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Copyright 2003 NSF International 40CFR35.6450.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce all or part of this work, subject
to the limitation that users may not sell all or any part of the work and
may not create any derivative work therefrom. Contact ETV Drinking
Water Systems Center Manager at (800) NSF-MARK with any questions
regarding authorized or unauthorized uses of this work.
January 2003
Page 2-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 APPLICATION OF THIS VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN 2-6
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-6
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH 2-7
4.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS 2-7
4.1 Initial Operations: Overview 2-7
4.1.1 Task A: Characterization of Feed Water 2-8
4.1.2 Task B: Initial Test Runs 2-8
4.2 Verification Operations: Overview 2-8
4.2.1 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation 2-8
4.2.2 Task 2: Feed Water and Finished Water Quality 2-9
4.2.3 Task 3: Documentation of Operating and Treatment Equipment Performance 2-9
4.2.4 Task 4: Microbiological Inactivation 2-9
4.2.5 Task 5: Data Management 2-9
4.2.6 Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 2-9
5.0 TESTING PERIODS 2-10
6.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS 2-10
6.1 Feed Gas or Ozone Production Concentration (% weight or g/m3 NTP) 2-11
6.2 Off Gas Concentration (% weight or g/m3 NTP) 2-11
6.3 Applied Ozone Dosage (mg/L) 2-11
6.4 Transfer Efficiency (percent) 2-11
6.5 Transferred Ozone Dosage (mg/L) 2-11
6.6 Dissolved Ozone Concentration (mg/L) 2-12
6.7 CT Values (mg-minute/L) 2-12
6.7.1 Conservative Method of Determining CT Values 2-12
6.7.2 Log Integration Method of Determining CT Values 2-13
7.0 TASK A: CHARACTERIZATION OF FEED WATER 2-14
7.1 Introduction 2-14
7.2 Objectives 2-15
7.3 Work Plan 2-15
7.4 Analytical Schedule 2-15
7.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-16
January 2003
Page 2-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
8.0 TASK B: INITIAL TEST RUNS 2-16
8.1 Introduction 2-16
8.2 Objectives 2-17
8.3 Work Plan 2-17
8.4 Analytical Schedule 2-17
8.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-17
9.0 TASK 1: VERIFICATION TESTING RUNS AND ROUTINE
EQUIPMENT OPERATION 2-17
9.1 Introduction 2-17
9.2 Experimental Objectives 2-18
9.3 Work Plan 2-18
9.3.1 Verification Testing Runs 2-18
9.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation 2-18
9.4 Schedule 2-19
9.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-19
10.0 TASK 2: FEED WATER AND TREATED WATER QUALITY 2-19
10.1 Introduction 2-19
10.2 Experimental Objectives 2-19
10.3 Work Plan 2-19
10.4 Analytical Schedule 2-20
10.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-20
11.0 TASK 3: DOCUMENTATION OF OPERATING CONDITIONS AND
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE 2-20
11.1 Introduction 2-20
11.2 Objectives 2-21
11.3 Work Plan 2-21
11.4 Schedule 2-21
11.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-22
12.0 TASK 4: DOCUMENTATION OF EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE:
CALCULATION OF CT AND (OPTIONAL) INACTIVATION OF
MICROORGANISMS 2-22
12.1 Introduction 2-22
12.2 Experimental Objectives 2-22
12.3 Work Plan 2-22
12.3.1 CT Value Criteria 2-22
12.3.1.1 Required CT Values for Virus and Giardia 2-23
12.3.1.2 CT Value Calculations for Cryptosporidium 2-23
12.3.2 Microbial Challenge Tests 2-23
12.3.2.1 Organisms Employed for Challenge Experiments 2-24
January 2003
Page 2-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
12.3.2.2 Spiking Protocols 2-24
12.3.2.3 Batch Seeding 2-25
12.3.2.4 In-Line Injection 2-25
12.3.3 Test Operation and Sample Collection 2-25
12.3.3.1 Test Stream Sampling 2-25
12.3.3.2 Chlorine Residual Analysis 2-26
12.3.3.3 Post-Test Sample Handling 2-26
12.3.4 Experimental Quality Control 2-27
12.3.5 Viability Analysis 2-27
12.4 Analytical Schedule 2-27
12.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-28
13.0 TASK 5: DATA MANAGEMENT 2-28
13.1 Introduction 2-28
13.2 Experimental Objectives 2-28
13.3 Work Plan 2-28
13.4 Statistical Analysis 2-29
14.0 TASK 6: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 2-30
14.1 Introduction 2-30
14.2 Experimental Objectives 2-30
14.3 Work Plan 2-30
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verifications 2-30
14.3.2 QA/QC Verifications Performed Every Two Weeks 2-30
14.3.3 QA/QC Verifications for Each Testing Period 2-31
14.4 On-Site Analytical Methods 2-31
14.4.1 pH 2-31
14.4.2 Temperature 2-31
14.4.3 True Color 2-31
14.4.4 Dissolved Oxygen 2-32
14.4.5 Total Sulfides 2-32
14.4.6 Turbidity Analysis (Optional) 2-32
14.4.6.1 Bench-top Turbidimeters 2-33
14.4.6.2 In-line Turbidimeters 2-33
14.4.7 Dissolved Ozone 2-33
14.4.8 Gas Phase Ozone 2-34
14.4.9 Hydrogen Peroxide 2-34
14.5 Chemical and Biological Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analyses 2-35
14.5.1 Organic Samples 2-35
14.5.2 Microbial Parameters: Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and Algae 2-35
14.5.3 Inorganic Samples 2-36
14.5.4 Bromate 2-36
January 2003
Page 2-4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
14.6 Microbial Challenge Testing 2-36
14.6.1 Process Control 3-37
14.6.2 Trip Control 2-37
15.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 2-37
15.1 Maintenance 2-37
15.2 Operation 2-38
16.0 REFERENCES 2-39
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Water Quality Sampling and Measurement Schedule 2-41
Table 2. Analytical Methods 2-44
Table 3. Equipment Operating Data 2-45
Table 4. CT Values for Inactivation of Giardia Cysts by Ozone at pH 6 to 9 2-46
Table 5. CT Values for Inactivation of Viruses by Ozone 2-46
January 2003
Page 2-5
-------
1.0
APPLICATION OF THIS VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
This document is the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Plan for evaluation of water
treatment equipment utilizing ozone and advanced oxidation for inactivation of microorganisms.
This Testing Plan is to be used as a guide in the development of the Product-Specific Test Plan
(PSTP) for testing ozone and advanced oxidation equipment, within the structure provided by the
"EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation Of
Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies." This ETV plan is applicable
only to water treatment systems that rely on ozone and advanced oxidation to inactivate
microorganisms. Water treatment systems using ozone oxidation for reasons other than
disinfection (i.e. taste and odor control, inorganics oxidation) are not required to conduct the
experiments outlined in this ETV plan, as long as adequate disinfection is being achieved by
other technologies (e.g., chlorine or chloramines). Ozone is sometimes combined with
ultraviolet (UV) light or hydrogen peroxide to improve oxidation. These advanced oxidation
processes (AOPs) can also be tested under this plan.
In order to participate in the equipment verification process for microbial inactivation by ozone
and advanced oxidation, the equipment Manufacturer and their designated Field Testing
Organization shall use the procedures and methods described in this test plan, and in the
"Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Inactivation of Microbiological Contaminants:
Requirements for All Studies" as guidelines for development of the PSTP.
This ETV test plan is applicable to the testing of water treatment equipment utilizing ozone and
advanced oxidation for inactivation of microorganisms in drinking water. This plan is applicable
to both surface water and ground water supplies.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Ozone is a powerful oxidant that is applied during water treatment for microbial inactivation as
well as oxidation of pesticides, metals, and taste and odor causing compounds. The use of ozone
in potable water treatment in the United States has increased substantially in the last 20 years,
due to its superior inactivation of microorganisms (e.g., cysts) relative to chlorine, chloramine,
and chlorine dioxide.
Ozone is applied to drinking water as a gas, which is generated on-site. The ozone gas is
transferred into a dissolved state by either bubbling or injecting ozone gas into the process
stream. Ozone can be applied to untreated (raw) or treated (e.g., coagulated/settled or filtered)
water.
In this ETV test plan, ozone or AOP equipment performance can be verified in one of two ways:
1) by achieving a certain bvel of "CT" [concentration, C (in mg/L), of ozone multiplied by
contact time, T (in minutes)] during treatment; or 2) by conducting microbial seeding or
challenge testing by measuring the microbial inactivation (for a variety of microorganisms)
achieved by the ozone or by AOPs.
January 2003
Page 2-6
-------
Ozone CT values have been established by the USEPA for vims and Giardia cyst inactivation
for use in guiding state regulatory agencies in the implementation of the filtration and
disinfection rules. While the USEPA has not yet established CT requirements for
Cryptosporidium inactivation, CT values can be determined in this ETV plan to establish the
level of CT that can be achieved with the ozone or some types of AOP equipment. Thus, many
ozone systems will be able to use the CT approach in this ETV plan.
AOPs convert dissolved ozone to hydroxyl radicals, a process which occurs more rapidly as pH
is elevated (e.g., varying from a slow reaction at pH 6 and below, to an instantaneous reaction at
pH 9 and above). The ability of hydroxyl radicals to inactivate microbes is not well defined, and
specific CT values for AOPs have not been developed because (a) the half-life of hydroxyl free
radicals is on the order of microseconds and (b) the highest concentration of hydroxyl free
radicals that can be developed in aqueous solution is on the order of 10"12 Molar. Therefore, the
Manufacturers of some AOP systems may choose to conduct microbial seeding or challenge
testing to show the level of inactivation that can be achieved for a specific process.
Manufacturers of some ozone systems may also choose to conduct microbial inactivation studies
for equipment verification.
Labatiuk, Belosevic, and Finch (1994) recommended that ozone disinfection processes should
maintain a stable ozone residual for disinfection prior to the addition of hydrogen peroxide for
oxidation of other compounds. If water treatment equipment employing an AOP concept
provides for detention time in which water can be in contact with dissolved ozone for a
significant time before the application of hydrogen peroxide or ultraviolet radiation, evaluation
of CT values attained prior to conversion of ozone to hydroxyl radicals may be possible. In this
situation, AOP systems could be tested to develop CT information, but the manufacturer's
statement of performance regarding disinfection capability would have to be limited to the
portion of the treatment process in which a dissolved ozone residual is maintained.
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH
Testing of equipment covered by this ETV plan will be performed by an NSF-qualified Field
Testing Organization (FTO) that is selected by the equipment Manufacturer. Water quality and
microbiological analytical work to be carried out as part of this ETV plan will be contracted with
a state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited analytical laboratory.
4.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS
4.1 Initial Operations: Overview
The purpose of these tasks is to provide preliminary information, which will facilitate final test
design and data interpretation. Initial Operations Tasks A and B are not mandatory but they are
recommended as an aid to successful completion of Verification Testing. Furthermore, if the
verification entity conducts a site visit for quality assurance (QA) purposes, the Task B would
need to be performed.
January 2003
Page 2-7
-------
4.1.1 Task A: Characterization of Feed Water
The objective of this Initial Operations task is to obtain a chemical and physical
characterization of the feed water for those systems using ozone or AOPs for inactivation.
The biological quality of the feed water shall be determined for those plants conducting
microbiological seeding or challenge testing.
A thorough description of the watershed or aquifer and any pretreatment modules that
provide the feed water should also be prepared to aid interpretation of feed water
characterization.
4.1.2 Task B: Initial Test Runs
During Initial Operations, the equipment Manufacturer may want to evaluate equipment
operation and determine flow rates, hydraulic retention time, contact times (via tracer
tests), ozone dosage, number of ozone injection points, pH range, temperature, alkalinity,
sequencing or timing of UV light/hydrogen peroxide addition relative to ozonation, or
other factors which provide effective treatment of feed water. This is a recommended
Initial Operations task.
The equipment Manufacturer may also want to work with the FTO and analytical
laboratory to perform blank or preliminary challenges and sampling routines to verify
that sampling equipment can perform its required functions including microorganism
survivability (if conducting microbiological challenge testing). This is also a
recommended Initial Operations Task.
4.2 Verification Operations: Overview
The verification testing objective is to operate the treatment equipment provided by the
equipment Manufacturer and to assess its ability to meet stated water quality goals and any other
performance characteristics specified by the Manufacturer. Equipment shall be operated for a
minimum of one test period to collect data on equipment performance and water quality for
purposes of performance verification. The test period(s) selected should represent the worst-case
for concentrations of ozone demanding contaminants (e.g., iron, manganese, organics, hydrogen
sulfide, pesticides, or turbidity).
4.2.1 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation
To characterize the technology in terms of efficiency and reliability, water treatment
equipment that includes ozone (or AOPs) shall be operated for Verification Testing
purposes with the operational parameters based on the results of the Initial Operations
testing (see Task B).
January 2003
Page 2-8
-------
4.2.2 Task 2: Feed Water and Finished Water Quality
During each Verification Testing period, feed water and treated water samples shall be
collected and analyzed for those parameters relevant to oxidation performance and
microbial inactivation or for those parameters affecting equipment performance, as
outlined in Section 10, Table 1.
4.2.3 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance
During each Verification Testing run, operating conditions and performance of water
treatment equipment shall be documented. This includes ozone feed gas concentration,
gas and liquid pressures, gas and liquid temperatures, gas and liquid flow rates, ozone
off-gas concentration, applied and transferred ozone dosage, power usage for the ozone
generator, ozone transfer equipment, ozone feed-gas and off-gas monitors (if part of the
ozone system) and ozone destruct unit, as well as stability of the electrical power supply
(surges, brown-outs, etc.).
If ozone (or an AOP) is used following pretreatment (e.g., coagulation/settling), then a
complete description of the pretreatment process shall be provided. For AOP systems,
the operating conditions and parameters associated with hydrogen peroxide or UV light
equipment must also be documented.
4.2.4 Task 4: Microbial Inactivation
The ability of water treatment ozone equipment to achieve microbial inactivation will be
demonstrated by maintaining a level of performance criteria (CT value) for ozone
systems. Microbial seeding studies to verify microbial inactivation will be allowed in
lieu of the performance criteria (CT value) requirement. To evaluate microbial
inactivation by hydroxyl radicals in AOP systems (i.e. after addition of hydrogen
peroxide or after use of UV light), microbial seeding studies are required.
4.2.5 Task 5: Data Management
The objective of this task is to establish an effective field protocol for data management
at the field operations site and for data transmission between the FTO and NSF for data
obtained during the Verification Testing. Prior to the beginning of field testing, the
database design must be developed by the FTO and reviewed and approved by NSF.
This will ensure that the required data will be collected during the testing, and that it can
be effectively transmitted to NSF for review.
4.2.6 Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
An important aspect of Verification Testing is the protocol developed for quality
assurance and quality control. The objective of this task is to assure accurate
measurement of operating and water quality parameters during ozone equipment
January 2003
Page 2-9
-------
Verification Testing. Prior to the beginning of field testing, a QA/QC plan must be
developed which addresses all aspects of the testing process. Each water quality
parameter and operational parameter must have appropriate QA/QC measures in place
and documented. For example, the protocol for ozone measurement using a
spectrophotometer should describe how the instrument is calibrated, what adjustments are
made, and provide a permanent record of all calibrations and maintenance for that
instrument.
5.0 TESTING PERIODS
A minimum of one verification testing period shall be performed. Additional verification testing
periods may be necessary to verify the manufacturer's performance objectives, such as in the
treatment of surface water where additional testing during each season may assist in verifying an
objective. For systems treating solely groundwater or surface waters of consistent quality due to
pre-treatment, one verification testing period may be sufficient. If one verification testing period
is selected, the feed water should represent the worst-case concentrations of contaminants which
can verify the manufacturer's performance objectives. Although one testing period satisfies the
minimum requirement of the ETV program, manufacturers are encouraged to use additional
testing periods to cover a wider range of water quality conditions.
The required tasks in the Verification Testing Plan (Tasks 1 through 6) are designed to be carried
out during each testing period. Each testing period shall provide for at least 200 hours of ozone
equipment operation. During this time, the performance and reliability of the equipment shall be
documented.
Some systems may operate for less than 24 hours per day. Interruptions in ozone production are
allowed but the reason and duration of all interruptions shall be fully described in the
Verification Testing report. Any testing conducted at intervals less than 200 hours is considered
a test run, whereas the entire 200 hours (either continuous or as the sum of individual test runs)
of ozone equipment operation is considered the Verification Test period. If ozone production is
interrupted during a verification test run, that test run shall be considered to have been concluded
at the time of interruption of the ozone feed. After restart, all data collected are to be part of a
new verification test run.
6.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
Definitions that apply to ozone and AOP processes are given below. Refer to Appendix A of
Ozone in Water Treatment, Application and Engineering, by the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation and Compagnie Generate des Eaux, Lewis Publishers, 1991
for a more detailed description of terms.
January 2003
Page 2-10
-------
6.1 Feed Gas or Ozone Production Concentration (% weight or g/m3 NTP)
The feed gas or ozone production concentration (Yi) is the ozone concentration (in gaseous
form) being applied to the water being treated. It is expressed in units of g/m3 normal
temperature and pressure (NTP) or as percent by weight. The temperature and pressure values
associated with NTP are 0ฐC and one atmosphere (i.e., 14.696 psi, 760 mm Hg, or 101.325 kPa),
respectively.
6.2 Off Gas Concentration (% weight or g/m3 NTP)
The off gas concentration (Y2) is the ozone concentration (in gaseous form) of the gas which is
being released (i.e., off gas) from the water being treated. This off gas contains ozone, which
was not transferred into a dissolved form during treatment. It is expressed in units of g/m3 NTP
or as percent by weight.
6.3 Applied Ozone Dosage (mg/L)
The amount of ozone added to the water being treated is the applied ozone dosage. The equation
for calculating the applied ozone dosage is as follows:
D = P/(8.34 L)
where: D = applied ozone dosage (mg/L)
P = ozone production (lb/day)
L = water flow rate (MGD, million U.S. gallons per day)
6.4 Transfer Efficiency (percent)
The transfer efficiency is defined as the percentage of ozone that becomes dissolved into the
water being treated. The equation for calculating the transfer efficiency is as follows:
TE= [(Yi - Y2)/Yi]*100
where: TE = transfer efficiency (percent)
Yi = ozone production concentration (g/m3 NTP or percent by weight)
Y2 = off gas ozone concentration (g/m NTP or percent by weight)
This calculation assumes that the flow of the feed gas is equal to the flow of the off gas. The
transfer efficiency calculation can be refined by measuring both gas flow rates or by monitoring
the dissolved gas concentration in the liquid phase if the Manufacturer desires.
6.5 Transferred Ozone Dosage (mg/L)
The transferred ozone dosage is the concentration of ozone that becomes dissolved into the water
being treated. The equation for calculating the transferred ozone dosage is as follows:
January 2003
Page 2-11
-------
T = (D * TE)/100
where: T = transferred ozone dosage (mg/L)
D = applied ozone dosage (mg/L)
TE = transfer efficiency (percent, i.e., 95.0 and not 0.95)
6.6 Dissolved Ozone Concentration (mg/L)
The concentration of ozone in solution is the dissolved ozone concentration. It is measured using
an indigo bleaching technique (e.g., HACH AccuVac or Standard Method 4500-03 B) or by
inserting a dissolved ozone probe into the process stream. The procedure for calibration of
ozone probes is described in Section 14.4.7. The dissolved ozone concentration is used to
calculate CT values.
6.7 CT (mg-minute/L)
The product of the dissolved ozone concentration 'C' in mg/L and the contact time T in minutes
is referred to as the CT value. CT is the number produced by multiplying these two values
together. Thus, equivalent CT values can be produced by a small C multiplied by a large T or a
large C for a small T. For example, if the dissolved ozone concentration after 10 minutes of
contact time is 0.5 mg/L, the CT value is 10 * 0.5 = 5 mg-minute/L.
The CT value is used as a surrogate measure of disinfection effectiveness for certain
microorganisms by assuming that adequate inactivation has occurred when water is exposed to a
given disinfectant concentration for a given contact time. The CT value required for achieving a
specific level of disinfection by ozone depends on the temperature and pH of the water being
treated.
If an ozone system uses side stream injection for ozone application, none of the sample ports
used for collecting samples that will be analyzed for ozone concentration may be located at the
ozone side stream. All sample ports used for collecting samples needed for determining CT
values shall be located in the main ozone contactor where the bulk flow of water is being
disinfected.
The USEPA has outlined a recommended method for calculating CT values for conventional
ozone contactors in Appendix O of the Guidance Manual for the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Two methods of calculating the total CT of a contactor can be used during Verification Testing:
conservative and log integration.
6.7.1 Conservative Method of Determining CT Values
For contactors with multiple sampling ports, the CT value for each sample port
(calculated using the measured dissolved ozone concentration and the appropriate contact
time represented by the individual sample port) can be summed to calculate the overall
CT value for the contactor. The To/Theory factor (which shall be determined during the
hydrodynamic tracer tests described in Chapter 1, Protocol for Equipment Verification
January 2003
Page 2-12
-------
Testing of Microbiological Contaminant Inactivation) is then applied to the summed CT
values to account for any short circuiting within the contactor. This method of
determining CT value is referred to as the "conservative" approach.
The Tio value represents the minimum length of time for which 90 percent of the water
will be exposed to the disinfectant within the contactor (as determined using tracer
testing) while Theory represents hydraulic detention time of the contactor (calculated by
dividing the total volume of the contactor by the water flow rate).
An example using the conservative approach follows: if there are three sample ports,
located along the ozone contactor at 2, 4, and 6 minutes of hydraulic detention time, and
the dissolved ozone concentrations are 1.0, 0.7, and 0.5 mg/L at each sample port,
respectively, the summed CT value for a contactor having a Tio/Ttheory of 0.8 would be
calculated as follows:
CT =(Tio/Ttheory)*[(Cportl * Tportl) + (C port 2 * Tp0rt 2-port 1) (C port 3 * Tp0rt 3 - port 2)]
CT = (0.8) * [(1.0 mg/L * 2 min.) + (0.7 mg/L * 2 min.) + (0.5 mg/L * 2 min.)]
CT = 3.52 mg-minute/L
6.7.2 Log Integration Method of Determining CT Value
From the equation for the conservative method of determining CT values, it can be
concluded that the addition of more sampling points would result in a more accurate
determination of the actual disinfection environment in the ozone contactor. Since it may
be impractical to add more sampling ports to an ozone contactor, a log integration
approach may be used during Verification Testing.
If the rate of ozone decay follows first order reaction kinetics, the ozone residual at any
point in the contactor can be calculated (Coffey and Gramith, 1994). By measuring the
ozone residual at two points (the upstream location, which may be the ozone application
point, and the downstream location) in the contactor where the detention time between
those two points is known, the ozone decay rate, k, can be calculated. With a constant
decay rate and a known initial ozone residual, the log integration method can be used to
calculate the CT value. The equation used to calculate CT values based on the log
integration method is as follows:
CT = (Tio/Ttheory) * (Co ) * (e(kt)-l)/k
where: Tio/Ttheory = Short-circuiting factor determined during tracer tests (< 1.0)
C0 = Initial concentration of dissolved ozone at the upstream sampling point,
mg/L
k = Decay rate, 1/minute
t = Contact time at the downstream location, minutes
January 2003
Page 2-13
-------
The decay rate, k, is determined using the following equation:
k = - [In C - In C0]/t
where: C = Dissolved ozone concentration at downstream location, mg/L
Note that the Q concentration is the measured dissolved ozone concentration at the
upstream sampling location and C0 is not the applied ozone dosage.
The log integration method provides a higher, more accurate CT value than the
conservative method. The following example illustrates how to calculate the CT values
using the log integration method.
If there are two sample ports, located along the ozone contactor at 0 and 6 minutes of
hydraulic detention time, and the dissolved ozone concentrations are 1.4 and 0.5 mg/L at
each sample port, respectively, the log integrated CT value for a contactor having a
Tio/Ttheory of 0.8 would be calculated as follows:
First, calculate the decay rate, k:
k = - [In C - In C0]/t
k = -[In (0.5) - In (1.4)]/6 min
k =-[(-0.693) - (0.336)]/6
k = 0.172/min
Next, calculate the CT value:
CT = (Tio/Ttheory) * (Co ) * (e(kt)- l)/k
CT = (0.8) * (1.4) * (e(0172*6) - l)/0.172
CT =11.8 mg-minutes/L
This comparison shows that the log integration method can give higher CT values than
the conservative method.
7.0 TASK A: CHARACTERIZATION OF FEED WATER
7.1 Introduction
This Initial Operations task is performed to determine if the chemical, biological, and physical
characteristics of the feed water are appropriate for the water treatment equipment to be tested.
January 2003
Page 2-14
-------
Initial Operations Tasks A and B are not mandatory but they are recommended as an aid to
successful completion of Verification Testing.
7.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to obtain a complete chemical and physical characterization of the
source water, or the feed water after pre-treatment that will be entering the treatment system
being tested.
7.3 Work Plan
During this Initial Operations task, the following water quality characteristics of the feed water
to the ozone system should be measured and recorded for both ground and surface waters: ozone
demand, turbidity, temperature, pH, alkalinity, calcium, total hardness, total sulfides, total
organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, ultraviolet absorbance (at 254 nm), color, bromide,
iron, and manganese.
Sufficient information shall be obtained to illustrate the variations expected to occur in these
parameters that will be measured during the Verification Testing for a typical annual cycle for
the water source. This information will be compiled and shared with NSF so NSF and the FTO
can determine the adequacy of the data for use as the basis to make decisions on the testing
schedule.
A brief description of the watershed or aquifer source shall be provided, to aid in interpretation
of feed water characterization. The watershed description should include a statement of the
approximate size of the watershed, a description of the topography (i.e., flat, gently rolling, hilly,
mountainous) and a description of the kinds of human activity that take place (i.e., mining,
manufacturing, cities or towns, farming, wastewater treatment plants) with special attention to
potential sources of pollution that might influence feed water quality. The presence of livestock
as well as the existence of other wildlife (e.g., beavers) in the watershed shall be reported. The
nature of the water source, such as stream, river, lake or man-made reservoir, should be
described as well. Aquifer description should include (if available) the above characterization
relative to the recharge zone, a description of the hydrogeology of the water bearing stratum(a),
well boring data, and any Microscopic Particulate Analysis data indicating whether the
groundwater is under the influence of surface waters. Any information pertaining to the nature
of the well and aquifer (e.g., shallow well or vulnerable well) should also be included.
Any pretreatment, including oxidation, coagulation, or pH adjustment, of the water upstream of
the ozone equipment shall be completely documented and characterized. Any coagulant or other
chemical addition shall be identified and the chemical form and dosage shall be fully described.
7.4 Analytical Schedule
There is no recommended analytical schedule for characterization of the feed water. Any
existing water quality data should be reviewed to assess the character of the feed or source water
January 2003
Page 2-15
-------
as well as the range of water quality that can be expected during each season. Water quality
sampling can be performed if there are data gaps in the existing information.
7.5 Evaluation Criteria
Feed water quality will be evaluated in the context of the Manufacturer's statement of the
equipment performance objectives but should not be beyond the range of water quality suitable
for treatment for the equipment in question. The device shall be tested using water of the quality
for which the equipment was designed.
8.0 TASK B: INITIAL TEST RUNS
8.1 Introduction
During the Initial Operations, a Manufacturer may choose to evaluate equipment operations and
determine flow rates, hydraulic residence time, ozone production, CT results, and power supply
requirements, or other factors applicable to the technology and related to effective treatment of
the feed water. The Manufacturer may also choose to work with the FTO and the analytical
laboratory to perform blank or preliminary challenges (if necessary) and sampling routines to
verify that sampling equipment can perform the required functions under normal operating
conditions. This information may also indicate operating conditions under which the
Manufacturer's stated performance objectives are not met, or whether any CT values cannot be
achieved. This is a recommended Initial Operations task. An NSF field inspection of equipment
operations and sampling and field analysis procedures may be carried out during the initial test
runs, and if this occurs, the Initial Operations Task B must be performed.
The "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation Of
Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies" (Chapter 1) under which this test
plan is formulated requires hydraulic tracer testing to demonstrate flow conditions and residence
times (i.e., Tio times) in the ozone equipment. The equipment Manufacturer may want to
conduct such tests during these initial runs.
The hydrodynamic tracer testing may be done at the ETV field test site, or at another location,
including the manufacturer's plant. Testing at a location other than the field test site may be
advantageous in terms of using dye tracers, sampling and analysis, etc. The tracer testing must
be conducted by the FTO, regardless of the site chosen for this testing. Performing
hydrodynamic tracer tests at a location other than the ETV field test site is an option only if the
treatment equipment has an ozone contact chamber produced by the manufacturer and if this
contact chamber is the standard chamber provided with the treatment equipment.
Additional tracer tests are required if flow rates or hydraulics differ from those demonstrated
previously (i.e., other Verification Testing). Procedures for developing a tracer test methodology
are described in the Protocol.
January 2003
Page 2-16
-------
8.2 Objectives
The objective of these test runs is to bracket the proper operating parameters for treatment of
feed water during Verification Testing. The disinfection ability of an ozone system will vary
depending on the quality of the feed water being treated and the season. Therefore, conducting
initial test runs is strongly recommended.
8.3 Work Plan
Because Initial Operations test runs are not a requirement of this ETV plan, the Manufacturer
and FTO can decide the duration of Initial Operations. Enough time should be available to
establish optimal operating conditions and to ensure that the system will be able to meet any
performance objectives.
8.4 Analytical Schedule
Because these runs are being conducted to define future operating conditions for Verification
Testing, a strictly defined schedule for sampling and analysis does not need to be followed.
Adhering to the schedule for sampling and analysis to be followed during Verification Testing is
recommended, however, so the operator can gain familiarity with the time requirements that will
be applicable during Verification Testing. Also during the Initial Operations phase, NSF may
conduct an initial on-site inspection of field operations, sampling activities, and on-site analyses.
The sampling and analysis schedule to be used during Verification Testing shall be followed
during the on-site inspection.
8.5 Evaluation Criteria
The Manufacturer should evaluate the data produced during the Initial Operations to determine if
the water treatment equipment performed in a manner, which will meet or exceed the statement
of performance objectives. If performance is not as good as claimed in the statement of
performance objectives, the Manufacturer may conduct additional Initial Operations or cancel
the remainder of the testing program.
9.0 TASK 1: VERIFICATION TESTING RUNS AND ROUTINE EQUIPMENT
OPERATION
9.1 Introduction
Water treatment equipment that includes ozone or AOPs shall be operated for verification testing
purposes with the operational parameters appropriate for the manufacturer's statement of
performance objectives.
January 2003
Page 2-17
-------
9.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to operate the ozone or AOP equipment and characterize the
effectiveness and reliability of the equipment.
9.3 Work Plan
9.3.1 Verification Testing Runs
The Verification Testing Runs in this task consist of an evaluation of the treatment system,
using the most successful treatment parameters defined during Initial Operations.
Performance and reliability of the equipment shall be tested during one or more
Verification Testing periods consisting of at least 200 hours of ozone production at the test
site. If only one testing period is used, the time selected should represent the worst-case
for concentrations of ozone-demanding contaminants. During each testing period, Tasks 1
through 6 shall be conducted simultaneously.
Operation to treat a range of feed water quality is recommended for equipment treating
surface waters because of the differences in water quality that can occur on a seasonal
basis, although pre-treatment modules, when present, may dampen these variations.
Factors that can influence microbial inactivation include:
The presence of ozone-demanding substances that may be present in the form of
particulate matter, dissolved organic matter, or dissolved inorganic matter; often
occurring in the spring, or during reservoir or lake turn-over events, or also
encountered in rivers carrying a high sediment load or in surface waters during
periods of high runoff resulting from heavy rains or snow melt. Algae also exert an
ozone demand, as do iron, manganese, and cyanide. The presence of ozone-
demanding substances will affect the CT value achieved by the system.
pH: which can vary seasonally, will affect the decay rate of ozone in natural waters,
and may also affect the CT values achieved by the system.
Temperature: the required CT values for Giardia and viruses are higher for colder
water.
Other ozone-demanding substances.
9.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation
If the water treatment equipment is being used for production of potable water during the
time intervals between verification runs, routine operation of the equipment will occur. In
this situation, the operating and water quality data collected and furnished to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) primacy agency shall be supplied to the NSF-qualified FTO
for use in evaluating conditions during verification testing.
January 2003
Page 2-18
-------
For equipment that is being used to treat water for distribution to customers, it is assumed
that the State has already issued a permit (if one is necessary) for installation and
operation. If verification testing is being conducted to establish the inactivation
capabilities of the existing equipment, permission by the State may be required if the
system were taken off-line for Verification Testing.
9.4 Schedule
During Verification Testing, water treatment equipment shall be operated for a minimum of 200
hours. The reason and duration of any interruptions in ozone production during Verification
Testing shall be fully documented.
9.5 Evaluation Criteria
The goal of this task is to operate the equipment for 200 hours during each Verification Testing
period. Data shall be provided to substantiate that 200 hours of operation have been completed.
10.0 TASK 2: FEED WATER AND TREATED WATER QUALITY
10.1 Introduction
Water quality data shall be collected during Verification Testing for the feed water and treated
water as shown in Table 1. The Field Test Organization, on behalf of the equipment
Manufacturer, shall assure the sampling or measuring of the water quality parameters in Table 1.
The FTO may use local personnel to assist in collection of samples or measurement of test
parameters, but is responsible for their training to assure proper techniques are used at all times.
10.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to identify the presence and concentration of water quality
characteristics, which might affect the ability of ozone to inactivate microorganisms. This task
also may be conducted to provide data on the effect of ozone use on the formation of disinfection
by-products such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) in the test water.
10.3 Work Plan
The Manufacturer or FTO will be responsible for establishing the testing operating parameters,
on the basis of the Initial Operations testing. Many of the water quality parameters described in
this task will be measured on-site by the NSF-qualified FTO or by local community personnel
properly trained by the FTO. Analysis of the remaining water quality parameters will be
performed by a state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited analytical laboratory. The
methods to be used for measurements of water quality parameters in the field are listed in the
Analytical Methods section in Table 2. The analytical methods utilized in this study for on-site
monitoring of feed water and treated water qualities are described in Task 6, Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). Where appropriate, the Standard Methods reference
January 2003
Page 2-19
-------
numbers for water quality parameters are provided for both the field and laboratory analytical
procedures. EPA Methods for analysis of the parameters listed in Table 2 also may be used.
Any disinfectant added upstream of the ozone addition point will affect the ozone demand;
therefore, an agreement between NSF, the manufacturer, and the FTO must be made to
determine whether or not to allow pre-disinfection prior to ozonation during the Verification
Testing Period. If a pre-disinfectant is used, testing shall be conducted to verify that no
disinfectant residual exists at the influent of the ozone contactor, or if a disinfectant residual does
exist, a quenching solution (e.g., sodium bisulfite or hydrogen peroxide) shall be used. The latter
option (quenching) is less desirable because the concentration of the quenching agent will have
to be carefully monitored during testing to minimize over-feeding of the quenching agent (which
would result in an ozone demand).
10.4 Analytical Schedule
Water quality data shall be collected at the intervals specified in Table 1. Additional sampling
and data collection may be performed at the discretion of the Manufacturer. Sample collection
protocol shall be defined by the FTO in the PSTP. Algae sampling is not required for systems
using groundwater sources.
For water quality samples that will be shipped to a state-certified or third party- or EPA-
accredited laboratory for analysis, the samples shall be collected in appropriate containers
(containing preservatives as needed) prepared by the laboratory. These samples shall be
preserved, stored, shipped, and analyzed in accordance with appropriate procedures and holding
times, as specified by the laboratory. Original field sheets and chain-of-custody forms shall
accompany all samples shipped to the laboratory. Copies of field sheets and chain-of custody
forms for all samples shall be provided to NSF.
10.5 Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation of water quality in this task is related to the manufacturer's statement of performance
objectives for plants that employ ozone or AOPs in the treatment process.
11.0 TASK 3: DOCUMENTATION OF OPERATING CONDITIONS AND
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
11.1 Introduction
Throughout the Verification Testing period, operating conditions shall be documented. This
shall include descriptions of pretreatment chemistry and filtration performance for the system
processes, if used, and their operating conditions. The performance of the ozone equipment
(including ozone generator(s), air preparation system(s), off-gas destruct unit(s), injection
equipment, ozone monitor(s), and contactor(s)) as well as UV light and hydrogen peroxide
equipment shall be documented. The total volume of water treated and the total power usage for
all equipment associated with the ozone or AOP system shall also be recorded.
January 2003
Page 2-20
-------
11.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to accurately and fully document the operating conditions during
treatment, and the performance of the equipment. This task is intended to collect data that
describe operation of the equipment and information that can be used to develop cost estimates
for operation of the equipment.
11.3 Work Plan
During Verification Testing, treatment equipment operating parameters for both pretreatment
and ozonation shall be monitored and recorded on a routine basis by the NSF-qualified FTO or
by local community personnel properly trained by the FTO.
Table 3 outlines some of the operating parameters that shall be monitored throughout
Verification Testing. Operating parameters, in addition to those listed in Table 3, may be needed
to adequately assess the operating conditions of the ozone or AOP equipment. These additional
parameters shall be identified by the Manufacturer and the FTO and agreed upon by the
Manufacturer and NSF.
Examples of operational parameters that shall be monitored are:
water flow rates
gas flow rates
water pressures
gas pressures
water temperatures
gas temperatures
ozone operating voltage
ozone production power consumption
air preparation power consumption or other consumables for air preparation
oxygen feed rate (if applicable) and other pertinent operation information
performance of oxygen generation or oxygen feed equipment
ozone electrical frequency, if variable
amperage of ozone equipment.
On a daily basis, the operator shall note and record whether any visual effects of ozonation are
apparent in the treated water or on piping or vessels that convey or hold treated water. This may
include surface scum, precipitation of metals, color changes, etc. At the end of the test period, if
an ozone contact chamber is provided with the equipment and if it is accessible, the contact
chamber shall be inspected for deposits of scum, precipitation of metals, or color changes, and
this information shall be noted in the Verification Testing report.
11.4 Schedule
Table 3 presents the schedule and recording data required for ozone and AOP systems. The
length of time (hours) of operation (during Verification Testing) shall be recorded for all of the
ozone and AOP equipment.
January 2003
Page 2-21
-------
11.5 Evaluation Criteria
Where applicable, the data developed from this task will be compared to statements of
performance objectives. If no relevant statement of performance objectives exists, results of
operating and performance data will be tabulated for inclusion in the Verification Report.
12.0 TASK 4: DOCUMENTATION OF EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE:
CALCULATION OF CT AND (OPTIONAL) INACTIVATION OF
MICROORGANISMS
12.1 Introduction
Inactivation of microorganisms is one of the primary purposes of ozone in drinking water
treatment modules. The ability of ozone and AOP equipment to inactivate certain
microorganisms can be assessed by determining the CT values that can be attained by the
equipment under carefully defined water quality and operating conditions and/or measuring the
inactivation of microorganisms by conducting challenge testing.
The ability of ozone to inactivate virus and Giardia is well documented and the USEPA, in its
guidance manual to the states, has adopted a CT approach for determining inactivation of these
microorganisms by disinfection. The USEPA has not yet adopted CT values for
Cryptosporidium, because researchers are still carrying out studies on this (March 1999).
Microbial seeding studies can also be performed to determine the inactivation ability of the
ozone equipment being tested. This will be necessary for AOPs, the performance of which
cannot be estimated by using CT calculations. The measurement of inactivation is a comparison
of the percent of viable organisms in the feed stream with the percent of viable organisms in the
effluent.
12.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to determine the CT capabilities of the equipment (based on data
from Tasks 2 and 3), and if microbial challenge testing is performed, to determine the logs of
inactivation achieved during these tests.
12.3 Work Plan
The manufacturer shall conduct water quality sampling and calculate CT values attained by the
equipment. In some instances, microbial challenge testing will be used to determine the level of
log inactivation that can be achieved by the ozone or AOP equipment.
12.3.1 CT Criteria
The CT concept of assessing disinfection is described in detail in Section 6.6. The data
that are needed to calculate CT values include: dissolved ozone concentration at
January 2003
Page 2-22
-------
appropriate monitoring points, pH, temperature, and water flow rate and Tio contacting
time. The CT values necessary to achieve inactivation of viruses, Giardia, and
Cryptosporidium are different from one another and are described in the next two
sections.
12.3.1.1 Required CT for Virus and Giardia. The EPA-published CT values
associated with inactivation of viruses and Giardia cysts are shown in Tables 4 and 5,
respectively. If the Manufacturer's statement of performance is presented in terms of
logs of inactivation of viruses or Giardia cysts, the calculated CT values for an ozone
system or for an AOP system that provides for dissolved ozone contact in the water being
treated before introduction of hydrogen peroxide or UV radiation must exceed the
relevant EPA-published CT values shown in Tables 4 and 5. Because CT values for
viruses and Giardia cysts are temperature dependent, testing should be scheduled to
include the extreme range in water temperatures expected to occur during different
seasons of the year. The range in water temperatures being treated shall be determined
and agreed upon by the FTO and the Manufacturer during the Initial Test Runs conducted
prior to Verification Testing.
If a Manufacturer's statement of performance presents log inactivation values that exceed
those shown in Tables 4 and 5, or presents log inactivation values for water quality
conditions not included in Tables 4 and 5, microbial challenge or seeding studies shall be
required to verify the levels of inactivation achieved by the equipment.
If the pH of the feed water to the ozone or AOP system is less than 6 or greater than 9,
microbial challenge studies are required for Verification Testing.
12.3.1.2 CT Calculations for Cryptosporidium. The USEPA has not developed CT
values for estimating the log inactivation of Cryptosporidium by disinfection, and as of
March 1999 regulatory requirements for Cryptosporidium have not been promulgated.
During verification testing, the CT value achieved by the equipment shall be determined,
regardless of the level of Cryptosporidium inactivation that has occurred. However, if a
Manufacturer states that the equipment can achieve a certain level of Cryptosporidium
inactivation, microbial challenge testing must be performed.
12.3.2 Microbial Challenge Tests
Microbial challenge tests, if undertaken, shall be conducted at full scale with
commercially available equipment and not with pilot or prototype equipment. The FTO
shall conduct the challenge studies in the field, and the FTO shall submit the resulting
samples to a state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited laboratory. Water produced
during challenge testing shall not be distributed to the public. Challenge organisms to be
tested will be selected by the equipment Manufacturer. Microbial challenge tests shall be
performed three times per Verification Test period.
As a QA/QC measure, one additional process control microbial seeding test shall be
performed while the ozone equipment is not operating. This seeding test shall be
January 2003
Page 2-23
-------
performed after the three microbial challenge tests have been completed, and the system
has been flushed with at least three volumes of water (with ozone equipment in use) to
ensure that all seeded organisms have exited the system.
If the Manufacturer's Statement of Performance Objectives is based on microbial
inactivation, the FTO shall identify the microbiological contaminant inactivation
capabilities in the Statement of Performance Objectives provided in the PSTP. In the
Statement of Performance Objectives, the Manufacturer shall identify the specific
microbiological contaminants to be monitored during equipment testing and the specific
operational conditions under which inactivation testing shall be performed. The
Statement of Performance Objectives prepared by the FTO on behalf of the Manufacturer
shall also indicate the range of water quality under which the equipment can be
challenged while successfully treating the feed water. Examples of satisfactory
Statements of Performance Objectives based on microbial inactivation were provided
below.
For Microbial Inactivation:
"This system is capable of achieving 3-logio inactivation of Giardia lamblia at a
generation system output of 80% for a feed water flow of 100 gpm for a feed
water with pH of 8.5 or less, turbidity of 20 NTU or less, organic carbon
concentrations between 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L and alkalinity less than 150 mg/L as
CaC03."
Microbial Inactivation (Comparative):
"This system is capable of achieving 3-logio inactivation of Giardia lamblia at
CTs 20% lower than EPA's published chlorine CTs. This level of Giardia lamblia
inactivation will be achieved by the equipment at a generation system output of
80% for a feed water flow of 100 gpm for a feed water with pH of 8.5 or less,
turbidity of 20 NTU or less, organic carbon concentrations between 2.0 and 4.0
mg/L and alkalinity less than 150 mg/L as CaCOs. "
12.3.2.1 Organisms Employed for Challenge Experiments. Microorganisms that may
be used for inactivation studies are listed below. These species represent microorganisms
of particular interest and concern to the drinking water industry, and represent a range of
resistance to inactivation methods. The specific batches of microorganisms used in
inactivation testing must be shown to be initially viable by the laboratory involved in the
analytical aspects of the testing.
Protozoan cysts and oocysts: Giardia muris, Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium parvum
Bacteria: Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas spp., Clostridium perfringens,
Virus: MS2 bacteriophage (surrogate)
12.3.2.2 Spiking Protocols. The total number of organisms required to provide steady-
state microbiological populations will depend on the overall volume of the disinfection
contactor, the flow rate through the contactor, the detection limits of the analytical
methods, the number of surviving microorganisms at the end of the test, and the duration
January 2003
Page 2-24
-------
of the experiments. For viruses, a steady-state final concentration large enough to show
4-log inactivation in the effluent is necessary. For all organisms, the laboratory (ies)
supplying the organisms and performing the viability studies shall be experienced in
challenge testing and be able to predict initial dosages required to overcome any inherent
experimental losses. Microbial challenges shall be conducted either by batch seeding or
by feed stream injection.
12.3.2.3 Batch Seeding. A batch feed tank with sufficient volume to provide the
required test volume shall be used. The discharge from this tank shall be located so that
100% of the contents can be delivered to the system. The tank shall be filled with feed
water that shall be dechlorinated, if necessary. The feed water shall be stirred during
dechlorination. Verification of dechlorination shall be performed prior to the
introduction of the seed organisms. The feed tank shall be continuously stirred during
seeding and throughout the testing period. Prior to microbial seeding of the tank,
agitation of the bulk seed container received from the supplier (by vortexing or
sonication) shall be employed to assure organisms are not clumped together. A
secondary source of feed water (dechlorinated, if necessary) sufficient to provide 3
retention time equivalents (as determined by tracer tests or as defined by system
functions) shall be available to add to the tank when the initial contents have been
consumed. The purpose of this feed water will be to continue flushing seeded organisms
through the ozone contactor to the effluent sample ports.
12.3.2.4 In-line Injection. The microorganism feed suspension will be plumbed into the
test unit with a check-valve equipped injection port followed by a mixing chamber. A
one liter carboy equipped with a bottom dispensing port will feed this injection port by
means of a metering pump (diaphragm or peristaltic or equivalent) via siliconized or
Teflon tubing. The pump shall be capable of fluid injection into the pressurized system
feed line for the duration of the test, at a measurable and verifiable rate such that the one-
liter carboy is depleted coincident with the end of the test.
The carboy with the spiked suspension will contain a magnetic stir bar, will be filled with
one liter of system water (dechlorinated if necessary), and will be placed on a stirplate.
The stock suspension of microorganisms shall be agitated by methods such as vortexing
or sonication prior to being added to the carboy. After the appropriate flow rate has been
established through the ozone contactor, the contactor is operating properly, and sample
collection systems are readied, the injection pump can be started. During the course of
the test run, monitoring of the flow ate through the ozone contactor and the spike
injection rate shall be performed at regular intervals. Adjustments to these flow rates will
be made to maintain test conditions.
12.3.3 Test Operation and Sample Collection
12.3.3.1 Test Stream Sampling. Sample ports shall be provided for the feed water
stream (spiked with concentrations of microbiological contaminants) and the ozone-
treated water stream at the contactor effluent. The FTO shall specify the specific ways in
which sample collection is performed according to the organisms that will be used for the
January 2003
Page 2-25
-------
proposed microbiological inactivation experiments. Examples of potential sample
collection methods for bacterial, viral and protozoan organisms are provided below. The
methods described, or any other peer-reviewed method may be used for verification
testing. The FTO shall propose in the PSTP the specific methods that are to be used for
viability assessment of the selected microorganisms (See Section 12.3.5 below).
For bacterial and/or viral seeding experiments, methods for organism spiking and sample
collection shall be consistent with a selected peer-reviewed method. The frequency and
number of samples collected for each sampling point will be determined by the length of
the test run and shall be specified by the FTO in the PSTP. The volume of each ozone-
treated water sample from the disinfection contactor effluent will depend on the
concentrations of test organisms spiked, and the requirements of the analytical laboratory.
For protozoan spiking experiments, EPA Method 1622 or any other method that has been
evaluated through the peer-reviewed process (e.g., Nieminski and Ongerth, 1995) may be
followed for sample collection from the spiked water streams. The sample collection
system shall be plumbed to allow installation of housings and filters for capture of
sufficient flow for microbiological analysis. The FTO shall provide an indication of the
recovery efficiency achievable under the sample collection method selected for use
during protozoa seeding studies. The specific capture filter recovery system shall be fully
described in the PSTP by the FTO. In addition, the PSTP shall include a plan of study for
verification testing with a minimum of three standard recovery efficiency tests from the
microbiological laboratory.
The sample tap(s) shall be sanitized with 95% ethanol one minute prior to initiating any
bacteria or virus sample collection. Taps shall be flowing at the appropriate sample rate
for at least one minute prior to sample collection.
12.3.3.2 Chlorine Residual Analysis. The chlorine concentration of the dilution water
used for preparing microorganism spiking solutions shall be measured to ensure that no
chlorine residual is present.
12.3.3.3 Post-Test Sample Handling. At completion of the test run, the FTO shall
disconnect the capture filter holders from the sample taps. Filters shall then be handled
and prepared for delivery to the analytical laboratory as directed by that laboratory. The
FTO shall then take steps to contain and/or sanitize any organisms remaining in the
system. Depending on the unit (design and materials), sanitization may be done using
steam or hot water (80ฐC for 10 minutes). The QA/QC plan should address how this
sanitization procedure is to be done to ensure inactivation of live organisms and
subsequent removal of inactivated organisms from the unit. The plan should also address
biosafety concerns for both humans and the environment.
January 2003
Page 2-26
-------
12.3.4 Experimental Quality Control
Two QA/QC samples shall be included in the microbial challenge tests: 1) process
control; and, 2) trip control. The requirements associated with these QA/QC samples are
discussed in Task 6, Section 14.5.
12.3.5 Viability Analysis
Methods for assessing the viability of the selected bacteria and viruses shall be specified
by a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third party
organization (i.e., NSF) or the USEPA for the appropriate microbial analyses. Selected
viability methods shall be specified by the FTO in the PSTP.
Methods for assessing the viability of cysts and oocysts are non-standard but may be used
in verifying objectives that an ozone treatment system inactivates protozoan cysts and
oocysts if the method has undergone peer review. A summary and comparison of
viability methods is presented in research completed by the following researchers:
Korich et al. (1993), Nieminski and Ongerth (1995), Slifko et al. (1997) and others (see
Section 16.0 References in this Test Plan). Interim, non-standard methods for assessing
the viability of cyst and oocyst (e.g., excystation, DAPI/PI) may be used for verification
of inactivation after exposure to disinfectants. However, any interim organism viability
method is subject to review by experts of cyst and oocyst viability and subsequent
method change. Any non-standard method for assessing cyst and oocyst viability shall be
correlated to animal infectivity. Microbial viability analyses are further discussed in
Section 4.4 of the "Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing of Microbiological
Contaminant Inactivation."
Prior to microbial challenge testing, an adequate method of determining viability should
be selected to provide meaningful results for the study. For example, the experimental
set-up for viability analyses should be able to adequately show the range of log
inactivation capabilities of the ozone system being tested.
12.4 Analytical Schedule
For CT value determinations, during the 200 hours of ozone production for Verification Testing,
the dissolved ozone residual shall be measured at specified sampling locations and at regular
intervals. These intervals shall be three times per day (3/d) if ozone production is continuous
over the 200 hour testing period or three times per staffed shift (3/shift) if ozone production is to
be periodically interrupted or terminated during Verification Testing such that the periods of
ozone production are less than 24 hours. For example, if a system operates for only 8 hours each
day, Verification Testing will be conducted over a total of 25 days. Each day, dissolved ozone
measurements shall be collected at three different times. The pH, temperature, and water flow
rate also need to be measured concurrently with the dissolved ozone concentration so the CT
values can be calculated accurately.
January 2003
Page 2-27
-------
Microbial challenge testing shall be performed three times during the Verification Test period.
The operating conditions shall be the same for each of the three required challenge tests. These
challenge tests shall be conducted during the 200 hours of Verification Testing. A recommended
schedule for microbial testing would be to begin the challenge testing at 50, 100, and 150 hours
of continuous operation. If additional time is needed beyond the 200 hours for Verification
Testing, the schedule of testing for all water quality parameters and operational conditions of
Tasks 1, 2, and 3 shall be continued until the microbial challenge tests are completed.
12.5 Evaluation Criteria
The CT values measured in this task will be compared to the Manufacturer's statement of
performance for the ozone or AOP equipment. These field-measured CT values will be
compared to the EPA-published CT values for the level of inactivation of virus and Giardia
(Tables 4 and 5) achieved by the ozone or AOP system. If microbial challenge testing is
performed, the measured log inactivations of microorganisms will be compared to the ozone
CT/inactivation relationships established by the USEPA.
The total CT values for the ozone or AOP system will be calculated for each individual sampling
time (i.e., three sampling events per day or per shift), therefore each Verification Test period will
produce a minimum of 25 individual CT values. The minimum, maximum, and average CT
value for each Verification Test shall also be reported.
13.0 TASK 5: DATA MANAGEMENT
13.1 Introduction
The data management system used in the Verification Testing program shall involve the use of
computer spreadsheet software and manual recording of the operational parameters for the water
treatment equipment on a daily basis.
13.2 Experimental Objectives
The objectives of this task are: 1) to establish a viable structure for the recording and
transmission of field testing data so the FTO will provide sufficient and reliable operational data
for verification purposes, and 2) to provide the information needed for a statistical analysis of the
data, as described in "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For
Inactivation Of Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies."
13.3 Work Plan
The following protocol has been developed for data handling and data verification by the FTO.
Where possible, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system should be used
for automatic entry of testing data into computer databases. Specific parcels of computer
databases for operational and water quality parameters should then be downloaded by manual
importation into Excel (or similar spreadsheet software) as a comma delimited file. These
January 2003
Page 2-28
-------
specific database parcels will be identified based upon discrete time spans and monitoring
parameters. In spreadsheet form the data will be manipulated into a convenient framework to
allow analysis of water treatment equipment operation. Backup of the computer databases to
diskette should be performed on a monthly basis at a minimum. When SCADA systems are not
available, direct instrument feed to data loggers and laptop computers shall be used when
appropriate.
For parameters for which electronic data acquisition is not possible, field testing operators will
record data and calculations by hand in laboratory notebooks (daily measurements will be
recorded on specially-prepared data log sheets as appropriate). Each notebook must be
permanently bound with consecutively numbered pages. Each notebook must indicate the
starting and ending dates that apply to entries in the logbook. All pages will have appropriate
headings to avoid entry omissions. All logbook entries must be made in black water insoluble
ink. All corrections in any notebook shall be made by placing one line through the erroneous
information. Products such as "correction fluids" are never to be utilized for making corrections
to notebook entries. Operating logs shall include a description of the water treatment equipment
(description of test runs, names of visitors, description of any problems or issues, etc.); such
descriptions shall be provided in addition to experimental calculations and other items. The
original notebooks will be stored on-site; photocopies will be forwarded to the project engineer
of the FTO at an agreed upon schedule. This protocol will not only ease referencing the original
data, but will also offer protection of the original record of results.
The database for the project will be set up in custom-designed spreadsheets. The spreadsheets
will be capable of storing and manipulating each of the monitored water quality and operational
parameters from each task, each sampling location, and each sampling time. All data from the
laboratory notebooks and data log sheets will be entered into the appropriate spreadsheets. Data
entry will be conducted on-site by the designated field testing operators. All recorded
calculations will also be checked at this time. Following data entry, the spreadsheet will be
printed out and the print-out will be checked against the handwritten data sheet. Any corrections
will be noted on the hard-copies and corrected on the screen, and then a corrected version of the
spreadsheet will be printed out. Each step of the verification process will by initialed by the field
testing operator or engineer performing the entry or verification step.
Each experiment (e.g. each challenge test run or verification run) will be assigned a run number
which will then be tied to the data from that experiment through each step of data entry and
analysis. As samples are collected and sent to state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited
laboratories, the data will be tracked by use of the same system of run numbers. Data from the
outside laboratories will be received and reviewed by the field testing operator. These data will
be entered into the data spreadsheets, corrected, and verified in the same manner as the field
data.
13.4 Statistical Analysis
Water quality developed from grab samples collected during test runs according to the Analytical
Schedule in Task 2 of this Test Plan shall be analyzed for statistical uncertainty. The FTO shall
calculate 95% confidence intervals for grab sample data obtained during Verification Testing as
January 2003
Page 2-29
-------
described in "Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing of Microbiological Contaminant
Inactivation" (Chapter 1). Statistical analysis could be carried out for a large variety of testing
conditions.
The statistics developed will be helpful in demonstrating the degree of reliability with which
water treatment equipment can attain quality goals. Information on the differences in feed water
quality variations for entire test runs versus the quality produced during the optimized portions of
the runs would be useful in evaluating appropriate operating procedures.
14.0 TASK 6: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
14.1 Introduction
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the operation of the water treatment
equipment and the measured water quality parameters shall be maintained during the
Verification Testing program.
14.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during testing.
When specific items of equipment or instruments are used, the objective is to maintain the
operation of the equipment or instructions within the ranges specified by the Manufacturer or by
Standard Methods. Maintenance of strict QA/QC procedures is important in that if a question
arises when analyzing or interpreting data collected for a given experiment, it will be possible to
verify exact conditions at the time of testing.
14.3 Work Plan
Equipment flow rates and associated signals shall be documented and recorded on a routine
basis. Daily routine walk-throughs during testing shall be used to verify that each piece of
equipment or instrumentation is operating properly. In-line monitoring equipment, such as flow
meters, will be checked to verify that the readout matches with the actual measurement (i.e., flow
rate) and that the signal being recorded is correct. The items listed below are in addition to any
specified checks outlined in the analytical methods.
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verifications
These verifications shall be conducted daily:
In-line turbidimeter flow rates (verified volumetrically over a specific time period)
In-line turbidimeter readings checked against a properly calibrated bench-top model
14.3.2 QA/QC Verifications Performed Every Two Weeks
These verifications shall be conducted every two weeks:
January 2003
Page 2-30
-------
In-line flow meters/rotameters (clean equipment to remove any debris or biological
buildup and verify flow volumetrically to avoid erroneous readings).
In-line turbidimeters, if any, (clean out reservoirs and re-calibrate, if employed)
14.3.3 QA/QC Verifications For Each Testing Period
This verification shall be conducted before testing begins:
Tubing: Verify that all tubing and connections are in good condition and replace if
necessary. For surface water systems, microbial growth could occur between
verification test runs, so replacement of tubing prior to each verification test may be
necessary.
14.4 On-Site Analytical Methods
The analytical methods utilized in this study for on-site monitoring of raw water and disinfected
water quality are described in the following section. Use of either bench-top or in-line field
analytical equipment will be acceptable for the verification testing; however, in-line equipment is
recommended for ease of operation. Use of in-line equipment is also preferable because it
reduces the introduction of error and the variability to analytical results generated by inconsistent
sampling techniques.
14.4.1 pH
Analysis for pH will be performed according to Standard Method 4500-H+ or EPA
Method 150.1/150.2. A three-point calibration of any pH meter used in this study shall
be performed once per day when the instrument is in use. Certified pH buffers in the
expected range shall be used. The pH probe shall be stored in the appropriate solution
defined in the instrument manual. Transport of carbon dioxide across the air-water
interface can confound pH measurement in poorly buffered waters. If this is a problem,
measurement of pH in a confined vessel is recommended to minimize the effects of
carbon dioxide loss to the atmosphere.
14.4.2 Temperature
Readings for temperature shall be conducted in accordance with Standard Methods 2550.
Raw water temperatures shall be obtained at least once daily. The thermometer shall
have a scale marked for every 0.1ฐC, as a minimum, and should be calibrated weekly
against a precision thermometer certified by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). (A thermometer having a range of -1ฐC to +51ฐC, subdivided in 0.1ฐ
increments, would be appropriate for this work.)
14.4.3 True Color
True color shall be measured with a spectrophotometer at 455 nm, using an adaptation of
the Standard Methods 2120 procedure. Samples shall be collected in clean plastic or
glass bottles and analyzed as soon after collection as possible. If samples cannot be
January 2003
Page 2-31
-------
analyzed immediately they shall be stored at 4ฐC for up to 24 hours, and then warmed to
room temperature before analysis. The filtration system described in Standard Methods
2120 C shall be used, and results should be expressed in terms of PtCo color units.
14.4.4 Dissolved Oxygen
Analysis for dissolved oxygen shall be performed according to Standard Method 4500-0
using an iodometric method or the membrane electrode method. The techniques
described for sample collection must be followed very carefully to avoid causing changes
in dissolved oxygen during the sampling event. Sampling for dissolved oxygen does not
need to be coordinated with sampling for other water quality parameters, so dissolved
oxygen samples should be taken at times when immediate analysis is going to be
possible. This will eliminate problems that may be associated with holding samples for a
period of time before the determination is made.
If the sampling probe is not mounted such that the probe is continuously exposed to the
process stream, then care must be taken when measuring the dissolved oxygen
concentration. For best results, collect the dissolved oxygen sample with minimal
agitation and measure the dissolved oxygen concentration immediately. If possible,
measure the dissolved oxygen under a continuous stream of sample by placing the tip of
the probe in the sample container, allowing the sample to overflow the container while
the probe reaches equilibrium (usually less than 5 minutes).
14.4.5 Total Sulfides
Total sulfide samples should also be collected with minimal agitation and analyzed
immediately after sample collection. If possible, the sample container should be filled
using a piece of flexible Tygon tubing attached to the sampling port. The end of the
tubing should be placed at the bottom of the sampling container, and the container filled
to overflowing before removing the tubing and tightly capping the container.
14.4.6 Turbidity Analysis (Optional)
Turbidity analyses shall be performed according to Standard Methods 2130 or EPA
Method 180.1 with either a bench-top or in-line turbidimeter. In-line turbidimeters shall
be used for measurement of turbidity in the filtrate waters, and either an in-line or bench-
top turbidimeter may be used for measurement of the feedwater
During each verification testing period, the bench-top and in-line turbidimeters will be
left on continuously. Once each turbidity measurement is complete, the unit will be
switched back to its lowest setting. All glassware used for turbidity measurements will
be cleaned and handled using lint-free tissues to prevent scratching. Sample vials will be
stored inverted to prevent deposits from forming on the bottom surface of the cell.
January 2003
Page 2-32
-------
The Field Testing Organization shall be required to document any problems experienced
with the monitoring turbidity instruments, and shall also be required to document any
subsequent modifications or enhancements made to monitoring instruments.
14.4.6.1 Bench-top Turbidimeters. Grab samples shall be analyzed using a bench-top
turbidimeter. Readings from this instrument will serve as reference measurements
throughout the study. The bench-top turbidimeter shall be calibrated within the expected
range of sample measurements at the beginning of equipment operation and on a weekly
basis using primary turbidity standards of 0.1, 0.5, and 3.0 NTU. Secondary turbidity
standards shall be obtained and checked against the primary standards. Secondary
standards shall be used on a daily basis to verify calibration of the turbidimeter and to
recalibrate when more than one turbidity range is used.
The method for collecting grab samples will consist of running a slow, steady stream
from the sample tap, triple-rinsing a dedicated sample beaker in this stream, allowing the
sample to flow down the side of the beaker to minimize bubble entrainment,
double-rinsing the sample vial with the sample, carefully pouring from the beaker down
the side of the sample vial, wiping the sample vial clean, inserting the sample vial into the
turbidimeter, and recording the measured turbidity.
For the case of cold water samples that cause the vial to fog preventing accurate readings,
the vial must be allowed to warm up by partial submersion into a warm water bath for
approximately 30 seconds.
14.4.6.2 In-line Turbidimeters. In-line turbidimeters are required for filtered water
monitoring during verification testing and must be calibrated and maintained as specified
in the manufacturer's operation and maintenance manual. It will be necessary to verify
the in-line readings using a bench-top turbidimeter at least daily; although the mechanism
of analysis is not identical between the two instruments the readings should be
comparable. Should these readings suggest inaccurate readings then all in-line
turbidimeters should be recalibrated. In addition to calibration, periodic cleaning of the
lens should be conducted, using lint-free paper, to prevent any particle or microbiological
build-up that could produce inaccurate readings. Periodic verification of the sample flow
rate should also be performed using a volumetric measurement. Instrument bulbs should
be replaced on an as-needed basis. It should also be verified that the LED readout
matches the data recorded on the data acquisition system, if the latter is employed.
14.4.7 Dissolved Ozone
The dissolved ozone concentration can be measured using an indigo bleaching technique,
such as Standard Method 4500-03 B or the HACH Indigo AccuVac method. When
sampling for dissolved ozone, it is important to minimize sample agitation and transfer
from one container to another. One good sampling technique is to collect the sample
directly from the sample tap. If HACH AccuVac vials are used, the tip of the AccuVac
can be placed directly into the tap opening where the water is flowing. Apply pressure
and snap the tip while it is inside the sample tap opening. The vacuum in the AccuVac
January 2003
Page 2-33
-------
vial will draw the water sample into the AccuVac. Once the AccuVac is filled, remove
the AccuVac from the sample tap and analyze according the HACH instructions. If
necessary, a short piece (i.e., less than 2 feet) of Tygon tubing can be attached to the
sample tap for dissolved ozone sampling. If HACH AccuVac vials are not used, use of
tubing attached to the sample port for sample collection is recommended to minimize
sample agitation and mixing. This tubing should be Tygon and should be no longer than
2 feet in length.
Another method for measuring dissolved ozone is a dissolved ozone probe. These probes
can be placed in the process stream to provide continuous measurements of ozone
residuals. Check the probe tip daily to ensure that the membrane has been installed
properly and that there are no air bubbles underneath the membrane. Also, check that the
pressure and flow rate within the contactor are within the appropriate range for the probe
being used. The performance of the probe shall be verified on a daily basis by measuring
the dissolved ozone concentration with one of the indigo bleaching methods to ensure
that the probe is functioning properly.
A third method for measuring dissolved ozone concentrations is an on-line analyzer
which uses UV spectrophotometry to measure the gas-phase concentration of ozone
which has been stripped from a liquid sample. These analyzers then correlate the gas-
phase ozone concentration to the dissolved ozone concentration. These analyzers are
calibrated at the factory.
14.4.8 Gas Phase Ozone
Gas phase ozone concentrations can be measured using either UV absorbance ozone
monitors or a wet-chemistry test. Ozone monitors are calibrated at the factory and
provide a continuous measure of the ozone concentration in gas phase. The wet-
chemistry test method of measuring the ozone concentration of a gas stream involves
bubbling ozone through a potassium iodide solution, acidification with sulfuric acid, and
titration with sodium thiosulfate. This method is described in detail in Rakness et al.
(1996). During each Verification Test, a wet-chemistry measurement of the ozone feed
gas shall be conducted to independently check that the ozone monitor is functioning
properly. If ozone monitors are not available, wet-chemistry tests shall be performed
three times per day or three times per shift to measure the ozone concentration in the feed
gas and off gas.
14.4.9 Hydrogen Peroxide
The concentration of hydrogen peroxide can be measured using one of two
spectrophotometric methods: 1) cobalt-bicarbonate and 2) peroxidase. The cobalt-
bicarbonate method, described in Masschelein et al. (1977), can be used to measure up to
2 mg/L hydrogen peroxide at 260 nm, whereas the peroxidase method, described in
Bader et al. (1988), can be used to measure up to 1.7 mg/L hydrogen peroxide at 551 nm.
January 2003
Page 2-34
-------
At low pH, ozone and peroxide can be in solution at the same time, because the reaction
rate is slow. The presence of ozone interferes with any hydrogen peroxide analysis;
therefore, to measure the amount of hydrogen peroxide in the AOP system, ozone
production shall be temporarily terminated while hydrogen peroxide samples are being
collected and analyzed.
To ensure the proper feed rate of hydrogen peroxide to the AOP system, use a stopwatch
to measure the time required to collect a specified volume of hydrogen peroxide stock
solution from the feed system. This requires that the hydrogen peroxide feed line to the
contactor be temporarily disconnected so that the pumping rate of the stock hydrogen
peroxide solution can be measured. Typically, a graduated cylinder is used to collect the
pumped hydrogen peroxide sample and the size of the graduated cylinder is such that the
length of collection time exceeds 10 seconds.
The strength of the peroxide feed solution can also be determined from the peroxide
supplier's shipping information, as long as the peroxide being used for testing has not
been: 1) diluted by the user; 2) exposed to contamination (which would affect its
strength); 3) stored for longer than one year; or, 4) stored at temperatures greater than 77
ฐF.
14.5 Chemical and Biological Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analyses
The analytical methods that shall be used during testing for chemical and biological samples that
are shipped off- site for analyses are described in this section.
14.5.1 Organic Samples
Samples for analysis of total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and
UV254 absorbance shall be collected in glass bottles supplied by the state-certified or third
party- or EPA-accredited laboratory and shipped at 4ฐC to the analytical laboratory.
These samples shall be preserved, held and shipped in accordance with Standard Method
5010 B. Storage time before analysis shall be minimized, according to Standard
Methods.
Assimilable organic carbon (AOC) samples shall be collected in sampling containers
supplied by the state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited laboratory. Sample
collection, preservation, and storage requirements are outlined in Standard Methods
9060A and 9060B.
14.5.2 Microbial Parameters: Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa, and Algae
Samples for analysis of any microbial parameter shall be collected in bottles supplied by
the analytical laboratory. Microbial samples shall be refrigerated at approximately 2 to
8ฐC immediately upon collection. Such samples shall be shipped in a cooler and
maintained at a temperature of approximately 2 to 8ฐC during shipment. Samples shall
be processed for analysis by a state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited laboratory
January 2003
Page 2-35
-------
within 24 hours of collection. The laboratory shall keep the samples at approximately 2
to 8ฐC until initiation of processing. TC densities shall be reported as most probable
number per 100 ml (MPN/100 mL) and HPC densities shall be reported as colony
forming units per mL (cfu/mL).
Methods for assessing the viability of the selected bacteria and viruses shall be specified
by the laboratory(ies) performing the analysis and shall be specified in the PSTP. The
FTO may select a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third
party organization (i.e., NSF) or the USEPA for analysis of microbial contaminants in
water samples.
Methods for assessing the viability of cysts and oocysts are non-standard but may be used
in verifying objectives that an ozone system inactivates protozoan cysts and oocysts if the
method has undergone peer review. A summary and comparison of viability methods is
presented in research completed by the following researchers: Korich et al. (1993),
Nieminski and Ongerth (1995), and Slifko et al. (1997). Any non-standard method fir
assessing cyst and oocyst viability shall be correlated to animal infectivity.
Algae samples shall be preserved with Lugol's solution after collection, stored and
shipped in a cooler at a temperature of approximately 2 to 8ฐC, and held at that
temperature range until counted.
14.5.3 Inorganic Samples
Inorganic chemical samples, including alkalinity, shall be collected and preserved in
accordance with Standard Method 301 OB, paying particular attention to the sources of
contamination as outlined in Standard Methods 3010C. The samples shall be refrigerated
at approximately 4ฐC immediately upon collection, shipped in a cooler, and maintained at
a temperature of approximately 4ฐC during shipment. Samples shall be processed for
analysis by a state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited laboratory within 24 hours
of collection. The laboratory shall keep the samples at approximately 4ฐC until initiation
of analysis.
14.5.4 Bromate
Samples for the analysis of bromate samples shall be collected in sampling containers
supplied by the state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited laboratory. Sample
collection and storage requirements are outlined in EPA Method 300.1 or shall be
provided by the laboratory conducting the analysis.
14.6 Microbial Challenge Testing
The quality control requirement for microbiological testing was specified in Task 4, Section
12.3.4.
January 2003
Page 2-36
-------
14.6.1 Process Control
A second round of testing shall be carried out using procedures described in Section 12.3,
Task 4, but without operating the ozone equipment. The purpose of this testing is to
evaluate any cumulative effects produced by the equipment, the spiking and sampling
procedures, and the sample handling procedures on organism viability. This testing shall
not occur until sanitizing agents and inactivated target organisms, whose presence could
affect subsequent tests of the unit (Giardia and Cryptosporidium), have been eliminated
from the contactor. The process control samples should show minimal inactivation of the
target org^nism(s) relative to the trip control sample. Significant inactivation of the
organisms in the process control sample indicates that some aspect of the process other
than ozone disinfection contributes to inactivation of the test organism(s). Repeat testing
is required when this is shown to occur.
14.6.2 Trip Control
For tests utilizing spike challenges, a replicate or subsample of the spiking suspension
shall accompany the actual spiking suspension from the analytical laboratory. This
replicate sample shall undergo all of the processes used on the actual suspension
including dose preparation pre-enumeration, shipping, preparation for spiking, and return
to the laboratory for enumeration and viability baseline assessment. The trip control
samples should show minimal inactivation of the target organism(s). Significant
inactivation of the trip control sample indicates that some step in handling the suspension
contributed to inactivation of the test organism(s). The seeding tests must be repeated
when significant inactivation of the trip control sample is observed.
15.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The following are recommendations for criteria for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals
for drinking water treatment equipment employing ozone treatment.
15.1 Maintenance
The Manufacturer shall provide readily understood information on the recommended or required
maintenance schedule for each piece of operating equipment including, but not limited to, the
following, where applicable:
ozone generator (dielectric replacement)
ozone diffusers or injection port, control valves
ozone destruct unit (catalyst replacement)
gas phase ozone monitors (for feed gas and off gas)
dissolved ozone monitoring equipment
cooling water equipment
air preparation unit or oxygen feed system for ozone generation
gas and liquid rotameters
January 2003
Page 2-37
-------
UV lamps and other relevant equipment
peroxide feed equipment
other equipment such as pumps and valves
The Manufacturer shall also provide readily understood information on the recommended or
required maintenance for non- mechanical or non-electrical equipment, including but not limited
to, the following, where applicable:
piping
contactor chamber
15.2 Operation
The Manufacturer shall provide readily understood recommendations for procedures related to
proper operation of all equipment. Among the operating aspects that should be addressed in the
O&M manual are:
Ozone Generator
air preparation or oxygen feed requirements (moisture content, filtration requirements, flow
rate)
cooling water requirements (flow)
range of variable voltage for adjusting ozone output
proper sequence of operation for start-up and shut-down
proper sequence of operation for initial start-up or for re-start after maintenance
Ozone Monitors (Gas Phase)
temperature and pressure compensation
zeroing and calibration procedures
proper sequence of operation for start-up and shut-down
Ozone Destruct Units
heater and/or blower requirements
catalyst requirements
proper sequence of operation for start-up and shut-down
Air Preparation or Oxygen Feed Systems
desiccant requirements and replacement procedures
filters (maintenance and replacement schedule)
proper sequence of operation for start-up and shut-down
supplemental gas (air or nitrogen) flow rate, pressure, and temperature.
Cooling Water System
maintenance of proper temperature
monitoring cooling water flow
pump maintenance
January 2003
Page 2-38
-------
proper sequence of operation for start-up and shut-down
maintenance of recirculation equipment, if cooling water is recirculated
Ozone Contactor Systems
maintenance schedule and procedures
replacement procedures
UV lamps
hours of operation (verification procedures)
UV irradiance (calibration and verification procedures)
maintenance schedule and procedures
replacement procedures
proper sequence of operation for start-up and shut-down
Hydrogen Peroxide Feed System
procedures for variable speed adjustments to pump
information about proper tubing type and size
anticipated schedule for tubing replacement
storage information (i.e., safety, container type, container material, temperature, length of
storage time) for stock hydrogen peroxide solutions
proper sequence of operation for start-up and shut-down
Control Valves
open/close indication
sequence of operations
The Manufacturer shall provide a troubleshooting guide; a simple checklist of what to do for a
variety of problems, including but not limited to:
no flow to unit
sudden change in flow to unit
no electric power
automatic operation (if provided) not functioning
valve stuck or will not operate
16.0 REFERENCES
APHA, AWWA, and WEF (1999). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th Ed., APHA, Washington, DC.
American Water Works Association Research Foundation and Compagnie Generate des Eaux
(1991). Ozone in Water Treatment Application and Engineering, Cooperative Research Report,
Langlais, B., Reckhow, D. A., and Brink, D. R., eds., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
January 2003
Page 2-39
-------
Bader, H., Sturzenegger, V., and Hoigne, J. (1988). "Photometric Method for the Determination
of Low Concentrations of Hydrogen Peroxide by the Peroxidase Catalyzed Oxidation of N,N-
Diethyl-/;-Phenylenediamine (DPD)," Water Research, 22(9): 1109.
Coffey, B. M., and Gramith, J. T. (1994). "Demonstration-Scale Evaluation of Ozone
Disinfection Calculation Methods," Proceedings of the International Ozone Association
Conference, Advances in the Application of Ozone in Water and Wastewater Treatment,
Richmond, VA, September. "(Stamford, CT: International Ozone Association, Pan American
Group)
Korich, D.G., et al. 1993. Development of a test to assess C. parvum oocyst viability:
correlation with infectivity potential. American Water Works Association Research Foundation
Report.
Labatiuk, C.W., Belosevic, M., and Finch, G.R. (1994). "Inactivation of Giardia muris Using
Ozone and Ozone-Hydrogen Peroxide," Ozone Science & Engineering, 16(??):67-78.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and CWC-HDR, Inc. (1991). Guidance Manual For Compliance With The
Filtration and Disinfection Requirements For Public Water Systems Using Surface Water
Sources AWWA, Denver, CO.
Masschelein, W., Denis, M., and Ledent, R. (1977). "Spectrophotometric Determination of
Residual Hydrogen Peroxide," Water and Sewerage Works, 124(8):69.
Nieminski, E. C. and Ongerth, J. E., 1995. Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by
Conventional and Direct Filtration. J. American Water Works Association 87, 96-106.
Rakness, K. Gordon, G., Langlais, B. Masschelein, W., Matsumoto, N., Richard, Y., Robson,
C.M. and Somiya, I. (1996) "Guideline for Measurement of Ozone Concentration in the Process
gas from an Ozone Generator". Ozone: Science & Engineering 18(3):209-229.
Slifko, T. R., Friedman, D. E., Rose, J. B., Upton, S. J. and Jakubowski, W. 1997. An In-vitro
Method for Detection of Infectious Cryptosporidium Oocysts using Cell Culture. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol., 63(9), 3669-3675.
January 2003
Page 2-40
-------
Table 1. Water Quality Sampling and Measurement Schedule
Parameter
Sampling Location
Mandatory (M)
or Optional (0)
Frequency*
Surface Water Systems
Ground Water Systems
Temperature (ฐC)
Feed Water
Treated Water
M
3/d or 3/shift
3/d or 3/shift
Dissolved Ozone Residual (mg/L)
Treated Waterf
M
3/d or 3/shift
3/d or 3/shift
PH
Feed Water
M
3/d or 3/shift
3/d or 3/shift
Total Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCC>3)
F eed W ater
0
1/d
1/d
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L)
Feed Water
0
1/d
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/L)
Feed Water
0
1/d
1/50 hours of ozone
production
UV absorbance at 254 nm (1/m)
Feed Water
Treated Water
0
1/d
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Color (Pt-Co)
Feed Water
Treated Water
0
1/d
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Turbidity (NTU)
Feed Water
Treated Water
0
3/d or 3/shift
3/d or 3/shift
Bromide (mg/L)
Feed Water
Treated Water
0
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Bromate (pg/L)
Feed Water
Treated Water
0
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
January 2003
Page 2-41
-------
Table 1. Water Quality Sampling and Measurement Schedule, continued
Parameter
Sampling Location
Mandatory (M) or
Optional (0)
Frequency*
Surface Water Systems
Ground Water Systems
Bacteria and Viruses
Feed Water
Treated Water
M**
A minimum of three
triplicate samples per
Verification Testing
period.
A minimum of three
triplicate samples per
Verification Testing
period.
Protozoa
Feed Water
Treated Water
M**
A minimum of three
samples per
Verification Testing
period.
A minimum of three
samples per
Verification Testing
period.
AOC (ug acetate/L)
Treated Water
M
1 per 200 hours
1 per 200 hours
Quenching Solution (mg/L) (e.g., hydrogen
peroxide)
Feed Water
M
1/d
1/d
Hydrogen Peroxide (mg/L)
Stock Solution
Treated Water
Mff
1 per 50 hours
1 per Verification test
period
1 per 50 hours
1 per Verification test
period.
Total THMs (jag/L) (chloroform, bromoform,
bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane)
Treated Water
0
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
HAAs (pg/L) (monochloroacetic acid,
dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid,
monobromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid)
Treated Water
0
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
January 2003
Page 2-42
-------
Table 1. Water Quality Sampling and Measurement Schedule, continued
Parameter
Sampling Location
Mandatory (M) or
Optional (O)
Freauencv*
Surface W ater Systems
Ground Water Systems
Iron (ng/L)
Feed Water
O
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Total Manganese (jag/L)
Feed Water
Treated Water
O
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Dissolved Manganese (ng/L) (Manganese
concentration passing through 0.2 |im filter)
Feed Water
Treated Water
O
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Total Sulfides
Feed Water
O
1/d
1/d
Dissolved Oxygen
Feed Water
Treated Water
O
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Algal enumeration and speciation
Feed Water
O
1 per Verification Test
Period
Not Required
Calcium (mg/L as CaCC^)
Feed Water
O
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCC^)
Feed Water
O
1/50 hours of ozone
production
1/50 hours of ozone
production
* 3/d or 3/shift means that the water quality parameter shall be measured either 3 times per day if ozone production is continuous over the 200 hours of
Verification Testing, or 3 times per staffed shift if ozone production is periodically terminated or interrupted, and the length of time of ozone production is less
than 24 hours. 1/50 hours of ozone production means that the water quality parameter shall be measured once per each 50 hours of ozone production, regardless
of interruptions in ozone production.
f The dissolved ozone concentration should be measured at sampling ports within the ozone contactor or immediately at the outlet of the ozone
contactor. Multiple sampling ports may need to be sampled to calculate CT values.
** Mandatory if microbial challenge testing is being conducted. If CT calculations are used, these methods are not required,
ff The peroxide concentration of the stock solution shall be checked at the prescribed frequency. The peroxide concentration within the contactor
shall be checked once during or immediately prior to the verification testing period, while the ozone equipment is not operating. Peroxide monitoring
within the contactor will require that samples be withdrawn at appropriate sampling ports at the end or outlet of the contactor.
January 2003
Page 2-43
-------
Table 2. Analytical Methods
Parameter
Facility
Standard Methods1 number or
Other Method Reference
EPA Method2
Temperature
On-Site
2550 B
PH
On-Site
4500-IrT B
150.1 / 150.2
Total alkalinity
Lab
2320 B
Total Hardness
Lab
2340 C
Total organic carbon
Lab
5310 C
Turbidity
On-Site
2130 B/Method 2
180.1
Dissolved
Ozone Residual
On-Site
4500 O3 B; HACH Indigo
Blue Method*
Iron
Lab
3111 D/3113B/3120 B
200.7/200.8/200.9
Manganese
Lab
3111 D/3113B/3120 B
200.7/200.8/200.9
UV254 absorbance
Lab
5910 B
Calcium Hardness
Lab
3500-CaD
Dissolved Manganese
(manganese passing through
0.2 |im filter)
Lab
3500-Mn
200.0/243.2/243.3
Bromide
Lab
4500-Br"
300.0
Total THMs
Lab
6232B
502.2, 524.2, 551
Haloacetic Acids (HAAs)
Lab
6251 B
552.1
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Lab
5310 C
Color (Pt-Co)
Lab
2120 C
110.2
Total Sulfides
Lab or
On-Site
4500- S2- D, E
Dissolved Oxygen
Lab or
On-Site
4500-O
AOC
Lab
9217
Bromate
Lab
300.1
Hydrogen Peroxide (mg/L)
Lab or
On-site
HACH Method HYP-1 or
Masschelein, W., et al.,
(1977) orBadere/a/. (1988)
Algal enumeration and
speciation
Lab
Part 10000, Biological
Examination!
* Dissolved ozone residual measurements can also be from a properly calibrated and installed dissolved ozone
monitor.
f Standard Methods does not contain a method for enumeration and speciation of algae. It does, however, contain
methods for laboratory techniques, which may need to be performed for proper enumeration and speciation of the
algae. Only an experienced and qualified laboratory analyst shall conduct algal enumeration and speciation.
January 2003
Page 2-44
-------
Table 3. Equipment Operating Data
Operational Parameter
Frequency
Water Flow (gpm)
Feed Water
3/d or 3/shift
Side Stream (if applicable)
3/d or 3/shift
Cooling Water
3/d o r 3/shift
Water Pressure (psig)
Inlet to Ozone System
3/d or 3/shift
Outlet of Ozone System
3/d or 3/shift
Side Stream (if applicable)
3/d or 3/shift
Cooling Water
3/d or 3/shift
Water Temperature (ฐC)
Inlet to Ozone System
3/d or 3/shift
Outlet to Ozone System
3/d or 3/shift
Side Stream (if applicable)
3/d or 3/shift
Gas Phase Ozone
Feed Gas
3/d or 3/shift
Concentration
(% wt)
Off Gas
3/d or 3/shift
Power Usage (kw/hr)
Ozone Generator
3/d or 3/shift
Air Preparation System or Oxygen System
3/d or 3/shift
Gas Phase Ozone Feed and Off Gas Monitors
3/d or 3/shift
Cooling Water System
3/d or 3/shift
Destruct Units
3/d or 3/shift
Other pumps or motors
3/d or 3/shift
Ozone Feed Gas Temperature (ฐC)
3/d or 3/shift
Ozone Feed Gas Pressure (psig)
3/d or 3/shift
Ozone Feed Gas Flow (scfm)
3/d or 3/shift
Atmospheric Pressure (psia)
1/dor 1 /shift
Dew Point (if using air feed system)
1/dor 1 /shift
Ozone Production (lb/d)
1/dor 1 /shift
If applicable:
Purity of oxygen supply (%)
Supplemental nitrogen flow rate (scfm), pressure (psig), and temperature (ฐC)
Supplemental air flow rate (scfm), pressure (psig), and temperature (ฐC)
1/d or 1 /shift
1/dor 1 /shift
1/dor 1 /shift
If applicable:
Peroxide feed concentration (mg/L)
1/dor 1 /shift
Peroxide feed rate (mL/min)
Peroxide to Ozone ratio (by weight)
If applicable:
Operating parameters for UV-light systems (see ETV Testing Plan for Microorganism
Contaminant Inactivation by Ultraviolet Based Technology - Chapter 4)
3/d or 3/shift
January 2003
Page 2-45
-------
Table 4. CT Values for Inactivation of Giardia Cysts by Ozone at pH 6 to 9
Temperature (ฐC)
Inactivation
0.5
5
10
15
20
25
0.5 log
0.48
0.32
0.23
0.16
0.12
0.08
1.0 log
0.97
0.63
0.48
0.32
0.24
0.16
1.5 logs
1.5
0.95
0.72
0.48
0.36
0.24
2.0 logs
1.9
1.3
0.95
0.63
0.48
0.32
2.5 logs
2.4
1.6
1.2
0.79
0.60
0.40
3.0 logs
2.9
1.9
1.4
0.95
0.72
0.48
Source: Appendix O to the Guidance Manual For Compliance With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements
For Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources.
Table 5. CT Values for Inactivation of Viruses by Ozone
Temperature (ฐC)
Inactivation
0.5
5
10
15
20
25
2.0 logs
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.25
0.15
3.0 logs
1.4
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.25
4.0 logs
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.3
Source: Appendix O to the Guidance Manual For Compliance With the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements
For Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources.
January 2003
Page 2-46
-------
CHAPTER 3
EPA/NSF ETV
EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN FOR
ON-SITE GENERATION OF HALOGEN DISINFECTANTS FOR
INACTIVATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Copyright 2003 NSF International 40CFR35.6450.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce all or part of this work, subject
to the limitation that users may not sell all or any part of the work and
may not create any derivative work therefrom. Contact ETV Drinking
Water Systems Center Manager at (800) NSF-MARK with any questions
regarding authorized or unauthorized uses of this work.
January 2003
Page 3-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 APPLICATION OF THIS VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN 3-5
2.0 INTRODUCTION 3-5
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH 3-6
4.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS 3-8
4.1 Task 1: Equipment Operation and Disinfectant Production Capabilities 3-8
4.2 Task 2: Microbiological Contaminant Inactivation (Optional) 3-9
4.3 Task 3: Treated Water Quality 3-9
4.4 Task 4: Data Management 3-9
4.5 Task 5: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 3-10
5.0 TESTING PERIODS 3-10
6.0 TASK 1: EQUIPMENT OPERATION AND DISINFECTANT PRODUCTION
CAPABILITIES 3-12
6.1 Introduction 3-12
6.2 Objectives 3-12
6.3 Work Plan 3-13
6.4 Schedule 3-14
6.5 Evaluation Criteria 3-14
7.0 TASK 2: MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT INACTIVATION
(OPTIONAL) 3-15
7.1 Introduction 3-15
7.2 Objectives 3-15
7.3 Work Plan 3-15
7.3.1 Organisms Employed for Inactivation Experiments 3-16
7.4 Analytical Methods 3-16
7.4.1 Spiking Protocols 3-16
7.4.2 Sample Collection 3-17
7.4.2a Test Stream Sampling 3-17
7.4.2b Post-Test Sample Handling 3-18
7.4.2c Process Control 3-18
7.4.2d Trip Control 3-18
7.4.2e Comparison Control 3-18
7.5 Microbiological Viability Analysis 3-19
7.6 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements 3-19
January 2003
Page 3-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
8.0 TASK 3: TREATED WATER QUALITY 3-19
8.1 Introduction 3-19
8.2 Experimental Objectives 3-19
8.3 Work Plan 3-20
8.4 Analytical Schedule 3-22
8.4.1 Characterization of the Feed Water, Concentrated Halogen Stream and Halogen-
Treated Water at the Disinfection Contactor Influent and Effluent 3-22
8.4.2 Water Quality Sample Collection 3-22
8.4.3 Feed Water Quality Limitations 3-23
8.4.4 Disinfection By-Product Formation Testing 3-23
8.4.5 Comparison DBP Testing 3-23
8.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements 3-24
9.0 TASK 4: DATA MANAGEMENT 3-24
9.1 Introduction 3-24
9.2 Experimental Objectives 3-24
9.3 Work Plan 3-25
9.4 Statistical Analysis 3-26
10.0 TASK 5: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) 3-26
10.1 Introduction 3-26
10.2 Experimental Objectives 3-26
10.3 Work Plan 3-26
10.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verifications 3-27
10.3.2 QA/QC Verifications Performed Every Two Weeks 3-27
10.3.3 QA/QC Verifications To Be Performed For Each Testing Period 3-27
10.4 Analytical Methods and Sample Collection 3-27
10.4.1 pH 3-27
10.4.2 Temperature 3-27
10.4.3 True Color 3-28
10.4.4 Turbidity Analysis 3-28
10.4.4.1 Bench-top Turbidimeters 3-28
10.4.4.2 In-line Turbidimeters 3-29
10.4.5 Chlorine Residual 3-29
10.4.6 Iodine Residual 3-29
10.4.7 Chlorine Dioxide Residual 3-29
10.4.8 Bromine Residual 3-30
10.5 Chemical and Biological Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analyses 3-30
10.5.1 Organic Samples 3-30
10.5.2 Microbial Samples: TC and HPC Bacteria, Other Bacteria, Viruses and
Protozoa 3-30
10.5.3 Inorganic Samples 3-31
10.5.4 Bromate 3-31
10.6 DBP Formation Test Protocol 3-31
10.7 Health and Safety Measures 3-32
January 2003 Page 3-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
11.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 3-33
11.1 Maintenance 3-33
11.2 Operation 3-33
11.3 Operability 3-35
12.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 3-36
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Types of Statements of Performance Objectives for On-Site Halogen Generation
Systems 3-7
Table 2: Summary of Equipment Operational Characteristics to be Evaluated in Each
Verification Testing Task 3-8
Table 3: Examples of Potential Operating Conditions for Verification Testing 3-10
Table 4: Examples of Potential Feed water Types for Evaluation in Distinct Testing
Periods 3-11
Table 5: Task 1 - Required Minimum Operating Data for On-Site Halogen Generation
Systems 3-14
Table 6: Example Microorganisms for Task 2 Inactivation Experiments 3-16
Table 7: Water Quality Sampling Schedule (Minimum Required for Each Testing Period).. 3-20
January 2003
Page 3-4
-------
1.0
APPLICATION OF THIS VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
This document is the ETV Testing Plan for evaluation of water treatment equipment utilizing on-
site generation of halogen disinfectants used in drinking water treatment systems for small public
or private water supplies. This Testing Plan is to be used as a guide in the development of the
Product-Specific Test Plan (PSTP) for testing of microbiological inactivation equipment using
on-site generation of halogen disinfectants, within the structure provided by the Protocol entitled
"EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation Of
Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies".
Various types of treatment equipment employ on-site generation of halogen disinfectants to meet
water treatment objectives such as microbiological inactivation and oxidation. This Equipment
Verification Testing Plan is applicable only to treatment systems that rely on equipment for on-
site generation of halogen disinfectants to effectively inactivate microorganisms in drinking
water treatment systems. Systems may incorporate innovative techniques for generation of
halogen disinfectants, such as the electrolysis of brine to produce chlorine and multiple oxidants.
In order to participate in this equipment verification process for microbiological inactivation via
on-site generation of halogen disinfectants, the equipment Manufacturer shall employ the
procedures and methods described in this test plan and in the referenced ETV Protocol as
guidelines for the development of the PSTP. The Field Testing Organization (FTO) shall clearly
specify in its PSTP the methods that shall be used for spiking of microorganisms, sampling of
water streams and determination of microorganism viability, as well as any methods to be used
for measurement of disinfectant concentrations in treated water streams. Methods for assessing
the viability of cysts and oocysts are non-standard but may be used in verifying objectives that an
on-site halogen generation system inactivates protozoan cysts and oocysts if the method has
undergone peer review. Any non-standard method for assessing cyst and oocyst viability shall
be correlated to animal infectivity.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This ETV Testing Plan is applicable to any system that is used for on-site generation of halogen
disinfectants for drinking water treatment applications, such as primary disinfection, residual
disinfection, and process chemistry enhancement. This Testing Plan is also applicable to
treatment systems that used in response to emergency scenarios. Typical systems in this
category for on-site generation of halogen disinfectants may include but are not limited to: salt
brine electrolysis generators, mixed oxidant systems, systems that include on-site generation of
chlorine dioxide, systems providing iodination technologies, and other systems employing on-
site generation of halogens. Based upon the goals of the Verification Testing Program, there are
four primary aspects to the equipment evaluation process: 1) demonstration of equipment
operation and generation capabilities; 2) measurement of halogen concentration and speciation;
3) inactivation of microbiological contaminants in feed waters to the system; and 4)
measurement of the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) and other water quality
parameters in treated waters.
To be applicable for this verification program, the on-site halogen generation systems must have
the primary goal of halogen production for use in drinking water treatment applications.
Additional goals of the on-site halogen generation systems may be to inactivate microbial
January 2003
Page 3-5
-------
contaminants (primary disinfection), to provide a residual disinfectant in the distribution system
(residual disinfection), to reduce formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs), or to provide
oxidation of dissolved and particulate matter (organic or inorganic) in the source water.
On-site halogen generation systems that reduce the reliance on chlorine for disinfection hold
promise for small utilities. Small on-site generators may be easier to operate than chlorine gas
systems, and may provide effective oxidation of dissolved water constituents. In addition, the
use of on-site generation systems such as salt brine electrolysis generators, mixed oxidant
systems and chlorine dioxide generators may also allow for reduced formation of disinfection
by-products. Further, on-site systems, such as iodine generators, may have applications in
emergency situations.
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH
Testing of equipment covered by this Verification Testing Plan will be conducted by a
NSF-qualified FTO that is selected by the equipment Manufacturer. The analytical work will be
contracted with a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third party
organization (i.e., NSF) or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the appropriate
water quality or microbiological parameters.
For this Verification Testing, the Manufacturer shall identify in a Statement of Performance
Objectives the specific performance criteria to be verified and the specific operational conditions
under which the verification testing shall be performed. There are several types of Statements of
Performance Objectives that may be verified in this testing. Examples of Statements of
Performance Objectives are included in Table 1.
January 2003
Page 3-6
-------
Table 1.
Types of Statements of Performance Objectives for On-Site Halogen Generation Systems
Type of Statement of
Performance
Objectives
Example of Statement of Performance Objectives
Halogen Production
"This system is capable of producing a halogen concentration of 1,000 mg/L
(0.1%) as CIO2 in the concentrated halogen stream at a generation system
output of 80%."
CT
"This system is capable ofproducing a chlorine concentration of 10 mg/L for
a 10-minute contact time that will meet or exceed EPA published CTs for 1.0
logio inactivation of Giardia at a generation system output of 80% for a feed
water flow of 100 gpm for a feed water with pH of 8.0 or less, turbidity of 20
NTIJ or less, organic carbon concentrations between 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L,
alkalinity less than 150 mg/L as CaC03 and water temperatures greater than
5 ฐC. "
CT (Comparative)
"This system is capable of producing halogen concentrations that will meet
EPA published CTs for 4-log10 inactivation of virus and 3- log10 inactivation
of Giardia at a generation system output of 80% for a feed water flow of 100
gpm for a feed water with pH of 8.5 or less, turbidity of 20 NTIJ or less,
organic carbon concentrations between 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L and alkalinity less
than 150 mg/L as CaC03, while producing DBP concentrations 75%> less than
those produced by free chlorine at identical CTs. "
Microbial Inactivation
"This system is capable of achieving 3-log10 inactivation of Giardia lamblia
at a generation system output of 80% for a feed water flow of 100 gpm for a
feed water with pH of 8.5 or less, turbidity of 20 NTIJ or less, organic carbon
concentrations between 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L and alkalinity less than 150 mg/L as
CaCOs. "
Microbial Inactivation
(Comparative)
"This system is capable of achieving 3-log10 inactivation of Giardia lamblia
at CTs 20%> lower than EPA's published chlorine CTs. This level of Giardia
lamblia inactivation will be achieved by the equipment at a generation system
output of 80% for a feed water flow of 100 gpm for a feed water with pH of
8.5 or less, turbidity of 20 NTIJ or less, crganic carbon concentrations
between 2.0 and 4.0 mg/L and alkalinity less than 150 mg/L as CaC03. "
The tasks required to complete the Verification Testing depend on the type of Statement of
Performance Objectives made by the Manufacturer. The following tasks are included in this
Verification Testing program:
Task 1: Equipment Operation and Disinfectant Production Capabilities
Task 2: Microbiological Contaminant Inactivation (Optional)
Task 3: Treated Water Quality
Task 4: Data Management
Task 5: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
For each of the above-mentioned tasks and Statements of Performance Objectives, there are a
number of different operational and system characteristics that would require evaluation during
Verification Testing. Table 2 provides an overview of the equipment operational characteristics
to be evaluated in tasks 1 through 3 of the Verification Testing Plan. Tasks 4 and 5 shall be
performed for all Statements of Performance Objectives.
January 2003
Page 3-7
-------
Table 2.
Summary of Equipment Operational Characteristics
To be Evaluated in Each Verification Testing Task
Type of Statement of
Performance Objectives
(See Table 1)
Equipment Operational Characteristic to be
Evaluated
Task*
Halogen Production
1. Range of feed water flow rates
2. Range of halogen concentrations produced
under a variable range of percent generator
output
3. Speciation of halogens produced
4. DBP formation
5. Power consumption
6. Characteristics and costs of initial constituent
materials for halogen generation
7. Waste stream characterization and range of
waste stream flow rates
1
1
1
1
1
1
CT
Characteristics 1 through 7, and:
8. Hydraulic tracer testing
9. Range of hydraulic residence times of feed
waters (disinfectant contact times) through the
system
1
1
Microbial Inactivation
Characteristics 1 through 9, and:
10. Microbial inactivation
2
*Note: Tasks 4 and 5 shall be performed for all Statements of Performance Objectives
4.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS
The following section provides a brief overview of the recommended tasks that may be
components of the Verification Testing Plan and PSTP for on-site generation of halogen
disinfectants used in drinking water treatment systems for small public or private water supplies.
4.1 Task 1: Equipment Operation and Disinfectant Production Capabilities
The objective of this task is to operate the treatment equipment provided by the Manufacturer
and to assess its ability to produce on-site generation of halogen disinfectants for microbial
contaminant inactivation. The system performance shall be evaluated relative to the stated water
quality goals and any other performance characteristics specified by the Manufacturer. For
Verification Testing purposes, the equipment shall be operated for a minimum of one, one-month
testing period for each operational condition for which verification is desired. It is recommended
that Verification Testing be performed under the poorest conditions of feed water quality for
which the Manufacturer wishes to make a Statement of Performance Objectives. The FTO must
provide statements in the PSTP as to what would constitute the worst-case feed water quality for
the specific on-site halogen generation system. Examples of such worst-case feed water quality
may include cold temperatures and/or high concentrations of suspended solids, organic carbon or
oxidizable materials. Additional one-month testing periods shall be performed for other feed
January 2003
Page 3-8
-------
water qualities or other operating conditions for which the Manufacturer wishes to make a
Statement of Performance Objectives.
For all types of Statements of Performance Objectives, the FTO shall evaluate the following
operational parameters: range of flow rates for which system is designed, concentration of
disinfectants generated by the system (under a range of operational conditions and a range of
percent disinfectant output), the speciation of the disinfectants produced by the on-site
generation system, and production of DBPs. For Statements of Performance Objectives based on
CT or inactivation, the FTO shall also determine hydraulic retention times. For Statements of
Performance Objectives based on inactivation, the FTO shall determine contact times between
the disinfectant and microbiological contaminants. Inactivation of microbiological contaminants
will be addressed in Task 2. Formation of DBPs and other water quality impacts in treated
waters will be addressed in Task 3.
4.2 Task 2: Microbiological Contaminant Inactivation (Optional)
This task shall be performed if the Statement of Performance Objectives is based on inactivation.
This task may be waived if the Statement of Performance Objectives is based only on halogen
production or CT. The objective of this task is to measure the performance of the on-site
halogen generation drinking water treatment equipment for inactivation of selected bacterial,
viral or protozoan contaminants that may include: Clostridium perfringens, Klebsiella,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (if there high HPC counts are present in feed waters), MS2
bacteriophage, Giardia lamblia, and/or Cryptosporidiumparvum.
4.3 Task 3: Treated Water Quality
The objective of this task is to evaluate the quality of treated water. Multiple water quality
parameters will be monitored during each testing period. The mandatory water quality
monitoring parameters for all testing periods shall include: pH, temperature, turbidity,
disinfectant residual, hydrogen sulfide, alkalinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), ammonia
nitrogen, total organic carbon (TOC), UV absorbance at 254 nm (UVA), true color, iron,
manganese, chloride, bromide, sodium, total coliforms, and heterotrophic plate count (HPC)
bacteria. Monitoring of free available chlorine (FAC) and total available chlorine (TAC) shall be
required for all Verification Testing of on-site halogen generation systems, whether or not
chlorine is considered the primary agent of inactivation. Formation of instantaneous and/or DBP
formation testing of organic DBPs in the treated water shall also be monitored by the FTO, as
applicable. Inorganic by-products of treatment with the on-site halogen generation system shall
be monitored as applicable, including but not limited to chlorite, chlorate and bromate. Water
quality produced shall be evaluated in relation to feed water quality and operational conditions.
4.4 Task 4: Data Management
The objective of this task is to establish an effective field protocol for data management at the
field operations site and for data transmission between the FTO and NSF for data obtained
during the Verification Testing. Prior to the beginning of field testing, the database design must
be developed by the FTO and reviewed and approved by NSF. This will insure that the required
data will be collected during the testing, and that it can be effectively transmitted to NSF for
review.
January 2003
Page 3-9
-------
4.5
Task 5: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
An important aspect of Verification Testing is the protocol developed for quality assurance and
quality control. The objective of this task is to assure accurate measurement of operational and
water quality parameters during Verification Testing of the on-site halogen generation
equipment. Prior to the beginning of field testing, a QA/QC plan must be developed which
addresses all aspects of the testing process. Each water quality parameter and operational
parameter must have appropriate QA and QC measures in place and documented. For example,
the protocol for pH measurement should describe how the pH meter is calibrated (frequency, pH
values), what adjustments are made, and provide a permanent record of all calibrations and
maintenance for that instrument.
5.0 TESTING PERIODS
For Verification Testing purposes, the equipment shall be operated for a minimum of one, one-
month testing period at each set of operational conditions and/or feed water qualities for which
verification is desired (i.e., conditions of testing that will support the Statement of Performance
Objectives). For example, separate one-month testing periods shall be performed for different
operating conditions of the halogen generation equipment, such as different output levels of the
halogen generator (e.g., separate one-month testing periods for 80%, 50% and 20% generator
output). Examples of some of the different operational conditions that might be included as
separate testing periods in the Verification Testing program are listed in Table 3.
Table 3.
Examples of
'otential Operating Conditions for Verificai
tion Testing
Potential Operating
Conditions
Required Testing
Period
Required Tasks per
Testing Period
Optional Tasks per
Testing Period
80%) generator output
one month
1,3,4,5
2
50%) generator output
one month
1,3,4,5
2
20% generator output
one month
1,3,4,5
2
It is recommended that one-month of Verification Testing shall be performed under the poorest
feed water quality for which the Manufacturer wishes to verify the Statement of Performance
Objectives. The FTO must provide statements in the PSTP as to what would constitute the
worst-case feed water quality for the specific on-site halogen generation system. Examples of
some of the different water quality conditions that might be included as separate testing periods
in the Verification Testing program are listed in Table 4.
January 2003
Page 3-10
-------
Table 4.
Examples of Potential Feed water Types for Evaluation in Distinct Testing Periods
Potential Testing
Required
Required Tasks per
Optional Task in
Conditions
Testing Period
Testing Period
Testing Period
Poor Water Quality
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Spring Run-Off Event
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Summer Algae Bloom
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Cold Temperature
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Untreated Surface Water
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Treated Surface Water
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Groundwater
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Groundwater Under the
one-month
1,3,4,5
2
Influence
Examples of poor feed water quality may include high concentrations of suspended solids,
organic carbon or other materials that can exert an oxidant demand. These worst-case feed water
quality characteristics may not occur simultaneously. For example, the Manufacturer may wish
to conduct an additional one-month testing period during a spring run-off event in order to
demonstrate equipment performance on a water quality characterized by elevated turbidity and
organic material. The Manufacturer may wish to conduct testing in another one-month testing
period during a summer algae bloom for demonstration of performance under conditions of
elevated levels of organic material. Additionally, the Manufacturer may wish to conduct testing
in a third one-month testing period during the coldest water temperatures of the winter.
The Manufacturer may also wish to demonstrate the Statement of Performance Objectives using
water supplies from both surface water sources (treated and untreated) and groundwater sources
(e.g., untreated and/or under the influence of surface water). In this case, the FTO must provide
statements in the PSTP as to what constitutes the worst-case feed water quality for each supply
and schedule the testing periods accordingly.
Prior to the initiation of Verification Testing, sufficient information shall be provided to illustrate
the variations expected to occur in feed water quality for a typical annual cycle for the water
source. Any pretreatment chemical additions that may impact the feed water to the on-site
halogen generation system shall be fully described by the FTO in the PSTP. For example, any
coagulant or other chemical additions shall be identified. Predicted effects on feed water
turbidity, suspended solids and total organic carbon concentration shall also be discussed in the
PSTP prepared by the FTO. Failure to adequately characterize the feed water could result in
testing at a site later deemed inappropriate, so the initial characterization will be important to the
success of the testing program.
The required tasks (Task 1 and Tasks 3 through 5) and optional task (Task 2) in the Verification
Testing Plan are designed to be completed during each one-month testing period performed for
the Verification Testing. One month is the minimum duration of each testing period; longer
testing periods may be employed at the discretion of the Manufacturer or as necessary to
complete the required (and optional, if applicable) tasks. The required one-month duration of
each testing period does not include the time required for mobilization or start-up, nor does it
include the time required to achieve steady-state operation.
January 2003
Page 3-11
-------
6.0 TASK 1: EQUIPMENT OPERATION AND DISINFECTANT PRODUCTION
CAPABILITIES
6.1 Introduction
During Task 1, the FTO shall evaluate equipment operations and determine the rates of feed
water flow and halogen production concentration for which the on-site generation system is
designed. The on-site halogen generation equipment shall be operated for Verification Testing
purposes within the operational range presented in the Manufacturer's Statement of Performance
Objectives, as described above in Section 3.0. Monitoring in Task 1 shall be focused on
determination of the operational characteristics summarized above in Table 2, depending on the
type of Statement of Performance Objectives made in the PSTP, or other factors applicable to the
technology that provide effective treatment of the feed water. The FTO shall establish the testing
conditions to be evaluated for Task 1 in the PSTP.
Before the initiation of Verification Testing in Task 1, the FTO on behalf of the Manufacturer
shall make known the limitations of the equipment and any existing equipment incompatibilities
with treatment processes or chemical additions. To this end, a listing shall be provided by the
Manufacturer describing the potentially incompatible treatment processes or chemical additions
(i.e., oxidants, coagulants, anti-sealants, chemicals for pH adjustment) that would adversely
impact the equipment materials or the treatment process. In addition, the FTO shall report any
incompatibilities between equipment and treatment processes or chemical additions that are
observed during the course of the Verification Testing Program.
The FTO (with input from the equipment Manufacturer) may want to conduct preliminary
studies in Task 1 to determine the range of operational capabilities during initial runs with the
on-site halogen generation equipment. For Statements of Performance Objectives based on CT
or microbial inactivation, the FTO shall describe in the PSTP the type of disinfectant contacting
system that will be employed during Verification Testing of the on-site halogen generation
system. The FTO shall also propose and fully describe in the PSTP the method of hydraulic
tracer testing that will be performed to demonstrate flow conditions and residence duration
(exposure time). Procedures for developing a tracer test methodology are described in the
General Requirements section of the Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing of
Microbiological Contaminant Inactivation.
This testing plan applies to halogen generation systems that are designed for either continuous
flow or for intermittent flow through the generation equipment. If the Statement of Performance
Objectives applies to intermittent flow applications, this should be specifically stated in the
Statement of Performance Objectives and the work plan should include a designated shutdown
period each day in which the on-site halogen generation equipment is turned off.
6.2 Objectives
The objectives of Task 1 are to determine the appropriate range for equipment operation and to
determine the range of disinfectant concentrations (as well as speciation) generated under
different conditions of percent system generation output. The performance of on-site halogen
generation systems may be different for feed waters from different test sites or for the feed water
from the same site during different seasonal water quality episodes. Therefore, it will be
necessary to fully document the feed water conditions under which Verification Testing is
January 2003
Page 3-12
-------
performed. Complete chemical, biological and physical characterization of the feed waters and
treated waters produced by the system will be performed as part of Task 3. This task is intended
to result in data that describe the operation of the equipment and data that can be used to develop
cost estimates for operation of the equipment.
6.3 Work Plan
Mobilization and start-up of equipment shall be performed prior to the initiation of Task 1
testing. Furthermore, the on-site halogen generation system shall have achieved a condition of
steady-state operation before the start of Task 1 testing. The FTO shall clearly describe in the
PSTP the protocol for start-up of the on-site halogen generation system, as well as operations and
maintenance issues that may arise during mobilization and start-up.
During each day of Verification Testing in Task 1 (minimum one-month testing period at one set
of operational conditions and/or one set of water quality characteristics), treatment equipment
operating parameters for the on-site halogen generation will be monitored and operating data will
be recorded. Operating parameters for monitoring shall include: rate of feed water and treated
water flow; generated halogen concentration and speciation (dilution of concentrated halogen
stream may be required); rate and quality of feed stock (i.e., salt) consumption, and other
equipment characteristics as specified for measurement by the FTO in the PSTP. In addition, the
aggregate horsepower of all motors and mechanical efficiencies of all motors/devices supplied
with the equipment shall be determined and used to develop an estimate of the maximum power
requirements and routine power consumption during operation. A summary of the operational
parameters to be recorded during Task 1 and the minimum frequency of monitoring is presented
in Table 5. The FTO shall provide the necessary methods information for monitoring of the
operational parameters presented in Table 5. Additional monitoring of feed water chemistry
shall be performed during Verification Testing, as described below in Task 3 (Section 8.0).
If any waste streams are generated by the on-site halogen generation system, these streams must
be fully characterized during Task 1 testing. The FTO shall fully describe and provide general
characterization of the waste streams that are generated by the on-site halogen generation system
in the PSTP, including pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), alkalinity, disinfectant residual, and
temperature. In the case that water softening of the feedwater is required prior to halogenation,
the characteristics of the waste streams produced by the water softener shall also be described.
The FTO shall also discuss the applicable potential waste stream disposal issues in the PSTP,
including disposal to the sewer or receiving water.
January 2003
Page 3-13
-------
Table 5.
Task 1 - Required Minimum Operating Data for On-Site Halogen Generation Systems
Operational Parameter
Action, Monitoring Frequency
Feed water flow rate
Check and record twice daily. Adjust when
10% above or below target. Record both
before and after adjustment.
Rate of feed stock consumption
Check and record consumption twice daily.
Adjust when 10% above or below target.
(Quality of feed stock required by equipment
shall also be recorded.)
Halogen concentration and speciation (at each
set of operational conditions)
Sample the following and record twice daily:
1. Concentrated halogen stream (generator
product)
2. Halogen-treated water at disinfection
contactor influent (if applicable)
3. Halogen-treated water at disinfection
contactor effluent (if applicable)
Horsepower and efficiency of motors, and
consumed amperage for on-site generation (at
each set of operational conditions)
Provide record of current draw to motors on
cumulative basis. Provide information on start-
up amperage and horsepower requirements.
Waste stream composition
(Testing recommended for each batch of
constituent chemicals)
Sample once each one-month testing period
for: pH, NaOH, TDS, heavy metal scan (only
those technologies producing definable waste).
Water softeners may require monitoring of
additional parameters.
Waste stream flow rate
Check and record waste flow streams (if
applicable) twice daily.
For Statements of Performance Objectives
based on CT or microbial inactivation:
Hydraulic detention time in disinfectant
contacting system (at selected flow rate)
Provide correlation to measured value on daily
basis.
6.4 Schedule
During Verification Testing, water treatment equipment shall be operated continuously for a
minimum of one month at one set of operational conditions (e.g., percent generator output -
Table 3) and/or one feed water quality (examples given Table 4). Interruptions in operation may
be allowed during the one-month testing period as needed for system maintenance. Necessary
details of the system shutdown procedure shall be specified by the FTO in the PSTP.
6.5 Evaluation Criteria
General operational performance
=> Temporal profile of feed water flow rate over each one-month testing period. One
temporal profile graph (at daily resolution) shall be provided for each set of operational
conditions and/or water qualities evaluated during Verification Testing.
January 2003
Page 3-14
-------
=> Temporal profile of waste stream flow rate measured during each one-month testing
period.
=> Table of disinfectant concentrations generated for each disinfectant species in the
halogenated water and treated water streams during each one-month testing period.
Rate of consumption of feed material for halogen generation and for feedwater conditioning.
Quality of feedstock material required for halogen generation shall also be reported.
Power consumption
=> Table of horsepower requirements, motor efficiency and consumed amperage for the
testing period(s), as measured for each set of operational conditions.
Waste stream characterization
=> Table of waste stream quality parameters measured during each one-month testing
period.
Contact time (only for Statements of Performance Objectives based on CT or microbial
inactivation)
=> Table of calculated or estimated hydraulic detention time in disinfectant contacting
system for each set of operational conditions evaluated during the testing period(s).
7.0 TASK 2: MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT INACTIVATION
(OPTIONAL)
7.1 Introduction
If the Statement of Performance Objectives is based on microbial inactivation, the effectiveness
of the on-site generation equipment for inactivation of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses,
or protozoa (or a combination thereof) introduced in the feed water to the system will be
evaluated in this task. The measurement of inactivation for this study will be based upon a
comparison of the percent of viable organisms in the feed water stream and the percent of viable
organisms in the halogen-treated water stream at the disinfection contactor effluent. In the case
that the FTO can demonstrate that the feed waters contain a naturally occurring and consistent
concentration of microorganisms approved by this inactivation test plan that is sufficient to
demonstrate the manufacturer's Statement of Performance Objectives, no spiking of organisms
will be necessary for the inactivation experiments.
7.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to characterize the on-site halogen generation technology in terms of
efficacy for inactivation of selected microbiological contaminants. Microorganisms for
inactivation testing will be selected by the FTO and specifically identified in the PSTP.
7.3 Work Plan
If the Manufacturer's Statement of Performance Objectives is based on microbial inactivation,
the FTO shall identify the microbiological contaminant inactivation capabilities in the Statement
of Performance Objectives provided in the PSTP. In the Statement of Performance Objectives,
the Manufacturer shall identify the specific microbiological contaminants to be monitored during
equipment testing and the specific operational conditions under which inactivation testing shall
be performed. The Statement of Performance Objectives prepared by the FTO on behalf of the
Manufacturer shall also indicate the range of water quality under which the equipment can be
January 2003
Page 3-15
-------
challenged while successfully treating the feed water. Examples of satisfactory Statements of
Performance Objectives based on microbial inactivation were provided in Table 1.
7.3.1 Organisms Employed for Inactivation Experiments
The FTO on behalf of the Manufacturer shall specify which organisms shall be employed in
Verification Testing for demonstration of the inactivation efficacy of the on-site halogen
generation system. Examples of organisms for potential use in this task are listed below in
Table 6. These species represent microorganisms of particular interest and concern to the
drinking water industry, and represent a range of resistance to inactivation methods. The
specific batches of microorganisms used must be shown to be viable by the laboratory
involved in the analytical aspects of the testing. The FTO shall specify in their PSTP, which
of the approved organisms will be employed for Verification Testing. The FTO shall also
specify the specific methods that shall be used for analysis of the count and the viability of
the test organisms.
Table 6.
Example Microorganisms for Task 2 Inactivation Experiments
Type of Spiking Organism
Example Microorganisms for Inactivation Experiments
Bacteria
Clostridium perfringens
Klebsiella
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (if high HPC counts are present)
Total Coliform Bacteria
Virus
MS2 Bacteriophage
Enteric virus species
Protozoan (oo)cysts
Giardia lamblia
Cryptosporidium parvum
Microbial inactivation experiments with the on-site generation system shall be performed as
three replicate studies done consecutively at one set of selected operational conditions and/or
a range of influent water qualities, as required in Task 1. Microbiological inactivation
experiments may be conducted during the minimum one-month Verification Testing period
that is required for a single set of operating conditions and/or influent water quality in Task
1. Only one process control test shall be performed in which the on-site halogen generation
system is turned off. The FTO shall fully describe the spiking and sampling methods to be
used during the microbial inactivation testing in Task 2. A description of some possible
spiking and sampling methods is provided below in the Analytical Methods portion of this
Section 7.0.
7.4 Analytical Methods
7.4.1 Spiking Protocols
The total number of each type of test organism required for spiking will depend on the
reactor volume, the water flow rate, and the desired steady-state concentration of
microbiological contaminants in the reactor. The total number of organisms required to
provide these steady-state microbiological populations will depend on the overall volume
January 2003
Page 3-16
-------
of the disinfection contactor, the detection limits of the sampling and analytical methods
and the duration of experiments. For all organisms, the laboratory(ies) supplying the
organisms and performing the viability studies shall be experienced in challenge testing
and be able to predict initial dosages required to overcome any inherent experimental
losses. The FTO shall fully describe in the PSTP the spiking methodology to be
employed during the microbiological inactivation testing. An example of a spiking
protocol for microbiological inactivation studies is provided below.
The feed water stream to the on-site halogen generation test unit will be plumbed with a
check-valve to prevent back-flow of waters spiked with concentrations of microbiological
contaminants. Consistent dosing of the spiking stock suspension will be controlled by
means of a metering pump (diaphragm or peristaltic or equivalent) via siliconized or
Teflon tubing. The pump shall be capable of fluid injection into the pressurized system
feed line for the duration of the test, at a measurable and verifiable rate such that the
dosing of the spiking stock suspension is consistent throughout the duration of the test
run. Once appropriate flow has been initiated through the test system, the test unit must
be demonstrated to operate in a steady-state condition. The spiking shall continue for a
period of time that allows a minimum of three retention time-equivalents through the on-
site generation and contacting system (as determined by tracer tests or as defined by
system functions) prior to sample collection. During the course of the experiment,
monitoring of the system flow rate and spike injection rate shall be performed and
adjustments made to maintain test design.
7.4.2 Sample Collection
7.4.2.1 Test Stream Sampling. Sample ports shall be provided for the feed water
stream (spiked with concentrations of microbiological contaminants) and the halogen-
treated water stream at the contactor effluent. The FTO shall specify the specific ways in
which sample collection is performed according to the organisms that will be used for the
proposed microbiological inactivation experiments. Examples of potential sample
collection methods for bacterial, viral and protozoan organisms are provided below. The
methods described, or any other peer-reviewed method may be used for verification
testing. The FTO shall propose in the PSTP the specific methods that are to be used for
viability assessment of the selected microorganisms (See Section 7.5 below).
For bacterial and/or viral seeding experiments, methods for organism spiking and sample
collection shall be consistent with a selected peer-reviewed method. The frequency and
number of samples collected for each sampling point will be determined by the length of
the test run and shall be specified by the FTO in the PSTP. The volume of each halogen-
treated water sample from the disinfection contactor effluent will depend on the
concentrations of test organisms spiked, and the requirements of the analytical laboratory.
For protozoan spiking experiments, EPA Method 1622 or any other method that has been
evaluated through the peer-reviewed process (e.g., Nieminski and Ongerth, 1995) may be
followed for sample collection from the spiked water streams. The sample collection
system shall be plumbed to allow installation of housings and filters for capture of
sufficient flow for microbiological analysis. The FTO shall provide an indication of the
recovery efficiency achievable under the sample collection method selected for use
during protozoa seeding studies. The specific capture filter recovery system shall be fully
January 2003
Page 3-17
-------
described in the PSTP by the FTO. In addition, the PSTP shall include a plan of study for
verification testing with a minimum of three standard recovery efficiency tests from the
microbiological laboratory.
7.4.2.2 Post-Test Sample Handling. The FTO shall take steps to sanitize the system
following microbial spiking experiments to inactivate any organisms remaining in the
system. Depending on the unit (design and materials), sanitization may be done using
steam or hot water (80ฐC for 10 min) or other acceptable disinfectant. The FTO shall
specify in the QA/QC plan of the PSTP how this sanitization procedure is to be done to
ensure inactivation of live organisms and subsequent removal of inactivated organisms
from the unit. Biosafety concerns for humans and the environment that are associated
with the disinfection of live organisms shall be outlined in the Safety Plan that is
developed as part of the QA/QC plan in the PSTP. (Refer to section 10.5 of this test plan
for more detail on the Health and Safety Measures to be detailed in the QA/QC Safety
Plan.)
7.4.2.3 Process Control. A control round of testing shall also be carried out identical to
the procedure identified by the FTO in the PSTP, with the on-site halogen generation
system turned off. The purpose of this testing is to evaluate any cumulative effects of the
equipment stream, spiking and sampling processes, and sample handling on organism
viability. This testing shall not occur until elimination of sanitizing agents and
inactivated target organisms, whose presence could affect the inactivation capabilities of
the unit. The process control samples should show minimal inactivation of the target
organism(s) relative to the trip control sample. If significant inactivation of the process
control sample is measured in control testing, some aspect of the process other than on-
site halogen generation system may have contributed to inactivation of the test
organisms. Under such a scenario, re-testing of the on-site halogen generation system for
microbiological inactivation would be required.
7.4.2.4 Trip Control. For tests utilizing spike challenges, a replicate or sub-sample of
the spike dose shall accompany the actual spike dose from the analytical laboratory,
including all preliminary processes of dose preparation pre-enumeration, shipping, and
preparation for spiking, through return to the laboratory for enumeration and viability
baseline assessment. The trip control samples should show minimal inactivation of the
target organism(s). Significant inactivation of the trip control sample would indicate that
some aspect of the handling, from preparation to testing, contributed to inactivation of the
test organism(s). Evidence of greater than 90% inactivation of trip control samples will
require re-testing.
7.4.2.5 Comparison Control. If the Statement of Performance Objectives involves
comparison of microbial inactivation by the on-site halogen generation system to
microbial inactivation by another disinfectant (i.e., chlorine), then a control experiment
shall be conducted using the comparison disinfectant. In this experiment, all spiking,
contacting, sampling and analysis must be identical to that employed for the inactivation
testing with the on-site halogen generation system, with the exception that free chlorine
shall be used to meet CT rather than the halogens generated on site.
January 2003
Page 3-18
-------
7.5 Microbiological Viability Analysis
Methods for assessing the viability of the selected bacteria and viruses (see Table 6) shall be
specified by a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third party
organization (i.e., NSF) or the EPA for the appropriate microbial analyses. Selected viability
methods shall be specified by the FTO in the PSTP.
Methods for assessing the viability of cysts and oocysts are non-standard but may be used in
verifying objectives that an on-site halogen generation system inactivates protozoan cysts and
oocysts if the method has undergone peer review. A summary and comparison of viability
methods is presented in research completed by the following researchers: Korich et al. (1993),
Nieminski and Ongerth (1995), Slifko et al. (1997) and others (see Section 12.0 References in
this Test Plan). Interim, non-standard methods for assessing the viability of cyst and oocyst
(e.g., excystation, DAPI/PI) may be used for verification of inactivation after exposure to
halogen disinfectants. However, any interim organism viability method is subject to review by
experts of cyst and oocyst viability and subsequent method change. Any non-standard method
for assessing cyst and oocyst viability shall be correlated to animal infectivity.
7.6 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements
Concentrations of microbiological contaminants in the feed water and halogen-treated water
at the disinfection contactor effluent
=> Table of feed water and treated water concentrations of the NSF-approved spiked
microorganisms (Table 6) for challenge experiments (three replicate runs), process
control experiment, and comparison control experiment (if applicable)
=> Trip control results
=> Bar graph of log/o inactivation results for three replicate test runs and all control test runs
=> The variability of the results from microbial inactivation tests should be presented with
the bar graphs as 95% confidence intervals.
8.0 TASK 3: TREATED WATER QUALITY
8.1 Introduction
Water quality data shall be collected for the feed water and halogen-treated water as shown in the
sampling schedule in Table 7. These data shall be collected during the equipment operation test
runs of Task 1 and the microbiological contaminant inactivation test runs of Task 2 (if
applicable). No additional test runs need to be performed for Task 3, other than those performed
for Tasks 1 and 2.
8.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to assess the impact on water quality of treatment with the on-site
halogen generation system. Specific water quality analyses and sampling frequencies are
detailed in Table 7.
January 2003
Page 3-19
-------
8.3 Work Plan
A list of the minimum number of water quality parameters is provided in Table 7 for monitoring
of the feed water, concentrated halogen stream, and halogen-treated water at the disinfection
contactor influent and effluent during Equipment Verification Testing. The actual water quality
parameters selected for testing and monitoring shall be stipulated by the FTO in the PSTP.
Table 7.
Water Quality Sampling Schedule (Minimum Required for Each Testing Period)
Parameter
Sampling
Test Stream to be
Standard
EPA
Frequency
Sampled
Method
Method
On-Site A nalyses
pH
1/Day
Feed, Treated1, Waste
4500 H+
150.1/
150.2
Temperature
1/Day
Feed, Treated, Waste
2550 B
Turbidity
1/Day
Feed, Treated
2130 B
180.1
Disinfectant Residual:
2/Day
Feed , Concentrated
Chlorine (FAC, TAC)
Halogen Stream3,
4500-C1 F5
300.0
Iodine
Halogen-Treated
4500-1B5
Chlorine Dioxide
Water at Contactor
4500-C102
Bromine
Influent4 and
D5
300.0
Effluent1, Waste
Hydrogen sulfide
1/Day
Feed
4500-S2"
Laboratory Analyses
Alkalinity
1/Week
Feed, Treated, Waste
2320 B
TDS
1/Testing Period
Feed, Treated, Waste
2540 C
Ammonia Nitrogen
1/Week
Feed, Treated
4500-NH3 G
TOC
1/Testing Period
Feed, Treated
5310 C
UVA
1/Week
Feed, Treated
5910 B
True Color
1/Week
Feed, Treated
2120 B
Iron
1/Testing Period
Feed, Treated
3500-FeC
200.7/
200.8/
200.9
Manganese
1/Testing Period
Feed, Treated
3500-Mn C
200.7/
200.8/
200.9
Chloride
1/Testing Period
Feed, Treated
4500-C1" F
300.0
Bromide
1/Testing Period
Feed, Treated
4500-Br" C
300.0
Sodium
1/Testing Period
Feed, Treated
3500-Na B
200.7
Total Coliform
5/Week
Feed, Treated
9221 / 9222 /
Bacteria
9223
HPC Bacteria
5/Week
Feed, Treated
9215 B
TTHMs
1/Testing Period
Feed2, Treated
524.2
HAAs
1/Testing Period
Feed2, Treated
552.1
January 2003
Page 3-20
-------
Table 7. (continued)
Water Quality Sampling Schedule (Minimum Required for Each Testing Period)
Parameter
Sampling
Frequency
Test Stream to be
Sampled
Standard
Method
EPA
Method
Optional DBPs6:
Haloacetonitriles
(HANs)
Chloropicrin
Chloral Hydrate
Cyanogen Chloride
1/Testing Period
1/Testing Period
1/Testing Period
1/Testing Period
Feed2, Treated
Feed2, Treated
Feed2, Treated
Feed2, Treated
551
551
551
524.2
Chlorite, Chlorate
(if applicable)
1/Testing Period
Feed2, Treated
300.0 B
Bromate (if applicable)
1/Testing Period
Feed2, Treated
300.0 B
DBP Formation Testing
TTHMs
1/Testing Period
Treated
524.2
HAAs
1/Testing Period
Treated
552.1
Optional DBPs6:
HANs
Chloropicrin
Chloral Hydrate
Cyanogen Chloride
1/Testing Period
1/Testing Period
1/Testing Period
1/Testing Period
Treated
Treated
Treated
Treated
551
551
551
524.2
Bromate (if applicable)
1/Testing Period
Treated
300.0 B
Chlorite, Chlorate
(if applicable)
1/Testing Period
Treated
300.0 B
For purposes of Table 7, "treated" water indicates the halogen-treated water at the disinfection contactor
effluent. If the equipment being tested does not include a disinfection contactor (i.e., includes only feed water
and concentrated halogen stream sampling points), then only the feed water sample shall be collected.
2 Feed water sampling for these parameters shall be performed once during the Verification Testing to verify
that no addition of disinfectants or oxidants and no formation of DBPs occurs upstream of the feed water
sampling point.
3 The "concentrated halogen stream" is the generator product stream.
4
The "halogen-treated water at contactor influent" indicates the feed water to the equipment immediately after
dosing with the concentrated halogen stream.
5 The stated Standard Method shall be used if the halogen generator produces only one of the listed
disinfectants (e.g., chlorine) and no other disinfectant. If the halogen generator produces more than one of the
listed disinfectants, or if the halogen generator produces bromine, then the method described in White (1992)
and Palin (1974) shall be used for disinfectant residual measurement.
6 Optional DBPs shall be measured if applicable.
7 DBP formation testing shall be conducted if on-site halogen generation equipment is used to provide both
primary disinfection and residual disinfection. Conditions for DBP formation testing preparation shall follow
the UFC proposed in the Information Collection Rule (see section 8.4.4 of this test plan).
January 2003
Page 3-21
-------
If the on-site halogen generation system is used only for primary disinfection, with residual
disinfection provided by another process, then sampling for organic (Total Trihalomethanes
(TTHMs), haloacetic acids (HAAs) and optional DBPs) and inorganic (bromate, chlorite,
chlorate) DBPs shall be performed on an instantaneous basis after the specified disinfection
contact time. Both instantaneous sampling and simulated distribution system testing for organic
and inorganic DBPs shall be performed if the on-site halogen generation system is used for both
primary disinfection and residual disinfection. Water samples collected for DBP analysis should
be collected simultaneously with samples collected for other analyses such as pH, alkalinity,
TOC, UVA, turbidity, ammonia, and other pertinent water quality parameters.
Many of the water quality parameters described in this task shall be measured on-site by the
FTO. Analysis of the remaining water quality parameters shall be performed by a laboratory that
is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third party organization (i.e., NSF) or the EPA
for the appropriate water quality parameters. The methods to be used for measurement of all
water quality parameters in the field and in the off-site analytical laboratory are specified in
Table 7 and are described in detail in Task 5, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC).
Where appropriate, the Standard Methods reference numbers and EPA method numbers for
water quality parameters are provided in Table 7 for both the field and laboratory analytical
procedures.
For the case of off-site shipment, the samples shall be collected in appropriate containers
(containing preservatives as applicable) prepared by the off-site analytical laboratory. These
samples shall be preserved, stored, shipped and analyzed in accordance with appropriate
procedures and holding times, as specified by the analytical laboratory. Samples shall be
shipped to a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third party
organization (i.e., NSF) or the EPA. Original field sheets and chain-of-custody forms shall
accompany all samples shipped to the off-site analytical laboratory. Copies of field sheets and
chain-of-custody forms for all samples shall be provided to NSF.
8.4 Analytical Schedule
8.4.1 Characterization of Feed Water, Concentrated Halogen Stream and
Halogen-Treated Water at the Disinfection Contactor Influent and Effluent.
The water quality characteristics of the feed water, the concentrated halogen stream and
the halogen-treated waters at the influent and effluent to the disinfection contactor shall
be characterized by measurement of the parameters listed in Table 7. Sampling shall be
performed during steady-state operation of the on-site halogen generation equipment in
Task 1 and Task 2 (if applicable).
8.4.2 Water Quality Sample Collection
Water quality data for Task 3 will be collected at regular intervals during test runs
conducted for Tasks 1 and 2, as indicated by the sampling frequency in Table 7. No
additional test runs shall be required for Task 3 other than those already described in
Tasks 1 and 2. The minimum monitoring frequency for the required water quality
parameters is provided in Table 7. At the discretion of the Manufacturer and the
designated FTO, the water quality sampling program may be expanded to include a
January 2003
Page 3-22
-------
greater number of water quality parameters and to require more frequent sampling.
Sample collection frequency and protocol shall be defined by the FTO in the PSTP.
8.4.3 Feed Water Quality Limitations
The characteristics of feed water encountered during each testing period shall be
explicitly stated in reporting the data from Tasks 1 and 2. Accurate reporting of such
feed water characteristics as turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia nitrogen and total
organic carbon is critical for the Verification Testing, as these parameters can
substantially influence the disinfection performance of the on-site halogen generation
equipment.
8.4.4 Disinfection By-Product Formation Testing
DBP formation testing shall be performed if the on-site halogen generation equipment is
used for residual disinfection in addition to primary disinfection. DBP formation testing
shall be performed on the treated water once each testing period (at a minimum) during
steady-state operation of the on-site halogen generation equipment for Task 1 or Task 2.
DBP formation testing will be used to estimate by-product formation in the distribution
system, including TTHMs, the six measured HAA compounds, and (if applicable) HANs,
chloropicrin, chloral hydrate, cyanogen chloride, bromate, chlorite and chlorate.
If no additional dosing of halogens is used for residual disinfection subsequent to primary
disinfection, the DBP formation testing method shall be performed by collecting a sample
of the halogen-treated water at the disinfection contactor effluent and holding the sample
in the dark at the uniform formation conditions (UFC) specified in the Information
Collection Rule (ICR) Manual for Bench- and Pilot-Scale Treatment Studies. If
additional dosing of the halogens is used for residual disinfection subsequent to primary
disinfection, the DBP formation testing method shall be performed by collecting a sample
of the halogen-treated water at the disinfection contactor effluent, spiking it with an
additional dose of disinfectant, and holding the sample in the dark at the UFC. (Refer to
the DBP formation testing protocol in Task 5, QA/QC, of this Verification Testing Plan
for further details.)
The following UFC will be used for DBP formation testing:
Incubation period of 24 ฑ 1 hours
Incubation temperature of 20 ฑ 1,0ฐC
Buffered pH of 8.0 ฑ 0.2
24-hour chlorine residual of 1.0 ฑ 0.4 mg/L.
8.4.5 Comparison DBP Testing
If the Statement of Performance Objectives involves comparison of DBP formation by
the on-site halogen generation system to DBP formation by another disinfectant (i.e.,
chlorine), then comparison DBP testing (and DBP formation testing, if applicable) shall
be conducted using the comparison disinfectant. For these comparisons, identical
procedures for sampling, testing and analysis shall be performed for the DBP sampling
with the on-site halogen generation system and alternative disinfectants.
January 2003
Page 3-23
-------
8.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements
In the items below, "treated water" refers to the halogen-treated water sampled at the disinfection
contactor effluent.
General water quality
=> Table of daily feed water and treated water levels of pH, temperature and turbidity
during each testing period
=> Table of weekly feed water and treated water levels of alkalinity and ammonia
nitrogen during each testing period
=> Table of feed water and treated water levels of TDS, iron, manganese, chloride,
bromide and sodium during each testing period
=> Table of twice daily disinfectant residuals during each testing period
Organic water quality
=> Table of weekly feed water and treated water levels of UVA and true color during
each testing period
=> Table of feed water and treated water levels of TOC during each testing period
DBPs
=> Table of instantaneous, and DBP formation testing if applicable (for treated water
only), feed water (one sample) and treated water concentrations of TTHMs and
HAAs monitored during each testing period, and other optional DBPs, such as HANs,
chloropicrin, chloral hydrate and cyanogen chloride (if applicable)
=> Table of instantaneous, and DBP formation testing if applicable (for treated water
only), feed water (one sample) and treated water concentrations of bromate, chlorite
and chlorate (if applicable) during each testing period
=> If applicable, table comparing instantaneous (and DBP formation testing, if
applicable) DBP concentrations of TTHMs and HAAs, and if applicable, other DBPs
(e.g., HANs, chloropicrin, chloral hydrate and cyanogen chloride) produced in the
treated water by the on-site halogen generation system and a comparison disinfectant
(i.e., chlorine)
Indigenous bacteria (Total Coliform and HPC)
=> Table of feed water and treated water levels of Total Coliform bacteria (TC) and HPC
bacteria during each testing period
=> Table of TC and HPC log/o inactivation during each testing period
9.0 TASK 4: DATA MANAGEMENT
9.1 Introduction
The data management system used in the Verification Testing shall involve the use of computer
spreadsheet software and manual (or on-line) recording of operational parameters for the on-site
halogen generation equipment on a daily basis.
9.2 Experimental Objectives
The objectives of this task are: 1) to establish a viable structure for the recording and
transmission of field testing data such that the FTO provides sufficient and reliable data for
January 2003
Page 3-24
-------
verification purposes, and 2) to develop a statistical analysis of the data, as described in the
"EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation Of
Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies".
9.3 Work Plan
The following protocol has been developed for data handling and data verification by the FTO.
Where possible, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system should be used
for automatic entry of testing data into computer databases. Specific parcels of the computer
databases for operational and water quality parameters should then be downloaded by manual
importation into Excel (or similar spreadsheet software) as a comma-delimited file. These
specific database parcels shall be identified based upon discrete time spans and monitoring
parameters. In spreadsheet form, the data shall be manipulated into a convenient framework to
allow analysis of water treatment equipment operation Back-up of the computer databases to
diskette should be performed following each testing period at a minimum. When SCADA
systems are not available, direct instrument feed to data loggers and laptop computers shall be
used when appropriate.
For parameters for which electronic data acquisition is not possible, field testing operators shall
record data and calculations by hand in laboratory notebooks. Daily measurements shall be
recorded on specially-prepared data log sheets as appropriate. Each notebook must be
permanently bound with consecutively numbered pages. Each notebook must indicate the
starting and ending dates that apply to entries in the logbook. All pages shall have appropriate
headings to avoid entry omissions. All logbook entries must be made in black water-insoluble
ink. All corrections in any notebook shall be made by placing one line through the erroneous
information. Products such as "correction fluids" are never to be utilized for making corrections
to notebook entries. Operating logs shall include a description of the water treatment equipment
(description of test runs, names of visitors, description of any problems or issues, etc.); such
descriptions shall be provided in addition to experimental calculations and other items. The
original notebooks shall be stored on site. This protocol will not only ease referencing the
original data, but offer protection of the original record of results.
The database for the project shall be set up in the form of custom-designed spreadsheets. The
spreadsheets shall be 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 shall be entered into the appropriate
spreadsheets. Data entry shall be conducted on site by the designated field testing operators. All
recorded calculations shall also be checked at this time. Following data entry, the spreadsheet
shall be printed out and the print-out shall be checked against the handwritten data sheet. Any
corrections shall be noted on the hard-copies and corrected on the screen, and then a corrected
version of the spreadsheet shall be printed out. Each step of the verification process shall be
initialed by the field testing operator or engineer performing the entry or verification step.
Each experiment (e.g., each test run) shall be assigned a run number that shall then be tied to the
data from that experiment through each step of data entry and analysis. As samples are collected
and sent to the chosen laboratory(ies), the data shall be tracked by use of the same system of run
numbers. The FTO may send samples to a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by
the state, a third party organization (i.e., NSF) or the EPA for analysis of water quality
parameters. Data from the outside laboratories shall be received and reviewed by the field
January 2003
Page 3-25
-------
testing operator. These data shall be entered into the data spreadsheets, corrected, and verified in
the same manner as the field data.
9.4 Statistical Analysis
Water quality developed from grab samples collected during test runs according to the Water
Quality Sampling Schedule (Table 7) in Task 3 shall be analyzed for statistical uncertainty. For
example, the FTO shall calculate the mean values, standard deviations and 95% confidence
intervals for grab sample data obtained during the Verification Testing as described in the
"EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation Of
Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies" (Chapter 1). The mean values
with 95% confidence intervals can then be used to compare the water quality results from tests
conducted under different conditions of equipment operation or feed water quality. For
comparisons between data from more than two testing periods, construction of an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) table may be helpful in determining the statistical significance of differences
between operational, microbial inactivation and treated water quality results. Statistical analysis
such as that described above could be carried out for water quality data obtained under a large
variety of testing conditions. The statistics developed will be helpful in demonstrating the
degree of reliability with which water treatment equipment can attain quality goals.
10.0 TASK 5: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
10.1 Introduction
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the operation of the on-site halogen generation
equipment and the measured water quality parameters shall be maintained during the
Verification Testing program.
10.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during testing.
When specific items of equipment or instruments are used, the objective is to maintain the
operation of the equipment or instructions within the ranges specified by the Manufacturer or by
Standard Methods. Maintenance of strict QA/QC procedures is important in that if a question
arises when analyzing or interpreting data collected for a given experiment, it will be possible to
verify exact conditions at the time of testing.
10.3 Work Plan
Equipment flow rates and associated signals shall be documented and recorded on a routine
basis. A routine daily walk-through during testing shall be established to verify that each piece
of equipment or instrumentation is operating properly. In-line monitoring equipment such as
flow meters shall be checked to verify that the read-out matches with the actual measurement
(i.e., flow rate) and that the signal being recorded is correct. The items listed below are in
addition to any specified checks outlined in the analytical methods.
January 2003
Page 3-26
-------
10.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verifications
These QA/QC verifications shall be conducted daily during testing:
Chemical feed pump flow rates (verified volumetrically over a specific time period)
Flow rates to in-line analytical equipment (e.g., pH meter, turbidimeter), if any
(verified volumetrically over a specific time period)
In-line turbidimeter readings checked against a properly calibrated bench-top model.
10.3.2 QA/QC Verifications Performed Every Two Weeks
These verifications shall be conducted every two weeks:
In-line flow meters/rotameters (clean equipment to remove any debris or biological
buildup and verify flow volumetrically to avoid erroneous readings).
In-line turbidimeters, if any, (clean out reservoirs and re-calibrate, if employed)
10.3.3 QA/QC Verifications To Be Performed For Each Testing Period
This verification shall be conducted before each testing period begins:
Tubing (verify good condition of all tubing and connections; replace if necessary)
10.4 Analytical Methods and Sample Collection
The analytical methods utilized in this study for on-site monitoring, sample collection and testing
of the quality of the feed water, concentrated halogen stream and halogen-treated water at the
disinfection contactor influent and effluent are described below. Use of either bench-top or in-
line analytical equipment will be acceptable for the verification testing; however, in-line
equipment is recommended for ease of operation. Use of in-line equipment is also preferable
because it reduces the introduction of error and the variability to analytical results generated by
inconsistent sampling techniques.
10.4.1 pH
Analyses for pH shall be performed according to Standard Method 4500-H+ or EPA
Method 150.1/150.2. A three-point calibration of the pH meter used in this study shall be
performed once a day when the instrument is in use. Certified pH buffers in the expected
range shall be used. The pH probe shall be stored in the appropriate solution, as defined
in the instrument manual. Transport of carbon dioxide across the air-water interface can
confound pH measurement in poorly buffered waters. If this is a problem, measurement
of pH in a confined vessel is recommended to minimize the effects of carbon dioxide loss
to the atmosphere.
10.4.2 Temperature
Readings for temperature shall be conducted in accordance with Standard Methods 2550.
Raw water temperatures shall be obtained at least once daily. The thermometer shall
have a scale marked for every 0.1ฐC, as a minimum, and should be calibrated weekly
against a precision thermometer certified by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). (A thermometer having a range of -1ฐC to +51ฐC, subdivided in 0.1ฐ
increments, would be appropriate for this work.)
January 2003
Page 3-27
-------
10.4.3 True Color
True color shall be measured with a spectrophotometer at 455 nm, using an adaptation of
the Standard Methods 2120 procedure. Samples shall be collected in clean plastic or
glass bottles and analyzed as soon after collection as possible. If samples cannot be
analyzed immediately they shall be stored at 4ฐC for up to 24 hours, and then warmed to
room temperature before analysis. The filtration system described in Standard Methods
2120 C shall be used, and results should be expressed in terms of PtCo color units.
10.4.4 Turbidity Analysis
Turbidity analyses shall be performed according to Standard Methods 2130 or EPA
Method 180.1 with either a bench-top or in-line turbidimeter. In-line turbidimeters shall
be used for measurement of turbidity in the filtrate waters, and either an in-line or bench-
top turbidimeter may be used for measurement of the feedwater
During each verification testing period, the bench-top and in-line turbidimeters will be
left on continuously. Once each turbidity measurement is complete, the unit will be
switched back to its lowest setting. All glassware used for turbidity measurements will
be cleaned and handled using lint-free tissues to prevent scratching. Sample vials will be
stored inverted to prevent deposits from forming on the bottom surface of the cell.
The Field Testing Organization shall be required to document any problems experienced
with the monitoring turbidity instruments, and shall also be required to document any
subsequent modifications or enhancements made to monitoring instruments.
10.4.4.1 Bench-top Turbidimeters. Grab samples shall be analyzed using a bench-top
turbidimeter. Readings from this instrument will serve as reference measurements
throughout the study. The bench-top turbidimeter shall be calibrated within the expected
range of sample measurements at the beginning of equipment operation and on a weekly
basis using primary turbidity standards of 0.1, 0.5, and 3.0 NTU. Secondary turbidity
standards shall be obtained and checked against the primary standards. Secondary
standards shall be used on a daily basis to verify calibration of the turbidimeter and to
recalibrate when more than one turbidity range is used.
The method for collecting grab samples will consist of running a slow, steady stream
from the sample tap, triple-rinsing a dedicated sample beaker in this stream, allowing the
sample to flow down the side of the beaker to minimize bubble entrainment,
double-rinsing the sample vial with the sample, carefully pouring from the beaker down
the side of the sample vial, wiping the sample vial clean, inserting the sample vial into the
turbidimeter, and recording the measured turbidity.
For the case of cold water samples that cause the vial to fog preventing accurate readings,
the vial shall be allowed to warm up by partial submersion into a warm water bath for
approximately 30 seconds.
January 2003
Page 3-28
-------
10.4.4.2 In-line Turbidimeters. In-line turbidimeters are required for treated water
monitoring during verification testing and must be calibrated and maintained as specified
in the manufacturer's operation and maintenance manual. It will be necessary to verify
the in-line readings using a bench-top turbidimeter at least daily; although the mechanism
of analysis is not identical between the two instruments the readings should be
comparable. Should these readings suggest inaccurate readings then all in-line
turbidimeters should be recalibrated. In addition to calibration, periodic cleaning of the
lens should be conducted, using lint-free paper, to prevent any particle or microbiological
build-up that could produce inaccurate readings. Periodic verification of the sample flow
rate should also be performed using a volumetric measurement. Instrument bulbs should
be replaced on an as-needed basis. It should also be verified that the LED readout
matches the data recorded on the data acquisition system, if the latter is employed.
10.4.5 Chlorine Residual
Because free chlorine in aqueous solutions is unstable, the free chlorine concentration in
treated water samples will decrease rapidly. Exposure to sunlight or other strong light, or
agitation, will accelerate free chlorine loss. Therefore, analysis of free and total chlorine
samples shall begin immediately after sampling, and excessive light and agitation shall be
avoided. Samples to be analyzed for free or total chlorine shall not be stored prior to
analysis.
Glassware to be used for chlorine analyses shall be chlorine demand free. Chlorine
demand free glassware will be prepared by soaking glassware in a 50 mg/L chlorine bath
for a period of 24 hours. At the end of this time, all glassware will be rinsed three times
with organic-free water that has a TOC concentration of less than 0.2 mg/L. Glassware
will then be dried at room temperature for a period of 24 hours. During the drying
process, bottle openings will be covered with aluminum foil to prevent contamination.
The method for collecting samples for chlorine analyses shall consist of the following
procedure: running a slow, steady stream from the sample tap, triple-rinsing a chlorine
demand free sample beaker in this stream, allowing the sample to flow down the side of
the beaker to minimize agitation, performing the free and total chlorine analyses, and
recording the measured chlorine concentrations.
10.4.6 Iodine Residual
Because iodine provides a more stable residual than chlorine and is less affected by
environmental factors, glassware used for sampling is not required to be iodine demand
free. Analysis of iodine samples shall begin as soon as possible after sampling. Samples
to be analyzed for iodine shall not be stored prior to analysis. The method for collecting
samples for iodine analysis shall be the same as that described above for chlorine
residual, with the exceptions noted herein.
10.4.7 Chlorine Dioxide Residual
Similar to chlorine, chlorine dioxide in aqueous solutions is unstable. Exposure to
sunlight or other strong light, or agitation, will accelerate chlorine dioxide loss.
Therefore, analysis of chlorine dioxide samples shall begin immediately after sampling,
January 2003
Page 3-29
-------
and excessive light and agitation shall be avoided. Samples to be analyzed for chlorine
dioxide shall not be stored prior to analysis. Glassware for chlorine dioxide analyses
shall be chlorine demand free, as described above in Section 10.4.5. The method for
collecting samples for chlorine dioxide residual shall be identical to that described above
for chlorine residual.
10.4.8 Bromine Residual
Bromine in aqueous solutions is even more unstable than chlorine. Exposure to sunlight
or other strong light, or agitation, will accelerate bromine loss. Therefore, analysis of
bromine samples shall begin immediately after sampling, and excessive light and
agitation shall be avoided. Samples to be analyzed for bromine shall not be stored prior
to analysis. Glassware for bromine analyses shall be chlorine demand free, as described
above in Section 10.4.5. The method for collecting samples for bromine residual shall be
identical to that described above for chlorine residual.
10.5 Chemical and Biological Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analyses
The analytical methods that shall be used during testing for chemical and biological samples that
are shipped off- site for analyses are described in this section.
10.5.1 Organic Samples
Samples for analysis of total organic carbon (TOC) and UV254 absorbance shall be
collected in glass bottles supplied by the state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited
laboratory and shipped at 4ฐC to the analytical laboratory. These samples shall be
preserved, held and shipped in accordance with Standard Method 5010 B. Storage time
before analysis shall be minimized, according to Standard Methods.
10.5.2 Microbial Samples: TC and HPC Bacteria, Other Bacteria, Viruses and
Protozoa
Samples for analysis of any microbial parameter shall be collected in bottles supplied by
the analytical laboratory. Microbiological samples shall be refrigerated at approximately
2 to 8ฐC immediately upon collection. Such samples shall be shipped in a cooler and
maintained at a temperature of approximately 2ฐC to 8ฐC during shipment. Samples shall
be processed for analysis by the selected laboratory within 24 hours of collection. The
laboratory shall keep the samples at approximately 2ฐC to 8ฐC until initiation of
processing. TC densities shall be reported as most probable number per 100 mL
(MPN/100 mL) and HPC densities shall be reported as colony forming units per mL
(cfu/mL).
Methods for assessing the viability of the selected bacteria and viruses (see Table 6) shall
be specified by the laboratory(ies) performing the analysis and shall be specified in the
PSTP. The FTO may select a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the
state, a third party organization (i.e., NSF) or the USEPA for analysis of microbial
contaminants in water samples.
January 2003
Page 3-30
-------
Methods for assessing the viability of cysts and oocysts are non-standard but may be used
in verifying objectives that an on-site halogen generation system inactivates protozoan
cysts and oocysts if the method has undergone peer review. A summary and comparison
of viability methods is presented in research completed by the following researchers:
Korich et al. (1993), Nieminski and Ongerth (1995), Slifko et al. (1997) and others (see
Section 12.0 References in this Test Plan). Any non-standard method for assessing cyst
and oocyst viability shall be correlated to animal infectivity.
10.5.3 Inorganic Samples
Inorganic chemical samples, including alkalinity, iron, sodium, and manganese, shall be
collected and preserved in accordance with Standard Method 301 OB, paying particular
attention to the sources of contamination as outlined in Standard Methods 3010C. The
samples shall be refrigerated at approximately 4ฐC immediately upon collection, shipped
in a cooler, and maintained at a temperature of approximately 4ฐC during shipment.
Samples shall be processed for analysis by a state-certified or third party- or EPA-
accredited laboratory within 24 hours of collection. The laboratory shall keep the
samples at approximately 4ฐC until initiation of analysis.
10.5.4 Bromate
Samples for the analysis of bromate shall be collected in sampling containers supplied by
the state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited laboratory. Sample collection and
storage requirements are outlined in EPA Method 300.1 or shall be provided by the
laboratory conducting the analysis.
10.6 DBP Formation Test Protocol
The DBP formation test simulates full-scale disinfection by spiking a water sample with a
disinfectant and holding the spiked sample in the dark at a designated temperature and contact
time. The spiked water sample may be held at the uniform formation conditions (UFC) specified
by the ICR Manual for Bench- and Pilot-Scale Treatment Studies as follows:
Incubation period of 24 ฑ 1 hours
Incubation temperature of 20 ฑ 1,0ฐC
Buffered pH of 8.0 ฑ 0.2
24-hour chlorine residual of 1.0 ฑ 0.4 mg/L.
For this testing, one of two approaches may be employed, whichever is applicable:
1. If no additional dosing of halogens is used for residual disinfection subsequent to primary
disinfection, the DBP formation test method shall be performed by collecting a sample of the
treated water and holding the sample in the dark at the UFC.
2. If additional dosing of halogens is used for residual disinfection subsequent to primary
disinfection, the DBP formation test method shall be performed by collecting a treated water
sample, spiking it with an additional dose of disinfectant, and holding the sample in the dark
at the UFC.
For either of the above approaches, as an alternative to utilizing the UFC, the conditions selected
for DBP formation testing may be those that most closely approximate the residence time,
January 2003
Page 3-31
-------
disinfectant type and disinfectant residual found in the distribution system at the location of the
Verification Testing. These conditions shall be specified in the PSTP for approval by NSF.
For each DBP formation sample, three incubation bottles shall be set up. At the end of the
incubation period, each sample shall be analyzed for the final disinfectant residual and the
sample with the residual closest to the 1.0 ฑ 0.4 mg/L range shall be used for the specified DBP
analyses.
All glassware used for preparation of the samples and reagents shall be chlorine demand free, as
described above in Section 10.4.3.
The preparation of reagents and measurement of samples shall proceed as follows:
Preparation of Chlorine Stock Solution: The stock solution shall be prepared by adding an
estimated volume of 6% reagent-grade NaOCl into a 500-mL, chlorine demand free bottle
containing an estimated amount of organic-free water. To minimize the dilution error, the
chlorine stock solution shall be at least 50 times stronger than the chlorine dose required.
Preparation of Other Halogen Disinfectant Stock Solution: For a halogen disinfectant other than
chlorine, stock solution preparation shall be similar to that described above for chlorine stock
solution. Organic free water shall be used for dilution and the stock solution shall be at least 50
times stronger than the halogen dose required.
Preparation of Additional Chemicals: Refer to Standard Method 4500-C1 F for the preparation
method of DPD indicator, FAS standard and buffer solution.
Sample Collection and Incubation: The samples shall be collected in one liter amber bottles
with Teflon lined caps. These bottles shall be stored in a temperature-controlled incubator at the
specified temperature. Samples shall be adjusted to pH 8.0 ฑ 0.2 using 1 M HC1 or NaOH and
shall then be dosed with the appropriate dosage of chlorine (or other halogen disinfectant) to
yield a chlorine (or other halogen disinfectant) residual of 1.0 ฑ 0.4 mg/L after the specified 24-
hour storage period. The samples shall be capped head-space free and stored for 24 hours in the
dark at the appropriate incubation temperature.
10.7 Health and Safety Measures
The FTO shall include in the PSTP specific instructions and description of the procedures that
shall be used to ensure safe start-up, operation, sanitization and cleaning of the on-site halogen
generation equipment during Verification Testing. In addition, the PSTP shall include
information appropriate for inclusion in a Safety Plan. For example, a safety plan addressing
health and safety measures shall address required actions in the event of equipment leaks,
recommended organism handling procedures, requirements fir protective personal equipment
and bio-hazard signs etc. In summary, the following safety concerns shall be addressed by the
FTO in the QA/QC plan applicable for the on-site generation equipment and verification testing
procedures:
Storage, handling and disposal of hazardous waste stream and chemicals including acids,
bases, brine solutions, and oxidizing agents
Storage, handling and disposal of biological waste streams
January 2003
Page 3-32
-------
Conformance with electrical code
Chemical hazards and biohazards
Need for spark-proof wires and/or National Electrical Code explosion-proof wiring
Potential presence of explosive gases
Ventilation of equipment, trailers (as applicable), or buildings (as applicable) if gases or
chemicals generated by the equipment could present a safety hazard
Emergency response procedures in case of equipment leaks or spillage of biological materials
Requirement for personal protective equipment and emergency safety equipment.
11.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The field testing organization shall obtain the Manufacturer-supplied O&M manual to evaluate
the instructions and procedures for their applicability during the verification testing period. The
following are recommendations for criteria to be included in Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Manuals for equipment for on-site generation of halogen disinfectants for inactivation of
microbiological contaminants. The FTO will report on the applicability of the manual in the
development of a final report of the Verification Testing period.
11.1 Maintenance
The Manufacturer shall provide readily understood information on the recommended or required
maintenance schedule for each piece of operating equipment such as:
pumps
valves
pressure gauges
flow meters
air compressors
gas pressure vessels
chemical feeder systems
mixers
motors
instruments, such as turbidimeters, pH meters, halogen residual monitors
water meters, if provided
The Manufacturer should provide readily understood information on the recommended or
required maintenance for non-mechanical or non-electrical equipment such as:
tanks and basins
in-line static mixers
tubing and hoses
11.2 Operation
The Manufacturer should provide readily interpretable recommendations for procedures related
to proper operation of the equipment. In addition, the Manufacturer shall provide a schematic
diagram that indicates the flow path of raw water, wastewater and disinfectant chemicals.
Among the operating aspects that should be discussed are the following issues:
January 2003
Page 3-33
-------
Disinfectant/Halogen Generation:
control of feed flowto the on-site halogen generation system
measurement of halogen concentration generated at a selected percent system output
measurement of gas pressures (where applicable) generated during halogen generation during
on-site system operation
change in feed flow and halogen generation in response to temperature changes
Disinfectant Contact Time:
control of feed flow to disinfectant contact basin
adjustment of hydraulic detention time (i.e., volume if appropriate) in the contact basin
control of halogen concentration dosed to the contact basin
Chemical Feeders (in the case that chemical pretreatment is applied):
chemical feed pumps calibration check
settings and adjustments how they should be made
proper procedures for dilution of chemicals
Intermittent Operation:
proper procedures for system shut-down and start-up of on-site generation system
safety checks of halogen and gas concentrations prior to system shut-down
safety checks of potential microbiological contaminant concentrations prior to system shut-
down and start-up
proper procedures for rinsing and disinfection of system following shut-down
proper procedures for disinfection of system following spiking of microbiological
contaminants
Monitoring and Sampling Procedures:
observation of feed water quality or pretreated water turbidity
observation of halogen generation efficiency as a function of feed water quality, flow rates
and generation system output
proper sampling procedures for spiking of microbiological contaminants
proper safety and disinfection procedures following spiking with microbiological
contaminants
The Manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting guide; a simple check-list of what to do for a
variety of problems including:
no raw water (feed water) flow to plant
lack of feed water flow control through equipment
valving configuration for direct feed flow and pretreated feed flow to system
poor filtrate quality
failed halogen generation safety test
low pump feed pressure
automatic operation (if provided) not functioning
reduced rate of halogen generation at same percent system output
machine will not start and "Power On" indicator off
machine will not start and "Power On" indicator on
pump cavitation
January 2003
Page 3-34
-------
valve stuck or won't operate
no electric power
no chemical feed
no chemical feed to halogen generation system
11.3 Operability
The following are recommendations regarding operability aspects of systems that are designed to
achieve inactivation of microbiological contaminants. These aspects of plant operation should
be included if possible in reviews of historical data, and should be included to the extent
practical in reports of equipment testing when the testing is done under the ETV Program.
During Verification Testing and during compilation of historical equipment operating data,
attention shall be given to equipment operability aspects. Among the factors that should be
considered are:
Fluctuation of flow rates, halogen generation and pressures through unit, as well as the time
interval at which flow control and adjustment of halogen production is needed
=> Does on-site generation system (and any contact tanks provided) provide for variable
hydraulic detention time and contact with disinfectant?
=> How long can feed pumps and halogen generation equipment maintain target flow and
contact time values?
=> Is rate of feed water flow to on-site generation system measured?
=> Does plant have facilities for pretreatment of feed water in the form of the following: pH
adjustment, coagulant chemical feed, other?
=> Can pretreatment chemical dosing (if applicable) be adjusted with changes in feed water
flow?
Presence of devices to aid the operator with adjustment of flow control, halogen generation,
chemical dosage selection and system safety
=> does rate of primary chemical feed change with flow of feed water or change in feed
water quality (e.g., halogen demand)?
=> are on-line halogen concentration monitors provided with on-site generation system?
=> does remote notification to operator occur when a failure of on-site generation system
occurs?
Provision of on-line water quality monitors for feed water, concentrated halogen stream and
halogen-treated water streams at the disinfection contactor influent and effluent
=> are on-line turbidimeters provided on feed water stream?
=> are on-line halogen residual monitors (e.g., chlorine monitors) provided on the halogen-
treated water streams?
Both the reviews of historical data and the reports on Verification Testing should address the
above questions in the written reports. The issues of operability and production should be dealt
with in the portion of the reports that are written in response to Task 1 of the Verification Testing
Plan.
January 2003
Page 3-35
-------
12.0 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbaszadegan, M., Hasan, M. M., Gerba, C. P., Roessler, P. F., Wilson, B. R., Kuennen, R. and
Van Dellen, E. 1997. The Disinfection Efficacy of a Point-of-Use Water Treatment System
against Bacterial, Viral and Protozoan Waterborne Pathogens. Wat. Res. 31 (3) 574-582.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water
Environment Federation 1999. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 20th Edition.
Fayer, R. (editor) 1997. Cryptosproridium and Cryptosporidiosis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Chapter 8. In-vitro Cultivation (Steve Upton); Chapter 9. Laboratory Models of
Cryptosporidiosis (David S. Lindsay).
Finch, G. R., Daniels, C. W., Black, E. K., Shaefer III, F. W., and Belosevic, M. 1993. Dose
Response of Cryptosporidium parvum in Outbred Neonatal CD-I mice. Appl. Environ. Microb.
59, 3661-3665.
Hurst, C. J., Knudsen, G. R., Mclnerney, M. J., Stetzenbach, S.D. and Walter, M. V. 1997.
Manual of Environmental Microbiology, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D. C.
Korich, D.G., et al. 1993. Development of a test to assess C. parvum oocyst viability:
correlation with infectivity potential. American Water Works Association Research Foundation
Report.
Nieminski, E. C. and Ongerth, J. E., 1995. Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by
Conventional and Direct Filtration. J. Amer Wat. Works Assoc. 87, 96-106.
Palin, A.T. 1974. Analytical Control of Water Disinfection With Special Reference to
Differential DPD Methods for Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide, Bromine, Iodine and Ozone. J. Inst.
Water Eng., 28, 139.
Slifko, T. R., Friedman, D. E., Rose, J. B., Upton, S. J. and Jakubowski, W. 1997. An In-vitro
Method for Detection of Infectious Cryptosporidium Oocysts using Cell Culture. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol., 63(9), 3669-3675.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Pesticide Program Guide Standard and
Protocol for Microbiological Water Purifiers. Federal Register, Vol. 51(133), Thursday, May
26, 19403.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. ICR Manual for Bench- and Pilot-Scale
Treatment Studies. EPA Office of Water (4601), EPA 814-B-96-003.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in
Water by Fitlration/IMS/FA and Viability by DAPI/PI. EPA Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA 821-D-97-001.
White, G. C. 1992. The Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Publishers, New York, 2nd Edition.
January 2003
Page 3-36
-------
CHAPTER 4
EPA/NSF ETV
EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN FOR
ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR
INACTIVATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Prepared By:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Copyright 2003 NSF International 40CFR35.6450.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce all or part of this work, subject
to the limitation that users may not sell all or any part of the work and
may not create any derivative work therefrom. Contact ETV Drinking
Water Systems Center Manager at (800) NSF-MARK with any questions
regarding authorized or unauthorized uses of this work.
January 2003
Page 4-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 APPLICATION OF THIS VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN 4-6
2.0 INTRODUCTION 4-7
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH 4-7
4.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS 4-7
4.1 Initial Operations: Overview 4-7
4.1.1 Task A: Characterization of Feed Water 4-8
4.1.2 Task B: Initial Test Runs 4-8
4.2 Verification Operations Overview 4-8
4.2.1 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation 4-8
4.2.2 Task 2: Feed Water and Finished Water Quality 4-8
4.2.3 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance 4-9
4.2.4 Task 4: Microbial Inactivation 4-9
4.2.5 Task 5: Data Management 4-9
4.2.6 Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 4-9
5.0 TESTING PERIODS 4-9
6.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS 4-10
6.1 UV Output 4-10
6.2 UVIrradiance 4-10
6.3 UV Dose 4-10
6.4 UV Transmittance 4-10
6.5 Low Pressure Lamps 4-11
6.6 Medium Pressure Lamps 4-11
6.7 Lamp Fouling 4-11
7.0 TASK A: CHARACTERIZATION OF FEED WATER 4-11
7.1 Introduction 4-11
7.2 Objectives 4-11
7.3 Work Plan 4-11
7.4 Evaluation Criteria 4-12
January 2003
Page 4-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
8.0 TASK B: INITIAL TEST RUNS 4-13
8.1 Introduction 4-13
8.2 Objectives 4-13
8.3 Work Plan 4-13
8.4 Analytical Schedule 4-14
8.5 Evaluation Criteria 4-14
9.0 TASK 1: VERIFICATION TESTING RUNS ROUTINE EQUIPMENT
OPERATION 4-14
9.1 Introduction 4-14
9.2 Experimental Objectives 4-14
9.3 Work Plan 4-14
9.3.1 Verification Testing Runs 4-14
9.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation 4-15
9.4 Schedule 4-15
9.5 Evaluation Criteria 4-16
10.0 TASK 2: TEST RUNS FOR FEED WATER AND FINISHED
WATER QUALITY 4-16
10.1 Introduction 4-16
10.1.1 Untreated Surface Water as Feed Water 4-16
10.1.2 Treated Surface Water as Feed Water 4-16
10.1.3 Ground Water as Feed Water 4-16
10.2 Experimental Objectives 4-17
10.3 Work Plan 4-17
10.4 Water Quality Sample Collection 4-19
10.5 Analytical Schedule 4-19
10.6 Evaluation Criteria 4-19
11.0 TASK 3: DOCUMENTATION OF OPERATING CONDITIONS AND
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE 4-19
11.1 Introduction 4-19
11.2 Objectives 4-20
11.3 Work Plan 4-20
11.4 Schedule 4-20
11.5 Evaluation Criteria 4-21
January 2003
Page 4-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
12.0 TASK 4: DOCUMENTATION OF EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
INACTIVATION OF MICROORGANISMS 4-21
12.1 Introduction 4-21
12.2 Experimental Objectives 4-22
12.3 Work Plan 4-22
12.3.1 Microbial Challenge Tests 4-22
12.3.1.1 Organisms Employed for Challenge Experiments 4-22
12.3.1.2 Spiking Protocols 4-22
12.3.1.3 Batch Seeding 4-23
12.3.1.4 In-line Injection 4-23
12.3.2 Test Operation and Sample Collection 4-24
12.3.2.1 Test Stream Sampling 4-24
12.3.2.2 Chlorine Residual Analysis 4-24
12.3.2.3 Post-Test Sampling Handling 4-24
12.3.3 Experimental Quality Control 4-25
12.3.3.1 Process Control 4-25
12.4 Microbiological Viability Analysis 4-25
12.4.1 Assessment of Microbial Inactivation 4-26
12.5 Translating Microbial Challenge Test Data to Operational Dose 4-27
12.5.1 Collimated Beam Apparatus 4-27
12.5.2 Calibration of the Collimated Beam Apparatus 4-27
12.5.3 Dose-Response Test with the Collimated Beam Apparatus 4-28
13.0 TASK 5: DATA MANAGEMENT 4-29
13.1 Introduction 4-29
13.2 Experimental Objectives 4-29
13.3 Work Plan 4-29
13.4 Statistical Analysis 4-30
14.0 TASK 6: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 4-30
14.1 Introduction 4-30
14.2 Experimental Objectives 4-31
14.3 Work Plan 4-31
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verifications 4-31
14.3.2 QA/QC Verifications Performed Every Two Weeks 4-31
14.3.3 QA/QC Verifications for Each Testing Period 4-31
14.4 On-Site Analytical Methods 4-31
14.4.1 pH 4-32
14.4.2 Temperature 4-32
14.4.3 True Color 4-32
14.4.4 Turbidity Analysis 4-32
14.4.4.1 Bench -Top Turbidimeters 4-32
14.4.4.2 In-line Turbidimeters 4-33
January 2003 Page 4-4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
14.5 Chemical and Biological Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analyses 4-33
14.5.1 Organic Parameters: Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance 4-33
14.5.2 Microbial Parameters: Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa, and Algae 4-33
14.5.3 Inorganic Samples 4-34
15.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4-34
15.1 Maintenance 4-35
15.2 Operation 4-35
16.0 REFERENCES 4-36
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Water Quality Sampling and Measurement Schedule 4-17
Table 2: Analytical Methods 4-18
Table 3: Equipment Operating Data 4-21
January 2003
Page 4-5
-------
1.0
APPLICATION OF THIS VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
This document is the ETV Testing Plan for evaluation of water treatment equipment utilizing
ultraviolet (UV) light for inactivation of microorganisms. This Testing Plan is to be used as a
guide in the development of the Product-Specific Test Plan (PSTP) for testing UV equipment,
within the structure provided by the ETV Protocol entitled "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For
Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation Of Microbiological Contaminants:
Requirements For All Studies". This Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Testing
Plan is applicable only to treatment systems that rely on UV light to effectively inactivate
microorganisms. Systems may incorporate unique strategies for enhancing the effect of UV light
on target organisms, such as by applying innovative lamp technologies. All UV technologies
including their UV lamps. Reactors and Irradiance sensors may be tested under this plan.
In order to participate in the equipment verification process for inactivation by UV, the
equipment Manufacturer shall employ the procedures and methods described in this test plan and
in the referenced ETV Protocol as guidelines for the development of the Manufacturer's Product-
Specific Test Plan (PSTP). Interim, non-standard methods for assessing the viability of cyst and
oocyst after UV treatment may be used for verification. However, any interim method (see
Appendix A) is subject to change and must have been reviewed by experts of cyst and oocyst
viability.
Various types of water treatment equipment employ UV light for several water purification
objectives, including removal of trace organic contaminants through advanced oxidation
processes and microbiological disinfection (inactivation). This Test Plan is applicable to the
testing of water treatment equipment utilizing UV light for inactivation of microorganisms in
drinking water. Because particles and other dissolved UV light absorbing contaminants can
interfere with UV light and reduce its disinfecting efficiency, this plan is applicable to the use of
UV technology for treating high quality water (<10 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU)
turbidity and >70% Iransmittance at 1 cm are the minimum qualities recommended) sources,
including
treated surface water supplies of consistent high quality;
groundwater supplies that are high in percent transmittance of filtered and unfiltered
water or have been pre-treated to produce water of consistent high quality.
The performance of UV reactors can be impacted by several water quality parameters, such as
turbidity, UV transmittance, hardness, alkalinity, iron, manganese, organics, and pH. Many of
these parameters result in a loss of UV transmittance due to fouling of the quartz sleeves
surrounding the lamps and therefore mainly impact long-term reactor performance and
maintenance. Some of these parameters also impact UV transmittance, but there is no need to
monitor the UV absorbance of individual compounds. Only the UV transmittance and turbidity
of the water may directly impact inactivation performance during a microbial challenge study.
Therefore, testing of the system should be performed using the worst conditions of UV
transmittance and turbidity anticipated for the installation site.
January 2003
Page 4-6
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
UV light currently is being used in place of chlorine for secondary wastewater disinfection in the
eastern United States, and is gaining increased attention as a disinfectant for water reuse projects
in California. UV technology also is used for drinking water applications in Europe for several
reasons:
It is a physical process that does not involve the addition of chemicals.
It has been demonstrated to be a highly effective germicide.
It employs very short contact time (seconds) in pressurized reactors making capital
costs low and maintaining existing hydraulic gradients without the need for re-
pumping.
In numerous studies to date it has been shown to produce no disinfection by-products.
The typical sources of UV light are low pressure, mercury vapor arc lamps. These lamps
produce approximately 90 percent of their total energy output at the germicidal wavelength of
253.7 nanometers (nm). Low pressure UV technology has been employed in wastewater
treatment and some drinking water treatment applications for inactivation of certain bacteria and
viruses. Conventional low pressure UV systems have not been found to be effective at killing
cysts and oocysts of protozoa such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium at cost effective dosages.
Other UV technologies (including medium pressure, high intensity, advanced, and pulsed) are
being developed for the inactivation of more resistant microorganisms, such as protozoan cysts
and oocysts. Little is known about which wavelength(s) result in the inactivation of the
protozoan cysts and oocysts by high pressure, advanced and pulsed UV technologies.
Nonetheless, this ETV Testing Plan is applicable to any UV technology.
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH
Testing of equipment covered by this Test Plan will be conducted by an NSF-qualified Field
Testing Organization that is selected by the equipment Manufacturer. Water quality and
microbiological analytical work to be carried out as a part of this Test Plan will be contracted
with a laboratory certified by a state or accredited by a third party organization (i.e., NSF) or the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for the appropriate water quality parameters.
4.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS
The following section provides a brief overview of the recommended tasks that may be included
in Initial Operations and of the required and optional tasks to be included in any UV inactivation
Test Plan.
4.1 Initial Operations: Overview
The purpose of these tasks is to provide preliminary information that will facilitate final test
design and data interpretation.
January 2003
Page 4-7
-------
4.1.1 Task A: Characterization Of Feed Water
The objective of this recommended Initial Operations task is to obtain a chemical,
biological and physical characterization of the feed water. A brief description of the
watershed or aquifer and any pretreatment modules that provide the feed water shall be
prepared, to aid in interpretation of feed water characterization.
4.1.2 Task B: Initial Tests Runs
During Initial Operations, the equipment Manufacturer may want to evaluate equipment
operation and determine flow rates, hydraulic retention time, contact times (via tracer
tests when technically feasible as many advanced UV systems have theoretically short
retention times of 2 to 20 seconds), number of UV lamps, the spectral distribution of
wavelength from the UV lamp or other factors which provide effective treatment of high
quality water. This is a recommended Initial Operations task. The equipment
Manufacturer may also want to work with the Testing Organization and analytical
laboratory to perform blank or preliminary challenges and sampling routines to verify
that sampling equipment can perform its required functions including laboratory studies
of UV irradiance and microorganism viability. This is also a recommended Initial
Operations Task.
4.2 Verification Operations: Overview
The objective of this task is to operate the treatment equipment provided by the equipment
Manufacturer and to assess its ability to meet stated water quality goals and any other
performance characteristics specified by the Manufacturer. A minimum of one verification
testing period shall be performed. Additional verification testing periods may be necessary to
verify the manufacturer's objectives, such as in the treatment of surface water where additional
testing during each season may assist in verifying an objective. The time period selected for
testing should represent the worst-case for concentrations of contaminants e.g., dissolved solids
which interfere with UV, or potentially can foul a UV lamp or sensor e.g., iron, nitrates.
4.2.1 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation
To characterize the technology in terms of efficiency and reliability, water treatment
equipment that includes UV lamp, reactor and sensor for measuring UV Irradiance shall
be operated for Verification Testing purposes with the operational parameters based on
the results of the Initial Operations testing.
4.2.2 Task 2: Feed Water and Finished Water Quality
During each day of Verification Testing, feed water and treated water samples shall be
collected, and analyzed for parameters relevant to microbial enumeration or those
affecting equipment performance, as outlined in Section 10.0, Table 1.
January 2003
Page 4-8
-------
4.2.3 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance
During each day of Verification Testing, operating conditions and performance of the
water treatment equipment shall be documented. This includes UV Irradiance, lamp and
sensor fouling and cleaning applied and frequency, water flow (rate [g.p.m.] and total
flow), power usage, stability of power supply (surges, brown-outs, etc.).
4.2.4 Task 4: Microbial Inactivation
The objective of this task is to measure the performance of the UV drinking water
treatment equipment that includes the UV lamp and reactor, in inactivating
microbiological contaminants during Verification Testing.
4.2.5 Task 5: Data Management
The objective of this task is to establish an effective field protocol for data management
at the field operations site and for data transmission between the Field Testing
Organization (FTO) and the NSF for data obtained during the Verification Testing. Prior
to the beginning of field testing, the database design must be developed by the Field
Testing Organization and reviewed and approved by NSF. This will insure that the
required data will be collected during the testing, and that it can be effectively transmitted
to NSF for review.
4.2.6 Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
An important aspect of Verification Testing is the protocol developed for quality
assurance and quality control. The objective of this task is to assure accurate
measurement of operational and water quality parameters during UV radiation equipment
Verification Testing. Prior to the beginning of field testing, a QA/QC plan must be
developed which addresses all aspects of the testing process. Each water quality
parameter and operational parameter must have appropriate QA and QC measures in
place and documented. For example, the protocol for pH measurement should describe
how the pH meter is calibrated (frequency, pH values), what adjustments are made, and
provide a permanent record of all calibrations and maintenance for that instrument.
5.0 TESTING PERIODS
The required tasks in the Verification Testing Plan (Tasks 1 through 6 except Task 4 when water
treatment equipment is being used to deliver potable water at the test site; see section 9 Routine
Equipment Operation) are designed to be carried out for a minimum of one verification testing
period. Additional verification testing periods may be necessary to verify the manufacturer's
objectives, such as in the treatment of surface water where additional testing during each season
may assist in verifying a performance objective. For systems treating solely groundwater or
surface waters of consistent quality due to pre-treatment (<10 NTU turbidity and >70%
transmittance), one verification testing period may be sufficient. If one verification testing
period is selected, the feed water should represent the worst-case concentrations of contaminants
January 2003
Page 4-9
-------
which can verify the manufacturer's objectives. For example dissolved solids which interfere
with UV, or potentially can foul a UV lamp or sensor (e.g., iron, nitrates). Although one testing
period satisfies the minimum requirement of the ETV program, manufacturers are encouraged to
use additional testing periods to cover a wider range of water quality conditions.
Verification testing periods consist of continued evaluation of the treatment system using the
pertinent treatment parameters defined in Initial Operations. Performance and reliability of the
equipment shall be tested during Verification Testing periods of a minimum of 320 hours (13 full
days plus one 8-hour shift). Only Task 3 shall be conducted during a 27-day period. The
purpose of the 27 day test period is to assess operation and maintenance items associated with
the equipment, such as the build up of potential scale or other contaminants on the surface of UV
lamps and UV irradiance sensors.
6.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
Definitions that apply to UV processes are given below:
6.1 UV Output
The amount of power (in the wavelength range of 200-300 nm) delivered from the lamp to the
water and described in terms of watts (W) per lamp. The absolute free-standing UV power of the
lamp is decreased by end losses and by transmission losses through the quartz sleeve. The UV
output can be reduced because of lamp aging, water temperature, and lamp fouling (as defined in
Section 6.7).
6.2 UV Irradiance
The rate at which UV energy is incident on a unit area (e.g., 1 cm2) in the water and described in
terms of UV power per unit area, e.g., microwatts per square centimeter (|iW/cm2) or milliwatts
per square centimeter (mW/cm2).
6.3 UV Dose
The energy is quantified to a dose by multiplying the UV Irradiance by the actual exposure time:
Dose (|iW sec/cm2) = UV Irradiance (|iW/cm2) x Time (seconds) or
Dose (mW sec/cm ) = UV Irradiance (mW/cm2) x Time (seconds) or
Dose (mJ/cm2) = UV Irradiance (mW/cm2) x Time (seconds)
6.4 UV Transmittance
The ability of the water to transmit UV light. Transmittance of a water sample is generally
measured as the percentage (%T) of transmitted light (I) to incident light (Io) through an
operationally defined pathlength (L). Many commercially available spectrophotometers actually
report the Absorbance (A) for a fixed pathlength (L) of the sample. Percent Transmittance and
Absorbance can be related as: %T = 100 x 10~(A/L). Many naturally occurring organic and
inorganic constituents (e.g., natural organic matter, iron, nitrate) will absorb energy in the UV
January 2003
Page 4-10
-------
wavelengths, thus educing the transmittance of the water. This reduced transmittance often
interferes with the disinfection efficiency of a UV disinfection system.
6.5 Low Pressure Lamps
Low pressure lamps operate at a temperature between 38 and 49ฐC (100 and 120ฐF) to produce a
near monochromatic radiation at 253.7 nm. These lamps typically have a linear power density of
about 0.3 W/cm.
6.6 Medium Pressure Lamps
Medium pressure lamps produce a high intensity broad spectrum of UV light (extending over the
200-300 nm range of microbiological sensitivity with a maximum output at about 255 nm) with a
higher Irradiance and operating at a much higher operating temperature (surface temperatures
>500ฐC) than do low pressure Hg lamps. The linear power density is also much higher (typically
100-300 W/cm).
6.7 Lamp Fouling
If the lamps are submerged in the feedwater, lamp fouling may occur. Lamp fouling is the
reduction in UV Irradiance caused by the presence of certain organic and inorganic ions in the
water that can result in the accumulation of mineral deposits or biofilm on the quartz sleeves
covering the lamps. Chemical or mechanical cleaning is needed to restore the UV Irradiance to
design conditions.
7.0 TASK A: CHARACTERIZATION OF FEED WATER
7.1 Introduction
This Initial Operations task is needed to determine if the chemical, biological and physical
characteristics of the feed water are appropriate for the water treatment equipment to be tested.
7.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to obtain a complete chemical, biological and physical
characterization of the source water or the feed water as pre-treated that will be entering the
treatment system being tested.
7.3 Work Plan
The specific parameters needed to characterize the water will depend on the equipment being
tested and the source water feeding the UV drinking water treatment equipment. During this
Initial Operations task, the feed water to the UV drinking water treatment systems, the following
characteristics should be measured and recorded:
Water Temperature, Turbidity, UV254 absorbance and filtered and unfiltered transmittance
(and/or absorbance measurements at other wavelengths that are appropriate to the UV
January 2003
Page 4-11
-------
disinfection system being tested), Free and Total Chlorine, Total Organic Carbon, and
Color.
Total Coliform (for a treated water source) or Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) (for an
untreated water source)
Aerobic spores, and Algae.
Total Alkalinity, pH, Calcium, Hardness, Nitrate, aluminum and Iron.
Section 9 of this document provides a list of characteristics that shall be measured and recorded
depending on the source of feed water to the UV equipment and should be used as a guideline for
Initial Operations.
Sufficient information shall be obtained to illustrate the variations expected to occur in these
parameters that will be measured during the Verification Testing for a typical annual cycle for
the water source. This information will be compiled and shared with NSF so NSF and the
Testing Organization can determine the adequacy of the data for use as the basis to make
decisions on the testing schedule. Failure to adequately characterize the feed water (source
water) could result in testing at a site later deemed inappropriate, so the initial characterization
will be important to the success of the testing program.
A brief description of the watershed or aquifer source shall be provided, to aid in interpretation
of feed water characterization. The watershed description should include a statement of the
approximate size of the watershed, a description of the topography (i.e. flat, gently rolling, hilly,
mountainous) and a description of the kinds of human activity that take place (i.e. mining,
manufacturing, cities or towns, farming) with special attention to potential sources of pollution
that might influence feed water quality. The nature of the water source, such as stream, river,
lake or man-made reservoir, should be described as well. Aquifer description should include the
above characterization relative to the recharge zone, a description of the hydrogeology of the
water bearing stratum(a), well-boring data, and any Microscopic Particulate Analysis data
indicating whether the groundwater is under the influence of surface waters.
Any pretreatment modules impacting the source water shall be characterized. Any coagulant or
other chemical additions shall be identified. Predicted effects on turbidity and particle load by
pre-filtration shall be discussed.
7.4 Evaluation Criteria
Feed water quality will be evaluated in the context of the Manufacturer's statement of the
equipment performance objectives but should not be beyond the range of water quality suitable
for treatment for the equipment in question. If the device is to be used for treating high quality
ground waters or those surface water sources that have already received full or partial treatment,
it should be tested on waters of that quality.
January 2003
Page 4-12
-------
8.0 TASKB: INITIAL OPERATIONS
8.1 Introduction
During Initial Operations, a Manufacturer may want to evaluate equipment operations and
determine the flow rates, hydraulic residence time, pulse rates, exposure times, number and/or
Irradiance of UV lamps, the spectral distribution of wavelength from the UV lamp, degree of
power supply/line conditioning required, or other factors applicable to the technology which
provide effective treatment of the feed water. The Manufacturer may also want to work with the
Testing Organization and the analytical laboratory to perform blank or preliminary challenges
and sampling routines to verify that sampling equipment can perform their required functions
under normal operating conditions. This information may also indicate operating conditions
under which the Manufacturer's stated performance objectives are not met, or whether any
threshold UV dose level can be determined. This is a recommended Initial Operations task. An
NSF field inspection of equipment operations and sampling and field analysis procedures may be
carried out during the initial test runs.
The "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation Of
Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies" (Chapter 1) under which this test
plan is formulated requires hydraulic testing to demonstrate flow conditions and residence
duration (exposure time). The equipment Manufacturer may want to conduct such tests during
these initial runs. Additional tracer tests are required if a system is hydraulically dissimilar to
that tested for the Protocol is utilized, or if testing is to proceed at flow rates and conditions other
than those demonstrated previously. Procedures for developing a tracer test methodology are
described in the Protocol.
8.2 Objectives
The objective of these test runs is to bracket the proper operating parameters for treatment of the
feed water during Verification Testing. UV performance may be different for feed waters from
different test sites or for the feed water from the same site during different seasons. Therefore,
conducting initial test runs is strongly recommended.
8.3 Work Plan
Conducting UV exposure tests on small batches (cuvettes) of feed water containing test organism
can be a rapid method of roughly evaluating equipment performance and of bracketing effective
UV dosages. Where batch testing cannot be applied to a particular system, scaled back or full-
scale initial tests may be designed. Follow-up confirmation of initial batch testing by
preliminary scaled back continuous flow tests is recommended. Continuous flow testing is
required during verification testing unless the manufacturer's performance objectives also
specifies use during intermittent flow or use as typical for very small community systems (<500
persons). The work plan should then include a shut down period of 12 hours each day where the
UV equipment is turned off.
January 2003
Page 4-13
-------
8.4 Analytical Schedule
Because these runs are being conducted to define operating conditions for Verification Testing, a
strictly defined schedule for sampling and analysis does not need to be followed. Adhering to
the schedule for sampling and analysis to be followed during Verification Testing would be wise,
however, so the operator can gain familiarity with the time requirements that will be applicable
later on in the test program. Also, during the Initial Operations phase, the verification
organization may conduct an initial on-site inspection of field operations, sampling activities and
on-site analysis. The sampling and analysis schedule for Verification Testing shall be followed
during the on-site inspection.
8.5 Evaluation Criteria
The Manufacturer should evaluate the data produced during the Initial Operations to determine if
the water treatment equipment performed so as to meet or exceed expectations based on the
statement of performance objectives. If the performance was not as good as the statement of
performance objectives, the Manufacturer may wish to conduct more Initial Operations or to
cancel the testing program.
9.0 TASK 1: VERIFICATION TESTING RUNS AND ROUTINE EQUIPMENT
OPERATION
9.1 Introduction
Water treatment equipment that includes UV lamp, reactor and sensor for measuring the UV
light Irradiance shall be operated for Verification Testing purposes with the operational
parameters based on the manufacturer's statement of performance objectives.
9.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to characterize the technology in terms of efficiency and reliability
while operating under the conditions established during the Initial Operations testing. These
conditions must represent the operating conditions for which the unit was designed. For
example, if the unit is designed to operate at several hundred g.p.m., the testing must be done
using flow rates which approximate these conditions. However, if the unit has a family of
similar units that differ only in size and the Manufacturer demonstrates with tracer data,
calculations, computation, fluid dynamic models, etc., that a smaller unit has the same hydraulic
behavior and irradiance distribution as the larger unit, then testing may proceed with the smallest
size unit. The experimental protocol must be designed so as to assess the unit adequately when
operating under its design conditions.
9.3 Work Plan
9.3.1 Verification Testing Runs
The Verification Testing Runs in this task consist of continued evaluation of the
treatment system, using the most successful treatment parameters defined in Initial
January 2003
Page 4-14
-------
Operations. Performance and reliability of the equipment shall be tested during
Verification Testing periods of a minimum of 320 hours (13 full days plus one 8-hour
shift). Only Task 3 shall be conducted during a 27 day period. The purpose of the 27
day test period is to assess the build up of potential scale or other contaminants on the
surface of UV lamps and UV Irradiance sensors. During each testing run, Tasks 1
through 5 shall be conducted simultaneously.
Seasonal testing may be required for equipment treating surface waters because of the
differences in water quality that occur on a seasonal basis, although pre-treatment
modules, when present, may damp these variations. For UV treatment equipment, factors
that can influence treatment performance include:
High turbidity, often occurring in spring, encountered in rivers carrying a high
sediment load or in surface waters during periods of high runoff resulting from heavy
rains or snow melt. Particulate load may absorb or interfere with UV radiation.
Algae, which may exhibit bloom on a seasonal basis. Algae absorb and interfere with
UV radiation.
Natural organic matter, which may be higher in some waters in the fall. Organic
matter may absorb UV radiation, and may contribute to fouling of the lamp surfaces.
Iron, nitrate, pH, alkalinity and hardness, which may vary seasonally for some waters.
These parameters may cause or contribute to fouling of the lamp surfaces or may
absorb UV radiation.
Aluminum from alum coagulation treatment of surface water, hardness from lime
softening, may contribute to fouling of the lamp surfaces.
It is unlikely that all of the above problems would occur in surface water during a single
season, and this may result in testing during each season of the year and possibly at
different test sites. The testing should be designed to test the UV unit when the water
quality to that unit changes, either because the unit is operated without pre-treatment or
because the pre-treatment produces a different quality water which is presented to the UV
unit.
9.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation
If the water treatment equipment is being used for production of potable water, in the
time intervals between verification runs, routine operation for water production is
anticipated. In this situation, the operating and water quality data collected and furnished
to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) primacy agency shall be supplied to the NSF-
qualified testing organization.
9.4 Schedule
During Verification Testing, water treatment equipment shall be operated continuously for a
minimum of 320 hours (13 full days plus one 8-hour work shift) with interruptions in operation
as needed for system maintenance.
January 2003
Page 4-15
-------
9.5 Evaluation Criteria
The goal of this task is to operate the equipment for the 320 hour period, including time for lamp
changing and other necessary operating activities, during Verification Testing. Data shall be
provided to substantiate the operation for 320 hours or more.
10.0 TASK 2: TEST RUNS FOR FEED WATER AND FINISHED WATER QUALITY
10.1 Introduction
Water quality data shall be collected for the feed water and treated water as shown in Table 1
depending upon the source of feed water (see 10.1.1- 10.1.3), during each day of Verification
Testing. The Field Test Organization on behalf of the equipment Manufacturer shall assure the
sampling or measuring of the water quality parameters in Table 1 depending upon the source of
feed water (see 10.1.1-10.1.3). A Field Testing Organization may use local personnel to assist in
collection of samples or measurement of test parameters, but is responsible for their training to
assure proper technique. Water quality goals and target inactivation goals for the water
treatment equipment shall be recorded in the Product-Specific Test Plan in the statement of
objectives.
10.1.1 Untreated Surface Water as Feed Water:
For UV drinking water treatment systems that treat raw or filtered only surface water, the
parameters in Table 1 shall be measured and recorded, except free and total chlorine and
aluminum as these parameters will not likely occur in raw water (they will likely occur or
be added during chemical treatment).
10.1.2 Treated Surface Water as Feed Water:
For UV drinking water treatment systems that treat feed water from consistently and
previously treated (lime softening, chemical coagulation etc. but not solely filtration)
surface water, the parameters in Table 1 shall be measured and recorded, except algae,
total coliform and endospores as previous treatment will likely have removed these
contaminants.
10.1.3 Ground Water as Feed Water
For UV drinking water treatment systems that treat ground water, the parameters in Table
1 shall be measured and recorded, except color, algae and endospores as they will not
likely occur in ground water, and free and total chlorine and aluminum which are not
typically added during chemical treatment of ground water. HPC is also not required for
a ground water source.
January 2003
Page 4-16
-------
Table 1. Water Quality Sampling and Measurement Schedule
Parameter:
Frequency:
Temperature
Daily
pH
Daily
Total Alkalinity
Semi-weekly
Hardness
Semi-weekly
Total Organic Carbon
Semi-weekly
UV Absorbance (254 and/or other
nm)
Semi-weekly
Turbidity
Daily at bench to check continuous
Turbidimeters
Algae, number and species
Semi-weekly if no algae bloom.
Daily if algae bloom occurs.
True Color
Semi-weekly
Nitrate
Semi-weekly
Iron, Manganese and Aluminum
Semi-weekly
Bacteria and viruses
Daily specified in objectives
statement and Total Coliform or HPC
or Bacillus spores
Free and Total Chlorine
Daily
10.2 Experimental Objectives
For verification testing of inactivation of naturally existing microorganisms this task will allow
determination of mean concentrations of organisms and their variability in the feed water. A list
of a minimum number of additional water quality parameters to be monitored during equipment
verification testing is provided in the Analytical Schedule section below and in Table 1. The
actual water quality parameters selected for testing shall be stipulated by the Manufacturer in the
Product-Specific Test Plan and shall include all those necessary to permit verification of the
statement of performance objectives.
10.3 Work Plan
The manufacturer will be responsible for establishing the plant testing operating parameters, on
the basis of the Initial Operations testing. Many of the water quality parameters described in this
task will be measured on-site by the NSF-qualified Field Testing Organization or by local
community personnel properly trained by the Field Testing Organization (refer to Table 2).
Analysis of the remaining water quality parameters will be performed by a laboratory that is
certified, accredited or approved by a State, a third-party organization (i.e., NSF), or the U.S.
EPA. The methods to be used for measurement of water quality parameters in the field are listed
in the Analytical Methods section below in Table 2. The analytical methods utilized in this study
for on-site monitoring of feed water and filtered water qualities are described in Task 6, Quality
January 2003
Page 4-17
-------
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). Where appropriate, the Standard Methods reference
numbers for water quality parameters are provided for both the field and laboratory analytical
procedures.
Table 2: Analytical Methods
Parameter
Facility
Standard Methods and Other
Method References
EPA Methods
Temperature
On-site
2550 B
PH
On-site
4500 H+ B
150.1/150.2
Total Alkalinity
Lab
2320 B
Total Hardness
Lab
2340 C
Total Organic Carbon
Lab
5310 C
UV Absorbance (254 and/or
other nm)
Lab
5910 B
Turbidity
On-site
2130 B
180.1
Algae, number species
Lab
10200 and 10900
True Color
Lab or
On-site
2120 B (Hach Co. modification
of SM 2120 measured at 455
nm)
Total Coliform
Lab
9221 / 9222 / 9223
Heterotrophic Plate Count
Lab
9215 B
E. coli
Lab
9225 or Colilert
Micrococcus luteus
Lab
AWWARF Surrogate Report by
csu
Bacillus spores
Lab
Rice et al. 1996
MS2 Virus
Lab
EPA ICR Method for Coliphage
Assay, 1996 or 9224 F
Algae
Lab
AWWARF Surrogate Report by
CSU
Giardia and Cryptosporidium
Lab
EPA Draft 1622, (enumeration
only)
Iron
Lab
3120 B, 3111 B, 3113 B
200.7, 200.9
Manganese
Lab
3120 B, 3111 B, 3113 B
200.7, 200.8,
200.9
Aluminum
Lab
3120B, 3111 D, 3113 B
200.7, 200.8,
200.9
Nitrate
Lab
4110 B,
4500-No3-F,
4500-NO3-D,
4500-NO3-E
300.0, 353.2
Free and Total Chlorine
On-site
Hach modification of SM4500
CL:G
January 2003
Page 4-18
-------
10.4 Water Quality Sample Collection
Water quality data shall be collected at regular intervals during each period of testing, as noted in
this section. Additional sampling and data collection may be performed at the discretion of the
Manufacturer. Sample collection frequency and protocol shall be defined by the Field Testing
Organization in the Product-Specific Test Plan.
In the case of water quality samples that will be shipped to the off-site laboratory for analysis,
the samples shall be collected in appropriate containers (containing preservatives as applicable)
prepared by the off-site laboratory. These samples shall be preserved, stored, shipped and
analyzed in accordance with appropriate procedures and holding times, as specified by the
analytical laboratory. Original feld sheets and chain-of-custody forms shall accompany all
samples shipped to the analytical laboratory. Copies of field sheets and chain-of-custody forms
for all samples shall be provided to NSF.
10.5 Analytical Schedule
During Verification Testing ofUV treatment equipment, the feed water and treated water quality
shall be characterized by measurement of the water quality parameters listed above in the Table
with the exceptions allowed under sections 10.1.1 - 10.1.3. These parameters are listed to
provide verification report readers with background data on the quality of the feed water being
treated and the quality of the treated water. These data are to be collected to enhance the
acceptability to the Verification Testing data to a wide range of drinking water regulatory
agencies.
10.6 Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation of water quality in this task is related to general water quality capabilities indicated
by the Manufacturer.
11.0 TASK 3: DOCUMENTATION OF OPERATING CONDITIONS AND
TREATMENT EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
11.1 Introduction
Task 3 shall be conducted over a minimum 27 day period. During each day of the testing period
operating conditions shall be documented. This shall include descriptions of pretreatment
chemistry and filtration for the equipment processes used, if any, and their operating conditions.
The performance of the UV disinfection equipment shall be documented, including total water
throughput and total power usage, UV Irradiance as measured by the manufacturer's UV
irradiance sensor, hours of lamp operation, lamp sensor output and its decrease in output over
time, frequency of pulsing or length of cycles, if applicable, lamp fouling rates, frequency and
type of mechanical cleaning and performance of automatic mechanical wipers or ultrasonic
cleaners, if present. In addition, the power supply shall be tracked and spikes and brownout
events shall be noted.
January 2003
Page 4-19
-------
The measurement of true UV dose will not be measured as part of the equipment operating
performance. The hydraulics and UV irradiance distribution vary greatly and would confound
the UV dose calculation. UV irradiance measurements shall be measured for low pressure UV
lamp equipment. For equipment using other UV technology, the operating conditions and
equipment performance shall be monitored using the sensor provided with the UV system (lamp,
sensor and reactor). Any change in reactor design, source of lamp or UV irradiance sensor
constitutes a change in the UV system and repeat testing shall be required.
11.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to accurately and fully document the operating conditions that
applied during treatment, and the performance of the equipment. This task is intended to result
in data that describe the operation of the equipment and data that can be used to develop cost
estimates for operation of the equipment.
11.3 Work Plan
During each day of Verification Testing, treatment equipment operating parameters for both
pretreatment and UV radiation will be monitored and recorded on a routine basis. This shall
include a complete description of pretreatment chemistry; rate of flow and total flow; and UV
irradiance as measured by the manufacturer's UV irradiance sensor. Calibration of lamp
irradiance sensors shall be demonstrated and recorded. Electrical energy consumed by the UV
treatment equipment shall be measured and recorded. In addition, the aggregate horsepower of
all motors and mechanical efficiencies of all motor/devices supplied with the equipment shall be
determined and used to develop an estimate of the maximum power requirements and routine
power consumption during operation, A complete description of each process shall be given,
with data on volume and detention time of each process stream at rated flow.
An automatic device for monitoring UV irradiance is strongly suggested with any UV system.
The testing plan should include a determination of the minimum irradiance below which
equipment shutoff should occur to assure adequate disinfection at all times. When the irradiance
drops below this value, flow can be shut off or a signal given to the operator indicating the need
for cleaning or lamp replacement.
11.4 Schedule
Table 3 presents the schedule for observing and recording UV equipment operating and
performance data.
January 2003
Page 4-20
-------
Table 3: Equipment Operating Data
OPERATIONS
PARAMETER
ACTION
Flow Rate
Check and record each 2 hours. Adjust when
10% above or below target. Record both before
and after adjustment.
Exposure Time*
Record retention or cycle times when applicable.
If variable, record degree of variation.
UV Irradiance
Check and record each 2 hours.
UV Sensor
Record out put from in-line monitor. Record
changes in lamp irradiance following each
cleaning
Lamp Fouling/Cleaning system
Record frequency of sleeve cleaning, if
applicable
Lamp Hours
Record Daily
Electric Power
Record meter reading daily
Lamp Cycles
Record frequency of lamp on/off cycles
* Recording of exposure time is required for systems where exposure is independent of hydraulics
or UV pulse rate. For others, exposure time will have been determined in preliminary tracer testing
by other means for UV systems which have short hydraulic retention times and will not vary during
operation.
11.5 Evaluation Criteria
Where applicable, the data developed from this task will be compared to statements of
performance objectives. If no relevant statement of performance objectives exists, results of
operating and performance data will be tabulated for inclusion in the Verification Report.
12.0 TASK 4: DOCUMENTATION OF EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
INACTIVATION OF MICROORGANISMS
12.1 Introduction
Inactivation of microorganisms is the primary purpose of UV drinking water treatment modules.
Consequently, the effectiveness of the equipment at inactivating microorganisms introduced by
seeding the feed water with bacteria, viruses or protozoa or with a combination of those or other
approved types of microorganisms will be evaluated in this task. When the naturally occurring
concentration of the microorganism in the feed water at a test site or where an UV water
treatment is delivering potable water, is sufficient to challenge the manufacturer's performance
objectives, no challenge test or seeding study is necessary. The measurement of inactivation is a
comparison of the percent of viable organisms in the feed stream with the percent of viable
organisms in the effluent.
January 2003
Page 4-21
-------
12.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to operate the treatment equipment provided by the Manufacturer
and to characterize the technology in terms of efficacy at inactivation of microbial organisms.
Challenge organisms to be tested will be selected by the equipment Manufacturer.
12.3 Work Plan
12.3.1 Microbial Challenge Tests
Microbial challenge experiments shall be conducted at full scale and not with pilot or
prototype equipment. The Field Testing Organization shall conduct the challenge studies
in the field, and the Field Testing Organization shall submit the resulting samples to a
laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by a State, a third-party organization,
or the U.S. EPA.
For cysts and oocysts only, the microbial challenge testing of each operating condition
must be performed a minimum of three times in order to achieve a statistical measure of
the precision of the performance. A minimum of three conditions are to be tested (i.e.
system off - no organisms, system off - seeded organisms added, and system on at
optimal setting - seeded organisms added) requiring a total of nine challenge tests
corresponding to three replicate challenge experiments at each of the three test
conditions. The optimal setting can be specified by the manufacturer and should be
supported by the results from the Initial Operations (Section 5). A fourth condition
representing a sub-optimal UV dose setting can also be performed, but it is not required.
This sub-optimal UV dose condition may be achieved by increasing the flow through the
reactor to decrease hydraulic retention time or decreasing the power to the UV lamp,
resulting in reduced irradiance of the water.
12.3.1.1 Organisms Employed for Challenge Experiments. Microorganisms which
may be used for inactivation studies are listed below. These species represent
microorganisms of particular interest and concern to the drinking water industry, and
represent a range of resistance to inactivation methods. The specific batch(es) used must
be shown to be viable by the laboratory involved in the analytical aspects of the testing.
Bacteria Bacillus subtilis Pseudomonas spp.
Clostridium perfringens E. coli
Virus MS2 bacteriophage (surrogate)
12.3.1.2 Spiking Protocols. The total number of each type of test organism required for
spiking will depend on the reactor volume, the water flow rate, and the desired
steady-state concentration of microbiological contaminants in the reactor. For viruses, a
steady-state final concentration adequate to show 4-log removal against the effluent
analyses detection limit is necessary. The total number of organisms required to provide
these steady-state microbiological populations will depend on the overall volume of the
disinfection contractor, the detection limits of the sampling and analytical methods and
the duration of experiments. For all organisms, the laboratory(ies) supplying the
January 2003
Page 4-22
-------
organisms and performing the viability studies shall be experienced in challenge testing
and be able to predict initial dosages required to overcome any inherent experimental
losses. Microbial challenges shall be conducted either by batch seeding or by feed stream
injection. For evaluation of inactivation of Giardia, bacteria species, virus, or any other
organisms negatively affected by chlorine, dechlorination will be required. Any system
based on synergistic effects of chlorine and UV will not require dechlorination.
Evaluation of Cryptosporidium inactivation will not require removal of chlorine when
present in concentrations typical of drinking water (<5 mg/L).
12.3.1.3 Batch Seeding. A batch feed tank with sufficient volume to provide the
proposed test volume shall be used. The discharge of the tank shall be situated so that
100% of the contents can be delivered to the system. The tank shall be filled with feed
water which shall be dechlorinated, if necessary. Stirring of the feed water shall
accompany dechlorination. Verification of dechlorination shall precede introduction of
the seed organisms. Stirring of the feed tank shall precede seeding and continue
throughout testing. Prior to microbial seeding of the tank, agitation procedures of the
bulk seed container (as received from the supplier) such as vortexing and sonication shall
be employed to assure organisms are not clumped together. A secondary source of feed
water (dechlorinated, if necessary) sufficient to provide 3 retention time-equivalents (as
determined by tracer tests or as defined by system functions) shall be available to add to
the tank on its depletion. The purpose of this feed water will be to continue flushing
seeded organisms through the system to the effluent sample ports.
12.3.1.4 In-line Injection. The feed to the test unit will be plumbed with a check-valve
equipped injection port. If the feed stream is divided to parallel treatment units, mixing
chamber shall be plumbed downstream of the injection port. A one Liter carboy
equipped with a bottom dispensing port will feed this injection port by means of a
metering pump (diaphragm or peristaltic or equivalent) via siliconized or Teflon tubing.
The pump shall be capable of fluid injection into the pressurized system feed line for the
duration of the test, at a measurable and verifiable rate such that the one liter carboy is
depleted coincident with the end of the test run. If dechlorination is necessary (see
discussion, section 12.3.2.2), a chemical injection pump feeding a port and adequate
contact mixing will be required upstream of the microorganism injection port. This pump
will meter in a solution of sodium thiosulfate adequate to dechlorinate the feed water over
the course of the test run.
The spike carboy will contain a magnetic stir bar and will be filled with one Liter of
system water (dechlorinated if necessary) and placed on a stir plate. The prepared batch
of spike organisms shall be agitated by methods such as vortexing and sonication and
added to the stirring carboy. Once appropriate flow has been initiated through the test
system, the test unit is operating properly, sample collection systems are readied, and
complete dechlorination (<0.05 mg/L) has been verified at both the influent and effluent
sample sites, the injection pump can be started. During the course of the test run,
monitoring of the system flow rate and spike injection rate shall be performed and
adjustments made to maintain test design.
January 2003
Page 4-23
-------
12.3.2 Test Operation and Sample Collection
12.3.2.1 Test Stream Sampling. Sample ports shall be provided for the feed water
stream (spiked with concentrations of microbiological contaminants) and the UV-treated
water stream at the contactor effluent. The FTO shall specify the specific ways in which
sample collection is performed according to the organisms that will be used for the
proposed microbiological inactivation experiments. Examples of potential sample
collection methods for bacterial, viral and protozoan organisms are provided below. The
methods described, or any other peer-reviewed method may be used for verification
testing. The FTO shall propose in the PSTP the specific methods that are to be used for
viability assessment of the selected microorganisms (See Section 12.4 below).
For bacterial and/or viral seeding experiments, methods for organism spiking and sample
collection shall be consistent with a selected peer-reviewed method. The frequency and
number of samples collected for each sampling point will be determined by the length of
the test run and shall be specified by the FTO in the PSTP. The volume of each UV-
treated water sample from the disinfection contactor effluent will depend on the
concentrations of test organisms spiked, and the requirements of the analytical laboratory.
For protozoan spiking experiments, EPA Method 1622 or any other method that has been
evaluated through the peer-reviewed process (e.g., Nieminski and Ongerth, 1995) may be
followed for sample collection from the spiked water streams. The sample collection
system shall be plumbed to allow installation of housings and filters for capture of
sufficient flow for microbiological analysis. The FTO shall provide an indication of the
recovery efficiency achievable under the sample collection method selected for use
during protozoa seeding studies. The specific capture filter recovery system shall be fully
described in the PSTP by the FTO. In addition, the PSTP shall include a plan of study for
verification testing with a minimum of three standard recovery efficiency tests from the
microbiological laboratory.
The sample tap(s) shall be sanitized with 95% ethanol one minute prior to initiating any
bacteria or virus sample collection. Taps shall be flowing at the appropriate sample rate
for at least one minute prior to sample collection.
12.3.2.2 Chlorine Residual Analysis. When dechlorinating, residual samples of the
feed water shall be collected immediately after the grab samples or at regular intervals
throughout the test run. These samples shall be analyzed for chlorine residual
immediately. In Giardia, bacteria and virus inactivation tests where chlorine would
affect test organisms and synergistic UV/chlorine effects are not being evaluated, any
sample showing >0.05 mg/L residual will void the entire spike test.
12.3.2.3 Post-Test Sample Handling.. Filters shall then be handled and prepared for
delivery to the analytical laboratory as directed by that laboratory. The Testing
Organization shall then take steps to contain and/or sanitize any organisms remaining in
the system. Depending on the unit (design and materials), sanitization may be done using
steam or hot water (80ฐC for 10 min). The QA/QC plan should address how this
sanitization procedure is to be done to insure inactivation of live organisms and
January 2003
Page 4-24
-------
subsequent removal of inactivated organisms from the unit, and biosafety concerns for
both humans and the environment.
12.3.3 Experimental Quality Control
12.3.3.1 Process Control. Positive control samples will be obtained by performing a
second round of testing identical to the above (12.3.1-12.3.2.3), with the UV lights turned
off. The purpose of this testing is to evaluate any cumulative effects of the equipment
stream, spiking and sampling processes, and sample handling on organism viability. This
testing shall not occur until elimination of sanitizing agents and inactivated target
organisms, whose presence could affect subsequent tests of the unit, has been
demonstrated (12.3.2.4). The positive process control samples should show minimal
inactivation of the target organism(s) relative to the trip control sample. Significant
inactivation of the process control sample indicates that some aspect of the process other
than UV contributes to inactivation of the test organism(s), and ie-testing is required.
Negative control samples must also be obtained by performing a third round of testing
identical to the above (12.3.1-12.3.2.3), without addition of microorganisms and with the
UV lights turned off. The purpose of this testing is to evaluate whether there is any
natural background occurrence of the test organism and that steady-state conditions have
been achieved and there is insignificant carry-over from one test sample to the next.
Trip Control. For tests utilizing spike challenges, a replicate or subsample of the spike
dose shall accompany the actual spike dose from the analytical laboratory, including all
preliminary processes of dose preparation pre-enumeration, shipping, and preparation for
spiking, through return to the laboratory for collimated beam UV dose-response
assessment. The trip control samples should show minimal inactivation of the target
organism(s). Significant inactivation of the trip control sample indicates that some aspect
of the handling, from preparation to testing, contributed to inactivation of the test
organism(s). Significant inactivation of trip control samples will require re-testing.
12.4 Microbiological Viability Analysis
Methods for assessing the viability of the selected bacteria and viruses (see Section 12.3.1.1)
shall be specified by a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third
party organization (i.e., NSF) or the USEPA for the appropriate microbial analyses. Selected
viability methods shall be specified by the FTO in the PSTP.
Methods for assessing the viability of cysts and oocysts are non-standard but may be used in
verifying claims that an UV system inactivates protozoan cysts and oocysts if the method has
undergone peer review. A summary and comparison of viability methods is presented in
research completed by the following researchers: Korich et al. (1993), Nieminski and Ongerth
(1995), Slifko et al. (1997) and others (see Section 16.0 References in this Test Plan). Interim,
non-standard methods for assessing the viability of cyst and oocyst (e.g., excystation, DAPI/PI)
may be used for verification of inactivation after exposure to UV. However, any interim
organism viability method is subject to review by experts of cyst and oocyst viability and
subsequent method change. Any non-standard method for assessing cyst and oocyst viability
shall be correlated to animal infectivity. Microbial viability analyses are further discussed in
January 2003
Page 4-25
-------
Section 4.4 of the "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For Inactivation
of Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies."
12.4.2 Assessment of Microbial Inactivation
Many different sources of variability can impact the estimation of the log inactivation achieved
during microorganism challenge studies. To minimize the impact of these sources, it is
imperative that all components of the challenge tests be performed on the same day with one
batch of seeding organisms and that all collected samples be shipped and analyzed as a single
batch. This will then eliminate the need to propagate sources of error arising from seed stock
variability, changes in shift personnel, differences in shipping conditions, or assay techniques.
Maintaining this type of control over microbial sources of error coupled with careful flow control
during the seeding process will eliminate the need for a detailed propagation of error analysis.
Instead, the average log inactivation measured for the reactor during the seeding process only
needs to be adjusted for any microbial inactivation observed for the positive control or the trip
blank as a simple subtraction.
Specific details of the quality control steps to take to insure the integrity of the seeding studies is
described below:
(1 )Verification Seed Stock Integrity:
To demonstrate that significant inactivation of the seed stock sample has not occurred during
the challenge study, a t-test should be performed to compare the averages of the
concentration of the stock solution retained in the laboratory with the stock solution
comprising the trip blank. The assays for the two stocks should be performed as a single
experiment to eliminate uncontrollable sources of experimental variability. The t-test should
demonstrate no difference in the average value of the two samples at a 90% confidence level.
(2) Challenge Study Negative and Positive Controls
The negative and positive controls should be shipped and analyzed concurrently with the
challenge study samples to minimize the impact of experimental variability on the
calculation of log inactivation achieved by the UV reactor. The measured log
inactivation obtained for the challenge studies must be adjusted by the log inactivation
results obtained for the negative and positive controls in the following manner:
where
N(m) = the measured effluent concentration of organisms for the bioassay
No(m) = the measured influent concentration of organisms for the bioassay
N(nc) = the measured effluent concentration of organisms in the negative control
January 2003
Page 4-26
-------
No(nc) = the measured influent concentration of organisms in the negative control
N(pc)= the measured effluent concentration of organisms in the positive control
No(PC)=the measured influent concentration of organisms in the positive control
12.6 Translating Microbial Challenge Test Data to Operational Dose
The log inactivation determined from the full-scale microbial challenge experiments of the
treatment equipment must be translated to an operational dose value using bench-scale
collimated beam data. The collimated beam data must be obtained using the same batch of water
and seeding organisms used in the field challenge experiments. In this manner, the microbial log
inactivation determined in the field can be translated to an operational dose value using the dose-
response data obtained for the bench-scale collimated beam experiment.
12.6.1 Collimated Beam Apparatus
A collimated beam apparatus can be obtained directly from UV equipment manufacturers
or fabricated in accordance with the minimum design criteria specified below. Additional
descriptions of the collimated beam unit can be found in the "Verification Protocol for
Secondary Effluent and Water Reuse Disinfection Applications," (NSF International,
2002). The collimated beam apparatus must consist of the following components:
(a) a monochromatic low-pressure UV lamp
(b) a suitable ballast for powering the UV lamp
(c) appropriate lamp housing with an adequate lamp cooling/venting system
(d) a collimating lube with a sufficient length to diameter ratio to result in a uniform
irradiance across the cross-sectional plane at the bottom of the tube
(e) a rapid shutter system (i.e. pneumatic) for the collimating tube if exposure times of less
than 10 seconds will be used or a controlled means of changing the collimating tube
length in order to vary the applied dose
(f) a stable platform system that can support a suitable sample container in a fixed position
immediately below the collimating tube
(g) a suitable sample container (i.e. petri dish) that is sufficiently shallow such that the
intensity at the bottom of the container is at least 25 percent of the intensity at the
surface of the sample while still providing sufficient volume to support a small spin bar
(h) a magnetic stirrer that is insulated to prevent a rise in temperature of the sample during
testing and can adjusted to control the speed of the spin bar to provide adequate mixing
without perturbation of the sample surface
(i) a radiometer (IL 1700, SED 240 detector, International Light, Newburyport,
Massachusetts, or equivalent)
12.6.2 Calibration of the Collimated Beam Apparatus
The intensity field delivered to the sample from the collimating tube must be measured
with a calibrated radiometer. The radiometer must be factory calibrated with standards
traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology within one month of an
ETV test and every 6 months thereafter. Use of alternative calibration procedures may be
January 2003
Page 4-27
-------
considered, but they must be described in detail in the PSTP and approved prior to their
use. Replicate intensity readings taken at single sample grid locations must fall within five
percent of their average for the radiometer readings to be considered valid.
A properly functioning collimated beam apparatus should generate MS2 bacteriophage
dose-response data that falls within pre-established acceptance criteria for the organism.
The acceptance criteria specified in the "Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidelines for Drinking
Water and Water Reuse," (NWRI/AWWARF, 2000) have been revised to reflect additional
data sets and have been released in the "Verification Protocol for Secondary Effluent and
Water Reuse Disinfection Applications," (NSF International, 2002). The FTO must
provide seeded MS2 dose-response data for their collimated beam unit prior to its approved
use as part of the full-scale microbial challenge experiments.
12.6.3 Dose-Response Test with the Collimated Beam Apparatus
Running a collimated beam dose-response assay serves two purposes:
(1) To verify the integrity of the MS2 phage stock used to seed the field reactor, and
(2) To translate the MS2 phage inactivation observed for the field reactor test to an
operational dose equivalent.
To achieve these objectives, the collimated beam dose-response must be performed with
each batch of MS2 phage stock utilized and each water quality condition tested.
The FTO test plan must present the methods and materials to be used to conduct the
collimated beam dose-response analyses as part of the PSTP. Each collimated beam test
must consist of at least five equally spread dose conditions which cover the range of
operating doses to be evaluated for the UV field test unit. Each of the five dose conditions
must be tested in triplicate and each collimated beam test must also include analysis of a
positive control to verify that there is no appreciable inactivation of phage in the collimated
beam unit when the UV lamp is not activated. It is recommended that a monochromatic
low-pressure UV lamp be used for the collimated beam tests, regardless of the UV lamp
type employed in the field reactor. This will enable the operational dose performance of
different reactors to be directly compared on the basis of a normalized monochromatic dose
response.
The specific items to be provided in the PSTP when describing the collimated beam testing
are to include the following:
(1) A detailed schematic of the collimated beam apparatus with labeled dimensions
(2) The organization responsible for building the unit
(3) The lamp make, model number, and age
(4) A description of the accuracy of the shutter controlling lamp exposure time
(5) The dimensions of the sample container and volume and depth of the water sample
within the container
(6) The characteristics of the MS2 phage stock (host, phage growth conditions, and
enumeration)
January 2003
Page 4-28
-------
(7) The device for measuring incident intensity and the device calibration protocol and
frequency
(8) The instrumentation used to measure the UV absorbance of the seeded sample
(9) The algorithm and acceptance criteria used to determine the average intensity applied
to the sample container
13.0 TASK 5: DATA MANAGEMENT
13.1 Introduction
The data management system used in the verification testing program shall involve the use of
computer spreadsheet software and manual recording operational parameters for the water
treatment equipment on a daily basis.
13.2 Experimental Objectives
The objectives of this task are 1) to establish a viable structure for the recording and transmission
of field testing data such that the Field Testing Organization provides sufficient and reliable
operational data for the NSF for verification purposes, and 2) to develop a statistical analysis of
the data, as described in "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For
Inactivation Of Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies".
13.3 Work Plan
The following protocol has been developed for data handling and data verification by the Field
Testing Organization. Where possible, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system should be used for automatic entry of testing data into computer databases. Specific
parcels of the computer databases for operational and water quality parameters should then be
downloaded by manual importation into Excel (or similar spreadsheet software) as a comma
delimited file. These specific database parcels will be identified based upon discrete time spans
and monitoring parameters. In spreadsheet form, the data will be manipulated into a convenient
framework to allow analysis of water treatment equipment operation. Backup of the computer
databases to diskette should be performed on a monthly basis at a minimum. When SCADA
systems are not available, direct instrument feed to data loggers and laptop computers shall be
used when appropriate.
For parameters for which electronic data acquisition is not possible, field testing operators will
record data and calculations by hand in laboratory notebooks (daily measurements will be
recorded on specially-prepared data log sheets as appropriate). Each notebook must be
permanently bound with consecutively numbered pages. Each notebook must indicate the
starting and ending dates that apply to entries in the logbook. All pages will have appropriate
headings to avoid entry omissions. All logbooks entries must be made in black water insoluble
ink. All corrections in any notebook shall be made by placing one line through the erroneous
information. Products such as "correction fluids" are never to be utilized for making corrections
to notebook entries. Operating logs shall include a description of the water treatment equipment
(description of test runs, names of visitors, description of any problems or issues, etc.); such
descriptions shall be provided in addition to experimental calculations and other items. The
January 2003
Page 4-29
-------
original notebooks will be stored on-site; photocopies will be forwarded to the project engineer
of the Field Testing Organization at least once per week. This protocol will not only ease
referencing the original data, but offer protection of the original record of results.
The database for the project will be set up in the form of custom-designed spreadsheets. The
spreadsheets will be 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 will be entered into the appropriate
spreadsheets. Data entry will be conducted on-site by the designated field testing operators. All
recorded calculations will also be checked at this time. Following data entry, the spreadsheet
will be printed out and the print-out will be checked against the handwritten data sheet. Any
corrections will be noted on the hard-copies and corrected on the screen, and then a corrected
version of the spreadsheet will be printed out. Each step of the verification process will be
initialed by the field testing operator or engineer performing the entry or verification step.
Each experiment (e.g. each challenge test run) will be assigned a run number that will then be
tied to the data from that experiment through each step of data entry and analysis. As samples
are collected and sent to a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by a State, a third-
party organization, or the EPA, the data will be tracked by use of the same system of run
numbers. Data from the outside laboratories will be received and reviewed by the field testing
operator. These data will be entered into the data spreadsheets, corrected, and verified in the
same manner as the field data.
13.4 Statistical Analysis
Water quality developed from grab samples collected during test runs according to the Analytical
Schedule in Task 4 of this Test Plan shall be analyzed for statistical uncertainty. The Field
Testing Organization shall calculate 95% confidence intervals for grab sample data obtained
during Verification Testing as described in "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment
Verification Testing For Inactivation Of Microbiological Contaminants: Requirements For All
Studies" (Chapter 1). Statistical analysis could be carried out for a large variety of testing
conditions.
The statistics developed will be helpful in demonstrating the degree of reliability with which
water treatment equipment can attain quality goals. Information on the differences in feed water
quality variations for entire test runs versus the quality produced during the optimized portions of
the runs would be useful in evaluating appropriate operating procedures.
14.0 TASK 6: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
14.1 Introduction
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the operation of the water treatment
equipment and the measured water quality parameters shall be maintained during the
Verification Testing program.
January 2003
Page 4-30
-------
14.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during testing.
When specific items of equipment or instruments are used, the objective is to maintain the
operation of the equipment or instructions within the ranges specified by the Manufacturer or by
Standard Methods. Maintenance of strict QA/QC procedures is important in that if a question
arises when analyzing or interpreting data collected for a given experiment, it will be possible to
verify exact conditions at the time of testing.
14.3 Work Plan
Equipment flow rates and associated signals shall be documented and recorded on a routine
basis. A routine daily walk-through during testing will be established to verify that each piece of
equipment or instrumentation is operating properly. In-line monitoring equipment such as flow
meters shall be checked to verify that the readout matches with the actual measurement (i.e. flow
rate) and that the signal being recorded is correct. The items listed below are in addition to any
specified checks outlined in the analytical methods.
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verifications:
These verifications shall be conducted daily:
In-line turbidimeters flow rates (verified volumetrically over a specific time period).
In-line turbidimeter readings checked against a properly calibrated bench-top model.
14.3.2 QA/QC Verifications Performed Every Two Weeks:
These verifications shall be conducted every two weeks:
In-line turbidimeters (clean out reservoirs and recalibrate).
In- line flow meters/rotameters (clean equipment to remove any debris or biological
buildup and verify flow volumetrically to avoid erroneous readings).
14.3.3 QA/QC Verifications for Each Testing Period:
This verification shall be conducted before each testing period begins:
Differential pressure transmitters (verify gauge readings and electrical signal using a
pressure meter).
Tubing (verify good condition of all tubing and connections, replace if necessary).
14.4 On-Site Analytical Methods
The analytical methods utilized in this study for on-site monitoring of raw water and finished
water quality are described in the section below. Use of either bench-top or in-line field
analytical equipment will be acceptable for the verification testing; however, in-line equipment is
recommended for ease of operation. Use of in-line equipment is also preferable because it
reduces the introduction of error and the variability to analytical results generated by inconsistent
sampling techniques.
January 2003
Page 4-31
-------
14.4.1 pH
Analysis for pH shall be performed according to Standard Methods 4500-H or EPA
Method 150.1/150.2. A three-point calibration of any pH meter used in this study shall
be performed once per day when the instrument is in use. Certified pH buffers in the
expected range shall be used. The pH probe shall be stored in the appropriate solution
defined in the instrument manual. Transport of carbon dioxide across the air-water
interface can confound pH measurement in poorly buffered waters. If this is a problem,
measurement of pH in a confined vessel is recommended to minimize the effects of
carbon dioxide loss to the atmosphere.
14.4.2 Temperature
Readings for temperature shall be conducted in accordance with Standard Method 2550.
Raw water temperatures should be obtained at least once daily. The thermometer shall
have a scale marked for every 0.1ฐC, as a minimum, and should be calibrated weekly
against a precision thermometer certified by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). (A thermometer having a range of -1ฐC to +51ฐC, subdivided in 0.1ฐ
increments, would be appropriate for this work.)
14.4.3 True Color
True color shall be measured with a spectrophotometer at 455 nm, using a Hach
Company adaptation of the Standard Methods 2120 procedure. Samples should be
collected in clean plastic or glass bottles and analyzed as soon after collection as possible.
If samples cannot be analyzed immediately they should be stored at 4ฐC for up to 24
hours, and then warmed to room temperature before analysis. The filtration system
described in Standard Methods 2120 C should be used, and results should be expressed in
terms of PtCo color units.
14.4.4 Turbidity Analysis
Turbidity analyses shall be performed according to Standard Method 2130 or EPA
Method 180.1 with either a bench-top and in-line turbidimeter.
During each verification testing period, the bench-top and in-line turbidimeters will be
left on continuously. Once each turbidity measurement is complete, the unit will be
switched back to its lowest setting. All glassware used for turbidity measurements will
be cleaned and handled using lint-free tissues to prevent scratching. Sample vials will be
stored inverted to prevent deposits from forming on the bottom surface of the cell.
The Field Testing Organization shall be required to document any problems experienced
with the monitoring turbidity instruments, and shall also be required to document any
subsequent modifications or enhancements made to the monitoring instruments.
14.4.4.1 Bench-top Turbidimeters. Grab samples shall be analyzed using a bench-top
turbidimeter; readings from this instrument will serve as reference measurements
throughout the study. The bench-top turbidimeter shall be calibrated within the expected
January 2003
Page 4-32
-------
range of sample measurements at the beginning of equipment operation and on a weekly
basis using primary turbidity standards of 0.1, 0.5 and 3.0 NTU. Secondary turbidity
standards shall be obtained and checked against the primary standards. Secondary
standards shall be used on a daily basis to verify calibration of the turbidimeter and to
recalibrate when more than one turbidity range is used.
The method for collecting grab samples will consist of running a slow, steady stream
from the sample tap, triple-rinsing a dedicated sample beaker in this stream, allowing the
sample to flow down the side of the beaker to minimize bubble entrainment, double-
rinsing the sample vial with the sample, carefully pouring from the beaker down the side
of the sample vial, wiping the sample vial clean, inserting the sample vial into the
turbidimeter, and recording the measured turbidity.
When cold water samples cause the vial to fog and prevent accurate readings, the vial
must be allowed to warm up by partial submersion into a warm water bath for
approximately 30 seconds.
14.4.4.2 In-line Turbidimeters. In-line turbidimeters may be used during verification
testing and must be calibrated as specified in the manufacturer's operation and
maintenance manual. It will be necessary to periodically verify the in-line readings using
a bench-top turbidimeter; although the mechanism of analysis is not identical between the
two instruments the readings should be comparable. Should these readings suggest
inaccurate readings then all in-line turbidimeters should be recalibrated. In addition to
calibration, periodic cleaning of the lens should be conducted using lint-free paper, to
prevent any particle or microbiological build-up that could produce inaccurate readings.
Periodic verification of the sample flow should also be performed using a volumetric
measurement. Instrument bulbs should be replaced on an as-needed basis. It should also
be verified that the LED readout matches the data recorded on the data acquisition
system, if the latter is employed.
14.5 Chemical and Biological Samples Shipped off-Site for Analyses
The analytical methods that shall be used during testing for chemical and biological samples that
are shipped off- site for analyses are described in the section below.
14.5.1 Organic Parameters: Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance
Samples for analysis of TOC and UV254 absorbance shall be collected in glass bottles
supplied by the state-certified or third party- or EPA-accredited laboratory and shipped at
4ฐC to the analytical laboratory. These samples shall be preserved, held, and shipped in
accordance with Standard Methods 5010 B. Storage time before analysis shall be
minimized, according to Standard Methods.
14.5.2 Microbial Parameters: Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa, and Algae
Samples for analysis of any microbiological parameter shall be collected in bottles
supplied by the analytical laboratory. Microbiological samples shall be refrigerated at
approximately 2 to 8ฐC immediately upon collection. Such samples shall be shipped in a
January 2003
Page 4-33
-------
cooler and maintained at a temperature of approximately 2 to 8ฐC during shipment.
Samples shall be processed for analysis by a laboratory that is certified, accredited or
approved by the state, a third party organization (i.e., NSF) or the US EPA within 24
hours of collection. The laboratory shall keep the samples at approximately 2 to 8ฐC
until initiation of processing. TC densities shall be reported as most probable number per
100 mL (MPN/100 mL) or as total coliform densities per 100 mL and HPC densities shall
be reported as colony forming units per mL (cfu/mL). TC and HPC are optional
sampling parameters.
Methods for assessing the viability of the selected bacteria and viruses shall be specified
by the laboratory(ies) performing the analysis and shall be specified in the PSTP. The
FTO may select a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the state, a third
party organization (i.e., NSF) or the USEPA for analysis of microbial contaminants in
water samples.
Methods for assessing the viability of cysts and oocysts are non-standard but may be used
in verifying claims that an on-site halogen generation system inactivates protozoan cysts
and oocysts if the method has undergone peer review. A summary and comparison of
viability methods is presented in research completed by the following researchers:
Korich et al. (1993), Nieminski and Ongerth (1995), Slifko et al. (1997) and others (see
Section 12.0 References in this Test Plan). Any non-standard method for assessing cyst
and oocyst viability shall be correlated to animal infectivity.
Algae samples shall be preserved with Lugol's solution after collection, stored and
shipped in a cooler at a temperature of approximately 2 to 8ฐC, and held at that
temperature range until counted.
14.5.3 Inorganic Samples
Inorganic chemical samples, including alkalinity, hardness, aluminum, iron, and
manganese, shall be collected and preserved in accordance with Standard Method 3010B,
paying particular attention to the sources of contamination as outlined in Standard
Method 3010C. The samples shall be refrigerated at approximately 4ฐC. Samples shall
be processed for analysis by a laboratory that is certified, accredited or approved by the
state, a third party organization (i.e., NSF) or the USEPA within 24 hours of collection.
The laboratory shall keep the samples at approximately 4ฐC until initiation of analysis.
15.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Field Testing Organization shall obtain the Manufacturer-supplied Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) manual to evaluate the instructions and procedures for their applicability
during the verification testing period. The following are recommendations for criteria for O&M
Manuals for drinking water treatment equipment employing UV technology.
January 2003
Page 4-34
-------
15.1
Maintenance
The Manufacturer shall provide readily understood information on the recommended or required
maintenance schedule for each piece of operating equipment including, but not limited to, the
following, where applicable:
lamps
control valves
cooling fans
quartz sleeves or tubes
instruments, such as turbidimeters, UV sensors
water meters
electrical equipment
mechanical wipers
The Manufacturer shall also provide readily understood information on the recommended or
required maintenance for non-mechanical or non-electrical equipment, including but not limited
to, the following, where applicable:
screens
piping
treatment chamber
15.2 Operation
The Manufacturer shall provide readily understood recommendations for procedures related to
proper operation of the equipment. Among the operating aspects that should be addressed in the
O&M manual are:
UV Lamps:
Hours of operation - how should this be checked
UV irradiance - how check and/or calibrate
cleaning - how and when to clean
changing - how to determine need to change
Screens (where applicable):
cleaning - when is it needed
measurement of head loss during operation
integrity - how to gauge it
Control Valves:
open/close indication
sequence of operations
Exposure Time:
correlation of flowrate and exposure time
maintenance/calibration of flow meter
January 2003
Page 4-35
-------
Cooling Water System:
monitoring/maintenance of proper water temperature
monitoring cooling water flow
recirculation pumps
The Manufacturer shall provide a troubleshooting guide; a simple checklist of what to do for a
variety of problems, including but not limited to:
no flow to unit
sudden change in flow to unit
no electric power
excessive headloss across screens
loss of cooling water flow
filtered water turbidity too high
sudden reduction in UV irradiance
automatic operation (if provided) not functioning
valve stuck or will not operate
16.0 REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water
Environment Federation. 1999. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 20th Edition.
Campbell, A.T., et al. 1995. Inactivation of Oocysts of Cryptosporidiumparvum by Ultraviolet
Radiation. Wat. Res. 29(11):2583-2586.
Clancy, J.L., et al. 1998. Innovative Electrotechnologies for the Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in water. American Water Works Association Research
Foundation Final Report
Harris, G.D., et al. 1987. The influence of Photoreactivation and Water Quality on Ultraviolet
Disinfection of Secondary Municipal Wastewater. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 59:781.
Karanis, P., et al. 1992. UV Sensitivity of Protozoan Parasites. J Water Supply Research and
Technology-Aqua. 41(2):95-100.
Korich, D.G., et al. 1993. Development of a test to assess C. parvum oocyst viability:
correlation with infectivity potential. American Water Works Association Research Foundation
Report.
Nieminski, E. C. and Ongerth, J. E., 1995. Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by
Conventional and Direct Filtration. J. Amer Wat. Works Assoc. 87, 96-106.
NSF International. October 2002. Verification Protocol for Secondary Effluent and Water
Reuse Disinfection Applications.
January 2003
Page 4-36
-------
National Water Research Institute, 2000. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidelines for Drinking Water
and Water Reuse; Fountain Valley, California.
O'Brien, W.J., et al. 1995. Ultraviolet System Design: Past, Present, and Future. Proceedings,
Am. Waterworks Assoc. Water Quality Technical Conference. Part 1:271 - 305.
Slifko, T. R., Friedman, D. E., Rose, J. B., Upton, S. J. and Jakubowski, W. 1997. An In-vitro
Method for Detection of Infectious Cryptosporidium Oocysts using Cell Culture. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol., 63(9), 3669-3675.
Snicer, G.A., et al. 1997. Evaluation of Ultraviolet (UV) Technology for Groundwater
Disinfection Draft document, American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
SWS. 1996. Evaluation of the Safe Water Solutions, L.L.C. Cryptosporidium Inactivation
Device for Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts. Safe Water Solutions, Clancy
Environmental Consultants. St. Albans, VT 05478. 7 p. and 7 p. attachment.
USEPA. 1993b. Technologies and Costs for Ground Water Disinfection. Drinking Water
Technology Branch, OGWDW, USEPA. Draft Document, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
USEPA. 1996. Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Technology in Drinking Water Application-An
Overview. Office of Water. EPA 811-R-96-002.
USEPA. 1997. Method 1622: Cryptosporidium in Water by Filtration/IMS/IFA and Viability by
DAPI/PI.
Water Environment Research Foundation 1995. Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination:
Guidance for Achieving Optional UV Performance-Disinfection. Project 91-WWD-l.
January 2003
Page 4-37
------- |