April 2002
02/9207/EPADWCTR
Environmental Technoiogy
Verification Protocol
Drinking Water Systems Center
PROTOCOL FOR EQUIPMENT
VERIFICATION TESTING FOR
REMOVAL OF RADIOACTIVE
CHEMICAL 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 REMOVAL OF RADIOACTIVE
CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Recommended by
the Steering Committee for the Verification of
Drinking Water Systems
On Monday, October 2, 2000
Modified in March 2002
With support from
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification Program
Copyright 2002 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
NSF International (NSF) is an independent not-for-profit 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 Programor
ETV to verily 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 efficiently
requiring 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.
April 2002
Page ii
-------
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 both the
domestic and international markets for such systems are substantial. The 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 International (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.
April 2002
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 removing radioactive chemical 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 removal of
radioactive chemical contaminants.
Prior to the verification testing of 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 Field Testing Organization must write a "Product-Specific Test Plan" (PSTP).
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, Field Testing Organization that is selected by the
Manufacturer. Water quality analytical work to be completed as a part of an ETV Equipment
Verification Testing Plan shall be contracted with an state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited
laboratory. For information on a listing of NSF-qualified field testing organizations and state-certified or
third party- or EPA- accredited laboratories, contact NSF International.
April 2002
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
Writers: Steven J. Duranceau, Boyle Engineering Corporation
Technical reviewers: Jerry Lowry, Lowry Environmental Engineering
Chapter 2: Test Plan for Cation and Anion Exchange Technologies
Writers: Steven J. Duranceau, Boyle Engineering Corporation
Technical reviewer: Jerry Lowry, Lowry Environmental Engineering
Chapter 3: Test Plan for Nanofiltration and/or Reverse Osmosis Membrane Processes
Writers: Steven J. Duranceau, Boyle Engineering Corporation
Technical reviewers: James Taylor, University of Central Florida
Chapter 4: Test Plan for Air-Stripping Processes
Writer: Steven J. Duranceau, Boyle Engineering Corporation
Technical reviewer: Jerry Lowry, Lowry Environmental Engineering
Steering Committee Members that voted on the document:
Mr. Jim Bell
Mr. Bob Mann
Mr. Kevin Brown, Chairperson
Mr. Joe McDonald
Mr. John Dyson
Mr. David Pearson
Mr. Joe Harrison
Mr. John Trax
Dr. Joseph G. Jacangelo
Mr. Ed Urheim
Dr. Gary S. Logsdon
Mr. Victor Wilford
Mr. Charles Maddox
April 2002
Page v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for the Removal of
Radioactive Chemical Contaminants: Requirements for All Studies 1-1
Chapter 2: EPA/NSF ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan for the Removal of Radium
and Uranium by Cation and Anion Exchange Technologies 2-1
Chapter 3: EPA/NSF ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan for the Removal of Radium
and Uranium by Nanofiltration and/or Reverse Osmosis Membrane Processes..3-l
Chapter 4: EPA/NSF ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan for the Removal of Radon
by Air-Stripping Processes 4-1
April 2002
Page vi
-------
CHAPTER 1
EPA/NSF ETV
PROTOCOL FOR EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING
FOR THE REMOVAL OF RADIOACTIVE CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS
REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL STUDIES
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Copyright 2002 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.
April 2002
Page 1-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1-4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-5
1.1 Objectives 1-8
1.2 Scope 1-9
2.0 EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING RESPOSIBILITIES 1-10
2.1 Verification Testing Organization and Participants 1-10
2.2 Verification Testing Agreement 1-11
2.3 Organization 1-11
2.4 Verification Testing Site Name and Location 1-11
2.5 Site Characteristics 1-11
2.6 Responsibilities 1-12
3.0 EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES AND DESCRIPTION 1-13
3.1 Equipment Capabilities 1-13
3.2 Equipment Description 1-15
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 1-17
4.1 Objectives 1-17
4.2 Equipment Characteristics 1-17
4.2.1 Qualitative Factors 1-18
4.2.2 Quantitative Factors 1-18
4.3 Water Quality Considerations 1-19
4.3.1 Feed Water Quality 1-19
4.3.2 Treated Water Quality 1 -20
4.3.3 Waste Disposal 1-20
4.4 Radioactive Chemical Contaminants Testing 1-21
4.5 Recording Data 1-21
4.6 Recording Statistical Uncertainty 1-22
4.7 Verification Testing Schedule 1-23
5.0 FIELD OPERATIONS PROCEDURES 1-24
5.1 Equipment Operations and Design 1-24
5.2 Selection of Analytical Laboratory and Field Testing Organization 1-25
5.3 Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment 1-25
5.4 Initial Operations 1 -26
April 2002
Page 1-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.5 Equipment Operation and Water Quality Sampling for Verification Testing 1-26
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN 1-27
6.1 Purpose and Scope 1-27
6.2 Quality Assurance Responsibilities 1-27
6.3 Data Quality Indicators 1-28
6.3.1 Accuracy 1-28
6.3.2 Precision 1-30
6.3.3 Representativeness 1-30
6.3.4 Statistical Uncertainty 1-31
6.4 Water Quality and Operational Control Checks 1-31
6.4.1 Quality Control for Equipment Operation 1-31
6.4.2 Water Quality Data 1-31
6.5 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 1-32
6.5.1 Data Reduction 1-33
6.5.2 Data Validation 1-33
6.5.3 Data Reporting 1-33
6.6 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators 1-33
6.7 System Inspections 1-34
6.8 Reports 1-34
6.8.1 Status Reports 1-34
6.8.2 Inspection Reports 1-34
6.9 Corrective Action 1-34
7.0 DATA MANAGEMENT, ANALYSIS AND REPORTING 1-35
7.1 Data Management and Analysis 1-35
7.2 Report of Equipment T esting 1-36
8.0 SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS 1-37
9.0 SUGGESTED READING 1-38
April 2002
Page 1-3
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ETV
Environmental Technology Verification
PSTP
Product-Specific Test Plan
gpm/sf
gallons per minute per square foot
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/L
Milligrams per liter
NSF
NSF International
PE
Performance evaluation
pCi/L
Picocuries per liter
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
QC
quality control
rpm
Revolutions per minute
RSD
relative standard deviation
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
WSWRD
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
April 2002
Page 1-4
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is the protocol that will be used for Verification Testing of equipment designed to achieve
removal of radioactive chemical contaminants (radionuclides). This protocol may be applicable to
various types of water treatment equipment capable removal of radionuclides. Equipment testing may
be undertaken to verily performance of systems employing processes that may include but are not
limited to cation and anion exchange resins, zeolites, adsorptive media, reverse osmosis membranes,
and air stripping for the removal of radionuclides. Chapter 2 presents the equipment verification testing
plan for removal of dissolved radioactive chemical contaminants, such as radium and uranium, by ion
exchange technologies. Chapter 3 presents the equipment verification testing plan for removal of
dissolved radioactive chemical contaminants, such as radium and uranium, by nanofiltration membrane
processes. Chapter 4 presents the equipment verification testing plan for removal of radon by air-
stripping technologies. The specific radionuclide to be targeted for removal during Verification Testing
shall be clearly identified in the Product-Specific Test Plan (PSTP) prior to the initiation of testing by the
Field Testing Organization (FTO). The PSTP may include more than one Testing Plan; however, the
FTO must adhere to the specific minimum requirements of each protocol in developing a PSTP.
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 final submission of the PSTP shall:
Include the information requested in this protocol.
Conform to the format identified in this protocol.
Conform to the specific ETV Testing Plan or Plans related to the Statement or Statements
of Objectives that are to be verified.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has partnered with NSF International
(NSF), a non-profit testing and certification organization, to conduct an Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Project that will verily performance of innovative technical solutions to problems that
affect human health or the environment in small systems. To accelerate the introduction of these
innovative technologies a verification protocol and testing plan were developed to verily these small
drinking water systems that serve small communities.
Emphasis of the ETV is on the performance and cost factors of specific quipment that address
common small system contaminants (i.e., microbials, radioactive chemicals, particulates, disinfection by-
products, and organic and inorganic chemicals). EPA and NSF have formed an oversight stakeholders
group composed of buyers, sellers, consulting engineers and State permitters, 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 engineers and consulting
engineers while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each location where the equipment use is
April 2002
Page 1-5
-------
contemplated. In turn these testing plans will produce a data base following the verification protocol
format from which equipment can be designed to deal with specific water quality issues and may be
installed on-site more efficiently.
NSF will meet this goal by working with equipment Manufacturer Field Testing Organizations and other
agencies in planning and conducting Equipment Verification Testing Projects, 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.
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
and/or modular drinking water treatment equipment into routine use more quickly. The verification of an
equipment's performance involves five sequential steps:
1. Development of a verification/PSTP.
2. Execution of Verification Testing.
3. Data reduction, analysis, and reporting.
4. Cost and performance (labor, chemicals, energy) verification.
5. Report preparation and information transfer.
This protocol document is presented in two fonts. The non-italicized font provides the rationale for the
requirements and background information that the FTO may find useful in preparation of the PSTP.
The italicized text indicates specific protocol deliverables that are required of the FTO or the
Manufacturer and that must be incorporated in the PSTP.
The following glossary terms are presented here for subsequent reference in this protocol:
Certification - The attestation that a piece of equipment and/or a device has met all
applicable requirements, (e.g., standard performance criteria and policies), and continues to
meet all applicable requirements.
Conditionally-Qualified Field Testing Organization - One having identified deficiencies,
but demonstrates its ability to conduct valid Verification Testing of equipment.
Company - Any public or private organization, group, individual, or other entity contracting
with NSF, or a subsidiary or division of such an entity.
Distribution System - A system of conduits by which a primary 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, which may be,
defined as either a package plant or modular system.
April 2002
Page 1-6
-------
Equipment Verification Testing Plan - A specific testing plan for each package plant
technology application, such as systems employing cation and anion exchange, adsorptive
media, reverse osmosis, and air stripping for the removal of radioactive chemical
contaminants. This plan will be developed by NSF for the Manufacturer to assist in
development of the PSTP for the Verification Testing Program.
Field Testing Organization (FTO) - An organization qualified to conduct studies and
testing of drinking water treatment systems in accordance with protocols and test plans.
The role of the FTO 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
equipment during the intense periods 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
Manufacturer is also responsible for providing assistance to the third party FTO during
operation and monitoring of the package plant or modular system during the Verification
Testing Program.
Modular System - A packaged functional assembly of components for use in a drinking
water treatment system or package plant that provides a limited form of treatment of the
feedwater(s) and which is discharged to another package plant or the final step of treatment
to the distribution system.
NSF - NSF International, its staff, or other authorized representatives
Package Plant - A complete water treatment system including all components from the
connection to the raw water(s) through discharge to the distribution system.
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.
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 for Equipment Verification Testing - This document. The protocol will be
used for reference during Manufacturer participation in Verification Testing Program.
Qualified Field Testing Organization - One meeting all applicable ETV requirements.
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 in preliminary, draft or final form.
April 2002
Page 1-7
-------
Testing Organization - An organization qualified to perform studies and testing of
equipment. The role of the testing organization is to ensure that there is skilled operation of
a system during the intense periods of testing and that all of the tasks required by the
Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing are performed properly. The Testing
Organization is responsible for:
=> Managing, evaluating, interpreting and reporting on the data produced by the
Verification Testing Program.
=> Providing logistical support, scheduling and coordinating the activities of all participants
in the Verification Testing Program, i.e., establishing a communications network.
=> Advising the Manufacturer on feedwater quality and test site selection, such that the
locations selected for the Verification Testing Program have feedwater quality consistent
with the objectives of the Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing.
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 instructs 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 PSTP.
Verification - To establish the evidence on the range of performance of equipment and/or
device under specific conditions following a predetermined protocol(s) and test plan(s).
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 specific objectives of the Equipment Verification Testing Project may be different for each system,
depending upon the Statement of Objectives of the specific equipment to be tested. 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 Project may include but
are not limited to the following:
Generation of field data appropriate for verifying the performance of the equipment.
Generation of operation and maintenance information to assist users and potential operators
of equipment.
April 2002
Page 1-8
-------
Evaluation of new advances in equipment and equipment design.
An important aspect in the development of Verification Testing is to describe the procedures that will be
used to verify the Statement of Performance Objectives made for water treatment equipment. A
Verification Testing plan document 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. Although Verification Testing conducted at a single site may not represent
every environmental situation that may be acceptable for the equipment tested, 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. A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) shall be
described in detail and provided as part of the PSTP.
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.
1.2 Scope
This protocol outlines the verification process for equipment designed to achieve removal of
radionuclides. This protocol can be used in conjunction with a number of different testing plans for
drinking water treatment systems designed to achieve removal of radionuclides. This protocol is not a
NSF or third party consensus standard and it does not endorse the equipment or technologies
described herein.
An overview of the equipment verification process and the elements of the PSTP to be developed by
the Manufacturer are described in this protocol document. 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.
Experimental design of the Field Operations Procedures. The Field Operations Procedures
will identify recommended equipment maintenance and cleaning methods.
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures for conducting the Verification
Testing and for assessing the quality of the data generated from the Verification Testing.
Health and safety measures relating to waste disposal, biohazard, electrical, mechanical and
other safety codes.
Content of PSTP Regarding Verification Testing Objectives and Scope
The structure of the PSTP must conform to the outline below: The required components of the
Document will be described in greater detail in the sections below.
April 2002
Page 1-9
-------
. 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.
LIST OF DEFINITIONS - A list of key terms used in the PSTP should be provided
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 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 (Section 2)
. EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES AND DESCRIPTION (Section 3)
. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN (Section 4)
. FIELD OPERATIONS PROCEDURES (Section 5)
. QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING PLAN (Section 6)
. DA TA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS (Section 7)
. SAFETY PLAN (Section 8)
2.0 EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING RESPONSIBILniES
2.1 Verification Testing Organization and Participants
This Verification Testing Project is being conducted by NSF International with participation of
Manufacturers, under the sponsorship of the EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Water Supply and Water Resources Division (WSWRD) -
Cincinnati, Ohio. The WSWRD and NSF jointly are administering the Equipment Verification Testing
Program NSF's role is to provide technical and administrative leadership and support in conducting the
testing
The required content of the PSTP and the responsibilities of participants are listed at the end of each
section. In the development of a PSTP, Manufactures and their designated FTO shall provide a table
including
the name, affiliation, and mailing address of each participant;
a point of contact;
description of participant's role;
April 2002
Page 1-10
-------
telephone and fax numbers; and
e-mail address.
The equipment provided by the Manufacturer shall explicitly meet all 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.
2.2 Verification Testing Agreement
After equipment has been accepted by NSF into the Environmental Technology Verification Program
(ETV), a letter agreement will be signed between the Manufacturer and the NSF. The purpose of the
agreement is to specify a framework of responsibilities for conducting the ETV. It is important to note
that the Manufacturer and the NSF must approve the entire PSTP, including a Qiality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP), before the Verification Testing can proceed.
2.3 Organization
The organizational structure for the Verification Testing showing lines of communications shall be
provided by the FTO in its application on behalf of the Manufacturer.
2.4 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 most cases, the
equipment will be demonstrated at more than one site. Depending upon the Verification Testing
requirements stipulated in the Testing Plan employed, testing of the equipment may be required under
different conditions of feedwater quality (or source water quality) that allow evaluation of system
performance over a range of seasonal climate and weather conditions.
2.5 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 feed water to the equipment is the source water for an existing water
treatment plant, describe:
the raw water intake;
the waste disposal procedure;
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?).
April 2002
Page 1-11
-------
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 Program. The PSTP will state whether the required water flows and waste flows
produced are dealt with in an acceptable way, and whether any water pollution discharge permits are
needed.
2.6 Responsibilities
The PSTP shall identify the organizations involved in the testing and describes the primary
responsibilities of each organization. Multiple Manufacturer testing for removal of radionuclides may be
conducted concurrently, and be fully in compliance with the ETV Equipment Verification Testing
Program. The responsibilities of the Manufacturer will vary depending on the type of Verification
Testing. However, at a minimum, the Manufacturer shall be responsible for:
Providing the equipment to be evaluated during Verification Testing. The equipment must
be in complete working order at delivery to the test site.
Providing a design that has provisions to control internal cross-connection.
Providing equipment that explicitly meets all requirements of OSHA, NEMA, UL, NSF and
other appropriate agencies in order to ensure operator safety during Verification Testing.
The FTO shall be responsible for:
Providing needed logistical support, establishing a communication network, and scheduling
and coordinating the activities of all Verification Testing participants.
Advising the Manufacturer on feedwater quality and test site selection, such that the
locations selected as test sites have feedwater quality consistent with the objectives of the
Verification Testing (The Manufacturer may recommend a site for Verification Testing.)
Providing waste disposal requirements.
Managing, evaluating, interpreting, and reporting on data generated by the Verification
Testing.
Evaluating and reporting on the performance of the technologies applied to achieve removal
of radionuclides.
Content of PSTP Regarding Equipment Verification Testing Responsibilities:
The Manufacturer shall be responsible for:
Provision of complete, field-ready equipment for Verification Testing.
Provision of a sound design that includes provisions to control internal cross-
connection.
Provision of logistical, and technical support, as required.
April 2002
Page 1-12
-------
Provision of technical assistance to the qualified testing organization during
operation and monitoring of the equipment undergoing Verification Testing.
The FTO 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, their 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, as well as waste disposal provisions.
3.0 EQUIPMENT CAPABILITIES AND DESCRIPTION
3.1 Equipment Capabilities
For this Verification Testing, the Manufacturer and their designated FTO 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. The manufacturer's 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. In conjunction with a Statement of Performance Objectives,
the FTO shall state the pertinent detection limits for the specific radionuclide analytical method.
Statements should be made legarding the applications of the equipment, the known limitations of he
equipment and under what conditions the equipment is likely to fail or underperform. The FTO on
behalf of the Manufacturer shall also provide information as to what advantages the Verification Testing
equipment provides over existing equipment. The Statement of Performance Objectives must be
specified and verifiable by a statistical analysis of the data. Below are two different types of Statements
of Performance Objectives that may be verified in this testing:
1. This system is capable of achieving 90 percent removal of radium during a 60-day
operation period at a flux of 15 gpm/sf (75 percent recovery; temperature between 20 and 25 <)
in feedwaters with radium concentrations less than 25 pd/L and total dissolved solids
concentrations less than 500 mg/L.
2. This system is capable of producing a product water with a radium concentration less
than 5 pd/L during a 60-day operation period at a flux of 15 gpm/sf (75 percent recovery;
temperature between 20 and 25 <) in feedwaters with radium concentrations less than 25 pd/L
and total dissolved solids concentrations less than 500 mg/L.
April 2002
Page 1-13
-------
An example of a Statement of Performance Objectives that would not be acceptable is presented
below:
"This system will achieve removal of radionuclides in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) on a consistent and dependable basis."
The Manufacturer 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. For each Statement
of Performance Objectives proposed by the FTO and the Manufacturer in the PSTP, the following
information shall be provided:
Applications of the equipment;
Known limitations of the equipment;
Advantages it provides over existing equipment;
Percent removal of the targeted radionuclide;
Rate of treated water production (i.e., flux);
Product water recovery;
Feed stream water quality regarding pertinent water quality parameters;
Temperature;
Concentration of targeted radionuclide; and
Other pertinent water quality and operational conditions.
During Verification Testing, the FTO must demonstrate that the equipment is operating at a steady-state
prior to collection of data to be used in verification of the Statement of Performance Objectives. The
following equation shall be used to determine percent removal of the radionuclides investigated:
% Radionucli de Removal =100*
C -C
feed finished
C
feed
where:
Cfeed = concentration of radionuclide in the feedwater; and
Cfinished = concentration of radionuclide in the finished water.
The FTO on behalf of the Manufacturer shall be responsible for identification of which radionuclide shall
be monitored and recorded for testing under the Statement of Performance Objectives in the PSTP.
The analysis of radionuclides in the feedwater, treated water and wastewater streams shall be
performed by a state-certified, third-party accredited or EPA-accredited laboratory using an approved
Standard Method.
April 2002
Page 1-14
-------
The Statement of Performance Objectives prepared by the FTO (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 not
too easily met may not be of interest to the potential user, while performance capabilities that are
overstated may not be achievable. If a manufacturer relies on integrated processes for radionuclide
removal, the Statement of Performance Objectives must include the overall water treatment system
radionuclide removal performance. The Statement of Performance Objectives forms the basis of the
entire Equipment Verification Testing Program 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.
It should be noted that many of the drinking water treatment systems participating in the Radionuclide
Removal Verification Testing Program will be capable of achieving multiple water treatment objectives.
Although this Protocol and the associated Verification Testing Plans are oriented towards removal of
radionuclides from feedwaters, the Manufacturer may want to look at the treatment system's removal
capabilities for additional water quality parameters.
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 Number
c. Manufacturer's name and address
d. Electrical requirements - volts, amps, hertz and phase
e. Equipment size and weight
f Shipping requirements and special handling precautions
g. Equipment maintenance requirements
h. Serial Number
i. Warning and Caution statements in legible and easily discernible print size
j. Capacity or output rate (if applicable)
In addition, the Manufacturer must provide the equipment with all OSHA required safety devices (if
applicable).
Content of PSTP Regarding Equipment Capabilities and Description:
The Manufacturer shall be responsible for:
April 2002
Page 1-15
-------
Provision of complete, field-ready equipment with the following information explicitly
provided: Equipment Name, Model number, Manufacturer's name and address,
electrical requirements (e.g., volts, amps, hertz and phase), equipment size and
weight, shipping requirements and special handling precautions, equipment
maintenance requirements, 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, emergency shut-off switches, cross-connection controls, etc.) for Verification
Testing.
The FTO shall be responsible for including the following elements in the PSTP:
Description of the equipment to be demonstrated including photographs from several
perspectives.
Brief introduction and discussion of the engineering and scientific concepts on which
the radionuclide removal capabilities of the water treatment equipment are based.
Description of the treatment equipment and each process included as a component in
the modular system including all relevant schematics of treatment, pretreatment and
waste disposal systems.
Brief description of the physical construction/components of the equipment, including
the general environment requirements and limitations, required consumables; weight,
transportability, ruggedness, power and other pertinent information needed, etc.
Statement of typical rates of consumption of chemicals, a description of the physical
and chemical nature of wastes, and the rates of waste generation (concentrates,
residues, waste products, required regeneration frequencies; materials replacement
frequencies; 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 removal capabilities of the
treatment system relative to existing equipment. Comparisons shall be provided in
such 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 regulated contaminants that can
be removed to concentrations below the MCL, level of operator skill required to
successfully use the equipment.
April 2002
Page 1-16
-------
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 the FTO will use to
evaluate the results of the Verification Testing.
4.1 Objectives
The objectives of this Verification Testing are to evaluate equipment in the following areas:
1. Performance relative to the Manufacturer's stated range of radionuclide removal objectives
and equipment operation.
2. The impacts of variations in feedwater quality (such as temperature, pH, alkalinity, etc.) on
equipment performance.
3. The logistical, human, and economic resources necessary to operate the equipment.
4. The reliability, ruggedness, cost factors, range of usefulness, and ease of operation
The PSTP provided by the FTO shall include those treatment tests listed in ETV test plans that are most
appropriate to challenge the removal capabilities of the equipment for the selected inorganic
constituents. For example, if equipment were only intended for removal of radon, there would be no
need to conduct testing to evaluate the removal of hydrogen sulfide or carbon dioxide. However, it
should be noted that many of the drinking water treatment systems participating in the Radionuclide
Removal Verification Testing Program might be capable of achieving multiple water treatment
objectives. The Verification Testing Program may for example be undertaken to demonstrate
equipment removal capabilities for a wide number of constituents. In addition, the FTO and the
Manufacturer may wish to construct the PSTP so that Verification Testing may also demonstrate the
treatment system's removal capabilities and treatment operations for additional water quality
parameters. The incorporation of additional treatment objectives may also necessitate attention to the
other applicable protocol and test plan documents in the development of the PSTP.
4.2 Equipment Characteristics
This section discusses equipment characteristics or factors that will be considered in the design and
implementation of the Equipment Verification Testing Program 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;
waste disposal requirements;
April 2002
Page 1-17
-------
spatial requirements of the equipment (footprint);
unit processes included in treatment train;
chemicals needed;
chemical hazards associated with equipment operation; and
response of treatment process to intermittent operation.
Verification testing procedures shall simulate routine conditions as much as possible and in most cases
testing may be done in the field. Under such circumstances, simulation of field conditions would not be
necessary.
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 modular nature of the
equipment, the safety of the equipment, the portability of 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
Effect of operator's technical knowledge on system performance and robustness of
operation
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 system
Length of operating cycle
Daily labor hours required for operation and maintenance
These quantitative factors will be used as an initial benchmark to assess equipment performance.
April 2002
Page 1-18
-------
4.3 Water Quality Considerations
The primary treatment goal of the equipment employed for Verification Testing through this protocol is
to achieve removal of radionuclides found in raw waters such that finished waters are of acceptable
water quality. The driving force for Verification Testing of radionuclide removal under a specific set of
operating and feedwater quality conditions depends upon the goals of the equipment Manufacturer. The
objectives of Verification Testing may also be to assure production of water with palatable, healthful and
consistent water quality. The experimental design and Statement of Performance Objectives 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 prepare
PSTPs that sufficiently challenge their equipment. The FTO on behalf of 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. The FTO should not adopt a verification
experimental approach to removal of radionuclides 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 Equipment Verification Testing Plans as the basis for the
development of the experimental plan in each specific PSTP.
4.3.1 Feed Water Quality
One of the key aspects related to demonstration of equipment performance in the Verification
Testing is the range of feedwater quality that can be treated successfully. The Manufacturer and
FTO should consider the influence of feedwater quality on the quality of treated waters produced by
the equipment, such that product waters meet the designated water quality goals stated in the PSTP.
As the range of feed water quality that can be treated by the equipment becomes broader, the
potential applications for treatment equipment with verified performance objectives might also
increase.
The FTO shall provide a list of radionuclides in the PSTP that may be pertinent in equipment
performance for removal of radionuclides. This list may include (but should not be limited to) some
of the radionuclides evaluated for removal during the verification removal testing program: radium,
radon, uranium and alpha and beta emitters.
One of the questions often asked by regulatory officials in approval of water treatment equipment is:
"Has the system been shown to work on the water where it is proposed to be used?" By covering
a large range of water qualities the Verification Testing is more likely to provide an affirmative
answer to that question.
April 2002
Page 1-19
-------
4.3.2
Treated Water Quality
Removal of radionuclides shall be the primary goal of the water treatment systems included in this
Equipment Verification Testing Program
The FTO on behalf of the Manufacturer shall be responsible for identification of the specific
radionuclides that shall be monitored during the Equipment Verification Testing Program. A state-
certified, third-party accredited or EPA-accredited laboratory shall perform water quality analysis
for the specific constituents in water samples provided by the FTO. This issue shall be discussed
further in Section 5.2.
In addition, the FTO may wish to make a statement about performance capabilities of the
equipment for removal of other unregulated, or regulated contaminants that are not directly related
to radionuclide removal For example, some water treatment equipment can be used to meet
aesthetic goals. Removal goals for some of these parameters may also be presented in the PSTP as
additional Statements of Performance Objectives.
4.3.3 Waste Disposal
Waste disposal options include hauling and discharge into a wastewater treatment facility, injection
into a disposal well or transportation to a concentrate disposal facility. State and local regulatory
agencies should be contacted to establish guidelines for treatment and disposal of wastes generated
by ion-exchange processes. The regenerant waste stream from the ion-exchange regeneration
process must be treated and/or disposed of in some manner. Effective regenerant disposal methods
depend on the spent regenerant water quality, local regulations and site-specific factors (AWWARF
1993). The handling and disposal of the wastes generated by treatment technologies removing
naturally occurring radionuclides from drinking water pose concerns to the water supplier, to local
and State governments and to the public at large. The potential handling hazards associated with
radionuclides warrant the development of a viable ion-exchange regenerate disposal method.
Information regarding concentrate disposal options can be found in Suggested Guidelines for the
Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Containing Naturally Occurring Radionuclides
(USEPA, 1990). The document first addresses the management of radionuclide wastes by first
describing the potential sources of these wastes (i.e., water treatment processes). Then there is a
brief review of the known information on the radionuclide composition of the associated treatment
wastes. The document then describes the plausible disposal alternatives and provides background
information from related programs that should assist facilities in selecting a responsible option. The
following are disposal options that must be approved by the State or local government prior to
implementation of a waste disposal program.
Liquid Waste Disposal
Direct discharge into storm sewers or surface water.
Discharge into sanitary sewer.
Deep well injection.
April 2002
Page 1-20
-------
Drying or chemical precipitation.
Solid Waste Disposal
Temporary lagooning (surface impoundment).
Disposal in landfill.
a) Disposal without prior treatment.
b) With prior temporary lagooning.
c) With prior mechanical dewatering.
Application to land (soil spreading/conditioning).
Disposal at State licensed low-level radioactive waste facility.
4.4 Radioactive Chemical Contaminants Testing
Analysis for radionuclides must be procedures that are approved or proven techniques. Before any
method is used it must have standards. Methods have to have been shown by at least three laboratories
to achieve a standard degree of uncertainty in analysis. Methods for radionuclide analysis are outlined in
Standard or EPA Methods and shall be employed in this Verification Testing Program evaluation of
radionuclides. Should an approved method not exist for an individual radionuclide, then a proposed
method may be allowed. The manufacturer would be required to document and submit details of
analytical procedures used to measure the specific radionuclide.
Frequency of sampling and radionuclide analysis shall be specified by the individual test plans used for
the Equipment Verification Testing Program and shall also be stipulated in the PSTP.
4.5 Recording Data
For all radionuclide experiments targeted towards removal of radionuclides, water quality data on
feedwater, finished water, and wastewater should be maintained at a minimum on the identified
radionuclides and other water quality parameters identified by the FTO. The specific water quality
parameters to be monitored and with what frequency shall be stipulated in the test plan employed for
development of the PSTP prior to initiation of the Verification Testing Program. At a minimum, the
following conditions shall also be maintained for each experiment:
Water type (raw water, pretreated feed water, product water, waste/wastewater);
Experimental run (e.g. 1st run, 2nd run, 3rd run, etc.);
Type of chemical addition, dose and chemical combination (where applicable);
Rate of flow through system, volume waste production as percent finished water flow,
cumulative flow through system in terms of bed volumes (where applicable);
Transmembrane pressure, membrane flux and element recovery (for membrane processes
where applicable);
April 2002
Page 1-21
-------
Chemical cleaning frequency or regeneration frequency (where applicable);
Voltage requirements, current draw and power consumption at specific operating
conditions.
4.6 Recording Statistical Uncertainty
For the analytical data obtained during verification testing, 95 percent confidence levels shall be
calculated as the counting error by the FTO for water quality parameters in which eight or more samples
are collected. The FTO shall ensure in the PSTP that sufficient water quality data and operational data
are collected to allow estimation of statistical uncertainty for critical parameters. The specific testing
plans that may be employed with the Protocol stipulate only a minimum frequency for monitoring of
radionuclides. The FTO shall therefore ensure that sufficient water quality and operational data is
collected during Verification Testing for the statistical analysis described herein. 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. As the
name implies, a confidence level describes a population range in which any individual population
measurement may exist with a specified percent confidence.
The results of radioactivity analysis generally are reported in terms of "activity" per unit volume or mass
at 20ฐC. The recognized unit for activity is the Becquerel, Bq. One Becquerel is equal to one
disintegration per second. Other commonly used units are the picocurie (pCi) = 2.2 disintegrations per
minute (dpm). Specific formulas for the calculation of activity per volume or mass are presented in the
individual methods and use the general formula:
D
Q _ net
e* y*i*v*d*u
where:
C = activity per unit volume, in units or activity/mass or volume
Rnet = net counts per minute, cpm
e = counting efficiency, cpm/dpm
y = chemical yield
i = ingrowth correction factor
v = volume or mass or portion
d = decay factor and
u = units corrections factor
Radionuclide data are considered incomplete without reporting associated random a systematic errors.
The following formula exemplifies calculation of the counting uncertainty at the 95 percent confidence:
April 2002
Page 1-22
-------
e* y*i*v*d*u
where:
E = counting error
Ro = gross sample, cpm
ti = sample count duration, min
B = background, cpm
t2 = background duration, min
Calculation of confidence levels shall not be required for equipment performance results (e.g., flow rate,
cleaning efficiency, etc.) obtained during the equipment Testing Verification Program. However, as
specified by the FTO, calculation of confidence levels may be required for analytical parameters such as
radionuclides. In order to provide sufficient analytical data for statistical analysis, the FTO shall collect
three discrete water samples at one set of operational 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.
4.7 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 feed water (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 removal of radionuclides, an initial period of bench-scale
testing of feedwater followed by treatment equipment operation may be needed to determine the
appropriate operational parameters for testing equipment. A number of operational parameters may
require adjustment to achieve successful functioning of the process train. These parameters may include
but are not limited to: hydraulic loading rates, process flow rates, feedwater pH, chemical dosages,
chemical types (where appropriate) and other parameters that may result in successful functioning of the
process train. Chemical type, chemical dosages, and other operations that result in successful
functioning of the process should be included.
It is recommended under this protocol that a minimum of one 60-day test period of Verification Testing
be conducted in order to allow testing over a period of time to collect representative data. The specific
operating and water quality parameters shall be stipulated by the selected Test Plan under this protocol
and shall be used in development of the experimental plan and the preparation of the PSTP.
April 2002
Page 1-23
-------
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.
Identification and discussion of the particular water treatment issues and
radionuclide concentrations 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 and for 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 removal of
radionuclides. Parameters of significance for treated water quality are listed in
applicable ETV Testing Plans.
Description of data recording protocol for equipment operation, feed water quality
parameters, treated water quality parameter, and waste disposal procedures.
Description of the confidence interval calculation procedure for selected water
quality parameters.
Detailed outline of the 60-day verification testing schedule.
5.0 FIELD OPERATIONS PROCEDURES
5.1 Equipment Operations and Design
The ETV Verification Testing Plan specifies procedures that shall be used to provide 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 reporting radionuclide removal data shall
be stated explicitly by the FTO in the PSTP before initiation of the Verification Testing Program. (Note
that this protocol may be associated with a number of different ETV Equipment Verification Testing
Plans for different types of process equipment capable of achieving removal of various radionuclides).
The design aspects of water treatment process equipment often provide a basis for approval by State
regulatory officials and can be employed under higher or lower flow rate conditions. The field
operations procedures and testing conditions provided by the FTO shall therefore be specified to
demonstrate treatment capabilities over a broad range of operational conditions and feedwater qualities.
April 2002
Page 1-24
-------
Initial operations of the radionuclide removal equipment will allow FTOs to refine the equipment
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 cancelled. Specific design aspects to be
included in the PSTP are provided in detail, in the Manufacturer Responsibilities section below.
5.2 Selection of Analytical Laboratory and Field Testing Organization
To assess the performance of the equipment, the quality of the treated water produced using the
equipment shall be determined by analysis at a state-certified, third-party accredited or EPA-accredited
laboratory with proven experience in detection and measurement of radionuclides. In all cases, current
EPA Methods or Standard Methods shall be used in analysis of specified water quality parameters.
The NSF may provide a list of qualified laboratories from which Manufacturers can select for
submission of samples for water quality analysis. Because of the variability of acceptance of
laboratories from State to State, use of analytical laboratories certified in a large number of States is
recommended. Furthermore, the selected analytical laboratory must be certified by the State in which
the Verification Testing is being performed. Analytical results from the laboratory are to be provided
directly to the NSF to maintain data integrity.
For field testing operations, the Manufacturer shall employ a NSF-qualified FTO; the list of qualified
organizations may include engineering consulting firms, universities, or other qualified scientific
organizations with experience operating equipment. If a particular radionuclide does not have an
accepted standard method procedure, then an analytical testing plan shall be submitted to NSF
describing the procedure.
5.3 Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment
NSF shall communicate regularly with the Verification Testing participants to coordinate all field
activities associated with this Verification Testing and to resolve any logistical, technical, or QA/QC
issues that may arise as the Verification Testing progresses. 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 qualified FTO shall be responsible for maintaining all field documentation. The field logbook shall
have at least the following requirements.
April 2002
Page 1-25
-------
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 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,
and subject of the photograph, and the identity of the photographer. 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 1he 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,
lap-top computers, data acquisition systems etc., shall be detailed by the FTO in the PSTP.
5.4 Initial Operations
Initial operations of the radionuclide removal equipment will allow the FTO 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.
5.5 Equipment Operation and Water Quality Sampling for Verification Testing
All field activities shall conform to requirements provided in the PSTP that was developed and NSF-
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
FTO in the PSTP. As necessary for Verification analysis, state-certified or third party- or EPA-
accredited laboratories certified for analysis of inorganic constituents and other water quality parameters
shall be selected to perform analytical services. A state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited
laboratory using an approved Standard Method may perform the analysis of radionuclides.
If unanticipated or unusual situations are encountered that may alter the plans for equipment operation,
water quality sampling, or data quality, the situation must be discussed 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
April 2002
Page 1-26
-------
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 qualified Testing
Organization, the Water System or the Plant Operator shall describe the tasks performed during
equipment operation.
Content of PSTP Regarding Field Operations Procedures
The Manufacturer shall be responsible for:
Provision of all equipment needed for 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.
The FTO shall be responsible for including the following elements in the PSTP:
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 sampling and analysis strategy.
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (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
The FTO project manager is responsible for coordinating the preparation of the QAPP for this
Verification Testing and for its approval by the NSF. The qualified testing organization project
manager, with oversight from NSF, shall also ensure that the QAPP is implemented during all
Verification Testing activities.
The Manufacturer and the NSF must approve the entire PSTP including the QAPP before the
Verification Testing can proceed. The NSF must review and either approve the QAPP or provide
April 2002
Page 1-27
-------
reasons for rejection of the QAPP. They should also provide suggestions on how to modify the QAPP
to make it acceptable, provided that the Manufacturer has made a good faith effort to develop an
acceptable QAPP (i.e. the QAPP is 75 to 80 percent acceptable with only minor changes needed to
produce an acceptable plan. NSF will not write QAPPs for Manufacturers.).
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 shall rest with the FTO. QA/QC activities for the equipment shall include
those activities recommended by the Manufacturer and those required by the NSF to assure the
Verification Testing will provide data of the necessary quality.
QA/QC activities for the state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory that analyzes
samples sent off-site shall be the responsibility of that 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 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:
Accuracy;
Precision;
Representativeness; 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 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;
April 2002
Page 1-28
-------
loss of target analyte in the extraction process;
interferences; and
systematic or carryover contamination from one sample to the next.
In this Verification Testing, accuracy will be ensured by
maintaining consistent sample collection procedures, including sample locations;
timing of sample collection;
sampling procedures;
sample preservation;
sample packaging;
sample shipping; and
by random spiking procedures for the specific inorganic constituents chosen for testing.
The FTO shall discuss the applicable ways of determining the accuracy of the chemical and
microbiological sampling and analytical techniques in the PSTP.
For water quality analysis, accuracy is usually expressed as the percent recovery. Percent recovery
is the amount recovered during analysis. In general percent recovery can be calculated by dividing
the measured amount added to the amount actually added.
MeasuredSamn,e + Snike - MeasuredSamn,e MeasuredSnike
% Recovery = sample + spike *100% = = *100%
Actual Spike Actual Spike
For equipment operating parameters, accuracy refers to the difference between the reported
operating condition and the actual operating condition. For equipment operating data, accuracy
entails collecting a sufficient quantity of data during operation to be able to detect a change in
operations. 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 rotations per minute (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 FTO shall discuss the applicable ways of determining
the accuracy of the operational conditions and procedures.
April 2002
Page 1-29
-------
6.3.2 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and provides an
estimate of random error. The standard deviation and the relative percent deviation recorded from
sample analyses may be reported as a means to quantify sample precision. Precision measures the
repeatability of measurement. It is usually expressed as the percent relative standard deviation
(percent RSD). In general percent RSD can be calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the
average. The methods to be employed for use of deviation shall be described by the FTO in the
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 maintaining consistent sample collection procedures, including:
sample locations;
timing of sample collection;
sampling procedures;
sample preservation;
sample packaging;
sample shipping;
sample equipment decontamination; and
blind spikes.
Using each method at its optimum capability to provide results that represent the most accurate and
precise measurement that it is capable of achieving also will ensure representativeness. For
equipment operating data, representativeness entails collecting a sufficient quantity of data during
operation to be able to detect a change in operations.
April 2002 Page 1-30
PSTP.
Average
y = average sample measuremen t
yi = sample measuremen t
n = number of samples
6.3.3 Representativeness
-------
6.3.4 Statistical Uncertainty
Statistical uncertainty of the water quality parameters analyzed shall be evaluated through calculation
of the 95 percent confidence level around the sample mean. Description of the confidence level
calculation is provided in Section 4.6 - 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 cf the checks identified in this section. The selection of the
appropriate quality control checks depends on the following:
Equipment
Experimental design
Performance goals
The selection of quality control checks will be based on discussions between the Manufacturer and
NSF. Some types of quality control checks applicable to operating water treatment equipment were
described in Section 6.3.3.
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. A key aspect
of the Equipment Verification Testing Program is to provide operating results that will be widely
useful to State regulatory officials. 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 treated if
equipment is not operating within specification, 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 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 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:
April 2002
Page 1-31
-------
6.4.2.1 Triplicate Analysis of Selected Water Quality Parameters. Triplicate samples
shall be analyzed for selected water quality parameters at specified intervals in order to determine
the precision of analysis. The procedure for determining samples to be analyzed in triplicate shall be
provided in each Verification Testing Plan with the required frequency of analysis and the
approximate number. The triplicate analysis shall be performed according to the requirements for
calculation of 95 percent confidence intervals, as presented in Section 4.6.
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.
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.
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.
6.4.2.5 Performance Evaluation Samples for On-Site Water Quality Testing.
Performance evaluation (PE) samples are samples whose composition is unknown to the analyst.
These are also known as blind spikes. Analysis of PE samples shall be conducted for selected
water quality parameters before testing is initiated by submission of samples to the analytical
laboratory and to the equipment testing organizations, if appropriate. Control limits for the PE
samples will be used to evaluate the equipment testing organization's and analytical laboratory's
method performance.
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 the
following:
true value of the PE sample;
mean of the laboratory results obtained from the analysis of the PE sample; and
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.
6.5 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
To maintain good data quality, specific procedures shall be followed during data
Reduction;
Validation; and
Reporting.
April 2002
Page 1-32
-------
These procedures are detailed below.
6.5.1 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 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.
6.5.2 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 precision,
accuracy and representativeness. The individual operators and the laboratory supervisor will
examine calibration and QC data. Laboratory and project managers shall verify that all instrument
systems are in control and that QA objectives for precision, accuracy, representativeness, 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 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. If the problem can be
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.
6.5.3 Data Reporting
The data reported during the Verification Testing Program shall be explicitly defined by the FTO in
the PSTP. At a minimum, the data tabulation shall list the results for feedwater and treated water
quality analyses, the results of radionuclide removal analyses 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.
6.6 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators
The equations for any data quality indicator calculations employed shall be provided. These include the
following:
Accuracy
Precision
Relative percent deviation
April 2002
Page 1-33
-------
Standard deviation
Confidence interval
Representativeness
6.7 System Inspections
On-site system inspections for sampling activities, field operations, and laboratories may be conducted
as specified by the ETV Testing Plan. These inspections will be performed by the verification entity to
determine if the ETV Testing Plan is being implemented as intended. NSF may conduct audits of the
sampling activities, field operations and laboratories during Verification Testing. Separate inspection
reports will be completed after the inspections and provided to the participating parties.
6.8 Reports
6.8.1 Status Reports
The FTO shall prepare periodic reports for distribution to pertinent parties, e.g., manufacturer,
EPA, the 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 at the beginning of the report to introduce the salient
issues of the testing period. When problems occur, the Manufacturer and FTO 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 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:
FTO;
Verification entity; and
Manufacturer.
6.9 Corrective Action
Each PSTP must incorporate a corrective action plan. This plan must include the predetermined
acceptance limits, the corrective action to be initiated whenever such acceptance criteria are not met,
and the names of the individuals responsible for implementation.
April 2002
Page 1-34
-------
Routine corrective action may result from common monitoring activities, such as:
Performance evaluation audits
Technical systems audits
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.
Outline of the procedure for determining samples to be analyzed in triplicate, the
frequency and approximate number.
Description of the procedures used to assure that the data are correct.
Listing of techniques and/or equations used to quantify any necessary data quality
indicator calculations in the analysis of water quality parameters. These include:
accuracy, precision, representativeness (e.g., relative percent deviation, standard
deviation, and confidence interval calculation).
Outline of the frequency, format, and content of reports in the PSTP.
Development of a corrective action plan in the PSTP.
The FTO shall be responsible for proving and including the following elements 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 the inspection results in an appendix.
Provision of all data in hardcopy and electronic form in a common spreadsheet or
database format.
7.0 DATA MANAGEMENT, ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
7.1 Data Management and Analysis
The responsibilities of the FTO for data management and analysis have been provided in the
Responsibilities Summary Sheet, the Project Guidance Manual, and/or the Terms and Conditions cited
earlier in this protocol. The Manufacturer, qualified FTO and NSF each have distinct responsibilities for
managing and analyzing Verification Testing data. The equipment FTO is responsible for managing all
the data and information generated during the Verification Testing and analyzing the data in the
April 2002
Page 1-35
-------
verification report. The Manufacturer is responsible for furnishing those records generated by the
equipment FTO. NSF will be responsible for verification of the data.
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 in the report. The data
management section of the PSTP shall describe what types of data and information needs to be
collected and managed, and shall also describe how the data will be reported to the NSF for evaluation.
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, and a data dictionary shall be provided 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); and
results from the use of other field analytical methods.
7.2 Report of Equipment Testing
The FTO 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
Manufacturer PSTP
QA/QC Results
Inspection Report
The NSF will review the draft report, the results of testing, the inspection report, the QA/QC results,
and will issue a final report.
April 2002
Page 1-36
-------
Content ofPSTP 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 to the NSF for evaluation.
8.0 SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The safety procedures shall address safety considerations and include adherence to all local, State and
Federal regulations relative to safety and operational hazards. The safety procedures shall address
safety considerations, which relate to the health and safety of personnel require to work on the site of
the test equipment and persons visiting the site. Many of these items will be covered by site inspections
and construction and operating permits issued by responsible agencies. The safety procedures shall
address safety considerations, including the following as applicable:
Regulations covering the transport, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous chemicals
including acids, caustic and oxidizing agents
Chemical hazards and biohazards
Conformance with the National Electric Code
Provision of and access to fire extinguishers
Provision of sanitary facilities
Regulations covering site security
Conformance to any building permit requirements, such as provision of handicap access or
other health and safety requirements
Ventilation of equipment or of trailers or buildings housing equipment, if gases generated by
the equipment could present a safety hazard.
For additional information on pilot plant and laboratory safety see:
i. Palluzi, R. P. Pilot Plant and Laboratory Safety. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
ii. Fuscaldo, A. A., et al. Laboratory Safety, Theory and Practice. New York: Academic
Press. 1980.
Content of PSTP Regarding Safety
The Manufacturer shall be responsible for:
Provisions of required written material (such as Material Data Safety Sheets).
Compliance with all safety requirements of local, State and Federal laws and
regulators.
April 2002
Page 1-37
-------
Provisions of maintenance information and troubleshooting guidelines and
instructions relative to the equipment to be verified.
The PSTP shall include the following:
Address safety considerations that are appropriate for the equipment being tested and
for the chemicals employed in the Verification Testing.
9.0 SUGGESTED READING
Atoulikian, Richard G. "Proper Design of Radon Removal Facilities for Cost-Effective Treatment."
Journal NEWWA, December 1997.
Cothern, C. Richard, and Rebers, Paul A. Radon, Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI 1990.
Deininger, Rolf A. "Monitoring for Radon in Water." Journal A WW A.
Dixon, Kevin L., Lee, Ramon G., Smith, James and Zielinski, Paul "Evaluating Aeration Technology for
Radon Removal." Journal A WW A, April 1991.
Dixon, Kevin L. and Lee, Ramon G., "Occurrence of Radon in Well Supplies." Journal A WW A, July
1988.
Dzombak, David A., Roy, Sujoy B. and Fang, Hung-Jung, "Air-Stripper Design and Costing
Computer Program." Journal A WW A, October 1993.
Freiburger, Eric J., Jacobs, Timothy L. and Ball, William P., "Probabilistic Evaluation of Packed-
Tower Aeration Designs for VOC Removal." Journal A WW A, October 1993.
Graves, Barbara, Radon in Ground Water, Lewis Publishers/NWWA Conference, Chelsea, MI
1987.
Hand, David W., Crittenden, John C., Gehin, Joseph L. and Lykins, Jr., Benjamin W., "Design and
Evaluation of an Air-Stripping Tower for Removing VOCs from Groundwater." Journal A WWA,
September 1986.
Kinner, Nancy E., Malley, Jr., James P., Clement, Jonathan A. and Fox, Kim R., "Using POE
Techniques to Remove Radon." Journal AWWA, June 1993.
Lowry, Jerry D., "Measuring Low Radon Levels in Drinking Water Supplies." Journal AWWA, April
1991
Martins, K.L., "Practical Guide to Determine the Impact of Radon and Other Radionuclides on Water
Treatment Processes." Water Scientific Tech. 26:1255-1264, Great Britain 1992.
Parrotta, Marc J., "Radioactivity in Water Treatment Wastes: A USEPA Perspective." Journal
AWWA, April 1991.
Pontius, Frederick W. and Paris, David B., "Congress to Decide Fate of Radon Standard." Journal
AWWA, January 1994.
April 2002
Page 1-38
-------
Rand, Peter W., Lacombe, Eleanor H. and Perkins, Jr., W. Dana, "Radon in Homes Following Its
Reduction in a Community Water Supply." JournalAWWA, April 1991.
USEPA. Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon. Report to the United States Congress on
Radon in Drinking Water. EPA #81 l-R-94-001, March 1994.
April 2002
Page 1-39
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
April 2002
Page 1-40
-------
CHAPTER 2
EPA/NSF ETV EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
FOR THE REMOVAL OF RADIUM AND URANIUM BY
CATION AND ANION EXCHANGE TECHNOLOGIES
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Copyright 2002 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.
April 2002
Page 2-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2-5
1.0 APPLICATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN 2-6
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-6
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH 2-7
4.0 BACKGROUND 2-8
4.1 Removal Processes 2-8
4.2 Radionuclide Removal by Ion-Exchange Technologies 2-8
4.2.1 Cation Exchange 2-9
4.2.2 Anion Exchange 2-9
4.3 Ion-Exchange Technology Design Considerations 2-10
4.4 Waste Disposal 2-11
5.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS 2-12
6.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS 2-12
7.0 TESTING PERIODS 2-13
8.0 TASK 1: EQUIPMENT VERFICATION TEST PLAN 2-14
8.1 Introduction 2-14
8.2 Objectives 2-14
8.3 Work Plan 2-14
8.3.1 Equipment Verification Test Plan 2-14
8.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation 2-15
8.4 Analytical Schedule 2-15
8.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-15
April 2002
Page 2-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
9.0 TASK 2: CHARACTERIZATION OF RAW WATER 2-16
9.1 Introduction 2-16
9.2 Objectives 2-16
9.3 Work Plan 2-16
9.4 Schedule 2-17
9.5 Evaluation Criteria 2-17
10.0 TASK 3: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 2-17
10.1 Objectives 2-17
10.2 O&M Work Plan 2-18
11.0 TASK 4: DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT 2-23
11.1 Introduction 2-23
11.2 Objectives 2-23
11.3 Work Plan 2-23
11.3.1 Operation Data Collection and Documentation 2-23
11.3.2 Data Management 2-24
11.3.3 Statistical Analysis 2-24
12.0 TASK 5: RADIONUCLIDE REMOVAL 2-24
12.1 Introduction 2-24
12.2 Experimental Objectives 2-25
12.3 Work Plan 2-25
12.4 Ion-Exchange Removal Efficiencies 2-26
12.4.1 Operational Data Collection 2-26
12.4.2 Feedwater Quality Limitations 2-26
13.0 TASK 6: FINISHED WATER QUALITY 2-29
13.1 Introduction 2-29
13.2 Objectives 2-29
13.3 Work Plan 2-29
13.4 Analytical Schedule 2-31
13.4.1 Removal of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants 2-31
13.4.2 Raw Water Characterization 2-31
13.4.3 Water Quality Sample Collection 2-31
13.4.4 Raw Water Quality Limitations 2-31
13.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements 2-31
April 2002 Page 2-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
14.0 TASK 7: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 2-31
14.1 Introduction 2-31
14.2 Experimental Objectives 2-32
14.3 QA/QC Work Plan 2-32
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verification 2-32
14.3.2 Monthly QA/QC Verification 2-32
14.4 Analytical Methods 2-33
15.0 TASK 8: COST EVALUATION 2-33
16.0 SUGGESTED READINGS 2-34
TABLES
Table 8.1 Task Descriptions 2-15
Table 10.1 Operations & Maintenance Manual Criteria - Ion-Exchange Equipment 2-19
Table 10.2 Ion-Exchange Technology Design Criteria Reporting Items 2-21
Table 10.3 Ion-Exchange Equipment Characteristics 2-22
Table 12.1 Daily Operations Log Sheet for an Ion-Exchange System 2-27
Table 12.2 Operating and Water Quality Data Requirements for Ion-Exchange
Processes Over the 60-day Testing Period 2-28
Table 13.1 Water Quality Analytical Methods 2-30
Table 15.1 Design Parameters for Cost Analysis 2-33
Table 15.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost 2-34
April 2002 Page 2-4
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PSTP
Product-Specific Test Plan
FTO
Field Testing Organization
gpm/sf
Gallons per minute per square foot
MCL
maximum contaminant level
MCLG
maximum contaminant level goal
meq/mL
milli-equivalent per milliliter
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mrem/yr
milli-radiation equivalent man per year
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSF
NSF International
O&M
operation and maintenance
pCi/L
picocuries per liter
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
QC
quality control
rpm
revolutions per minute
RSD
relative standard deviation
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WSWRD
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
WTP
water treatment plant
April 2002
Page 2-5
-------
1.0 APPLICATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT VEMFICAHON TESTING PLAN
This document is the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Testing Plan for evaluation of for
cation and anion exchange technologies to be used within the structure provided by the "EPA/NSF
ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For The Removal Of Radioactive Chemical
Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies". This Plan is to be used as a guide in the development of
the Product-Specific Test Plan (PSTP) for testing of ion-exchange process equipment to achieve
removal of dissolved radionuclides, such as radium and uranium.
In order to participate in the equipment verification process for ion-exchange processes, the equipment
Manufacturer and their designated Field Testing Organization (FTO) shall employ the procedures and
methods described in this test plan and in the referenced ETV Protocol Document as guidelines for the
development of a PSTP. The FTO shall clearly specify in its PSTP the radionuclides targeted for
removal and sampling program that shall be followed during Verification Testing. The PSTP should
generally follow the Verification Testing Tasks outlined herein, with changes and modifications made for
adaptations to specific membrane equipment. At a minimum, the format of the procedures written for
each Task in the PSTP should consist of the following sections:
Introduction
Objectives
Work Plan
Analytical Schedule
Evaluation Criteria
The primary treatment goal of the equipment employed in this Verification Testing program is to achieve
removal of dissolved radionuclides, such as radium and uranium, present in feedwater supplies. The
Manufacturer should establish a Statement of Performance Objectives (Section 3.0 General Approach)
that is based upon removal of target radionuclides from feedwaters. The experimental design of the
PSTP shall be developed to address the specific Statement of Performance Objectives established by
the Manufacturer. Each PSTP shall include all of the included tasks, Tasks 1 to 8.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Ion-exchange processes are currently in use for a number of water treatment applications ranging from
removal of color, hardness, radium, uranium, and other constituents.
In order to establish appropriate operations, the Manufacturer may be able to apply some experience
with his equipment on a similar water source. This may not be the case for suppliers with new products.
In this case, it is advisable to require a pre-test optimization period so that reasonable operating criteria
can be established. This would aid in preventing the unintentional but unavoidable optimization during
the Verification Testing. The need of pre-test optimization should be carefully reviewed with NSF, the
FTO and the Manufacturer early in the process.
April 2002
Page 2-6
-------
Prefiltration processes ahead of ion-exchange systems are generally required to remove particulate
material and to ensure provision of high quality water to the ion-exchange systems. For surface water
applications, appropriate pretreatment, primarily for removal of particulate and microbiological species,
must be applied as specified by the Manufacturer. In the design of the PSTP, the Manufacturer shall
stipulate which feedwater pretreatments are appropriate for application upstream of the ion-exchange
process. The stipulated feedwater pretreatment process(es) shall be employed for upstream of the ion-
exchange process at all times during the Equipment Verification Testing Program.
3.0 GENERALAPPROACH
Testing of equipment covered by this Verification Testing Plan will be conducted by an NSF-qualified
FTO that is selected by the equipment Manufacturer. Analytical water quality work to be carried out as
a part of this Verification Testing 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
(USEPA) for the appropriate water quality 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. The Statement of Performance Objectives must be specific and
verifiable by a statistical analysis of the data. Statements should also be made regarding the applications
of the equipment, the known limitations of the equipment and under what conditions the equipment is
likely to fail or underperform. Two examples of Statements of Performance Objectives that may be
verified in this testing are:
1. This system is capable of achieving 90 percent removal of radium during a 60-day operation
period at a loading rate of 1 gpm/cf of resin (temperature between 20 and 25ฐC) in feedwaters with
radium concentrations less than 25 pCi/L and total hardness concentrations less than 200 mg/L as
CaC03.
2. This system is capable of producing a product water with a radium concentration less than 5
pCi/L during a 60-day operation period at a loading rate of 1 gpm/cf of resin (temperature between 20
and 25ฐC) in feedwaters with radium concentrations less than 25 pCi/L and total hardness
concentrations less than 200 mg/L as CaC03.
During Verification Testing, the FTO must demonstrate that the equipment is operating at a steady-state
prior to collection of data to be used in verification of the Statement of Performance Objectives. For
each Statement of Performance Objectives proposed by the FTO and the Manufacturer in the PSTP,
the following information shall be provided:
percent removal of the targeted radionuclide;
rate of treated water production;
recovery;
feedwater quality regarding pertinent water quality parameters;
April 2002
Page 2-7
-------
temperature;
concentration of target radionuclide; and
other pertinent water quality and operational conditions.
This ETV Testing Plan is broken down into 8 tasks, as shown in the Section 6.0, Overview of Tasks.
These Tasks shall be performed by any Manufacturer wanting the performance of their equipment
verified by ETV. The Manufacturer's designated FTO shall provide full detail of the procedures to be
followed in each Task in the PSTP. The FTO shall specify the operational conditions to be verified
during the Verification Testing Plan.
4.0 BACKGROUND
This section provides an overview of the literature review related to dissolved radionuclide regulations,
health effects, and contaminant removal by ion-exchange technologies, and ion-exchange technology
design. These items will assist in the following:
Defining various ion-exchange technologies capable of removing radionuclides;
Defining ion-exchange technologies; and
Describing the mechanisms that will help in qualifying and quantifying the removal efficiency
of the ion-exchange technology tested.
4.1 Removal Processes
Water supply systems that use sources that contain high radionuclide concentrations will need to
implement treatment techniques. Treatment processes that are available for the removal of radium and
uranium include, but are not limited to, cation and anion exchange resins, zeolites, adsorptive media,
reverse osmosis membranes, and lime softening.
This Plan discusses the use of ion-exchange technologies for the removal of dissolved radionuclides.
Ion-exchange is a water treatment technique utilized for the removal of ionic contaminants from water.
Therefore, the following section discusses the removal of Radium (Ra)-226, Ra-228, and uranium (U)
using ion-exchange processes.
4.2 Radionuclide Removal by Ion-Exchange Technologies
Ion-exchange treatment methods involve the exchange of ions from the raw water with presaturant ions
from an exchange material. There are cation and anion exchange technologies. They include the
removal of positively charged ions by cation exchange and the removal of negatively charged ions by
anion exchange. Both cation and anion exchange treat raw water with radionuclides by exchanging the
radium cations or uranium anions with presaturant cations and anions in an exchange media,
respectively. Cation exchange is also capable of removing major hardness causing cations (e.g.,
calcium, magnesium, etc.). The merit of ion-exchange process is its reversible reaction. When ion-
April 2002
Page 2-8
-------
exchange capacity is depleted, using an excess of the presaturant ion regenerates the exhausted ion-
exchange material.
4.2.1 Cation Exchange
Cation exchange systems are capable of removing radium from raw water supply sources. This is
due to the fact that radium occurs in natural water as a cation. This process provides softening, as
well as, removal of Ra-226 and Ra-228. Radium is a divalent cation similar to calcium or
magnesium. The cation exchange occurs using a cation exchange resin with presaturant cations such
as sodium or hydrogen. Water treatment by cation exchange occurs with a cycle of service,
backwash, regeneration, and rinse. Raw water is passed through the ion-exchange bed, and
hardness causing ions, including radium, are replaced with sodium or hydrogen ions from the resin.
Almost complete hardness and radium removal can be achieved. Pretreatment for iron, if present,
may increase the effectiveness of the cation exchange process, as well as, minimize regeneration and
backwashing.
When the resin becomes exhausted or the finished water quality is less than desired, the ion-
exchange bed is regenerated. Before a regeneration cycle, the exhausted resin bed should be
backwashed. The backwash cycle is an up-flow wash performed at a manufacturer specified rate
to provide removal of the entrapped particles. The backwash should be able to accomplish to cause
40 to 75 percent expansion of the resin bed.
The regenerant is typically a concentrated salt solution or brine (e.g., 6-10 percent NaCl solution).
The volume of the regenerant solution is only a fraction of the total volume of the raw water
processed, resulting in a concentrated waste stream. The manufacturer will specify the pounds of
salt per cubic foot of resin. When the regeneration cycle has been completed, a rinse cycle is
provided to remove excess brine before a service cycle starts.
Disposal of the waste regenerant brine and backwash water is necessary. Disposal of the waste
brine is limited by the radium concentration. The permitting of a disposal process for the ion-
exchange treatment units may be a difficult process.
4.2.2 Anion Exchange
Anion exchange system operations are very similar to cation exchange systems. Anion exchange
systems are capable of removing uranium from raw water supply sources. This is due to the fact
that most uranium occurs in natural water as an anion. The design of anion exchange process is
greatly different from the cation exchange process because the removal capacity for uranium is far
greater than radium or hardness although it uses the same type equipment, and the same process
flow scenario. Specific gravities of anion exchange resins are lower than that of cation exchange
resins. Therefore, the backwashing practice for anion exchange process needs to adopt a lower
rate than cation exchange process.
April 2002
Page 2-9
-------
Anion exchange does not provide hardness removal such as cation exchange. It does remove
alkalinity (HC03") (low initial pH), sulfate, nitrate and arsenic during the first part of the cycle when
operated to remove uranium. Since uranium is the most preferred of all anions, as time goes on
uranium will "push" these other anions from the bed causing spikes and potential problems with
sulfate, nitrate and arsenic. The pH will be depressed as a result. This should be considered in the
testing of any anion exchange process.
4.3 Ion-Exchange Technology Design Considerations
The design capacity of an ion-exchange unit and associated resin can be determined based on the total
amount of presaturant ions (counter ions) capable of exchange. The effective capacity is the percentage
of the total capacity that may be utilized based on empty bed contact time, regeneration level, and
regenerant flow rate. The capacity of an ion-exchange bed prior to exhaustion can be defined as the
maximum number of equivalent ions that can be removed from solution per volume of resin.
Ion-exchange design considerations include, but are not limited to:
Well pump capacity (gpm)
Volumetric flow rate (gpm/cf or bed volumes per hour (BV/hr))
Surface loading rates (gpm/sf)
Hardness
Prefilters
Ion-Exchange Vessels
Resin type
Regenerant wastewater tank capacity
Water temperature
Empty bed contact time
Water quality
Ion-exchange treatment units generally consist of vessels which contain the ion-exchange resin, a storage
tank for regenerant salt, and a vessel for mixing of the brine solutions or brine eductor, and associated
valves, pumps, piping, and controls. The ion-exchange tank or vessel may be pressurized or an open
system type. For certain water sources, pretreatment may be required. However, pretreatment is not
normal for water supplies containing uranium and/or radium. The diameter of the ion-exchange pressure
vessel is typically limited to 12 feet in diameter.
The size of commercially available cation and anion exchange resins are generally in the range of 16 to
50 screen mesh size (US standard sieve). A variety of resins are available from various manufacturers.
Flow rates are defined as volumetric flow rate (bed volume per hour (BV/hr)) and surface area loading
rate (gpm/sf). The volumetric flow rate is inversely related to the contact time of the solution and the
April 2002
Page 2-10
-------
resin. The surface loading rate is a measure of the raw water flow rate through the resin bed. Blending
is rarely used or permitted by regulatory agencies at the State level. When blending is utilized, only a
fraction of the raw water is treated with the ion-exchange material. It is important that the ion-exchange
bed and the blending ratios are designed to provide adequate removal of radionuclides to meet
regulatory limits.
4.4 Waste Disposal
Waste disposal options include hauling and discharge into a wastewater treatment facility, injection into
a disposal well or transportation to a concentrate disposal facility. State and local regulatory agencies
should be contacted to establish guidelines for treatment and disposal of wastes generated by ion-
exchange processes. The regenerant waste stream from the ion-exchange regeneration process must be
treated and/or disposed of in some manner. Effective regenerant disposal methods depend on the spent
regenerant water quality, local regulations and site specific factors (AWWARF 1993). The handling
and disposal of the wastes generated by treatment technologies removing naturally occurring
radionuclides from drinking water pose concerns to the water supplier, to local and State governments
and to the public at large. The potential handling hazards associated with radionuclides warrant the
development of a viable ion-exchange regenerate disposal method. Information regarding concentrate
disposal options can be found in Suggested Guidelines for the Disposal of Drinking Water
Treatment Wastes Containing Naturally Occurring Radionuclides (USEPA, 1990). The document
first addresses the management of radionuclide wastes by first describing the potential sources of these
wastes (i.e., water treatment processes). Then there is a brief review of the known information on the
radionuclide composition of the associated treatment wastes. The document then describes the
plausible disposal alternatives and provides background information from related programs that should
assist facilities in selecting a responsible option. The following are disposal options that must be
approved by the State or local government prior to implementation of a waste disposal program.
Liquid Waste Disposal
Direct discharge into storm sewers or surface water.
Discharge into sanitary sewer.
Deep well injection.
Drying or chemical precipitation.
Solid Waste Disposal
Temporary lagooning (surface impoundment).
Disposal in landfill.
a) Disposal without prior treatment.
b) With prior temporary lagooning.
c) With prior mechanical dewatering.
Application to land (soil spreading/conditioning).
April 2002
Page 2-11
-------
Disposal at State licensed low-level radioactive waste facility.
5.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
The following terms are presented here for subsequent reference in this test plan:
Anion/Cation Exchange - Water treatment process where water is passed through a filter bed of
exchange material. Anions/cations in the insoluble exchange material are displaced by ions from the
raw water feed. The exchange material is used until the material is exhausted. The exchange
material resin is regenerated with a solution such as sodium chloride.
Package Plant - A complete water treatment system including all components from the connection
to the raw water(s) intake 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.
Raw - Input stream to the ion-exchange process prior to any pretreatment.
Verification Statement - A written document that summarizes a final report reviewed and
approved by NSF on behalf of the USEPA or directly by the USEPA.
Water System - The water system that operates using water treatment equipment to provide
potable water to its customers.
6.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS
This Plan is applicable to the testing of water treatment equipment utilizing ion-exchange technologies
that include cation and anion exchange. Testing of ion-exchange equipment will be conducted by a
NSF-qualified Testing Organization that is selected by the Manufacturer. Water quality analyses will be
performed by a state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. This Plan provides
objectives, work plans, schedules, and evaluation criteria for the required tasks associated with the
equipment testing procedure.
The following is a brief overview of the tasks that shall be included as components of the Verification
Testing Program and PSTP for removal of dissolved radionuclides.
Task 1: Equipment Verification Testing Plan - Operate ion-exchange and associated
water treatment equipment for a 60-day testing period to collect data on water quality and
equipment performance.
April 2002
Page 2-12
-------
Task 2: Characterization of Raw Water - Obtain chemical, biological and physical
characterization of the raw water. Provide a brief description of the watershed that
provides the raw water to the water treatment plant.
Task 3: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) - Evaluate an O&M manual for each
system submitted. The O&M manual shall characterize ion-exchange process design, outline
an ion-exchange regeneration procedure or procedures, and provide an ion-exchange
regenerant disposal plan.
Task 4: Data Collection and Management - Establish an effective field protocol for
data management between the Field Testing Organization and NSF.
Task 5: Radionuclide Removal - Evaluate ion-exchange technology operations in
relation to verified raw water quality.
Task 6: Finished Water Quality - Evaluate the water quality produced by the ion-
exchange technology as it relates to raw water quality and operational conditions.
Task 7: Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) - Develop a QA/QC protocol
for Verification Testing. This is an important item that will assist in obtaining an accurate
measurement of operational and water quality parameters during ion-exchange equipment
Verification Testing.
Task 8: Cost Evaluation - Develop O&M costs for the submitted ion-exchange
technology and equipment.
7.0 TESTING PERIODS
The required tasks of the ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan (Tasks 1 through 8) are designed to
be completed over a 60-day period, not including mobilization, shakedown and start-up. The schedule
for equipment monitoring during the 60-day testing period shall be stipulated by the FTO in the PSTP,
and shall meet or exceed the minimum monitoring requirements of this testing plan. The FTO shall
ensure in the PSTP that sufficient water quality data and operational data will be collected to allow
estimation of statistical uncertainty in the Verification Testing data, as described in the "EPA/NSF ETV
Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For The Removal Of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants:
Requirements For All Studies". The FTO shall therefore ensure that sufficient water quality and
operational data is collected during Verification Testing for the statistical analysis described herein.
For ion-exchange process treatment equipment, factors that can influence treatment performance
include:
Feedwaters with high seasonal concentrations of inorganic constituents and total dissolved solids
(TDS). These conditions may increase finished water concentrations of inorganic chemical
contaminants;
Cold water, encountered in winter or at high altitude locations;
April 2002
Page 2-13
-------
High concentrations of natural organic matter (measured as total organic carbon (TOC)), which may
be higher in some waters during different seasonal periods;
High turbidity, often occurring in spring, as a result of high runoff resulting from heavy rains or
snowmelt.
It is highly unlikely that all of the above problems would occur in a water source during a single 60-day
period during the Verification Testing program. Ion-exchange testing conducted beyond the required
60-day testing may be used for fine-tuning of ion-exchange performance or for evaluation of additional
operational conditions. During the testing periods, evaluation of regeneration efficiency and finished
water quality can be performed concurrent with ion-exchange operation testing procedures.
8.0 TASK1: EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TEST PLAN
8.1 Introduction
The equipment verification for ion-exchange technologies for radionuclide removal shall be conducted
by a NSF-qualified, Field Testing Organization (FTO) that is selected by the Manufacturer. Water
quality analytical work to be completed as a part of this ETV Plan shall be contracted with a state-
certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. For information on a listing of NSF-qualified
FTOs and state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratories, contact NSF.
8.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to operate the equipment provided by a Manufacturer, for the conditions
and time periods specified by NSF and the Manufacturer.
8.3 Work Plan
8.3.1 Equipment Verification Test Plan
Table 8.1 presents the Tasks that are included in this Plan and will be included in the PSTP for
radionuclide removal by ion-exchange technologies. Any Manufacturer wanting to verify the
performance of their equipment shall perform these Tasks. The Manufacturer shall provide full
detail of the procedures to be followed for each item in the PSTP. The FTO shall specify the
operational conditions to be verified during the Verification Testing.
In the design of the PSTP, the FTO shall stipulate which pretreatments are appropriate for
application before the selected ion-exchange processes. The recommended pretreatment
process(es) shall then be employed by the Manufacturer for raw water pretreatment during
implementation of the Equipment Verification Testing Program.
April 2002
Page 2-14
-------
TABLE 8.1: Task Descriptions
No.
Task
Description
1
Test Plan
Water treatment equipment shall be operated for a minimum of one 60
day test period to collect data on water quality and equipment
performance.
2
Characterization of Raw
Water
Obtain chemical, microbiological and physical characterization of the
raw water.
3
O&M
Evaluate O&M manual for process.
4
Data Management
Develop data protocol between FTO and NSF.
5
Contaminant Removal
Evaluate radionuclide removal at selected set of operational conditions.
6
Finished Water Quality
Evaluate water quality at selected set of operational conditions.
7
QA/QC
Enforce QA/QC standards.
8
Cost Evaluation
Provide O&M costs of system.
8.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation
During the time intervals between equipment verification runs, the water treatment equipment may
be used for production of potable water. If the equipment is being used for the production of
potable water, routine operation for water production is expected. The operating and water quality
data collected and furnished to the local regulatory agency should also be supplied to the NSF-
qualified FTO.
8.4 Analytical Schedule
The entire equipment verification shall be performed over a 60-day period (not including time for system
shakedown and mobilization). At a minimum, one 60-day period of Verification Testing shall be
conducted in order to provide equipment testing information for ion-exchange technology performance.
The required tasks for the equipment verification are designed to be completed over a 60-day period,
not including mobilization, shakedown and start-up. Ion-exchange technology testing conducted
beyond the required 60-day testing may be used for fine-tuning of ion-exchange performance or for
evaluation of additional operational conditions. During the 60-day testing period, evaluation of finished
water quality can be performed concurrent with the percent removal testing procedures.
8.5 Evaluation Criteria
The equipment testing period will include a Verification Test of at least 60-days.
April 2002
Page 2-15
-------
9.0 TASK 2: CHARACTERIZATION OF RAW WATER
9.1 Introduction
A characterization of raw water quality is needed to determine if the concentrations of Ra-226, Ra-228,
and uranium, or other raw water contaminants are appropriate for the use of ion-exchange processes.
The feedwater quality can influence the performance of the equipment.
9.2 Objectives
One reason for performing a raw water characterization is to obtain at least one-year of historical raw
water quality data from the raw water source. The objective is to:
demonstrate seasonal effects on the concentration of radionuclides; and
develop maximum and minimum concentrations for the contaminant.
If historical raw water quality is not available, a raw water quality analysis of the proposed feedwater
shall be performed prior to equipment Verification Testing.
9.3 Work Plan
The characterization of raw water quality is best accomplished through the performance of laboratory
testing and the review of historical records. Sources for historical records may include municipalities,
laboratories, USGS (United States Geological Survey), USEPA, and local regulatory agencies. If
historical records are not available preliminary raw water quality testing shall be performed prior to
equipment Verification Testing. The specific parameters of characterization will depend on ion-
exchange process that is being tested. The following characteristics should be reviewed and
documented:
Radium-226
Total Alkalinity
Fluoride
Radium-22 8
Turbidity
Iron
Uranium
Total Organic Carbon
Manganese
Temperature
True Color
Nitrate
pH
Chloride
Sodium
IDS
Sulfate
Phosphate
Total Hardness
Hydrogen Sulfide
Arsenic
Calcium Hardness
Data collected should reflect seasonal variations in the above data if applicable. This will determine
variations in water quality parameters that will occur during Verification Testing. The data that is
collected will be shared with NSF so that the FTO can determine the significance of the data for use in
April 2002
Page 2-16
-------
developing a test plan. If the raw water source is not characterized, the testing program may fail, or
results of a testing program may not be considered acceptable. A description of the raw water source
should also be included with the feedwater characterization. The description may include items such as:
size of watershed;
topography;
land use;
nature of the water source; and
potential sources of pollution.
9.4 Schedule
The schedule for compilation of adequate water quality data will be determined by the availability and
accessibility or historical data. The historical water quality data can be used to determine the suitability
of ion-exchange processes for the treatment for the raw source water. If raw water quality data is not
available, a preliminary raw water quality testing should be performed prior to the Verification Testing of
the ion-exchange equipment.
9.5 Evaluation Criteria
The feedwater quality shall be evaluated in the context of the Manufacturer's Statement of Performance
Objectives for the removal of radionuclides. The feedwater should challenge the capabilities of the
chosen equipment, but should not be beyond the range of water quality suitable for treatment by the
chosen equipment. For ion-exchange processes, a complete scan of water quality parameters may be
required in order to determine pretreatment criteria.
10.0 TASK 3: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
An operations and maintenance (O&M) manual for ion-exchange technologies to be tested for
radionuclide removal shall be included in the Verification Testing evaluation.
10.1 Objectives
The objective of this task is to provide an O&M manual that will assist in operating, troubleshooting and
maintaining ion-exchange process performance. The O&M manual shall:
characterize ion-exchange process design;
outline an ion-exchange resin regeneration procedure or procedures; and
provide a waste disposal plan.
The waste disposal plan must be approved by the appropriate regulatory authority for the verification
period before verification testing begins. A fully developed waste disposal plan is required because of
the radionuclides that have been concentrated in the waste stream. Criteria for evaluation of the
April 2002
Page 2-17
-------
equipment's O&M Manual shall be compiled and then evaluated and commented upon during
verification by the FTO. An example is provided in Table 10.1.
The purpose of O&M information is to allow utilities to effectively choose a technology that their
operators are capable of operating, and provide information on how many hours the operators can be
expected to work on the system. Information about obtaining replacement parts and ease of operation
of the system would also be valuable.
10.2 O&M Work Plan
Descriptions of ion-exchange technology unit process design shall be developed for the removal of
radionuclides. Ion-exchange technologies shall include the design criteria and equipment characteristics.
Examples of information required relative to the ion-exchange design criteria and characteristics are
presented in Tables 10.2 and 10.3, respectively.
Depending on the raw water quality, periodic regeneration of the ion-exchange resin will be required.
Regeneration of resin will be performed as necessary per manufacturer specifications. Resin may also
require periodic replacement. Resin regeneration and material replacement should be noted so that it
may be considered for the verification of the equipment.
April 2002
Page 2-18
-------
TABLE 10.1: Operations & Maintenance Manual Criteria -
Ion-Exchange Equipment
MAINTENANCE:
The manufacturer should provide readily understood information on the recommended or required maintenance
schedule for each piece of operating equipment such as:
flow meters
pressure gauges
pumps
motors
valves
chemical feeders
ion-exchange vessel
The manufacturer should provide readily understood information on the recommended or required maintenance
for non-mechanical or non-electrical equipment such as:
resin
piping
OPERATION:
The manufacturer should provide readily understood recommendation for procedures related to proper
operation of the equipment. Among the operating aspects that should be discussed are:
Chemical feeders (if applicable):
calibration check
settings and adjustments - how they should be made
dilution of chemicals - proper procedures
Monitoring and observing operation:
removal calculations
ป pressure readings/monitoring
April 2002
Page 2-19
-------
TABLE 10.1: Operations & Maintenance Manual Criteria -
Ion-Exchange Equipment (continued)
OPERATION (continued):
The manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting guide; a simple check-list of what to do for a variety of
problems including:
no raw water flow to plant;
when the water flow rate through the equipment can not be controlled;
no chemical feed;
automatic operation (if provided) not functioning;
no electric power; and
The following are recommendations regarding operability aspects of ion-exchange technology processes. These
aspects of equipment operation should be included to the extent practical in reports of equipment testing when
the testing is done under the ETV Program. During Verification Testing, attention shall be given to equipment
operability aspects.
are chemical feed pumps calibrated?
are flow meters present and have they been calibrated?
are pressure gauges calibrated?
are pH meters calibrated?
can regeneration be done automatically?
ป does remote notification occur (alarm) when pressure increases > 15% or flow drops > 15%?
The reports on Verification Testing should address the above questions in the written reports. The issues of operability
should be dealt with in the portion of the reports that are written in response to Operating Conditions and Treatment
Equipment Performance, in the Cation and Anion Exchange Test Plan.
April 2002
Page 2-20
-------
TABLE 10.2: Ion-Exchange Technology Design Criteria Reporting Items
Parameter
Unit
Type of unit
Number of units
Average flow rate (gpm)
Maximum flow rate to unit (gpm)
Minimum flow rate to unit (gpm)
Resin type
Resin volume (cf)
Surface area at the resin/water interface (sf)
Water temperature (ฐC)
Raw water Ra-226 concentration (pCi/L)
Raw water Ra-228 concentration (pCi/L)
Raw water Uranium concentration (pCi/L)
Percent removal of Ra-226 (%)
Percent removal of Ra-228 (%)
Percent removal of Uranium (%)
Pressure loss through system (psi)
Service run time (hr)
Empty bed contact time (min)
April 2002
Page 2-21
-------
TABLE 10.3: Ion-Exchange Equipment Characteristics
Parameter
Unit
Technology Manufacturer
Equipment model number
Resin type
Filter area (sf)
Design hydraulic loading rate (gpm/sf)
Design pressure (psi)
Standard testing removal (%)
Standard testing pH
Standard testing temperature (ฐC)
Design concurrent flow velocity (fps)
Maximum flow rate to the unit (gpm)
Minimum flow rate to the unit (gpm)
Acceptable range of operating pressures
Acceptable range of operating pH values
Typical pressure drop across a single unit (ft)
Pumping requirements
Suggested regeneration procedures
Suggested resin replacement schedule
Type of construction
Estimated Purchase Price
Other
Note: Some of this information may not be available, but this table should be filled out as completely as possible for
each technology tested
April 2002
Page 2-22
-------
11.0 TASK 4: DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT
11.1 Introduction
The data management system used in the Verification Testing Program shall involve the use of computer
spreadsheets, and manual recording of operational parameters for the ion-exchange equipment on a
daily basis.
11.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to establish a viable structure for the recording and transmission of field
testing data such that the FTO provides sufficient and reliable operational data for verification purposes.
Chain-of-Custody protocols will be developed and adhered to.
11.3 Work Plan
11.3.1 Operation Data Collection and Documentation
The following protocol has been developed for data handling and data verification by the FTO. In
addition to daily operational data sheets, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system could 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 electronic spreadsheets. 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 ion-exchange equipment
operation. At a minimum, backup of the computer databases to diskette should be performed on a
monthly basis.
Field testing operators shall record data and calculations by hand in laboratory notebooks for a
minimum of three times per day. (Daily measurements shall be recorded on data log sheets as
appropriate. Figure 12.2 presents an example of a daily log sheet.) The laboratory notebook shall
provide copies of each page. The original notebooks shall be stored on-site; the copied sheets shall
be forwarded to the project engineer of FTO at least once per week during the 60-day testing
period. This protocol will not only ease referencing the original data, but offer protection of the
original record of results. Operating logs shall include:
descriptions of the equipment and test runs;
names of visitors; and
descriptions of any problems or issues.
Such descriptions shall be provided in addition to experimental calculations and other items.
April 2002
Page 2-23
-------
11.3.2 Data Management
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 field laboratory analysis notebooks and data log sheets shall be entered into the
appropriate spreadsheet. 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 and the printout shall be checked against the
handwritten data sheet. Any corrections shall be noted on the hardcopies and corrected on the
screen, and then the corrected recorded calculations will also be checked and confirmed. The field
testing operator or engineer performing the entry or verification step shall initial each step of the
verification process.
Each experiment (e.g. each ion-exchange technology test run) shall 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 shall be tracked by use of the same system of run numbers. Data from the outside laboratories
shall be received and reviewed by the FTO. This data shall be entered into the data spreadsheets,
corrected, and verified in the same manner as the field data.
11.3.3 Statistical Analysis
For the analytical data obtained during Verification Testing, 95% confidence intervals shall be
calculated by the FTO for selected water quality parameters. The specific Plans shall specify which
water quality parameters shall be subjected to the requirements of confidence interval calculation.
As the name implies, a confidence interval describes a population range in which any individual
population measurement may exist with a specified percent confidence. When presenting the data,
maximum, minimum, average and standard deviation should be included.
Calculation of confidence intervals shall not be required for equipment performance obtained during
the equipment Verification Testing Program. In order to provide sufficient analytical data for
statistical analysis, the FTO shall collect three discrete water samples at one set of operational
conditions for each of the specified water quality parameters during a designated testing period.
12.0 TASK 5: RADIONUCLIDE REMOVAL
12.1 Introduction
The removal of Ra-226, Ra-228, and uranium from drinking water supplies is accomplished by ion-
exchange treatment. The effectiveness of ion-exchange processes for radionuclide removal will be
evaluated in this task. Assessment of treatment technologies will be assessed based on percent removal
of Ra-226, Ra-228, and uranium.
April 2002
Page 2-24
-------
12.2 Experimental Objectives
The objectives of this task are to demonstrate:
Operational conditions for the ion-exchange equipment;
Radionuclide removal achieved by the ion-exchange equipment; and
Necessary regeneration and replacement of resin.
Initial raw water quality shall be measured prior to system start-up and then monitored accordingly over
the 60-day testing period using the sample frequency provided in Table 12.2. It should be noted that
the objective of this task is not process optimization, but rather verification of ion-exchange operation at
the operating conditions specified by the Manufacturer, as it pertains to percent removal of radium and
uranium.
12.3 Work Plan
Determination of ideal ion-exchange operating conditions for a particular water may require as long as
one year of operation. The cycle period for uranium could easily be greater than a one-year period
allocated and the virgin run is much better than subsequent runs. The superior performance in the virgin
run is also true for radium removal by cation exchange. For this task, the Manufacturer shall specify the
operating conditions to be evaluated in the 60-day (minimum) verification testing period (24-hour
continuous operation) and shall supply written procedures on the operation and maintenance of the ion-
exchange system. The Manufacturer shall specify the primary hydraulic loading rate at which the
equipment is to be verified. Additional operating conditions can be verified in separate 60-day testing
periods.
After set-up and "shakedown" of the ion-exchange equipment, ion-exchange operation should be
established at the loading rate to be verified. Testing of additional operational conditions could be
performed by extending the number of 60-day testing periods beyond the initial 60-day test period
required by the Verification Testing Program at the discretion of the Manufacturer and their designated
FTO.
Additional 60-day periods of testing may also be included in the Verification Testing Plan in order to
demonstrate ion-exchange performance under different raw water quality conditions. At a minimum the
performance of the ion-exchange equipment relative to radionuclide removal shall be documented during
those periods of variable raw water conditions. The Manufacturer shall perform testing with as many
different water quality conditions as desired for verification status. Testing under each different water
quality condition shall be performed during an additional 60-day testing period, as required above for
each additional set of operating conditions.
April 2002
Page 2-25
-------
12.4 Ion-Exchange Removal Efficiencies
12.4.1 Operational Data Collection
Removal efficiencies of radionuclides from raw water will be assessed by the percentage of removal
from the source water. Measurement of influent raw water flow and pressure and finished water
flow and pressure shall be collected at a minimum of three times per day. Table 12.1 is an example
of a daily operational data sheet for an ion-exchange system. This table is presented for
informational purposes only. The actual forms will be submitted as part of the test plan and may be
site-specific.
Water quality should be analyzed prior to start-up and then every two weeks for the parameters
identified in Table 12.2, except for radionuclides, which will be monitored prior to start-up and then
weekly. Power usage for operation of the ion-exchange equipment shall also be closely monitored
and recorded by the FTO during the 60-day testing period. Power usage shall be estimated by
inclusion of the following details regarding equipment operation requirements:
pumping requirements;
size of pumps;
name-plate;
voltage;
current draw;
power factor;
peak usage; etc.
In addition, measurement of power consumption, chemical consumption shall be quantified by
recording day tank concentration, daily volume consumption and unit cost of chemicals.
12.4.2 Feedwater Quality Limitations
The characteristics of raw waters used during the 60-day testing period (and any additional 60-day
testing periods) shall be explicitly stated in reporting the removal data for each period. Accurate
reporting of such raw water characteristics is critical for the Verification Testing Program, as these
parameters can substantially influence the range of ion-exchange performance and treated water
quality under variable raw water quality conditions.
Evaluation criteria and minimum reporting requirements.
Plot graph of raw and finished Ra-226, Ra-228, and uranium concentrations over time
for each 60-day test period.
Plot graph of removal of Ra-226, Ra-228, and uranium over time for each 60-day test
period.
April 2002
Page 2-26
-------
TABLE 12.1: Daily Operations Log Sheet for an Ion-Exchange System
Date:
Parameter
Measurement 1
Measurement 2
Measurement 3
Time
Initial
Raw Water
0, (som)
Ra-226taw (before pretreatment) (pCi/L)
Ra-226taw (after pretreatment) (pCi/L)
Ra-228raw (before pretreatment) (pCi/L)
Ra-228raw (after pretreatment) (pCi/L)
Uraniuniaw (before pretreatment) (pCi/L)
Uraniuniaw (after pretreatment) (pCi/L)
Praw (psi)
pHraw (before pretreatment)
pHraw (after pretreatment)
T raw (ฐC)
Ion-exchange Vessel
0 (rorn)
Ra-226 (pCi/L)
Ra-228 (pCi/L)
Uranium (pCi/L)
P(psi)
Finished
Ok (eorn)
Ra-226fm (pCi/L)
Ra-228fm (pCi/L)
Uraniumfin (pCi/L)
Pfin(psi)
Regeneration ( ซ what % brine or NaCl)
fsDm)
Pregen (pSl)
April 2002
Page 2-27
-------
TABLE 12.2: Operating and Water Quality Data Requirements for Ion-Exchange Processes
Over the 60-day Testing Period
Parameter
Frequency for Sampling
Raw Water Flow
3 / Daily
Finished Water Flow
3 / Daily
Regenerant Flow
3 / Daily
Raw Water Pressure
3 / Daily
Finished Water Pressure
3 / Daily
Regenerant Pressure
3 / Daily
List Each Chemical Used, And Dosage
Daily Data Or Monthly Average
Hours Operated Per Day
Daily
Hours Operator Present Per Day
Monthly Average
Power Consumption (kWh/Million Gallons)
Monthly
Independent check on rates of flow
Weekly
Independent check on pressure gages
Weekly
Verification of chemical dosages
Monthly
Feed Water and Finished Water Characteristics
Radium-226
Weekly
Radium-228
Weekly
Uranium
Weekly
Gross Alpha and Beta Emitters
Weekly
Temperature
3 / Daily
PH
3 / Daily
TD S/C onducti vity
3 / Daily
Turbidity
Every two weeks
True Color
Every two weeks
Total Organic Carbon
Every two weeks
Total Alkalinity
Every two weeks
Total Hardness
Every two weeks
Calcium Hardness
Every two weeks
Sodium
Every two weeks
Chloride
Every two weeks
Iron
Every two weeks
Manganese
Every two weeks
Sulfate
Every two weeks
Fluoride
Every two weeks
Nitrate
Every two weeks
Hydrogen Sulfide
Every two weeks
Arsenic
Every two weeks
April 2002
Page 2-28
-------
13.0 TASK 6: FINISHEDWATERQUALTIY
13.1 Introduction
Water quality data shall be collected for the finished water as provided previously in Table 12.2. At a
minimum, the required sampling shall be one initial sampling at start-up followed by the sample
frequency presented in Table 12.2. The finished water samples should be collected when the raw water
samples are collected. Water quality goals and target removal goals for the ion-exchange equipment
should be proven and reported in the PSTP.
13.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to verily the Manufacturer's objectives. A list of the minimum number of
water quality parameters to be monitored during equipment Verification Testing has been provided in
this document. The actual water quality parameters selected for testing and monitoring shall be
stipulated in the PSTP.
13.3 Work Plan
The PSTP shall identify the treated water quality objectives to be achieved in the Statement of
Performance Objectives of the equipment to be evaluated in the Verification Testing Program. The
PSTP shall also identify in the Statement of Performance Objectives the radionuclide removal that shall
be monitored during equipment testing. The Statement of Performance Objectives prepared by the
PSTP shall indicate the range of water quality under which the equipment can be challenged while
successfully treating the contaminated water supply.
It should be noted that many of the drinking water treatment systems participating in the Ion-Exchange
Process Verification Testing Program will be capable of achieving multiple water treatment objectives.
Although this Ion-Exchange Process Plan is oriented towards removal of Ra-226, Ra-228, and
uranium, the Manufacturer may want to look at the treatment systems removal capabilities for additional
water quality parameters.
Many of the water quality parameters described in this task shall be measured on-site by the NSF-
qualified FTO. A state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory shall perform analysis of
the remaining water quality parameters. Representative methods to be used for measurement of water
quality parameters in the field and lab are identified in Table 13.1. Where appropriate, the Standard
Methods reference numbers and USEPA method numbers for water quality parameters are provided
for both the field and laboratory analytical procedures.
For the water quality parameters requiring analysis at an off-site laboratory, water samples shall be
collected in appropriate containers (containing necessary preservatives as applicable) prepared by the
state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. These samples shall be preserved, stored,
shipped and analyzed in accordance with appropriate procedures and holding times, including chain-of
custody requirements, as specified by the analytical lab.
April 2002
Page 2-29
-------
TABLE 13.1: Water Quality Analytical Methods
Parameter
AWWA Method 1
EPA Method 2
Radium-226
7500-Ra
903.1
Radium-22 8
7500-Ra
Uranium
7500-U
908.0
Gross Alpha and Beta Emitters
7110
900.0
Temperature
2550
170.1
pH
4500-FT
150.2
TDS/Conductivity
2510
120.1
Turbidity
2130
180.1
True Color
2120
110.2
Total Organic Carbon
5310
415.2
UV Absorbance (254 nm)
5910
Total Alkalinity
2320
310.2
Total Hardness
2340
130.2
Calcium Hardness
3500-Ca
215.2
Sodium
3500-Na
273.1
Chloride
4500-C1"
325.1
Iron
3500-Fe
236.1
Manganese
3500-Mn
243.1
Sulfate
4500-S04"2
375.4
Fluoride
4500-F"
340.1
Nitrate
45OO-NO3"
352.1
Hydrogen Sulfide
4500-S"2
Arsenic
3114
206.3
1) AWWA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1999.
2) EPA, Methods and Guidance for Analysis of Water, EPA 82l-C-97-001, April 1997.
April 2002
Page 2-30
-------
13.4 Analytical Schedule
13.4.1 Removal of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants
During the steady-state operation of each ion-exchange testing period, radionuclide mass balances
shall be performed on the raw, backwash, and finished water in order to determine the radionuclide
removal capabilities of the ion-exchange system, as well as the potential of the radionuclide to
accumulate on the resin. Use the following mass balance equation:
Qraw Craw Qbackwash Cbackwash Qfmished Cfm;shed Accumulation
13.4.2 Raw Water Characterization
At the beginning of each ion-exchange testing period utilizing a single-set of operating conditions, the
raw water and finished water shall be characterized by an initial set of water quality parameters as
identified in Table 12.2.
13.4.3 Water Quality Sample Collection
Water quality data shall be collected at established intervals during each period of ion-exchange
equipment testing as identified in Table 12.2. The minimum monitoring frequency for the required
water quality parameters is once at start-up and weekly for radionuclides and every two weeks for
the remaining water quality parameters. The water quality sampling program may be expanded to
include a greater number of water quality parameters and to require a greater frequency of
parameter sampling.
13.4.4 Raw Water Quality Limitations
The characteristics of feedwater encountered during each 60-day testing period shall be explicitly
stated. Accurate reporting of such raw water characteristics such as those identified in Table 12.2
is critical for the Verification Testing Program, as these parameters can substantially influence ion-
exchange performance.
13.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements
Removal or reduction of radionuclides.
Water quality and removal goals specified by the Manufacturer.
14.0 TASK 7: QUALITY ASSURANCE^UALITY CONTROL
14.1 Introduction
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the operation of the ion-exchange process equipment
and the measured water quality parameters shall be maintained during the Equipment Verification
Testing Program.
April 2002
Page 2-31
-------
14.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during the Equipment
Verification Testing Program. 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 QA/QC Work Plan
Equipment flow rates and associated transmitter signals should be calibrated and verified on a routine
basis. A routine daily walk through during testing shall be established to check that each piece of
equipment or instrumentation is operating properly. Particular care shall be taken to verify that
chemicals are being fed at the defined flow rate, and into a flow stream that is operating at the expected
flow rate. This will provide correct chemical concentrations in the flow stream. In-line monitoring
equipment such as flow meters, etc. shall be checked monthly 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 are in
addition to any specified checks outlined in the analytical methods.
When collecting water quality data, all system flow meters will be calibrated using the classic bucket and
stopwatch method where appropriate. Hydraulic data collection will include the measurement of the
finished water flow rate by the "bucket test" method. This would consist of filling a calibrated vessel to
a known volume and measuring the time to fill the vessel with a stopwatch. This will allow for a direct
check of the system flow measuring devices.
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verification
On-line pH meters (check and verify components)
On-line conductivity meter (check and verify components)
14.3.2 Monthly QA/QC Verification
Chemical feed pump flow rates (verify volumetrically over a specific time period) if used
(Note: ion-exchange process does not use chemicals other than salt in most cases, unless
pH adjustment is deemed necessary or acid/base regenerants are used)
On-line flow meters/rotometers (clean equipment to remove any debris or microbiological
buildup and verify flow volumetrically to avoid erroneous readings)
Differential pressure transmitters (verify gauge readings and electrical signal using a pressure
meter).
Piping (verify good condition of all piping and connections, replace if necessary)
April 2002
Page 2-32
-------
14.4 Analytical Methods
Use of either bench-top field analytical equipment will be acceptable for the Verification Testing;
however, on-line equipment is recommended for ease of operation. Use of on-line equipment is also
preferable because it reduces the introduction of error and the variability of analytical results generated
by inconsistent sampling techniques. However, standard and uniform calibration and standardization
techniques that are approved should be employed. Table 13.1 lists American Water Works
Association (AWWA) and EPA standard methods of analysis.
15.0 TASK 8: COST EVALUATION
This Plan includes the assessment of costs of verification with the benefits of ion-exchange processes
over a wide range of operating conditions. Therefore, this Plan requires that one set of operating
conditions be tested over a 60-day testing period. The equipment Verification Tests will provide
information relative to systems, which provide desired results and the cost, associated with the systems.
Design parameters are summarized in Table 15.1. These parameters will be used with the equipment
Verification Test costs to prepare cost estimates for operation of the equipment.
Table 15.1: Design Parameters for Cost Analysis
Design Parameter
Specific Utility Values
Total required plant production (mgd)
By-pass flow rate (mgd)
Resin Type
Resin Volume (cf)
Surface loading rate (gpd/sf)
Empty bed contact time (min)
Operation and maintenance (O & M) costs realized in the equipment Verification Test can be utilized
for cost estimates. O & M costs for each system will be determined during the equipment Verification
Tests. The O & M costs that will be recorded and compared during the Verification Test include:
Labor;
Electricity;
Chemical Dosage; and
Equipment Replacement Frequency.
The O & M costs will vary based on geographic location.
April 2002
Page 2-33
-------
O & M costs should be provided for each ion-exchange process that is tested. In order to receive the
full benefit of the equipment Verification Test Programs, these costs should be considered along with
quality of system operations. Other cost considerations may be added to the cost tables presented in
this section as is needed prior to the start-up of the Verification Tests. A summary of O & M costs are
outlined in Table 15.2.
Table 15.2: Operations and Maintenance Cost
Cost Parameter
Specific Values
Labor rate + fringe ($/personnel-hour)
Labor overhead factor (% of labor)
Number of O&M personnel hours per week
Power consumption (kWh/Million Gallons)
Electric rate ($/kWh)
Cost of resin ($)
Resin replacement (# times/year)
Cost of chemicals ($)
Chemical dosage (per week)
Disposal costs ($)
16.0 SUGGESTED READINGS
APHA, AWWA, and WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
20th Edition, Washington D.C. 1999.
Clifford, Dennis, et al. "Evaluating Various Adsorbents and Membranes for Removing Radium from
Groundwater". Journal AWWA, July 1988.
Cothern, C. Richard, and Rebers, Paul A. Radon, Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI 1990.
Jelinek, Robert T.; Sorg, Thomas J. "Operating a Small Full-Scale Ion-exchange System for Uranium
Removal." Journal AWWA. July 1988.
Lowry, Jerry D., Sylvia B. "Radionuclides in Drinking Water Supplies." Journal AWWA, July, 1988.
Martins, K.L., "Practical Guide to Determine the Impact of Radon and Other Radionuclides on Water
Treatment Processes." Water Scientific Tech^ 26:1255-1264, Great Britain 1992.
April 2002
Page 2-34
-------
McKelvey, Gregory A., et al. "Ion-exchange: A Cost-Effective Alternative for Reducing Radium".
JournalAWWA. June 1993.
Parrotta, Marc J., "Radioactivity in Water Treatment Wastes: A USEPA Perspective." Journal
AWWA, April 1991.
Sorg, T.J., et al.. "Methods for Removing Uranium From Drinking Water", Journal AWWA, July
1988.
Subramonian, Suresh; et al. "Evaluating Ion-exchange for Removing Radium from Groundwater."
Journal AWWA. May 1990.
Sung, L. K., Morris, K. E. and Taylor J. S. "Predicting Colloidal Fouling," International
Desalination and Water Reuse Journal. November/December, 1994.
USEP A. Radionuclide Removal for Small Public Water Systems\ Prepared for the Office of
Drinking Water. USEPA #570-0-83-010, June 1983.
Weber, W.J. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. New York: John-Wiley &
Sons. 1972.
Zhang, Zhihe; Clifford, Dennis A.. "Exhausting and Regenerating Resin for Uranium Removal."
Journal AWWA. April 1994.
April 2002
Page 2-35
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
April 2002
Page 2-36
-------
CHAPTER 3
EPA/NSF ETV
EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
FOR THE REMOVAL OF RADIUM AND URANIUM
BY NANOFILTRATION MEMBRANE PROCESSES
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Copyright 2002 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.
April 2002
Page 3-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-5
1.0 APPLICATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN 3-6
2.0 INTRODUCTION 3-6
2.1 Radionuclide Removal by Nanofiltration (NF) Membrane Processes 3-7
2.2 Membrane System Design Considerations 3-8
2.2.1 Pretreatment 3-8
2.2.2 Advanced Pretreatment 3-9
2.2.3 Membrane Processes 3-9
2.2.4 Post-Treatment 3-10
2.2.5 Waste Disposal 3-10
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH 3-11
4.0 BACKGROUND 3-12
4.1 Removal Processes 3-12
5.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS 3-13
6.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS 3-22
7.0 TESTING PERIODS 3-23
8.0 TASK 1: EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TEST PLAN 3-24
8.1 Introduction 3-24
8.2 Objectives 3-24
8.3 Work Plan 3-25
8.3.1 Equipment Verification Test Plan 3-25
8.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation 3-25
April 2002
Page 3-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
8.4 Analytical Schedule 3-26
8.5 Evaluation Criteria 3-26
9.0 TASK 2: CHARACTERIZATION OF RAW WATER 3-26
9.1 Introduction 3-26
9.2 Objectives 3-26
9.3 Work Plan 3-26
9.4 Schedule 3-27
9.5 Evaluation Criteria 3-27
10.0 TASK 3: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 3-28
10.1 Objectives 3-28
10.2 O&M Work Plan 3-28
11.0 TASK 4: DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT 3-34
11.1 Introduction 3-34
11.2 Objectives 3-34
11.3 Work Plan 3-34
11.3.1 Operation Data Collection and Documentation 3-34
11.3.2 Data Management 3-35
11.3.3 Statistical Analysis 3-35
12.0 TASK 5: MEMBRANE PRODUCTIVITY 3-35
12.1 Introduction 3-35
12.2 Experimental Objectives 3-36
12.3 Work Plan 3-36
12.3.1 Operational Data Collection 3-37
12.3.2 Feedwater Quality Limitations 3-38
13.0 TASK 6: FINISHED WATER QUALITY 3-42
13.1 Introduction 3-42
13.2 Objectives 3-42
13.3 Work Plan 3-42
13.4 Analytical Schedule 3-44
13.4.1 Removal of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants 3-44
13.4.2 Feed and Permeate Water Characterization 3-44
April 2002
Page 3-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
13.4.3 Water Quality Sample Collection 3-44
13.4.4 Raw Water Quality Limitations 3-44
13.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements 3-45
14.0 TASK 7: CLEANING EFFICIENCY 3-45
14.1 Introduction 3-45
14.2 Experimental Objectives 3-46
14.3 Work Plan 3-46
14.4 Recommended Disposal Procedures 3-46
14.5 Analytical Schedule 3-47
14.5.1 Sampling 3-47
14.5.2 Operational Data Collection 3-47
15.0 TASK 8: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 3-47
15.1 Introduction 3-47
15.2 Experimental Objectives 3-47
15.3 QA/QC Work Plan 3-47
15.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verification 3-48
15.3.2 Monthly QA/QC Verification 3-48
15.4 Analytical Methods 3-48
16.0 TASK 9: COST EVALUATION 3-48
17.0 SUGGESTED READING 3-51
TABLES
Table 8.1 Task Descriptions 3-25
Table 10.1 Operations & Maintenance Manual Criteria - NF Membrane Process
Equipment 3-30
Table 10.2 NF Membrane Plant Design Criteria Reporting Items 3-32
Table 10.3 NF Membrane Element Characteristics 3-33
Table 12.1 NF Membrane Pretreatment Data 3-39
Table 12.2 Daily Operations Log Sheet for a Two-Stage Membrane System 3-40
Table 12.3 Operating and Water Quality Data Requirements for Membrane Process 3-41
Table 13.1 Water Quality Analytical Methods 3-43
Table 16.1 Design Parameters for Cost Analysis 3-49
Table 16.2 Operations and Maintenance Cost 3-50
April 2002 Page 3-4
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PSTP
Product-Specific Test Plan
FTO
Field Testing Organization
HF
hollow fiber
HSD
homogeneous solution diffusion model
IMS
Integrated Membrane Systems
MCL
maximum contaminant level
MCLG
maximum contaminant level goal
MFI
modified fouling index
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mrem/yr
milli-radiation equivalent man per year
MTC
mass transfer coefficient
MWCO
molecular weight cut-off
NF
nanofiltration
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSF
NSF International
O&M
operation and maintenance
pCi/L
picocuries per liter
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
QC
quality control
RO
reverse osmosis
rpm
revolutions per minute
RSD
relative standard deviation
SCADA
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SDI
silt density index
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
TFC
thin-film composite
TOC
total organic carbon
IDS
total dissolved solids
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
United States Geographic Survey
WSWRD
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
WTP
water treatment plant
April 2002
Page 3-5
-------
1.0 APPUCATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
This document is the ETV Testing Plan for evaluation of nanofiltration (NF) membrane processes to be
used within the structure provided by the "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing
For The Removal Of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies". This Plan is
to be used as a guide in the development of the Product-Specific Test Plan (PSTP) for testing of NF
membrane process equipment to achieve removal of dissolved radionuclides, such as radium and
uranium. It should also be noted that this Equipment Verification Plan is only applicable to NF or other
high-pressure membrane processes.
In order to participate in the equipment verification process for membrane processes, the equipment
Manufacturer and their designated Field Testing Organization (FTO) shall employ the procedures and
methods described in this test plan and in the referenced ETV Protocol Document as guidelines for the
development of a PSTP. The FTO shall clearly specify in its PSTP the radionuclides targeted for
removal and sampling program that shall be followed during Verification Testing. The PSTP should
generally follow the Verification Testing Tasks outlined herein, with changes and modifications made for
adaptations to specific membrane equipment. At a minimum, the format of the procedures written for
each Task in the PSTP should consist of the following sections:
Introduction
Objectives
Work Plan
Analytical Schedule
Evaluation Criteria
The primary treatment goal of the equipment employed in this Verification Testing program is to achieve
removal of dissolved radionuclides, such as radium and uranium, present in feedwater supplies. The
Manufacturer shall establish a Statement of Performance Objectives (Section 3.0 General Approach)
that is based upon removal of target radionuclides from feedwaters. The experimental design of the
PSTP shall be developed to address the specific Statement of Performance Objectives established by
the Manufacturer. Each PSTP shall include all of the included tasks, Tasks 1 to 9.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Membrane processes are currently in use for a number of water treatment applications ranging from
removal of inorganic constituents; total dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), synthetic
organic chemicals (SOCs), radium, uranium, and other constituents.
In order to establish appropriate operations conditions such as permeate flux, recovery, cross-flow
velocity, the Manufacturer may be able to apply some experience with his equipment on a similar water
source. This may not be the case for suppliers with new products. In this case, it is advisable to require
a pre-test optimization period so that reasonable operating criteria can be established. This would aid in
April 2002
Page 3-6
-------
preventing the unintentional but unavoidable optimization during the Verification Testing. The need of
pre-test optimization should be carefully reviewed with NSF, the FTO and the Manufacturer early in the
process.
Pretreatment processes ahead of NF systems are generally required to remove particulate material and
to ensure provision of high quality water to the membrane systems. For example, NF membranes
cannot generally be applied to treatment of surface waters without pretreatment of the feedwater to the
membrane system. For surface water applications, appropriate pretreatment, primarily for removal of
particulate and microbiological species, must be applied as specified by the Manufacturer. In the design
of the PSTP, the Manufacturer shall stipulate which feedwater pretreatments are appropriate for
application upstream of the NF membrane process. The stipulated feedwater pretreatment process(es)
shall be employed for upstream of the membrane process at all times during the Equipment Verification
Testing Program.
2.1 Radionuclide Removal by Nanofiltration (NF) Membrane Processes
This ETV Testing Plan is applicable to any NF membrane process used to achieve removal of
radionuclides. Furthermore, this testing plan is applicable to spiral-wound (SW) and hollow-fiber (HF)
membrane configurations.
NF and reverse osmosis (RO) have been shown to be highly effective for the removal of dissolved
radionuclides such as radium and uranium. Radium and uranium removal has exceeded 87 and 98
percent, respectively, for diffusion-controlled membranes. However, removal is a function of membrane
mass transfer coefficients (MTCs), flux, recovery and feed concentration and will be expected to vary
by membrane type. NF and RO are also effective in producing a better overall quality of water.
Some advantages to the use of membrane processes for the removal of radionuclides include:
a small space requirement;
removal of contaminant ions, dissolved solids, bacteria, and particles; and
relative insensitivity to flow and IDS levels, and low effluent concentration.
Disadvantages include:
higher capital and operating costs;
higher level of pretreatment required;
possible membrane fouling; and
large reject streams.
Pressure-driven membrane processes are currently in use for a broad number of water treatment
applications including the removal of radionuclides (e.g. Ra-226, Ra-228, and uranium), natural organic
matter (NOM) which contributes to disinfection by-product formation, dissolved minerals, synthetic
organic compounds (SOCs) and microbial contaminants such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium.
April 2002
Page 3-7
-------
Typically, high-pressure membrane applications such as NF membrane processes are capable of
removing radionuclides, as well as, ions contributing to hardness. Both radium and uranium are large
molecules that have removal rates similar to those of calcium.
In contrast, membrane processes such as microfiltration and/or ultrafiltration (UF/MF) are typically
employed to provide a physical barrier for removal of microbial, particulate and suspended
contaminants from drinking waters. However, the MF and UF membrane processes have not been
shown to be effective for removal of radionuclides and other dissolved substances unless another unit
operation such as granular activated or powdered activated carbon is employed.
High and low pressure diffusion controlled membranes are both effective for the rejection of
radionuclides. Since NF (low pressure RO) is as effective as RO for radionuclide removal, and can
pass more water at lower pressure operations than RO, this test plan pertains to the removal of radium
and uranium by NF membrane processes. For RO applications, see the EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for
Equipment Verification Testing for Removal of Inorganic Constituents Test Plan for Removal of
Inorganic Chemical Contaminants by Reverse Osmosis or Nanofiltration.
2.2 Membrane System Design Considerations
Conventional NF membrane systems consist of pretreatment, membrane processing and post-treatment.
These processes are discussed in the following sections.
2.2.1 Pretreatment
The purpose of pretreatment is to control and minimize membrane fouling and reduce flux decline.
The conventional pretreatment process consists of scale inhibitor (anti-sealant) and/or acid addition
in combination with microfiltration. These pretreatment process are used to control scaling and
protect the membrane elements; they are required for conventional NF membrane systems. The
membranes can be fouled or scaled during operation. Fouling is caused by particulate materials
such as colloids and organics that are present in the raw water attaching to the membrane surface,
and will reduce the productivity of the membrane. Scaling is caused by the precipitation of a
sparingly soluble salt within the membrane because of the solute concentration exceeding solubility.
If a raw water is excessively fouling, additional or advanced pretreatment is required.
Flux decline indicated by a reduction in membrane process productivity can be a result of scaling,
colloidal fouling, microbiological fouling and organic chemical fouling. Scaling can be approximated
by chemical analysis and equilibrium calculations. Fouling indices can approximate colloidal fouling.
Microbiological and organic chemical fouling can only be approximated at this time by pilot testing.
These mechanisms should be recognized and understood, and are presented below in order to
develop strategies to control flux decline.
2.2.1.1 Scaling. In an NF membrane process salts present in the feedwater are concentrated
on the feed side of the membrane. This concentration process continues until saturation and a salt
precipitation (scaling) occurs. Scaling will reduce membrane productivity, and consequently, will
April 2002
Page 3-8
-------
limit the rate of water that may be recovered as permeate on a sustained basis. The maximum
recovery is the recovery at which the limiting salt first begins to precipitate.
Limiting salts can be identified from the solubility products of sparingly soluble salts in the raw
feedwater. Since ionic strength increases cn the feed side of the membrane, the effect of ionic
strength upon the solubility products must also be considered and taken into account for these
calculations. Some limiting salts may be controlled via the addition of acid and/or scale inhibitor into
the feedwater prior to membrane treatment. Typical sparingly soluble salts that may limit recovery
in pressure-driven membrane processes include, but are not limited to: CaC03; CaS04; BaS04;
SrS04; CaF2; and Si02.
2.2.1.2 Colloidal Fouling. Colloidal fouling results from particles that exist in the influent which
buildup on the surface of the membrane. The build-up forms a cake, which eventually is
compressed, reducing flow through the membrane. Initially, cake formation does not significantly
reduce productivity. However, after the cake compresses, the productivity decreases and the
compressed cake must be removed. MF/UF membranes can be backwashed to remove the cake.
However, NF membranes require chemical cleaning to remove the cake. Advanced pretreatment
processes such as cross-flow MF/UF and multi-media filtration should control colloidal fouling.
2.2.1.3 Microbiological Fouling. Microbiological fouling results from biological growth in the
membrane element, which results in a reduction in membrane productivity or an increase in pressure
drop across an element. No reliable methods have been demonstrated for prediction of biofouling.
Microbiological growth can occur in the feed spacers or on the membrane surface. Microbiological
growth will occur h membranes, but this growth does not always result in significant productivity
loss. Advanced pretreatment processes may aid in controlling microbiological fouling.
2.2.1.4 Chemical Fouling. Chemical fouling results from the interaction of dissolved organic
solutes in the feed stream with the membrane surface, which results in a reduction in membrane
productivity. Chemical interaction between solute and the membrane surface will occur to some
degree, but membrane productivity may not be reduced. Advanced pretreatment processes may
aid in the control of chemical fouling.
2.2.2 Advanced Pretreatment
Advanced pretreatment would include unit operations that precede scaling control and static
microfiltration. By definition, unit operations that precede conventional pretreatment would be
advanced pretreatment. Examples of advanced pretreatment would be coagulation, oxidation
followed by greensand filtration, groundwater recharge, continuous cross-flow microfiltration, multi-
media filtration, and granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration.
2.2.3 Membrane Processes
The membrane process follows pretreatment. The majority of dissolved contaminants are removed
in the membrane process. If the membrane scales or fouls, the productivity of the membrane system
April 2002
Page 3-9
-------
declines and eventually the membranes must be chemically cleaned to restore productivity. Cleaning
frequencies for NF systems average about 6 months (Taylor et al. 1990) when treating ground
waters and can be as low as 1 to 2 weeks when treating a surface water with integrated membrane
systems (IMSs).
MF/UF membranes are sieving controlled and they do not have a low enough molecular weight cut-
off (MWCO) range to reject radionuclides. However, NF membranes can achieve significant
radionuclide rejection because the MWCO of these membranes are low and most radionuclides
cannot pass. This is also the case with inorganic contaminants (IOCs) and SOCs. Radon is a
dissolved gas, and like carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide, will not be removed by a membrane
process. MF/UF membranes do not affect corrosivity because inorganic ions are not removed;
however, NF does remove inorganic solutes from water, and this can impact the corrosivity of the
permeate water.
2.2.4 Post-Treatment
Typical post-treatment unit operations can consist of disinfection, aeration, stabilization and storage.
Aeration may be required to strip dissolved gases (Duranceau 1993). Stabilization may be required
to produce a non-corrosive finished water since membrane permeate can be corrosive. Alkalinity
recovery is an effective process for recovering dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) in the permeate.
Alkalinity can be recovered by lowering the pH prior to membrane filtration and converting the
alkalinity to C02, and then raising the pH of the permeate in a closed system to recover dissolved
C02 as alkalinity. By-passing feedwater and blending it with membrane permeate is another way of
stabilizing the finished water; however, blending would negate the benefit of membrane treatment
system to act as a barrier against contaminants.
2.2.5 Waste Disposal
In addition to post treatment, the concentrate stream from the membrane processes must be treated
and/or disposed of in some manner. Effective concentrate disposal methods depend on the
concentrate water quality, local regulations and site-specific factors (AWWARF 1993). The
handling and disposal of the wastes generated by treatment technologies removing naturally
occurring radionuclides from drinking water pose concerns to the water supplier, to local and State
governments and to the public at large. The potential handling hazards associated with radionuclides
warrant the development of a viable membrane concentrate disposal method. Information regarding
concentrate disposal options can be found in Suggested Guidelines for the Disposal of Drinking
Water Treatment Wastes Containing Naturally Occurring Radionuclides (USEPA, 1990). The
document first addresses the management of radionuclide wastes by first describing the potential
sources of these wastes (i.e., water treatment processes). Then there is a brief review of the known
information on the radionuclide composition of the associated treatment wastes. The document then
describes the plausible disposal alternatives and provides background information from related
programs that should assist facilities in selecting a responsible option. The following are disposal
options that must be approved by the State or local government prior to implementation of a waste
disposal program.
April 2002
Page 3-10
-------
Liquid Waste Disposal
Direct discharge into storm sewers or surface water.
Discharge into sanitary sewer.
Deep well injection.
Drying or chemical precipitation.
Solid Waste Disposal
Temporary lagooning (surface impoundment).
Disposal in landfill.
a) Disposal without prior treatment.
b) With prior temporary lagooning.
c) With prior mechanical dewatering.
Application to land (soil spreading/conditioning).
Disposal at State licensed low-level radioactive waste facility.
3.0 GENERALAPPROACH
Testing of equipment covered by this Verification Testing Plan will be conducted by an NSF-qualified
FTO that is selected by the equipment Manufacturer. Analytical water quality work to be carried out as
a part of this Verification Testing 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
(USEPA) for the appropriate water quality 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. The Statement of Performance Objectives must be specific and
verifiable by a statistical analysis of the data. Statements should also be made regarding the applications
of the equipment, the known limitations of the equipment and under what conditions the equipment is
likely to fail or underperform. There are different types of Statements of Performance Objectives that
may be verified in this testing. Two such examples are:
1. This system is capable of achieving 90 percent removal of radium during a 60-day
operation period at a flux of 15 gpm/sf (75 percent recovery; temperature between 20 and 25 <)
in feedwaters with radium concentrations less than 25 pd/L and total dissolved solids
concentrations less than 500 mg/L.
2. This system is capable of producing a product water with a radium concentration less
than 5 pd/L during a 60-day operation period at a flux of 15 gpm/sf (75 percent recovery;
April 2002
Page 3-11
-------
temperature between 20 and 25 <) in feedwaters with radium concentrations less than 25 pd/L
and total dissolved solids concentrations less than 500 mg/L.
During Verification Testing, the FTO must demonstrate that the equipment is operating at a steady-state
prior to collection of data to be used in verification of the Statement of Performance Objectives. For
each Statement of Performance Objectives proposed by the FTO and the Manufacturer in the PSTP,
the following information shall be provided:
percent removal of the targeted radionuclides;
rate of treated water production (i.e., flux);
recovery;
feedwater quality regarding pertinent water quality parameters;
temperature;
concentration of target radionuclide; and
other pertinent water quality and operational conditions.
This ETV Testing Plan is broken down into 9 tasks, as shown in the Section 6.0, Overview of Tasks.
These Tasks shall be performed by any Manufacturer wanting the performance of their equipment
verified by ETV. The Manufacturer's designated FTO shall provide full detail of the procedures to be
followed in each Task in the PSTP. The FTO shall specify the operational conditions to be verified
during the Verification Testing Plan. All permeate flux values shall be reported in terms of temperature-
corrected flux values, as either gallons per square foot per day (gfd) at 77 ฐF or liters per square meter
per hour (L/(m2-hr) at 25 ฐC.
4.0 BACKGROUND
This section provides an overview of contaminant removal by NF membrane processes. These items
will assist in identifying the radionuclides that can be removed by NF membrane processes, defining NF
membrane processes and the mechanisms that will help in qualifying and quantifying the removal
efficiency of the NF membrane processes tested.
4.1 Removal Processes
Water supply systems that use sources that contain high radionuclide concentrations will need to
implement treatment techniques. Treatment processes that are available for the removal of radium and
uranium include, but are not limited to, cation and anion exchange resins, zeolites, adsorptive media, NF
or RO membranes, and lime softening.
This Plan discusses the use of NF membrane processes for the removal of dissolved radionuclides. NF
is a water treatment technique utilized for the removal of particulate contaminants from water.
April 2002
Page 3-12
-------
Therefore, the following section discusses the removal of Ra-226, Ra-228, and uranium using NF
membrane processes.
5.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
The following terms are presented here for subsequent reference in this test plan:
Bulk Rejection - Percent solute concentration retained by the membrane relative to the bulk stream
concentration.
i-Sl
C,
where:
Cf = feedwater concentration of specific constituent (mg/L)
Cp = permeate concentration of specific constituent (mg/L)
Bulk Solution - The solution on the high-pressure side of the membrane that has a water quality
between that of the influent and concentrate streams.
Cleaning Frequency - The loss or decrease of the mass transfer coefficient (MTC) for water
measures membrane productivity over time of production. Membranes foul during operation. Constant
production is achieved in membrane plants by increasing pressure. Cleaning is done when the pressure
increases by 10 to 15 percent. Cleaning frequency (CF) and a measurement of productivity can be
determined from the MTC decline.
CT - OKซ
dt
where:
CF = cleaning frequency (days)
Q= acceptable rate of MTC loss
dKw/dt = rate of MTC decline (gsfd/psi-d)
Concentrate (Q G) - One of the membrane output streams that has a more concentrated water
quality than the feed stream.
Conventional NF/RO Process - A treatment system consisting of acid and/or scale inhibitor addition
for scale control, cartridge filtration, NF/RO membrane filtration, aeration, chlorination and corrosion
control.
April 2002
Page 3-13
-------
Feed (Qf, Cf) - Input stream to the membrane process after pretreatment.
Feedwater- Water introduced to the membrane module.
Field Testing Organization (FTO) - An organization qualified to conduct studies and testing of
drinking water treatment equipment in accordance with protocols and test plans. The role of the FTO is
to complete the application on behalf of the Company; to enter into contracts with NSF, as discussed
herein; and arrange for or conduct the skilled operation of a system during the intense periods of testing
during the study and the tasks required by the Protocol.
Flux (Fw) - Mass (lb/ft2-day) or volume (gal/ft2-day, gsfd, gfd) rate of transfer through membrane
surface.
Fw = Kw [AP - An] = %
A
where:
Fw = water flux (MZL2-t)
Kw = global water mass transfer coefficient (t')
2
AP = transmembrane pressure gradient (M/L )
2
An= osmotic pressure gradient (M/L )
3
Qp = permeate flow (L /t)
2
A = membrane surface area (L )
Fouling - Reduction of productivity measured by a decrease in the temperature normalized water
MTC.
Fouling Indices - Fouling indices are simple measurements that provide an estimate of the required
pretreatment for membrane processes. Fouling indices are determined from membrane tests and are
similar to mass transfer coefficients for membranes used to produce drinking water. Fouling indices can
be quickly developed from simple filtration tests, are used to qualitatively estimate pretreatment
requirements and possibly could be used to predict membrane fouling. The silt-density index (SDI),
modified fouling index (MFI) and mini plugging factor index (MPFI) are the most common fouling
indices. The SDI, MFI and the MPFI are defined using the basic resistance model, and are
quantitatively related to water quality and NF membrane fouling.
Some approximations for required indices prior to conventional membrane treatment are given below
(Sung et. al. 1994).
April 2002
Page 3-14
-------
Fouling Index Approximations for NF
Fouling Index
Range
SDI
<3
MPFI
< 1.5 (10"4)L/s2
MFI
< 10 s/L2
Silt-Density Index (SDI): The SDI is the most commonly used test to predict a water's potential to
foul a membrane by colloidal particles smaller than 0.45 microns. SDI is only a guide for
pretreatment and is not an indication of adequate pretreatment. The SDI is a static measurement of
resistance, which is determined by samples taken at the beginning and the end of the test. The SDI
test is performed by timing the anaerobic hydraulic flow through a 47 mm diameter, 0.45 micron
membrane filter at a constant pressure of 30 psi. The time required for 500 mL of the feedwater to
pass through the filter is measured when the test is first initiated, and is also measured at time
intervals of 5, 10, and 15 minutes after the start of the test. The value of the SDI is then calculated
as follows (ASTM D-4189-82).
SDI =
tf
tT
* 100% (EQUATION 2.4)
where:
t. = time to collect initial 500 mL sample
tf = time to collect 500 mL sample at time t = T
tT= total running time of the test; 5, 10, or 15 minutes.
If the index is below a value of 3 then the water should be suitable for NF. If the SDI is below 3,
the impact of colloidal fouling is minimized.
Modified Fouling Index (MFI): The MFI is determined using the same equipment and procedure
used for the SDI, except that the volume is recorded every 30 seconds over a 15 minute filtration
period (Schippers and Verdouw 1980). The development of the MFI is consistent with Darcy's
Law in that the thickness of the cake layer formed on the membrane surface is assumed to be
directly proportional to the filtrate volume. The total resistance is the sum of the filter and cake
resistance. The MFI is defined graphically as the slope of an inverse flow verses cumulative volume
curve as shown in the following equations:
April 2002
Page 3-15
-------
dV_tฑP A
dt jn (/^ + Rk)
, t*Rf | jur2i
APA 2 SPA2
= a+MFI*V
Q
where:
Rf = resistance of the filter
Rk = resistance of the cake
I = measure of the fouling potential
Q = average flow (liters/second)
a = constant
Typically the cake formation, build-up and compaction or failure can be seen in three distinct
regions on a MFI plot. The regions corresponding to blocking filtration and cake filtration represent
productive operation, whereas compaction would be indicative of the end of a productive cycle.
Influent - Input stream to the membrane array after the recycle stream has been blended with the feed
stream. If there is no concentrate recycle then the feed and influent streams are identical.
Mass Transfer Coefficient (MTC) (Kw) - Mass or volume unit transfer through membrane based on
driving force (gfd/psi).
K Qp
w a(ap - An)
where:
Kw = global water mass transfer coefficient (t')
2
AP = transmembrane pressure gradient (M/L )
2
Af[= osmotic pressure gradient (M/L )
3
Qp = permeate flow (L /t)
2
A = membrane surface area (L )
Membrane Element - A single membrane unit containing a bound group of spiral wound or hollow-
fiber membranes to provide a nominal surface area for treatment.
Membrane Molecular Weight Cutoff Determination - The membrane molecular weight cutoff
(MWCO) of membranes a commonly used to characterize membrane rejection capability.
April 2002
Page 3-16
-------
Membrane MWCO is typically determined by measuring the rejection of different molecular weight
nonionic polymers. Solute rejection is defined as:
% Solute Rejection=
r c ^
i*-
r
*100%
Given the narrow molecular weight bands of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, these nonionic
random coil polymers can be applied to membranes for MWCO estimation. Although the percent PEG
rejection varies by manufacturer, 80 to 90 percent PEG rejection has been used. Neither the percent
rejection nor the material is fixed except by membrane manufacturer. The standard molecular weight
solutions can be measured as TOC and correlated to PEG concentration. This correlation can then be
applied for assessment of PEG rejection by the membrane and subsequent MWCO determination.
Membrane Productivity - Membrane productivity will be assessed by the rate of mass transfer
coefficient (MTCW) decline over time of operation. As flux declines, a constant product can be
achieved by increasing pressure to maintain a constant flux.
Net Driving Pressure (NDP): The net driving pressure (NDP) is calculated using the influent,
concentrate and permeate pressure.
NDP =
'(Pr+pJ
-p. - An
where:
NDP = net driving pressure for solvent transport across the membrane (psi, bar)
Pf = feedwater pressure to the feed side of the membrane (psi, bar)
Pc= concentrate pressure on the reject side of the membrane (psi, bar)
Pp = permeate pressure on the treated water side of the membrane (psi, bar)
An= osmotic pressure (psi)
Osmotic Pressure Gradient (ATT): The term osmotic pressure gradient refers to the difference in
osmotic pressure generated across the membrane barrier as a result of different concentrations of
dissolved salts. In order to determine the NDP, the osmotic pressure gradient must be estimated
from the influent, concentrate and permeate TDS.
An =
(TDSf +TDSC)
-TDS,
1 psi
v l ;
where:
TDSf = feedwater total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration (mg/L)
April 2002
Page 3-17
-------
TDSC = concentrate IDS concentration (mg/L)
TDSp = permeate TDS concentration (mg/L)
Mass Transfer Coefficient (MTCW): The MTCW is calculated by dividing the permeate flow by the
membrane surface area.
FW=% = MTCW*NDP
A
From this the MTCW can be calculated. However, given the relationship between temperature and
the viscosity of water, flux should be normalized to a standard temperature condition (25ฐC). These
relationships should be provided by the membrane manufacturer and used to normalize the flux data
set as shown below.
F 0
MTC 0 = w-25 c
w'25 c NDP
Temperature Adjustment for Flux Calculation: If manufacture does not specify a temperature
correction equation the following equation may be used so that water production can be compared
on an equivalent basis.
F 0 =F 0 *1.03
w,25 C w,T C
*1 r\o(25ฐC-T ฐC)
Recovery: Recovery should also be calculated using the permeate and influent flow.
R = ^L
Qi
Using the above equations the MTCW, normalized flux and recovery for each stage and the system can
be calculated for each set of operational data and plotted as a function of cumulative operating time.
Package Plant - A complete water treatment system including all components from the connection to
the raw water(s) intake through discharge to the distribution system.
Permeate (Qp, Cp) - The membrane output stream that has convected through the membrane.
=0/c/ ~QcCe
Permeate - Water produced by the membrane process.
Permeate Flux - The average permeate flux is the flow of permeate divided by the surface area of the
membrane. Permeate flux is calculated according to the following formula:
April 2002
Page 3-18
-------
where:
Jt = permeate flux at time t (gfd, L/(h-m2))
Qp = permeate flow (gpd, L/h)
S = membrane surface area (ft2, m2)
It should be noted that only gfd and L/(h-m2) shall be considered acceptable units of flux for this testing
plan.
Pressure Vessel - A single tube or housing that contains several membrane elements in series.
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.
Raw - Input stream to the membrane process prior to any pretreatment.
Recovery - The recovery of feedwater as permeate water is given as the ratio of permeate flow to
feedwater flow:
Si
Qf
*100%
% System Recovery =
where:
Qf = feedwater flow to the membrane (gpm, L/h)
Qp = permeate flow (gpm, L/h)
Recycle Ratio (r) - The recycle ratio represents the ratio of the total flow of water that is used for
cross-flow and the net feedwater flow to the membrane. This ratio provides an idea of the recirculation
pumping that is applied to the membrane system to reduce membrane fouling and specific flux decline.
Recycle Ratio =
where:
Or
Qf
Qf = feedwater flow to the membrane (gpm, L/h)
Qr = recycle hydraulic flow in the membrane element (gpm, L/h)
Rejection (mass) - The mass of a specific solute entering a membrane system that does not pass
through the membrane.
April 2002
Page 3-19
-------
Q C ^
I _lฃ_P
QfCf j
Scaling Control - Controlling precipitation or scaling within the membrane element requires
identification of a limiting salt, acid addition for prevention of CaC03 and/or addition of a scale inhibitor.
The limiting salt determines the amount of scale inhibitor or acid addition. A diffusion controlled
membrane process will concentrate salts on the feed side of the membrane. If excessive water is
passed through the membrane, this concentration process will continue until a salt precipitates and
scaling occurs. Scaling will reduce membrane productivity and consequently recovery is limited by the
allowable recovery just before the limiting salt precipitates. The limiting salt can be determined from the
solubility products of potential limiting salts and the actual feed stream water quality. Ionic strength must
also be considered in these calculations as the natural concentration of the feed stream during the
membrane process increases the ionic strength, allowable solubility and recovery.
Calcium carbonate scaling is commonly controlled by sulfuric acid addition however sulfate salts are
often the limiting salts. Commercially available scale inhibitors can be used to control scaling by
complexing the metal ions in the feed stream and preventing precipitation. Equilibrium constants for
these scale inhibitors are not available which prevents direct calculation. However some manufacturers
provide computer programs for estimating the required scale inhibitor dose for a given recovery, water
quality and membrane. The following are general equations for the solubility products and ionic strength
approximations.
Solubility Product: Calculation of the solubility product of selected sparingly soluble salts will be
important exercise for the test plan in order to determine if there are operational limitations caused
by the accumulation of limiting salts at the membrane surface. Text book equilibrium values of the
solubility product should be compared with solubility values calculated from the results of
experimental Verification Testing, as determined from use of the following equation:
A5
y
Tb
B*
K = y
sp I 1
where:
Ksp = solubility product for the limiting salt being considered
y = free ion activity coefficient for the ion considered (i.e., A or B)
[A] = molal solution concentration of the anion A for sparingly soluble salt AXBV
[B] = solution concentration of the anion B
x, y = stiochiometric coefficients for the precipitation reaction of A and B
Mean Activity Coefficient: The mean activity coefficients for each of the salt constituents may be
estimated for the concentrated solutions as a function of the ionic strength:
1ogyA,B = -0.509
April 2002
Page 3-20
-------
where:
y = free ion activity coefficient for the ion considered (i.e., A or B)
ZA= ion charge of anion A
ZB= ion charge of cation B
l_L= ionic strength
Ionic Strength: A simple approximation of the ionic strength can calculated based upon the
concentration of the total dissolved solids in the feedwater stream:
H = (2.5 1CT5) (TDS)
where:
l_L= ionic strength
TDS = total dissolved solids concentration (mg/L)
Solute - The dissolved constituent (mg/L) in a solution or process stream.
Solute Rejection - Solute rejection is controlled by a number of operational variables that must be
reported at the time of water sample collection. Bulk rejection of a targeted inorganic chemical
contaminant may be calculated by the following equation.
% Solute Rejection =
where:
cf-cp
Cf
*100%
Cf = feedwater concentration of specific constituent (mg/L)
Cp = permeate concentration of specific constituent (mg/L)
Solvent - A substance, usually a liquid such as water, capable of dissolving other substances.
Solvent and Solute Mass Balance - Calculation of solvent mass balance is performed to verify the
reliability of flow measurements through the membrane. Calculation of solute mass balance across the
membrane system is performed to estimate the concentration of limiting salts at the membrane surface.
Qf = Qp +QC
QfCf = QpCp + QcCc
where:
Qf = feedwater flow to the membrane (gpm, L/h)
Qp = permeate flow (gpm, L/h)
April 2002
Page 3-21
-------
Qc = concentrate flow (gpm, L/h)
Cf = feedwater concentration of specific constituent (mg/L)
Cp = permeate concentration of specific constituent (mg/L)
Cf = concentrate concentration of specific constituent (mg/L)
Specific Flux - At the conclusion of each chemical cleaning event and upon return to membrane
operation, the initial condition of transmembrane pressure shall be recorded and the specific flux
calculated. The efficiency of chemical cleaning shall be evaluated by the recovery of specific flux after
chemical cleaning as noted below, with comparison drawn from the cleaning efficiency achieved during
previous cleaning evaluations. Comparison between chemical cleanings shall allow an evaluation of
irreversible fouling. Two primary indicators of cleaning efficiency and restoration of membrane
productivity will be examined in this task.
Percent Recovery of Specific Flux: The immediate recovery of membrane productivity, as
expressed by the ratio between the final specific flux (Fsf) and the initial specific flux (Fsi) measured
for the subsequent run.
% Re cov ery of Specific Flux =
1
FS1
*100%
where:
Fsf = Specific flux (gfd/psi, L/(h-m2)/bar) at end of run (final)
Fsi= Specific flux (gfd/psi, L/(h-m2)/bar) at beginning of run (initial).
Percent Loss of Original Specific Flux: The loss of original specific flux capabilities, as expressed
by the ratio between the initial specific flux for any given filtration run (Fsi) divided by the original
specific flux (Fsio), as measured at the initiation of the first filtration run in a series.
% Loss of Original Specific Flux =
1"
*100%
Verification Statement - A written document that summarizes a final report reviewed and approved
by NSF on behalf of the USEPA or directly by the USEPA.
Water System - The water system that operates using water treatment equipment to provide potable
water to its customers.
6.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS
This Plan is applicable to the testing of water treatment equipment utilizing NF membrane processes.
Testing of NF membrane processes will be conducted by a NSF-qualified Testing Organization that is
April 2002
Page 3-22
-------
selected by the Manufacturer. Water quality analyses will be performed by a state-certified or third
party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. This Plan provides objectives, work plans, schedules, and
evaluation criteria for the required tasks associated with the equipment testing procedure.
The following is a brief overview of the tasks that shall be included as components of the Verification
Testing Program and PSTP for removal of dissolved radionuclides.
Task 1: Equipment Verification Testing Plan - Operate NF membrane processes and
associated water treatment equipment for a 60-day testing period to collect data on water
quality and equipment performance.
Task 2: Characterization of Raw Water - Obtain chemical, biological and physical
characterization of the raw water. Provide a brief description of the watershed that
provides the raw water to the water treatment plant.
Task 3: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) - Evaluate an O&M manual for each
system submitted. The O&M manual shall characterize NF membrane process design,
outline a NF membrane process cleaning procedure or procedures, and provide a
concentrate disposal plan.
Task 4: Data Collection and Management - Establish an effective field protocol for
data management between the Field Testing Organization and NSF.
Task 5: Membrane Productivity - Demonstrate operational conditions for the
membrane equipment; permeate water recovery achieved by the membrane equipment; and
rate of flux decline observed over an extended membrane process operation.
Task 6: Finished Water Quality - Evaluate the water quality produced by NF
membrane processes as it relates to raw water quality and operational conditions.
Task 7: Cleaning Efficiency - Evaluate the effectiveness of chemical cleaning to the
membrane systems.
Task 8: Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) - Develop a QA/QC protocol
for Verification Testing. This is an important item that will assist in obtaining an accurate
measurement of operational and water quality parameters during NF membrane equipment
Verification Testing.
Task 9: Cost Evaluation - Develop O&M costs for the submitted NF membrane
technology and equipment.
7.0 TESTING PERIODS
The required tasks of the ETV Testing Plan (Tasks 1 through 9) are designed to be completed over a
60-day period, not including mobilization, shakedown and start-up. The schedule for equipment
monitoring during the 60-day testing period shall be stipulated by the FTO in the PSTP, and shall meet
or exceed the minimum monitoring requirements of this testing plan. The FTO shall ensure in the PSTP
that sufficient water quality data and operational data will be collected to allow estimation of statistical
April 2002
Page 3-23
-------
uncertainty in the Verification Testing data, as described in the "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For
Equipment Verification Testing For The Removal Of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants:
Requirements For All Studies". The FTO shall therefore ensure that sufficient water quality and
operational data is collected during Verification Testing for the statistical analysis described herein.
For membrane process treatment equipment, factors that can influence treatment performance include:
Feedwaters with high seasonal concentrations of inorganic constituents and IDS. These
conditions may increase finished water concentrations of inorganic chemical contaminants
and may promote precipitation of inorganic materials in the membrane;
Feedwaters with variable pH; increases in feedwater pH may increase the tendency for
precipitation of sparingly soluble salts in the membrane module and may require variable
strategies in anti-sealant addition and pH adjustment;
Cold water, encountered in winter or at high altitude locations;
High concentrations of natural organic matter (measured as TOC), which may be higher in
some waters during different seasonal periods;
High turbidity, often occurring in spring, as a result of high runoff" resulting from heavy rains
or snowmelt.
It is highly unlikely that all of the above problems would occur in a water source during a single 60-day
period during the Verification Testing Program. Membrane testing conducted beyond the required 60-
day testing may be used for fine-tuning of membrane performance or for evaluation of additional
operational conditions. During the testing periods, evaluation of cleaning efficiency and finished water
quality can be performed concurrent with membrane operation testing procedures.
8.0 TASK 1: EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TEST PLAN
8.1 Introduction
The equipment verification for NF membrane processes for radionuclide removal shall be conducted by
a NSF-qualified Field Testing Organization (FTO) that is selected by the Manufacturer. Water quality
analytical work to be completed as a part of this ETV Plan shall be contracted with a state-certified or
third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. For information on a listing of NSF-qualified FTOs and
state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratories, contact NSF.
8.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to operate the equipment provided by a manufacturer, for the conditions
and time periods specified by NSF and the manufacturer.
April 2002
Page 3-24
-------
8.3 Work Plan
8.3.1 Equipment Verification Test Plan
Table 8.1 presents the Tasks that are included in this Plan and will be included in the PSTP for
radionuclide removal by NF membrane processes. Any Manufacturer wanting to verily the
performance of their equipment shall perform these Tasks. The Manufacturer shall provide Hill
detail of the procedures to be followed for each item in the PSTP. The FTO shall specify the
operational conditions to be verified during the Verification Testing. All permeate flux values shall
be reported in terms of temperature-corrected flux (normalized flux) values, as either gallons per
square foot day (gsfd) at 77ฐF or liters per square meter per hour (L/m2-hr) at 25ฐC.
In the design of the PSTP, the FTO shall stipulate which pretreatments are appropriate for
application before the selected NF membrane processes. The recommended pretreatment
process(es) shall then be employed by the Manufacturer for raw water pretreatment during
implementation of the Equipment Verification Testing Program.
TABLE 8.1: Task Descriptions
No.
Task
Description
1
Test Plan
Water treatment equipment shall be operated for a minimum of 60 days
per test period to collect data on water quality and equipment
performance.
2
Characterization of Raw Water
Obtain chemical, biological and physical characterization of the raw water.
3
O&M Manual
Evaluate O&M manual for process.
4
Data and Collection
Management
Develop data protocol between FTO and NSF.
5
Membrane Productivity
Demonstrate conditions for membrane equipment, permeate water
recovery, observe rate of flux decline
6
Finished Water Quality
Evaluate the water quality produced by NF membrane processes as it
relates to raw water quality and operational conditions.
7
Cleaning Efficiency
Evaluate effectiveness of chemical cleaning and confirm cleaning
procedures restore membrane productivity.
8
QA/QC
Enforce QA/QC standards.
9
Cost Evaluation
Provide O&M costs of system.
8.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation
During the time intervals between equipment verification runs, the water treatment equipment may
be used for production of potable water. If the equipment is being used for the production of
potable water, routine operation for water production is expected. The operating and water quality
April 2002
Page 3-25
-------
data collected and furnished to the local regulatory agency should also be supplied to the NSF-
qualified FTO.
8.4 Analytical Schedule
The entire equipment verification shall be performed over a 60-day period (not including time for system
shakedown and mobilization). At a minimum, one, 60-day period of Verification Testing shall be
conducted in order to provide equipment testing information for NF membrane process performance.
A full one-year testing period would also be acceptable, but is not required.
The required tasks for the equipment verification are designed to be completed over a 60-day period,
not including mobilization, shakedown and start-up. NF membrane process testing conducted beyond
the required 60-day testing may be used for fine-tuning of NF performance or for evaluation of
additional operational conditions. During the 60-day testing period, evaluation of finished water quality
can be performed concurrent with the percent removal testing procedures.
8.5 Evaluation Criteria
The equipment testing period will include a Verification Test of at least 60-days. .
9.0 TASK 2: CHARACTERIZATION OF RAW WATER
9.1 Introduction
A characterization of raw water quality is needed to determine if the concentrations of Ra-226, Ra-228,
uranium, or other raw water contaminants are appropriate for the use of NF membrane processes. The
feedwater quality can influence the performance of the equipment.
9.2 Objectives
One reason for performing a raw water characterization is to obtain at least one-year of historical raw
water quality data from the raw water source. The objective is to:
demonstrate seasonal effects on the concentration of radionuclides; and
develop maximum and minimum concentrations for the contaminant.
If historical raw water quality is not available, a raw water quality analysis of the proposed feedwater
shall be performed prior to equipment Verification Testing.
9.3 Work Plan
The characterization of raw water quality is best accomplished through the performance of laboratory
testing and the review of historical records. Sources for historical records may include municipalities,
laboratories, USGS (United States Geographical Survey), USEPA, and local regulatory agencies. If
historical records are not available preliminary raw water quality testing shall be performed prior to
April 2002
Page 3-26
-------
equipment Verification Testing. The specific parameters of characterization will depend on the NF
membrane process that is being tested. The following characteristics should be reviewed and
documented:
Radium-226
Total Alkalinity
Silica
Radium-22 8
Turbidity
Barium
Uranium
True Color
Nitrate
Temperature
Chloride
Sodium
pH
Fluoride
Potassium
TDS/Conductivity
Sulfate
Strontium
Total Hardness
Ammonia
Phosphate
Calcium Hardness
Iron
SDI
Total Organic Carbon
Manganese
MFI
Data collected should reflect seasonal variations in the above data if applicable. This will determine
variations in water quality parameters that will occur during Verification Testing. The data that is
collected will be shared with NSF so that the FTO can determine the significance of the data for use in
developing a test plan. If the raw water source is not characterized, the testing program may fail, or
results of a testing program may not be considered acceptable. A description of the raw water source
should also be included with the feedwater characterization. The description may include items such as:
size of watershed;
topography;
land use;
nature of the water source; and
potential sources of pollution.
9.4 Schedule
The schedule for compilation of adequate water quality data will be determined by the availability and
accessibility of historical data. The historical water quality data can be used to determine the suitability
of NF membrane processes for the treatment for the raw source water. If raw water quality data is not
available, a preliminary raw water quality testing should be performed prior to the Verification Testing of
the NF membrane equipment.
9.5 Evaluation Criteria
The feedwater quality shall be evaluated in the context of the Manufacturer's Statement of Performance
Objectives for the removal of radionuclides. The feedwater should challenge the capabilities of the
April 2002
Page 3-27
-------
chosen equipment, but should not be beyond the range of water quality suitable for treatment by the
chosen equipment. For NF membrane processes, a complete scan of water quality parameters may be
required in order to determine limiting salt concentrations, necessary for establishing pretreatment
criteria.
10.0 TASK 3: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
An operations and maintenance (O&M) manual for NF membrane processes to be tested for
radionuclide removal shall be included in the Verification Testing evaluation.
10.1 Objectives
The objective of this task is to provide an O&M manual that will assist in operating, troubleshooting and
maintaining NF membrane process performance. The O&M manual shall:
characterize NF membrane process design;
outline a NF membrane process cleaning procedure or procedures; and
provide a concentrate disposal plan.
The concentrate disposal plan must be approved by the appropriate regulatory authority for the
verification period before verification testing begins. A fully developed concentrate disposal plan would
be required because of the radionuclides that have been concentrated in the waste stream. Criteria for
evaluation of the equipment's O&M Manual shall be compiled and then evaluated and commented upon
during verification by the FTO. An example is provided in Table 10.1.
The purpose of O&M information is to allow utilities to effectively choose a technology that their
operators are capable of operating, and provide information on how many hours the operators can be
expected to work on the system. Information about obtaining replacement parts and ease of operation
of the system would also be valuable.
10.2 O&M Work Plan
Descriptions for pretreatment, NF membrane process, and post-treatment to characterize the NF
membrane system unit process design shall be developed. Membrane processes shall include the design
criteria and NF membrane element characteristics. Examples of information required relative to the
membrane design criteria and element characteristics are presented in Tables 10.2 and 10.3,
respectively.
The NF membrane treatment process will be optimized for sustained production under high product
water recovery and solvent flux. Productivity goals shall include cleaning frequencies greater than 6
months for no more than 15 percent productivity decline. However, it should be noted that some
systems may accommodate a 20 percent MTC or flux decline. Therefore, cleaning frequency could be
predicted using the equation for cleaning frequency.
April 2002
Page 3-28
-------
Productivity decline will be indicate and signal by either normalized flux decline or normalized solvent
mass transfer (MTCW) reduction. Normalized means that the flux has been adjusted for temperature
and pressure. Conditions of constant system pressure where solvent flux remains greater than 90
percent of its original value would be desired. The use of the normalized MTCW for productivity decline
would eliminate the need for constant system pressure for productivity decline determination. Should
constant flux be used as an operating guideline for particles under application, a 10 to 15 percent
pressure increase would constitute criteria for cleaning.
Chemical cleaning of the membranes will be performed as necessary for the removal of reversible
foulants per manufacturer specifications. These cleaning events are to be documented and used as an
aid in determining the nature of the fouling or scaling conditions experienced by the system. The
cleaning solutions could also be analyzed for determining which constituents may have adsorbed or
precipitated onto the membrane surface. Analysis of cleaning solutions can be coupled with mass
balances on the same solutes monitored during operation to determine solute accrual in nanofilters. This
may prove useful for establishing the mechanism of removal for some radionuclides. A cleaning
efficiency evaluation is described in Section 5.0.
April 2002
Page 3-29
-------
TABLE 10.1: OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL CRITERIA -
NF Membrane Process Equipment
MAINTENANCE:
The manufacturer should provide readily understood information on the recommended or required maintenance
schedule for each piece of operating equipment such as:
flow meters
pressure gauges
pumps
motors
valves
chemical feeders
mixers
The manufacturer should provide readily understood information on the recommended or required maintenance
for non-mechanical or non-electrical equipment such as:
membranes
pressure vessels
piping
OPERATION:
The manufacturer should provide readily understood recommendation for procedures related to proper
operation of the equipment. Among the operating aspects that should be discussed are:
Chemical feeders:
calibration check
settings and adjustments - how they should be made
dilution of chemicals and scale inhibitors - proper procedures
Monitoring and observing operation:
mass balance calculations
recovery calculation
April 2002
Page 3-30
-------
TABLE 10.1: OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL CRITERIA -
NF Membrane Process Equipment (continued)
OPERATION (continued):
Monitoring and observing operation (continued):
pressure losses
The manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting guide; a simple check-list of what to do for a variety of
problems including:
flux decline;
no raw water (feedwater) flow to plant;
when the water flow rate through the equipment can not be controlled;
no chemical feed;
automatic operation (if provided) not functioning;
no electric power; and
sand or silt entrainment.
The following are recommendations regarding operability aspects of membrane processes. These aspects of
plant operation should be included to the extent practical in reports of equipment testing when the testing is done
under the ETV Program. During Verification Testing, attention shall be given to equipment operability aspects.
are chemical feed pumps calibrated?
are flow meters present and have they been calibrated?
are pressure gauges calibrated?
are pH meters calibrated?
are IDS or conductivity meters calibrated?
can cleaning be done automatically?
can membrane seals be easily replaced?
ป does remote notification occur (alarm) when pressure increases > 15% or flow drops > 15%?
The reports on Verification Testing should address the above questions in the written reports. The issues of operability
should be dealt with in the portion of the reports that are written in response to Operating Conditions and Treatment
Equipment Performance, in the Membrane Process Test Plan.
April 2002
Page 3-31
-------
TABLE 10.2: NF Membrane Plant Design
Criteria Reporting Items
Parameter
Value
Number of stages
Number of pressure vessels in stage 1
Number of pressure vessels in stage 2
Number of elements per pressure vessel
Recovery per stage (%)
Recovery for system (%)
Design flow (gpm)
Design temperature (ฐC)
Design flux (gsfd)
Surface area per element (ft2)
MTCw (gsfd/psi)
Maximum flow rate to an element (gpm)
Minimum flow rate to an element (gpm)
Pressure loss per element (psi)
Pressure loss in stage entrance and exit (psi)
Feed stream TDS (mg/L)
Ra-226 rejection (%)
Ra-228 rejection (%)
Uranium rejection (%)
April 2002
Page 3-32
-------
TABLE 10.3: NF Membrane Element Characteristics
Membrane manufacturer
Membrane module model number
Size of element used in study (e.g. 4" x 40")
Active membrane area of element used in study
Active membrane area of an equivalent 8" x 40"
element
Purchase price for an equivalent 8" x 40" element
($)
Molecular weight cutoff (Daltons)
Membrane material / construction
Membrane hydrophobicity (circle one)
Hydrophilic Hydrophobic
Membrane charge (circle one)
Negative Neutral Positive
Design pressure (psi)
Design flux at the design pressure (gfd)
Variability of design flux (%)
MTCW (gfd/psi)
Standard testing recovery (%)
Standard testing pH
Standard testing temperature (ฐC)
Design cross-flow velocity (fps)
Maximum flow rate to the element (gpm)
Minimum flow rate to the element (gpm)
Required feed flow to permeate flow rate ratio
Maximum element recovery (%)
Rejection of reference solute and conditions of test
(e.g. solute type and concentration)
Variability of rejection of reference solute (%)
Spacer thickness (ft)
Scroll width (ft)
Acceptable range of operating pressures
Acceptable range of operating pH values
Typical pressure drop across a single element
Maximum permissible SDI
Maximum permissible turbidity (NTU)
Chlorine/oxidant tolerance
Suggested cleaning procedures
Note: Some of this information may not be available, but this table should be filled out as completely as possible for
each membrane tested.
April 2002
Page 3-33
-------
11.0 TASK 4: DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT
11.1 Introduction
The data management system used in the Verification Testing Program shall involve the use of computer
spreadsheets, in addition to manual recording of operational parameters for the NF membrane
processes on a daily basis.
11.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to establish a viable structure for the recording and transmission of field
testing data such that the FTO provides sufficient and reliable operational data to NSF for verification
purposes. Chain-of-Custody protocols will be developed and adhered to.
11.3 Work Plan
11.3.1 Operation Data Collection and Documentation
The following protocol has been developed for data handling and data verification by the FTO. In
addition to daily operational data sheets, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system could 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 electronic spreadsheets. 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 NF membrane process
operation. At a minimum, backup of the computer databases to diskette should be performed on a
monthly basis.
Field testing operators shall record data and calculations by hand in laboratory notebooks for a
minimum of three times per day. (Daily measurements shall be recorded on specially prepared data
log sheets as appropriate. Figure 12.2 presents an example of a daily log sheet). The laboratory
notebook shall provide copies of each page. The original notebooks shall be stored on-site; the
copied sheets shall be forwarded to the project engineer of the FTO at least once per week during
the 60-day testing period. This protocol will not only ease referencing the original data, but offer
protection of the original record of results. Operating logs shall include:
descriptions of the equipment and test runs;
names of visitors; and
descriptions of any problems or issues.
Such descriptions shall be provided in addition to experimental calculations and other items.
April 2002
Page 3-34
-------
11.3.2 Data Management
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 field laboratory analysis notebooks and data log sheets shall be entered into the
appropriate spreadsheet. 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 and the printout shall be checked against the
handwritten data sheet. Any corrections shall be noted on the hardcopies and corrected on the
screen, and then the corrected recorded calculations will also be checked and confirmed. The field
testing operator or engineer performing the data entry or verification step shall initial each step of the
verification process.
Each experiment (e.g. each NF membrane process test run) shall 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 shall be tracked by use of the same system of run numbers. Data from the outside laboratories
shall be received and reviewed by the FTO. This data shall be entered into the data spreadsheets,
corrected, and verified in the same manner as the field data.
11.3.3 Statistical Analysis
For the analytical data obtained during Verification Testing, 95 percent confidence intervals shall be
calculated by the FTO for selected water quality parameters. The specific Plans shall specify which
water quality parameters shall be subjected to the requirements of confidence interval calculation.
As the name implies, a confidence interval describes a population range in which any individual
population measurement may exist with a specified percent confidence. When presenting the data,
maximum, minimum, average and standard deviation should be included.
Calculation of confidence intervals shall not be required for equipment performance obtained during
the equipment Verification Testing Program. In order to provide sufficient analytical data for
statistical analysis, the FTO shall collect three discrete water samples at one set of operational
conditions for each of the specified water quality parameters during a designated testing period.
12.0 TASK 5: MEMBRANE PRODUCnVTIY
12.1 Introduction
The removal of Ra-226, Ra-228, and uranium from drinking water supplies is accomplished by NF
membrane filtration. The effectiveness of NF membrane processes for radionuclide removal will be
evaluated in this task. Membrane mass transfer coefficient, flux and recovery will be evaluated in this
task. After installation of the NF process, the membranes tend to have characteristic flux decline with
April 2002
Page 3-35
-------
time until the membrane stabilizes. After this initial flux decline, the rate of flux decline will be used to
demonstrate membrane performance for the specific operating conditions to be verified. The
operational conditions to be verified shall be specified by the Manufacturer in terms of a temperature-
corrected flux (normalized flux) value (e.g., gsfd at 77 ฐF or L/(m2hr) at 25 ฐC) before the initiation of
the Program.
Flux decline is a function of water quality, membrane type, configuration and operational conditions. In
establishing the range of operation for the membrane performance evaluations, limiting salt information
should be used to define the run scenarios. The run conditions should include operating scenarios,
which approach and exceed these projected limits. Subsequent water quality analysis will allow for
assessment of the degree of saturation of the sparingly soluble salts in the final concentrate. The degree
of saturation of the salts should then be compared to resulting membrane productivity decline. Table
12.1 presents an example of membrane pretreatment data required to provide baseline conditions and
assist in evaluating membrane productivity.
Some Manufacturers may wish to employ the NF membrane process with a pretreatment process in
order to reduce flux decline and improve removal of radionuclides. Any pretreatment included in the
membrane treatment system that is designed for removal of radionuclides shall be considered an integral
part of the NF membrane treatment system and shall not be tested independently. In such cases, the
system shall be considered as a single unit and the pretreatment process shall not be separated for
optional evaluation purposes.
12.2 Experimental Objectives
The objectives of this task are to demonstrate:
Operational conditions for the membrane equipment;
Permeate water recovery achieved by the membrane equipment; and
Rate of flux decline observed over an extended membrane process operation.
Raw water quality shall be measured prior to system operation and then monitored every two weeks
during the 60-day testing period at a minimum. It should be noted that the objective of this task is not
process optimization, but rather verification of membrane operation at the operating conditions specified
by the Manufacturer, as it pertains to permeate flux, transmembrane pressure, and radium and uranium
removal.
12.3 Work Plan
Determination of ideal membrane operating conditions for a particular water may require as long as one
year of operation. For this task the Manufacturer shall specify the operating conditions to be evaluated
in this Verification Testing Plan and shall supply written procedures on the operation and maintenance of
the membrane treatment system. The Manufacturer shall evaluate flux decline. The Manufacturer shall
also determine the limiting salt and identify possible foulants and sealants and use this for performance
evaluation for their particular membrane equipment. The set of operating conditions shall be maintained
April 2002
Page 3-36
-------
for the 60-day testing period (24-hour continuous operation). The Manufacturer shall specify the
primary permeate flux at which the equipment is to be verified. Additional operating conditions can be
verified in separate 60-day testing periods.
After set-up and "shakedown" of membrane equipment, membrane operation should be established at
the flux condition to be verified. Testing of additional operational conditions could be performed by
extending the number of 60-day testing periods beyond the initial 60-day test period required by the
Verification Testing Program at the discretion of the Manufacturer and their designated FTO.
Additional 60-day periods of testing may also be included in the Verification Testing Plan in order to
demonstrate membrane performance under different feedwater quality conditions. For membrane
processes, extremes of feedwater quality (e.g., low temperature, high TOC concentration, high turbidity,
high SDI) are the conditions under which membranes are most prone to fouling and subsequent failure.
At a minimum the performance of the NF membrane equipment relative to radionuclide removal shall be
documented during those periods of variable feedwater conditions. The Manufacturer shall perform
testing with as many different water quality conditions as desired for verification status. Testing under
each different water quality condition shall be performed during an additional 60-day testing period, as
required above for each additional set of operating conditions.
The testing runs conducted under this task shall be performed in conjunction with finished water quality
and if applicable, cleaning efficiency. With the exception of additional testing periods conducted at the
Manufacturer's discretion, no additional membrane test runs are required for performance of cleaning
efficiency and finished water quality. A continuous yearlong evaluation, although not required, may be
of benefit to the Manufacturer for verification of long term trends.
12.3.1 Operational Data Collection
Measurement of membrane feedwater flow and permeate flow (recycle flow where applicable) and
system pressures shall be collected at a minimum of three times per day. Table 12.2 is an example
of a daily operational data sheet for a two-stage membrane system. This table is presented for
informational purposes only. The actual forms will be submitted as part of the test plan and may be
site-specific. Measurement of feedwater temperature to the membrane shall be made along with
these three daily measurements in order to provide data for normalizing flux with respect to
temperature.
Water quality should be analyzed from the same locations identified for IDS in Table 12.2 prior to
start-up and then every two weeks for the parameters identified in Table 12.3, except for each
radionuclide, which will be monitored weekly. Power usage for operation of the membrane
equipment (pumping requirements, power factor, etc.) shall also be closely monitored and recorded
by the FTO during the 60-day testing period. In addition, measurement of power consumption and
chemical consumption shall be quantified by recording such items as day tank concentration, daily
volume consumption and unit cost of chemicals.
April 2002
Page 3-37
-------
12.3.2 Feedwater Quality Limitations
The characteristics of feedwater used during the 60-day testing period (and any additional 60-day
testing periods) shall be explicitly stated in reporting the membrane flux and recovery data for each
period. Accurate reporting of such feedwater characteristics is critical for the Verification Testing
Program, as these parameters can substantially influence the range of achievable membrane
performance and treated water quality under variable raw water quality conditions. The following
criteria and trends should also be presented in the Verification Testing Program:
Evaluation criteria and minimum reporting requirements.
Plot graph of specific radionuclide removals over time for each 60-day test period.
Plot graph of NDP over time for each 60-day test period.
Plot graph of IDS over time for each 60-day test period.
Plot graph of specific flux normalized to 25ฐC over time for each 60-day test period.
Plot graph of MTCW over time for each 60-day test period.
Plot graph of recovery over time for each 60-day test period.
April 2002
Page 3-38
-------
TABLE 12.1: NF Membrane Pretreatment Data
Foulants and Fouling Indices of the Feedwater Prior to Pretreatment
Alkalinity (mg/L of CaC03)
Ca Hardness (mg/L of CaCO;,)
LSI
Dissolved iron (mg/L)
Total iron (mg/L)
Dissolved aluminum (mg/L)
Total aluminum (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L)
Phosphate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Barium (mg/L)
Strontium (mg/L)
Reactive silica (mg/L as SiCb)
Turbidity (NTU)
SDI
Pretreatment Processes Used Prior to Nanofiltration
Pre-filter listed pore size (|_im)
Type of acid used
Acid concentration (units)
mL of acid per L of feed
Type of scale inhibitor used
Scale inhibitor concentration (units)
mL of scale inhibitor per L of feed
Type of coagulant used
Coagulant dose (mg/L)
Type of polymer used during coagulation.
Polymer dose (mg/L)
April 2002
Page 3-39
-------
TABLE 12.2: Daily Operations Log Sheet for a Two-Stage Membrane System
Date:
Parameter
Measurement
1
Measurement
2
Measurement
3
Time
Initial
Feed
Qfeed(gPm)
TDSfeed (before pretreatment) (mg/L)
TDSfeed (after pretreatment) (mg/L)
Pfeed (psi)
pHfeed (before pretreatment)
pHfeed (after pretreatment)
Tfeed (ฐC)
Permeate - Stage 1
QD.S1 (gpm)
TDSd.s1 (mg/L)
Pp-Sl (psi)
Concentrate - Stage 1
Qc.si (gpm)
TDSc_sl (mg/L)
Pc-si (psi)
Tc-si (ฐC)
Permeate - Stage 2
QD.S2(gpm)
TDSD.S2(mg/L)
Pd-S2 (psi)
Concentrate - Stage 2
Qc.S2(gpm)
TDSc.S2(mg/L)
Pc-s2(psi)
Finished
Qfin (gpm)
TDSfin (mg/L)
Recovery (Q^/Qfeed) (%)
Recycle
Qrecvcle (gPOl)
April 2002
Page 3-40
-------
TABLE 12.3: Operating and Water Quality
)ata Requirements for Membrane Processes
Parameter
Frequency for Sampling
FeedwaterFlow
3 / Daily
Permeate Water Flow
3 / Daily
Concentrate Water Flow
3 / Daily
Feedwater Pressure
3 / Daily
Permeate Water Pressure
3 / Daily
Concentrate Water Pressure
3 / Daily
List Each Chemical Used, And Dosage
Daily Data Or Monthly Average
Hours Operated Per Day
Daily
Hours Operator Present Per Day
Monthly Average
Power Consumption (kWh/Million Gallons)
Monthly
Independent check on rates of flow
Weekly
Independent check on pressure gages
Weekly
Verification of chemical dosages
Monthly
Feedwater and Finished Water Characteristics
Radium-226
Weekly
Radium-228
Weekly
Uranium
Weekly
Gross Alpha and Beta Emitters
Weekly
Temperature
3 / Daily
pH
3 / Daily
TD S/Conductivity
3 / Daily
Turbidity
Every two weeks
True Color
Every two weeks
Total Organic Carbon
Every two weeks
UV Absorbance (254 nm)
Every two weeks
Total Alkalinity
Every two weeks
Total Hardness
Every two weeks
Calcium Hardness
Every two weeks
Sodium
Every two weeks
Chloride
Every two weeks
Iron
Every two weeks
Manganese
Every two weeks
Sulfate
Every two weeks
Fluoride
Every two weeks
Silica
Every two weeks
Ammonia
Every two weeks
Potassium
Every two weeks
Strontium
Every two weeks
Barium
Every two weeks
Nitrate
Every two weeks
TTHM (optional)
Every two weeks
THAA (optional)
Every two weeks
TOX (optional)
Every two weeks
April 2002
Page 3-41
-------
13.0 TASK 6: FINISHED WATER QUALTIY
13.1 Introduction
Water quality data shall be collected for the raw and finished water as provided previously in Table
12.3. (Note, in some instances sampling concentrate water quality may be required because detection
limits may be too low for a specified parameter.) At a minimum, the required sampling shall be one
sampling at start-up and two sampling events per month while raw water samples are collected. Water
quality goals and target removal goals for the NF membrane equipment should be proven and reported
in the PSTP.
13.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to verily the Manufacturer's objectives. A list of the minimum number of
water quality parameters to be monitored during equipment Verification Testing has been provided in
this document. The actual water quality parameters selected for testing and monitoring shall be
stipulated in the PSTP.
13.3 Work Plan
The PSTP shall identify the treated water quality objectives to be achieved in the Statement of
Performance Objectives of the equipment to be evaluated in the Verification Testing Program. The
PSTP shall also identify in the Statement of Performance Objectives the radionuclide that shall be
monitored during equipment testing. The Statement of Performance Objectives prepared by the PSTP
shall indicate the range of water qualities and operating conditions under which the equipment can be
challenged while successfully treating the contaminated water supply.
It should be noted that many of the drinking water treatment systems participating in the NF Membrane
Process Verification Testing Program will be capable of achieving multiple water treatment objectives.
Although this NF Membrane Process Plan is oriented towards removal of Ra-226, Ra-228, and
uranium, the Manufacturer may want to look at the treatment system's removal capabilities for
additional water quality parameters.
Many of the water quality parameters described in this task shall be measured on-site by the NSF-
qualified FTO. A state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory shall perform analysis of
the remaining water quality parameters. Representative methods to be used for measurement of water
quality parameters in the field and lab are identified in Table 13.1. The analytical methods utilized in this
study for on-site monitoring of raw and finished water qualities are described in Quality Assurance/
Quality Control (QA/QC). Where appropriate, the Standard Methods reference numbers and USEPA
method numbers for water quality parameters are provided for both the field and laboratory analytical
procedures.
April 2002
Page 3-42
-------
TABLE 13.1: Water Quality Analytical Methods
Parameter
AWWA Method 1
EPA Method 2
Radium-226
7500-Ra
903.1
Radium-228
7500-Ra
Uranium
7500-U
908.0
Gross Alpha and Beta Emitters
7110
900.0
Temperature
2550
170.1
PH
4500-pr
150.2
TDS/Conductivity
2510
120.1
Turbidity
2130
180.1
True Color
2120
110.2
Total Organic Carbon
5310
415.2
UV Absorbance (254 nm)
5910
Total Alkalinity
2320
310.2
Total Hardness
2340
130.2
Calcium Hardness
3500-Ca
215.2
Sodium
3500-Na
273.1
Chloride
4500-C1"
325.1
Iron
3500-Fe
236.1
Manganese
3500-Mn
243.1
Sulfate
4500-S04"2
375.4
Fluoride
4500-F"
340.1
Silica
4500-Si02
370.1
Ammonia
4500-NH3
350.2
Potassium
3500-K
256.1
Strontium
3500-Sr
200.7
Barium
3500-Ba
208.1
Nitrate
45OO-NO3"
352.1
TTHM
5710
551
THAA
5710
552
TOX
5320
1648
1. AWWA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1999.
2. EPA, Methods and Guidance for Analysis of Water, EPA 82 l-C-97-001, April 1997.
April 2002
Page 3-43
-------
For the water quality parameters requiring analysis at an off-site laboratory, water samples shall be
collected in appropriate containers (containing necessary preservatives as applicable) prepared by the
state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. These samples shall be preserved, stored,
shipped and analyzed in accordance with appropriate procedures and holding times, including chain-of
custody requirements, as specified by the analytical lab.
13.4 Analytical Schedule
13.4.1 Removal of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants
During the steady-state operation of each membrane testing period, radionuclide mass balances
shall be performed on the membrane feed, permeate and concentrate water in order to determine
the radionuclide removal capabilities of the membrane system.
13.4.2 Feed and Permeate Water Characterization
At the beginning of each membrane testing period, the raw water, permeate and in some cases the
concentrate water shall be characterized at a single set of operating conditions by measurement of
the water quality parameters identified in Table 12.3.
13.4.3 Water Quality Sample Collection
Water quality data shall be collected at established intervals during each period of membrane
equipment testing. The minimum monitoring frequency for the required water quality parameters is
once at start-up and weekly for radionuclides and every two weeks for the remaining water quality
parameters. The water quality sampling program may be expanded to include a greater number of
water quality parameters and to require a greater frequency of parameter sampling. Analyses for
organic water quality parameters shall be performed on water sample aliquots that were obtained
simultaneously from the same sampling location, in order to provide the maximum degree of
comparability between water quality analytes.
No monitoring of microbial populations shall be required in this Equipment Verification Testing Plan.
However, the Manufacturer may include optional monitoring of indigenous microbial populations to
demonstrate removal capabilities.
13.4.4 Raw Water Quality Limitations
The characteristics of feedwater encountered during each 60-day testing period shall be explicitly
stated. Accurate reporting of such raw water characteristics such as those identified in Table 12.3
are critical for the Verification Testing Program, as these parameters can substantially influence
membrane performance.
April 2002
Page 3-44
-------
13.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements
Removal or reduction of radionuclides.
Water quality and removal goals specified by the Manufacturer.
14.0 TASK 7: CLEANING EFFICIENCY
14.1 Introduction
There are certain types of foulant scales that pose an immediate threat to the operational integrity of a
membrane process. Examples of scale include calcium carbonate scale and silica or sulfate scale. The
following guidelines can be used with the normalized performance data to determine the maximum
fouling to allow prior to cleaning the system:
a. 10-15 percent decrease in the normalized permeate flow rate
b. 10-15 percent increase in the normalized system differential pressure
c. Decrease in the salt rejection for a constant feedwater salinity
Should scaling or fouling occur during or following the test runs, the membrane equipment shall require
chemical cleaning to restore membrane productivity. The number of cleaning efficiency evaluations shall
be determined by the fouling frequency of the membrane during each specified test period. In the case
where the membrane does not fully reach the operational criteria for fouling as specified by the
Manufacturer, chemical cleaning shall be performed after the 30 days of operation, with a record made
of the operational conditions before and after cleaning.
The membrane treatment process will be optimized for sustained production under high product water
recovery and solvent flux. Productivity goals should include cleaning frequencies once every 6 months
for no more than 10 percent productivity decline for groundwater sources. Productivity goals should
include cleaning frequencies once per month for no more than 10 percent productivity decline for
surface water sources, if applicable.
Either normalized flux decline or solvent mass transfer (MTCW) reduction will determine productivity
decline. Therefore, conditions of constant system pressure where solvent flux remains greater than 90
percent of its original value would be desired. For a constant flux system, a 10 percent increase in
pressure would serve as a basis for cleaning. The use of the normalized MTCW for productivity decline
would eliminate the need for constant system pressure for productivity decline determination. Chemical
cleaning of the membranes will be performed as necessary for the removal of reversible foulants per
Manufacturer specifications. These cleaning events are to be documented and used as an aid in
determining the nature of the fouling or scaling conditions experienced by the system. The cleaning
solution backwash should also be analyzed to determine which constituents might have been removed
from the membrane surface during cleaning.
April 2002
Page 3-45
-------
14.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical cleaning to the membrane systems.
The intent of this task is to confirm that standard Manufacturer recommended cleaning practices are
sufficient to restore membrane productivity for the systems under consideration. Cleaning chemicals and
cleaning routines shall be based on the Manufacturer recommendations. This task is considered a
"proof of concept" effort, not an optimization effort.
14.3 Work Plan
The membrane systems may become fouled during the membrane test runs. These fouled membranes
shall be utilized for the cleaning assessments herein. Each system shall be chemically cleaned using the
recommended cleaning solutions and procedures specified by the Manufacturer and vary according to
identified foulants or scale. After each chemical cleaning of the membranes, the system shall be
restarted and then returned to the operating condition being tested.
The Manufacturer and their designated FTO shall specify in detail the procedure(s) for chemical
cleaning of the membranes. At a minimum, the FTO shall collect the information during verification
testing for inclusion in the verification report:
cleaning chemicals
quantities and costs of cleaning chemicals
hydraulic conditions of cleaning
duration of each cleaning step
chemical cleaning solution
quantity and characteristics of residual waste volume to be disposed
14.4 Recommended Disposal Procedures
Methods of disposal of membrane concentrate include, but are not limited to the following:
Wastewater treatment plant;
Spray irrigation;
Deep well injection; or
Discharge to a surface water through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
However radionuclides are considered a potentially hazardous waste and the effluent must be monitored
since it is concentrated. The concentrate disposal may require other State and/or Federal permits. In
addition, a description of all cleaning equipment and anticipated cleaning chemical waste streams and
their operations shall be described and included in the O&M manual.
April 2002
Page 3-46
-------
14.5 Analytical Schedule
14.5.1 Sampling
The radionuclide concentration of the backwash shall be measured to determine which constituents
might have been removed from the membrane surface during cleaning. The purpose of this is to
evaluate potential membrane backwash disposal issues associated with the cleaning. Conductivity,
pH, and turbidity should also be recorded to monitor flush periods.
14.5.2 Operational Data Collection
Flow and pressure data shall be collected before system shutdown due to membrane fouling; flow
and pressure data shall also be collected after chemical cleaning.
15.0 TASK 8: QUALTIYASSURANCE^QUALnY CONTROL
15.1 Introduction
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the operation of the NF membrane process
equipment and the measured water quality parameters shall be maintained during the Equipment
Verification Testing Program.
15.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during the Equipment
Verification Testing Program. 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.
15.3 QA/QC Work Plan
Equipment flow rates and associated transmitter signals should be calibrated and verified on a routine
basis. A routine daily walk through during testing shall be established to check that each piece of
equipment or instrumentation is operating properly. Particular care shall be taken to verify that
chemicals are being fed at the defined flow rate, and into a flow stream that is operating at the expected
flow rate. This will provide correct chemical concentrations in the flow stream. In-line monitoring
equipment such as flow meters, etc. shall be checked monthly 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 are in
addition to any specified checks outlined in the analytical methods.
When collecting water quantity data, all system flow meters will be calibrated using the classic bucket
and stopwatch method where appropriate. Hydraulic data collection will include the measurement of
the finished water flow rate by the "bucket test" method. This would consist of filling a calibrated vessel
April 2002
Page 3-47
-------
to a known volume and measuring the time to fill the vessel with a stopwatch. This will allow for a direct
check of the system flow measuring devices.
Mass balances will be performed on the system for water quality parameters measured in the feed,
permeate and concentrate streams. This will enable an additional quality control check on the accuracy
and reliability of the analyzed data. Radionuclides in particular will be analyzed in each process stream.
However, the difficulty in measuring low level radionuclides may limit the mass balance to be calculated
based on feed and concentrate. Mass balances may provide insight into the mechanism for rejection of
individual radionuclides. For example, mass balances showing incomplete recovery for a particular
radionuclide may suggest possible adsorption onto the membrane surface.
15.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verification
Chemical feed pump flow rates (check and verily components)
On-line conductivity meters (check and verily components)
On-line pH meters (check and verify components)
15.3.2 Monthly QA/QC Verification
Chemical feed pump flow rates (verify volumetrically over a specific time period)
On-line conductivity meters (recalibrate)
On-line flow meters/rotometers (clean equipment to remove any debris or biological buildup
and verify flow volumetrically to avoid erroneous readings)
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)
15.4 Analytical Methods
Use of either bench-top field analytical equipment or on-line equipment will be acceptable for the
Verification Testing; however, on-line equipment is recommended for ease of operation. Use of on-line
equipment is preferable because it reduces the introduction of error and the variability of analytical
results generated by inconsistent sampling techniques. However, standard and uniform calibration and
standardization techniques that are approved should be employed. Table 13.1 lists American Water
Works Association (AWWA) and EPA standard methods of analysis.
16.0 TASK 9: COST EVALUATION
This Plan includes the assessment of costs of verification with the benefits of testing NF membrane
processes over a wide range of operating conditions. Therefore, this Plan requires that one set of
operating conditions be tested over a 60-day testing period. The equipment Verification Tests will
provide information relative to systems, which provide desired results and the cost, associated with the
April 2002
Page 3-48
-------
systems. Design parameters are summarized in Table 16.1. These parameters will be used with the
equipment Verification Test costs to prepare cost comparisons for Verification Testing purposes.
Operation and maintenance (O & M) costs realized in the equipment Verification Test may be utilized
for calculating cost estimates. O & M costs for each system will be determined during the equipment
Verification Tests. The O & M costs that will be recorded and compared during the Verification Test
include:
Labor;
Electricity;
Chemical Dosage, and
Equipment Replacement Frequency.
The capital and O & M costs will vary based on geographic location.
O & M costs should be provided for each membrane process that is tested. In order to receive the full
benefit of the equipment Verification Test Programs, these costs should be considered along with quality
of system operations. Other cost considerations may be added to the cost tables presented in this
section as is needed prior to the start-up of the Verification Tests. A summary of O & M costs are
outlined in Table 16.2.
Table 16.1: Design Parameters for Cost Analysis
Design Parameter
Specific Utility Values
Raw water feed rate(mgd)
Total required plant production rate(mgd)
By-pass flow rate (mgd)
Required membrane train capacity (mgd)
High/Low plant feedwater temperature (ฐC)
Average Flux (gsfd/psi)
Maximum Flux (gsfd/psi)
Average cleaning frequency (days)
High/Low feed TDS (mg/L)
April 2002
Page 3-49
-------
Table 16.2: Operations and Maintenance Cost
Cost Parameter
Specific Values
Labor rate + fringe ($/personnel-hour)
Labor overhead factor (% of labor)
Number of O&M personnel hours per week
Power Consumption (kWh/Million Gallons)
Electric rate ($/kWh)
Cost of Membrane ($)
Membrane replacement frequency (%/year)
Cost of Chemicals ($)
Chemical Dosage (per week)
O&M cost ($/Kgal)
Disposal Costs ($)
Dose
Bulk Chemical Cost
Chlorine (Disinfectant)
Sulfuric acid (Pretreatment)
Alum (Pretreatment)
Hydrochloric acid (Pretreatment)
Scale inhibitor 2(Pretreatment)
Caustic (Post-treatment)
Sodium hydroxide (Membrane cleaning)
Phosphoric acid (Membrane cleaning)
'information for cleaning chemicals and pretreatment chemicals (such as alum) should also be provided in
this table. For cleaning agents, the concentration of the cleaning solution used to clean the membranes
should be reported as the chemical dosed.
2Report the product name and manufacturer of the specific scale inhibitor used.
April 2002
Page 3-50
-------
17.0 SUGGESTED READING
APHA, AWWA, and WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
20th Edition, Washington D.C. 1999.
AWWARF. Membrane Concentrate Disposal. Denver, CO, 1993.
Clifford, Dennis, et al. "Evaluating Various Adsorbents and Membranes for Removing Radium from
Groundwater". Journal AWWA, July 1988.
Cothern, C. Richard, and Rebers, Paul A. Radon, Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI 1990.
Duranceau, S.J. "Membrane Process Post-Treatment." Supplement to AWWA Seminar
Proceedings: Membrane Technology Conference. Baltimore, MD, 1993.
Hofman, J. A. M. H., Kruithof, J. C., Noij, Th. H. M. and Schippers, J. C. "Removal of Pesticides
and Other Contaminants withNanofiltration" H20, March 1993.
Lowry, Jerry D., Sylvia B. "Radionuclides in Drinking Water Supplies." Journal AWWA, July, 1988.
Martins, K.L., "Practical Guide to Determine the Impact of Radon and Other Radionuclides on Water
Treatment Processes." Water Scientific Tech. 26:1255-1264, Great Britain 1992.
Parrotta, Marc J., "Radioactivity in Water Treatment Wastes: A USEPA Perspective." Journal
AWWA, April 1991.
Sorg, T.J., et al.. "Removal of Radium-226 from Sarasota County Florida, Drinking Water by Reverse
Osmosis". Journal AWWA, April 1980.
Sung, L. K., Morris, K. E. and Taylor J. S. "Predicting Colloidal Fouling," International
Desalination and Water Reuse Journal. November/December, 1994.
Takigawa, D. Y., Metcalfe, P. F., Chu, H. C., Light, W. G., Murrer, J. and Holden, P. "Ultra-Low
Pressure Reverse Osmosis Membranes." Proceedings 1995 Membrane Technology Conference.
Reno, NV, 1995.
Taylor, J.S., L.A. Mulford, S.J. Duranceau and W.M. Barret. "Cost and Performance of a Membrane
Pilot Plant." JAWWA, November, 1989.
Taylor, J.S., S.J. Duranceau, W.M. Barrett, and J.F. Goigel. Assessment of Potable Water
Membrane Applications and Research Needs. Denver: AWWA Research Foundation. 1990.
Taylor, J.S., J.A.M.H. Hofman, S.J. Duranceau, J.C. Kruithof and J.C. Schippers. "Simplified
Modeling of Diffusion Controlled Membrane Systems." ./. Water, SRJ-Aqua. May, 1994.
April 2002
Page 3-51
-------
Weber, W.J. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. New York: John-Wiley &
Sons. 1972
April 2002
Page 3-52
-------
CHAPTER 4
EPA/NSF ETV EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
FOR THE REMOVAL OF RADON
BY AIR-STRIPPING TECHNOLOGIES
Prepared by:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Copyright 2002 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.
April 2002
Page 4-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4-5
1.0 APPLICATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN 4-6
2.0 INTRODUCTION 4-6
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH 4-7
4.0 BACKGROUND 4-8
4.1 Removal Processes 4-8
4.2 Radon Removal by Air-Stripping Technologies 4-8
4.2.1 Packed Tower Aeration 4-10
4.2.2 Multistaged Bubble Aeration 4-10
4.2.3 Spray Jet Aeration 4-10
4.3 Air- Stripping Technology Design Considerations 4-11
4.3.1 Packed Tower Aeration 4-11
4.3.2 Multistaged Bubble Aeration 4-12
4.3.3 Spray Jet Aeration 4-12
5.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS 4-13
6.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS 4-15
7.0 TESTING PERIODS 4-15
8.0 TASK 1: EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN 4-16
8.1 Introduction 4-16
8.2 Objectives 4-16
8.3 Work Plan 4-16
8.3.1 Equipment Verification Test Plan 4-16
8.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation 4-17
8.4 Analytical Schedule 4-17
8.5 Evaluation Criteria 4-18
April 2002
Page 4-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
9.0 TASK 2: CHARACTERIZATION OF RAW WATER 4-18
9.1 Introduction 4-18
9.2 Objectives 4-18
9.3 Work Plan 4-18
9.4 Schedule 4-19
9.5 Evaluation Criteria 4-19
10.0 TASK 3: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 4-19
10.1 Objectives 4-19
10.2 O&M Work Plan 4-20
11.0 TASK 4: DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT 4-25
11.1 Introduction 4-25
11.2 Objectives 4-25
11.3 Work Plan 4-25
11.3.1 Operation Data Collection and Documentation 4-25
11.3.2 Data Management 4-26
11.3.3 Statistical Analysis 4-26
12.0 TASK 5: RADON REMOVAL 4-26
12.1 Introduction 4-26
12.2 Experimental Objectives 4-27
12.3 Work Plan 4-27
12.4 Air Stripping Removal Efficiencies 4-28
12.4.1 Operational Data Collection 4-28
12.4.2 Raw Water Quality Limitations 4-28
13.0 TASK 6: FINISHED WATER QUALITY 4-31
13.1 Introduction 4-31
13.2 Objectives 4-31
13.3 Work Plan 4-31
13.4 Analytical Schedule 4-32
13.4.1 Removal of Radon 4-32
13.4.2 Raw Water Characterization 4-32
13.4.3 Water Quality Sample Collection 4-32
13.4.4 Raw Water Quality Limitations 4-33
13.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements 4-33
April 2002 Page 4-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
14.0 TASK 7: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 4-33
14.1 Introduction 4-33
14.2 Experimental Objectives 4-33
14.3 QA/QC Work Plan 4-33
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verification 4-34
14.3.2 Monthly QA/QC Verification 4-34
14.4 Analytical Methods 4-34
15.0 TASK 8: COST EVALUATION 4-34
16.0 SUGGESTED READING 4-35
TABLES
Table 4.1 Henry's Constants for Selected Gases in Water at 20ฐC and 1 atm Pressure 4-9
Table 8.1 Task Descriptions 4-17
Table 10.1 Operations & Maintenance Manual Criteria - Air-Stripping Equipment 4-21
Table 10.2 Air-Stripping Technology Design Criteria Reporting Items 4-23
Table 10.3 Air-Stripping Equipment Characteristics 4-24
Table 12.1 Daily Operations Log Sheet for an Air- Stripping Technology 4-29
Table 12.2 Operating and Water Quality Data Requirements for Air-Stripping Processes 4-30
Table 13.1 Water Quality Analytical Methods 4-32
Table 15.1 Operations and Maintenance Cost 4-35
April 2002 Page 4-4
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ETV
Environmental Technology Verification
PSTP
Product-Specific Test Plan
FTO
Field Testing Organization
gpm/sf
gallons per minute per square foot
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mrem/yr
milli-radiation equivalent man per year
NSF
NSF International
pCi/L
picocuries per liter
QA
quality assurance
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
QC
quality control
rpm
revolutions per minute
RSD
relative standard deviation
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WSWRD
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
April 2002
Page 4-5
-------
1.0 APPUCATION OF THIS EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
This document is the ETV Testing Plan for evaluation of air-stripping technologies to be used within the
structure provided by the "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For Equipment Verification Testing For The
Removal Of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants: Requirements For All Studies". This Plan is to be
used as a guide in the development of the Product-Specific Test Plan (PSTP) for testing of air-stripping
process equipment to achieve removal of radon.
In order to participate in the equipment verification process for air-stripping processes, the equipment
Manufacturer and their designated Field Testing Organization (FTO) shall employ the procedures and
methods described in this test plan and in the referenced ETV Protocol Document as guidelines for the
development of a PSTP. The FTO shall clearly specify in its PSTP the radionuclides targeted for
removal and sampling program that shall be followed during Verification Testing. The PSTP should
generally follow the Verification Testing Tasks outlined herein, with changes and modifications made for
adaptations to specific membrane equipment. At a minimum, the format of the procedures written for
each Task in the PSTP should consist of the following sections:
Introduction
Objectives
Work Plan
Analytical Schedule
Evaluation Criteria
The primary treatment goal of the equipment employed in this Verification Testing program is to achieve
removal of radon present in feedwater supplies. The Manufacturer shall establish a Statement of
Performance Objectives (Section 3.0 General Approach) that is based upon removal of target
radionuclides from feedwaters. The experimental design of the PSTP shall be developed to address the
specific Statement of Performance Objectives established by the Manufacturer. Each PSTP shall
include all of the included tasks, Tasks 1 to 8.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Air-stripping processes are currently in use for a number of water treatment applications ranging from
removal of hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic carbons, and radon.
In order to establish appropriate operations, the Manufacturer may be able to apply some experience
with his equipment on a similar water source. This may not be the case for suppliers with new products.
In this case, it is advisable to require a pre-test optimization period so that reasonable operating criteria
can be established. This would aid in preventing the unintentional but unavoidable optimization during
the Verification Testing. The need of pre-test optimization should be carefully reviewed with NSF, the
FTO and the Manufacturer early in the process.
April 2002
Page 4-6
-------
Pretreatment processes ahead of air-stripping systems may be required to remove particulate material
and to ensure provision of high quality water to the air-stripping systems. In the design of the PSTP, the
Manufacturer shall stipulate which feedwater pretreatments are appropriate for application upstream of
the air-stripping process. The stipulated feedwater pretreatment process(es) shall be employed for
upstream of air-stripping process at all times during the Equipment Verification Testing Program.
3.0 GENERAL APPROACH
Testing of equipment covered by this Verification Testing Plan will be conducted by an NSF-qualified
FTO that is selected by the equipment Manufacturer. Analytical water quality work to be carried out as
a part of this Verification Testing Plan will be contracted with a laboratory certified by a State or
accredited by a third-party organization (i.e., NSF) or the EPA for the appropriate water quality
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. The Statement of Performance Objectives must be specific and
verifiable by a statistical analysis of the data. Statements should also be made regarding the applications
of the equipment, the known limitations of the equipment and under what conditions the equipment is
likely to fail or underperform. There are different types of Statements of Performance Objectives that
may be verified in this testing. An example of such a statement is: This system is capable of achieving
90 percent removal of radon during a 60-day operation period at an air to water ratio of 30, and
a water loading rate of 25 gal/sf-min (temperature between 20 and 25
-------
followed in each Task in the PSTP. The FTO shall specify the operational conditions to be verified
during the Verification Testing Plan.
4.0 BACKGROUND
This section provides an overview of contaminant removal by air-stripping technologies, and air-
stripping technology design. These items will assist in the following:
Defining various air- stripping technologies capable of removing radon;
Defining air-stripping technologies; and
Describing the mechanisms that will help in qualifying and quantifying the removal efficiency
of the air-stripping technology tested.
4.1 Removal Processes
Water supply systems that use sources that contain high radionuclide concentrations will need to
implement treatment techniques. Treatment processes that are available for the removal of radon
include, but are not limited to, adsorptive media and air stripping.
This Plan discusses the use of air-stripping technologies for the removal of radon. Air-stripping is a
water treatment technique utilized for the removal of contaminant gases from water. Since radon is the
only radionuclide that is a naturally occurring gas, this Plan will be directed towards the removal of
radon. The following section discusses the various air-stripping technologies available for the removal of
radon.
4.2 Radon Removal by Air-Stripping Technologies
Aeration or air-stripping involves the transfer of radon from the water phase to the gas phase. The mass
transfer from the liquid phase to the gas phase occurs over the liquid-gas interface in the direction of
decreased concentration. There are two main classifications of aeration. They include gas dispersion in
water and water dispersion in gas. Diffused aeration is an example of gas dispersion in water, and
packed tower aeration is an example of water dispersion in gas.
One of the most integral components to the selection and design of an air-stripping device for the
removal of a contaminant is Henry's constant for that contaminant. Henry's Law states that when gas
and water are at equilibrium, the concentration of a substance in the gas phase is proportional to the
concentration of the substance in the liquid phase. Therefore, the greater the proportional constant of a
gas, the more easily that gas can be removed from solution by air stripping. This is because the mass
transfer of gas moves in the direction of decreased concentration until an equilibrium state is reached.
Conversely, those gases with a low proportional constant of the gas tend to accumulate in the aqueous
phase. This proportional constant is known as Henry's constant.
Henry's constant for radon is estimated to be 2,600 in water at 20ฐC and 1 atm of pressure. This
constant is considered relatively high, and therefore, the removal of radon from a raw water supply using
April 2002
Page 4-8
-------
air stripping should occur fairly quickly. Henry's constants for radon and other common gases are listed
in Table 4.1. Henry's constants may vary greatly with temperature and therefore testing or operating
conditions should be reviewed carefully when designing air-stripping equipment.
TABLE 4.1: Henry's Constants for Selected Gases in
Water at 20ฐC and 1 atm of Pressure
Gas
Henry's Constant (atm)
Radon
2,600
Vinyl Chloride
355,000
Oxygen
43,000
Carbon Dioxide
1,510
Chlorine
585
Hydrogen Sulfide
515
Benzene
240
Chloroform
170
Bromoform
35
The efficiency of radon removal by air stripping will depend primarily on the air to water flow rate ratio,
the mass transfer coefficient and the water temperature, and to a lesser extent on the air temperature.
Water treatment by aeration has been historically utilized for the removal of volatile organic carbon,
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. It is also considered a cost effective treatment method for the
removal of radon from drinking water supplies. There are several types of air-stripping technologies
that are available for the removal of radon. They are as follows:
packed tower aeration;
multistaged diffused bubble aeration;
ฐ spray jet aeration
ฐ tray aeration
ฐ spray aeration
induced-draft towers; and
venturi in-line devices.
The technologies that are described in this plan include packed tower aeration, multistaged diffused
bubble aeration, and spray jet aeration. These air-stripping technologies are typically followed ty
chemical injection for disinfection.
April 2002
Page 4-9
-------
4.2.1
Packed Tower Aeration
Packed tower aeration is an example of water dispersion in gas. Packed towers are generally
vertical cylindrical columns. Mass transfer in a packed tower is achieved by counter-current or co-
current flow, with counter-current flow being more effective. With counter-current flow raw water
is pumped to the top of the tower(s) and cascades by gravity over the surface of the packing. At
the same time, air is forced into the bottom of the tower and blown upward through the packing.
The tower packing can be fixed or randomly packed media of various shapes, sizes, and material.
The packing material disrupts the flow of water into small droplets, and therefore continually
generates air-water interfaces. Air-stripping towers have been found to be most applicable for
water treatment facilities with flows greater than 300 to 500 gpm, but can be also applicable at
lower flows.
The water is collected at the bottom of the column in a clearwell, and then pumped to subsequent
treatment facilities, or disinfected for distribution. The gasses that are blown off from the tower are
discharged to the atmosphere since it is not feasible to treat radon in the air stream. This would
depend on the concentration of radon and other undesirable gases in the raw water source, and the
local regulations that govern the release of hazardous or odiferous gases to the atmosphere. Tower
height may be a major disadvantage to the packed tower technology if the facilities require
significant tower height, and are located in residential areas.
4.2.2 Multistaged Bubble Aeration
Multistaged bubble aeration is a form of diffused aeration. These aeration devices are compact and
have lower profiles than packed towers. The facilities consist of a vessel with several compartment
stages. Water enters the box horizontally as air is diffused from aerators on the bottom of each
stage. The diffusers are designed to provide uniform distribution of air.
The aeration vessels are typically equipped with a removable top for cleaning and maintenance. The
blowers are generally mounted on a nearby wall or on the floor. The gasses that are vented from
the diffused aeration process can be discharged to the atmosphere. These aerators are typically
most applicable for smaller flows less than 1,000 gpm.
4.2.3 Spray Jet Aeration
Jet aeration is a diffused aeration process that combines liquid pumping with air diffusion. Jet
aeration can be provided in a reservoir, tank or tower. Proper air dispersion and water distribution
is integral to proper design of this air-stripping technology. The liquid pumping system recirculates
the water in the given basin while injecting it with compressed air through a nozzle assembly. The
spray jet unit provides for the water to enter the jet nozzle unit at right angles to the body of the unit
through carefully designed orifices. This creates a vacuum effect through the rear of the unit. The
jet aerator produces a pressurized water stream that results in a violent mixing of the water and air
within the spray jet unit, resulting in the stripping of gases. Design of these type aerators will greatly
depend on manufacturer data and information regarding the jet aerator units.
April 2002
Page 4-10
-------
Modifications to jet aeration technology can include the varying of flow rates to provide varying air
to water ratios. Adjusting the size of the orifices on the jet aerator does this. Spray jet aerators
may also operate in single or multiple pass modes where the water supply can be passed through
the aerator from one to several times.
4.3 Air-Stripping Technology Design Considerations
Although the equipment for the various air-stripping technologies vary greatly, the design considerations
for the technologies are similar. These design considerations include, but are not limited to:
Water and air flow rates
Surface area at the water/air interface (mass transfer coefficient)
Water and air temperature
Henry's constant for radon
Water quality
Pretreatment, prior to air-stripping may be necessary t) provide removal of iron, manganese, or to
reduce the scaling potential. Also, calcium carbonate scaling with the removal of carbon dioxide is a
potential problem with aeration applications.
4.3.1 Packed Tower Aeration
The major design components to be considered for packed tower aerators include:
volumetric air-water ratio;
water and air loading rates;
packing material;
size and depth;
column diameter;
gas pressure drop; and
Henry's constant of the contaminant(s) to be removed.
The air to water ratio can range from 10:1 to 5,000:1 for gas stripping techniques. For the removal
of radon, typically an air to water ration will range from 10:1 to 30:1. However, the air to water
ratio may be more limited or constrained by the removal of another contaminant from the raw water
supply. Hydraulic loading rates for the removal of radon typically range from 20 to 30 gallons per
minute per square foot (gpm/sf). Air delivery can be accomplished using forced draft or induced
draft aeration.
The packing material should be designed to provide a maximum amount of surface area for water to
contact. At the same time the material should be chosen and designed to minimize impedance to the
April 2002
Page 4-11
-------
air flow. Random media can be shaped as discs, spheres, or barrels, while structured packing
generally consists of rigid plastic sheets fused together. The packing material may require periodic
cleaning with acid depending on the raw water quality. A packing support plate is used to hold the
packing material in place.
Tower design can be aided by the use of mass transfer equations. Literature research documents
the use of relating packing height (Z), height of transfer unit (HTU), number of transfer units (NTU),
and stripping factors (R) for packed tower design. HTU is a measurement of the mass transfer
efficiency, NTU is a measurement of the movement of a compound in solution to the gas phase, and
R represents an equilibrium parameter. These relationships assume steady-state operations, dilute
solutions, and chemical equilibria.
Tower diameter and pressure drop for a packed tower can be estimated using pressure drop curves
as developed by Eckert. The curves by Eckert relate pressure drop to gas and liquid loading rates.
There has also been arithmetic representation of the Eckert plot performed by Prahl. These
graphical and arithmetic aids are useful in the design of packed towers. There are also several
computer programs available for the sizing of packed tower aerators.
Henry's constant for radon, which was previously discussed, can be used to determine the rate of
transfer from water into clean air. Therefore, Henry's constant is an important design parameter
that should be considered for the design of packed towers. It should be noted that published values
of Henry's constant for radon may vary based on the constant's dependence on temperature.
4.3.2 Multistaged Bubble Aeration
The design of a multistaged bubble aeration system is based on mass transfer efficiency. This design
utilizes the air to water ratio, water depth, and diffuser orifice size. A typical air to water ratio for
radon removal with multistaged bubble aeration is 6:1 to 30:1, depending on the amount of removal
desired. The power usage for this diffused system will be greater than that of an air stripper,
because the air is discharged under pressure to the diffusers submerged in water.
The number and spacing of diffusers is generally determined based on the capacity of an individual
diffuser, the geometry of the basin, and the desired level of mixing necessary for contaminant
removal. Diffused multistaged aeration units can be manifolded for the treatment of larger capacities
4.3.3 Spray Jet Aeration
The design of spray aeration devices may be approached using the mass transfer coefficient and the
transfer unit approach discussed for packed tower aeration. This method, however, is not
completely valid as the mass transfer coefficient that is used represents an average value based on
basin or tower height. Therefore, design of a spray jet aeration system cannot be performed for
precise removal. However, the design approach using the average mass transfer coefficient may be
used to approximate spray aeration removal efficiency.
April 2002
Page 4-12
-------
The manufacturer should provide flow capacities for the jet nozzles for a large range of pressure
drops and orifice sizes. The flow rate through a nozzle is proportional to the square root of the
pressure. Spray jet nozzles may be prone to clogging and erosion corrosion.
The design of the spray chamber should consider the orientation and location of the air inlets. The
inlets should be designed to avoid high inlet velocities and turbulence. If air velocities are too high
there may be a substantial loss of water in the system. Mist eliminators can be used to reduce liquid
loss in the chamber. The chamber is typically designed for a pressure loss of approximately 1 inch
of water.
5.0 DEFINITION OF OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
The following terms are presented here for subsequent reference in this test plan:
Equipment - A package drinking water treatment system or a modular component of a package
drinking water system.
Equipment Verification Testing Plan - A specific testing plan for each technology application,
such as systems employing cation and anion exchange, adsorptive media, reverse osmosis, and air-
stripping for the removal of radioactive chemical contaminants. This plan will be developed by NSF
for the Manufacturer to assist in development of the PSTP for the Verification Testing Project.
Manufacturer - A business that makes 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 and study. The manufacturer is also responsible for
providing assistance to the field testing organization during operation and monitoring of the package
plant or modular system during the verification testing and study.
Field Testing Organization - An organization qualified to conduct studies and testing of drinking
water treatment equipment 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; and arrange for or conduct the skilled operation of equipment during the
intense periods of testing during the study and the tasks required by the Protocol.
Modular System - A packaged functional assembly of components for use in a drinking water
treatment system or packaged plant, each part of which provides a limited form of treatment of the
feed water(s) and which is discharged to another packaged plant or the final step of treatment.
Multistaged Bubble Aeration - An air-stripping technology that includes the injection of gas
bubbles into a column or tank of water to produce intense mixing, resulting in the stripping of gases.
NSF - NSF International, its staff, or other authorized representatives.
April 2002
Page 4-13
-------
Package Plant - A complete water treatment system including all components from the connection
to the raw water(s) intake through discharge to the distribution system.
Packed Tower Aeration - An air-stripping technology that includes the production of thin films or
small droplets of water that yield rapid mass transfer, resulting in the stripping of gases.
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. The protocol shall be used for reference during
manufacturer participation in verification testing project.
Spray Jet Aeration - An air-stripping technology that includes an aerator that produces a
pressurized water stream that results in a violent mixing of the water and air within the spray jet unit,
resulting in the stripping of gases.
Testing Organization - An organization qualified to perform studies and testing of equipment. The
role of the testing organization is to ensure that there is skilled operation of equipment during the
intense periods of testing and that all of the tasks required by the Protocol for Equipment
Verification Testing are performed properly. The Testing Organization is responsible for:
=> Managing, evaluating, interpreting and reporting on the data produced by the verification
testing and study.
=> Providing logistical support, scheduling and coordinating the activities of all participants in
the verification testing and study, i.e., establishing a communications network.
=> Advising the Manufacturer on feed water quality and test site selection, such that the
locations selected for the verification testing and study have feed water quality consistent
with the objectives of the Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing.
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
instructs 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 and test plan Product-Specific Test Plan.
USEPA - The United States Environmental Protection Agency, its staff or authorized
representatives.
April 2002
Page 4-14
-------
6.0 OVERVIEW OF TASKS
This Plan is applicable to the testing of water treatment equipment utilizing air-stripping technologies that
include spray jet, multistage diffused bubble and packed tower aeration. Testing of air stripping
equipment will be conducted by a NSF-qualified Testing Organization that is selected by the
Manufacturer. Water quality analyses will be performed by a state-certified or third party- or EPA-
accredited laboratory. This Plan provides objectives, work plans, schedules, and evaluation criteria for
the required tasks associated with the equipment testing procedure.
The following is a brief overview of the tasks that shall be included as components of the Verification
Testing Program and PSTP for removal of radon.
Task 1: Equipment Verification Testing Plan - Operate air-stripping and associated
water treatment equipment for a 60-day testing period to collect data on water quality and
equipment performance.
Task 2: Characterization of Raw Water - Obtain chemical, biological and physical
characterization of the raw water. Provide a brief description of the groundwater source
that provides the raw water to the water treatment plant.
Task 3: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) - Evaluate an O&M manual for each
system submitted. The O&M manual shall characterize air-stripping process design.
Task 4: Data Collection and Management - Establish an effective field protocol for
data management between the Field Testing Organization and NSF.
Task 5: Radon Removal - Evaluate air-stripping technology operations in relation to
verified raw water quality.
Task 6: Finished Water Quality - Evaluate the water quality produced by the air-
stripping technology as it relates to raw water quality and operational conditions.
Task 7: Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) - Develop a QA/QC protocol
for Verification Testing. This is an important item that will assist in obtaining an accurate
measurement of operational and water quality parameters during aeration equipment
Verification Testing.
Task 8: Cost Evaluation - Develop O&M costs for the submitted air-stripping
technology and equipment.
7.0 TESTING PERIODS
The required tasks of the ETV Testing Plan (Tasks 1 through 8) are designed to be completed over a
60-day period, not including mobilization, shakedown and start-up. The schedule for equipment
monitoring during the 60-day testing period shall be stipulated by the FTO in the PSTP, and shall meet
or exceed the minimum monitoring requirements of this testing plan. The FTO shall ensure in the PSTP
that sufficient water quality data and operational data will be collected to allow estimation of statistical
uncertainty in the Verification Testing data, as described in the "EPA/NSF ETV Protocol For
April 2002
Page 4-15
-------
Equipment Verification Testing For The Removal Of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants:
Requirements For All Studies". The FTO shall therefore ensure that sufficient water quality and
operational data is collected during Verification Testing for the statistical analysis described herein.
For air-stripping process treatment equipment, factors that can influence treatment performance include:
Air to water flow rate ratio;
Calcium carbonate scaling due to removal of carbon dioxide; and
High concentrations of iron or manganese.
Air-stripping testing conducted beyond the required 60-day testing may be used for fine-tuning of air-
stripping performance or for evaluation of additional operational conditions. During the testing periods,
evaluation of finished water quality can be performed concurrent with air-stripping operation testing
procedures.
8.0 TASK1: EQUIPMENT VERIFICATION TESTING PLAN
8.1 Introduction
The equipment verification for air-stripping technologies for radon removal shall be conducted by an
NSF-qualified, Field Testing Organization (FTO) that is selected by the Manufacturer. Water quality
analytical work to be completed as a part of this ETV Plan shall be contracted with a state-certified or
third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. For information on a listing of NSF-qualified FTOs and
state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratories, contact NSF.
8.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to operate the equipment provided by a Manufacturer, for the conditions
and time periods specified by NSF and the Manufacturer.
8.3 Work Plan
8.3.1 Equipment Verification Test Plan
Table 8.1 presents the Tasks that are included in this Plan and will be included in the PSTP for
radon removal by air stripping technologies. Any Manufacturer wanting to verily the performance
of their equipment shall perform these Tasks. The Manufacturer shall provide full detail of the
procedures to be followed for each item in the PSTP. The FTO shall specify the operational
conditions to be verified during the Verification Testing.
In the design of the PSTP, the FTO shall stipulate which pretreatments are appropriate for
application before the selected air-stripping processes. The recommended pretreatment
April 2002
Page 4-16
-------
process(es) shall then be employed by the Manufacturer for raw water pretreatment during
implementation of the Equipment Verification Testing Program.
TABLE 8.1: Task Descriptions
No.
Task
Description
1
Test Plan
Water treatment equipment shall be operated for a minimum of one 60
day test period to collect data on water quality and equipment
performance.
2
Characterization of Raw
Water
Obtain chemical, biological and physical characterization of the raw
water.
3
O&M Manual
Evaluate O&M manual for process.
4
Data and Collection
Management
Develop data protocol between FTO and NSF.
5
Radon Removal
Evaluate radon removal at selected set of operational conditions.
6
Finished Water Quality
Evaluate water quality at selected set of operational conditions.
7
QA/QC
Enforce QA/QC standards.
8
Cost Evaluation
Provide O&M costs of system.
8.3.2 Routine Equipment Operation
During the time intervals between equipment verification runs, the water treatment equipment may
be used for production of potable water. If the equipment is being used for the production of
potable water, routine operation for water production is expected. The operating and water quality
data collected and furnished to the local regulatory agency should also be supplied to the NSF-
qualified FTO.
8.4 Analytical Schedule
The entire equipment verification shall be performed over a 60-day period (not including time for system
shakedown and mobilization). At a minimum, one, 60-day period of Verification Testing shall be
conducted in order to provide equipment testing information for air-stripping technology performance.
The required tasks for the equipment verification are designed to be completed over a 60-day period,
not including mobilization, shakedown and start-up. Air-stripping technology testing conducted beyond
the required 60-day testing may be used for fine-tuning of air-stripper performance or for evaluation of
additional operational conditions. During the 60-day testing period, evaluation of finished water quality
can be performed concurrent with the percent removal testing procedures.
April 2002
Page 4-17
-------
8.5 Evaluation Criteria
The equipment testing period will include a Verification Test of at least 60-days.
9.0 TASK 2: CHARACTERIZATION OF RAW WATER
9.1 Introduction
The characterization of raw water quality is needed to determine if the concentrations of radon or other
raw water contaminants are appropriate for the use with air-stripping technologies. The feedwater
quality can influence the performance of the equipment.
9.2 Objectives
One reason for performing a raw water characterization is to obtain at least one-year of historical raw
water quality data from the raw water source. The objective is to develop maximum and minimum
concentrations for the contaminant.
If historical raw water quality is not available, a raw water quality analysis of the proposed feedwater
shall be performed prior to equipment Verification Testing.
9.3 Work Plan
The characterization of raw water quality is best accomplished through the performance of laboratory
testing and the review of historical records. Sources for historical records may include municipalities,
laboratories, USGS (United States Geological Survey), USEPA, and local regulatory agencies. If
historical records are not available preliminary raw water quality testing shall be performed prior to
equipment Verification Testing. The specific parameters of characterization will depend on the air-
stripping equipment that is being tested. The following characteristics should be reviewed and
documented:
Temperature
pH
Hardness
Alkalinity
Iron and manganese
Radon
Volatile Organic Contaminants
Bacteria
Other dissolved gases such as C02 and hydrogen sulfide
April 2002
Page 4-18
-------
The data that is collected will be shared with NSF so that the FTO can determine the significance of the
data for use in developing a test plan. If the raw water source is not characterized the testing program
may fail, or results of a testing program may not be considered acceptable. A description of the raw
water source should also be included with the feedwater characterization. The description may include
items such as:
nature of the water source; and
potential sources of pollution.
9.4 Schedule
The schedule for compilation of adequate water quality data will be determined by the availability and
accessibility or historical data. The historical water quality data can be used to determine the suitability
of various air stripping technologies for the treatment for the raw source water. If raw water quality
data is not available, a preliminary raw water quality testing should be performed prior to the verification
testing of the aeration equipment.
9.5 Evaluation Criteria
The feedwater quality shall be evaluated in the context of the Manufacturer's Statement of Performance
Objectives for the removal of radon. The feedwater should challenge the capabilities of the chosen
equipment, but should not be beyond the range of water quality suitable for treatment by the chosen
equipment. For air-stripping processes, a complete scan of water quality parameters may be required
in order to determine pretreatment criteria.
10.0 TASK 3: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
An operations and maintenance (O&M) manual for air-stripping technology to be tested for radon
removal shall be included in the Verification Testing evaluation.
10.1 Objectives
The objective of this task is to develop an O&M manual that will assist in operating, troubleshooting and
maintaining the air-stripping system performance. The O&M manual shall:
characterize air stripping technology design;
outline air stripping procedures;
air to water ratios;
cleaning procedures; and
provide a radon gas safety control plan (e.g. ventilation).
April 2002
Page 4-19
-------
Criteria for evaluation of the equipment's O&M Manual shall be compiled and then evaluated and
commented upon during verification by the FTO. An example is provided in Table 10.1.
The purpose of O&M information is to allow utilities to effectively choose a technology that their
operators are capable of operating, and provide information on how many hours the operators can be
expected to work on the system. Information about obtaining replacement parts and ease of operation
of the system would also be valuable.
10.2 O&M Work Plan
Descriptions of air-stripping technology unit process design shall be developed for the removal of radon.
Air-stripping technologies shall include the design criteria and equipment characteristics. Examples of
information required relative to the air-stripping design criteria and characteristics are presented in
Tables 10.2 and 10.3, respectively.
Depending on the raw water quality, chemical cleaning of the air-stripping equipment may be required.
Cleaning will be performed as necessary per manufacturer specifications. Packing material for a packed
tower aerator may require periodic replacement. Chemical cleaning and material replacement should be
noted so that it may be considered for the verification of the equipment.
April 2002
Page 4-20
-------
TABLE 10.1: Operations & Maintenance Manual Criteria -
Air-Stripping Equipment
MAINTENANCE:
The manufacturer should provide readily understood information on the recommended or required maintenance
schedule for each piece of operating equipment such as:
flow meters
pumps
motors
valves
air filters
chemical feeders (pretreatment)
blowers, jet aerators, course bubble diffusers
The manufacturer should provide readily understood information on the recommended or required maintenance
for non-mechanical or non-electrical equipment such as:
air-stripping process
packing material
piping
OPERATION:
The manufacturer should provide readily understood recommendation for procedures related to proper
operation of the equipment. Among the operating aspects that should be discussed are:
Chemical feeders (pretreatment):
calibration check
settings and adjustments - how they should be made
dilution of chemicals - proper procedures
Monitoring and observing operation:
removal calculations
April 2002
Page 4-21
-------
TABLE 10.1: Operations & Maintenance Manual Criteria -
Air-Stripping Equipment (continued)
OPERATION (continued):
The manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting guide; a simple check-list of what to do for a variety of
problems including:
packed tower flooding;
no pretreatment chemical feed;
media clogging
automatic operation (if provided) not functioning;
no electric power; and
The following are recommendations regarding operability aspects of air-stripping technology processes. These
aspects of plant operation should be included to the extent practical in reports of equipment testing when the
testing is done under the ETV Program. During Verification Testing, attention shall be given to equipment
operability aspects.
are chemical feed pumps calibrated?
is the air pressure at the blower discharge calibrated?
are air flow meters calibrated?
are pH meters calibrated?
are water flow meters calibrated?
can cleaning be done automatically?
ป does remote notification occur (alarm) when pressure increases > 15% or flow drops > 15%?
The reports on Verification Testing should address the above questions in the written reports. The issues of operability
should be dealt with in the portion of the reports that are written in response to Operating Conditions and Treatment
Equipment Performance, in the Air Stripping Technology Test Plan.
April 2002
Page 4-22
-------
TABLE 10.2: Air-Stripping Technology Design Criteria Reporting Items
Parameter
Unit
Type of unit
Number of units
Average flow rate (gpm)
Maximum water flow rate to unit (gpm)
Minimum water flow rate to unit (gpm)
Maximum air flow rate to unit (cfm)
Mnimum air flow rate to unit (cfm)
Air to water ratio (calculated)
Surface area at the air/water interface (sf) (Packed
Tower)
Water temperature (ฐC)
Air temperature (ฐC)
Raw water radon concentration (pCi/L)
Treated water radon concentration (pCi/L)
Percent removal of radon (%)
April 2002
Page 4-23
-------
TABLE 10.3: Air-Stripping Equipment Characteristics
Parameter
Unit
Technology Manufacturer
Equipment model number
Diffuser type or packing material type
Active surface area (sf) (Packed Tower)
Design hydraulic loading rate (gpm/sf) (Packed
Tower)
Design air to water ratio
Standard testing removal (%)
Standard testing pH
Standard testing temperature (ฐC)
Design concurrent flow velocity (fps)
Maximum flow rate to the unit (gpm)
Minimum flow rate to the unit (gpm)
Acceptable range of water quality parameters
Pumping requirements
Blower Requirements
Suggested cleaning procedures
Suggested equipment replacement schedule
Type of construction
Estimated Purchase Price
Other
Note: Some of this information may not be available, but this table should be filled out as completely as possible for
each technology tested.
April 2002
Page 4-24
-------
11.0 TASK 4: DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT
11.1 Introduction
The data management system used in the Verification Testing Program shall involve the use of computer
spreadsheets, and manual recording of operational parameters for the air-stripping equipment on a daily
basis.
11.2 Objectives
The objective of this task is to establish a viable structure for the recording and transmission of field
testing data such that the FTO provides sufficient and reliable operational data for verification purposes.
Chain-of-Custody protocols will be developed and adhered to.
11.3 Work Plan
11.3.1 Operation Data Collection and Documentation
The following protocol has been developed for data handling and data verification by the FTO. In
addition to daily operational data sheets, a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system could 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 electronic spreadsheets. 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 air-stripping equipment
operation. At a minimum, backup of the computer databases to diskette should be performed on a
monthly basis.
Field testing operators shall record data and calculations by hand in laboratory notebooks for a
minimum of three times per day. (Daily measurements shall be recorded on specially prepared data
log sheets as appropriate. Figure 12.2 presents an example of a daily log sheet.) The laboratory
notebook shall provide copies of each page. The original notebooks shall be stored on-site; the
copied sheets shall be forwarded to the project engineer of FTO at least once per week during the
60-day testing period. This protocol will not only ease referencing tie original data, but offer
protection of the original record of results. Operating logs shall include:
descriptions of the equipment and test runs;
names of visitors; and
descriptions of any problems or issues.
Such descriptions shall be provided in addition to experimental calculations and other items.
April 2002
Page 4-25
-------
11.3.2 Data Management
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 field laboratory analysis notebooks and data log sheets shall be entered into the
appropriate spreadsheet. 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 and the print-out shall be checked against the
handwritten data sheet. Any corrections shall be noted on the hardcopies and corrected on the
screen, and then the corrected recorded calculations will also be checked and confirmed. The field
testing operator or engineer performing the entry or verification step shall initial each step of the
verification process.
Each experiment (e.g. each air-stripping technology test run) shall 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 shall be tracked by use of the same system of run numbers. Data from the outside laboratories
shall be received and reviewed by the FTO. This data shall be entered into the data spreadsheets,
corrected, and verified in the same manner as the field data.
11.3.3 Statistical Analysis
For the analytical data obtained during Verification Testing, 95% confidence intervals shall be
calculated by the FTO for selected water quality parameters. The specific Plans shall specify which
water quality parameters shall be subjected to the requirements of confidence interval calculation.
As the name implies, a confidence interval describes a population range in which any individual
population measurement may exist with a specified percent confidence. When presenting the data,
maximum, minimum, average and standard deviation should be included.
Calculation of confidence intervals shall not be required for equipment performance obtained during
the equipment Verification Testing Program. In order to provide sufficient analytical data for
statistical analysis, the FTO shall collect three discrete water samples at one set of operational
conditions for each of the specified water quality parameters during a designated testing period.
12.0 TASK 5: RADON REMOVAL
12.1 Introduction
The removal of radon gas from drinking water supplies is accomplished by air-stripping treatment. The
effectiveness of radon removal by diffused air and packed tower aeration will be evaluated in this task.
Assessment of treatment technologies will be assessed based on percent removal of radon.
April 2002
Page 4-26
-------
12.2 Experimental Objectives
The objectives of this task are to demonstrate:
appropriate operational conditions for the air-stripping equipment;
radon removal achieved by the air-stripping technology; and
necessary cleaning or equipment replacement during process operation.
Raw water quality shall be measured prior to system operation and then monitored every two weeks
during the 60-day testing period at a minimum. It should be noted that the objective of this task is not
process optimization, but rather verification of air-stripping operation at the operating conditions
specified by the Manufacturer, as it pertains to percent removal of radon.
12.3 Work Plan
Determination of ideal aeration operating conditions for a particular water may require as long as one
year of operation. For this task the Manufacturer shall specify the operating conditions to be evaluated
in this Plan and shall supply written procedures on the operation and maintenance of the air stripping
system as outlined previously. For this task the Manufacturer shall specify the operating conditions to
be evaluated in the Verification Testing Plan and shall supply written procedures on the operation and
maintenance of the air-stripping system. Each set of operating conditions shall be maintained for the 60-
day testing period (24-hour continuous operation). The Manufacturer shall specify the primary
hydraulic loading rate at which the equipment is to be verified. Additional operating conditions can be
verified in separate 60-day testing periods.
After set-up and "shakedown" of aeration equipment, air-stripping operation should be established at
the hydraulic loading condition to be trifled. Testing of additional operational conditions could be
performed by extending the number of 60-day testing periods beyond the initial 60-day test period
required by the Verification Testing Program at the discretion of the Manufacturer and their designated
FTO.
Additional 60-day periods of testing may also be included in the Verification Testing Plan in order to
demonstrate air-stripping performance under different raw water quality conditions. For aeration
technologies, extremes of raw water quality can affect a contaminant's Henry's constant and therefore
the air-stripper design. The Manufacturer shall perform testing with as many different water quality
conditions as desired for verification status. Testing under each different water quality condition shall be
performed during an additional 60-day testing period, as required above for each additional set of
operating conditions. The testing runs conducted under this task shall be performed in conjunction with
finished water quality. With the exception of additional testing periods conducted at the Manufacturer's
discretion, no additional air-stripping test runs are required for finished water quality.
April 2002
Page 4-27
-------
12.4 Air Stripping Removal Efficiencies
12.4.1 Operational Data Collection
Removal rates of radon from raw water will be assessed by the percentage of removal from the
source water. Measurement of influent raw water flow and finished water flow shall be collected at
a minimum of three times per day. Table 12.1 is an example of a daily operational data sheet for an
air-stripping system. This table is presented for informational purposes only. The actual forms will
be submitted as part of the text plan and may be site-specific.
Water quality should be analyzed prior to start-up and then every two weeks for the parameters
identified in Table 12.2, except for radon, which will be monitored prior to start-up and then
weekly. Power usage for operation of the air-stripping equipment (pumping requirements, power
factor, etc.) shall also be closely monitored and recorded by the FTO during the 60-day testing
period. Power usage shall be estimated by inclusion of the following details regarding equipment
operation requirements:
pumping requirements;
size of pumps;
name-plate;
voltage;
current draw;
power factor;
peak usage; etc.
In addition, measurement of power consumption, chemical consumption shall be quantified by
recording day tank concentration, daily volume consumption and unit cost of chemicals.
12.4.2 Raw Water Quality Limitations
The characteristics of raw waters used during the 60-day testing period (and any additional 60-day
testing periods) shall be explicitly stated in reporting the removal data for each period. Accurate
reporting of such raw water characteristics is critical for the Verification Testing Program, as these
parameters can substantially influence the range of aeration performance and treated water quality
under variable raw water quality conditions.
Evaluation criteria and minimum reporting requirements.
Plot graph of raw and finished radon concentrations over time for each 60-day test
period.
Plot graph of removal of radon over time for each 60-day test period.
April 2002
Page 4-28
-------
TABLE 12.1: Daily Operations Log Sheet for an Air-Stripping Technology
Date:
Parameter
Measurement
1
Measurement
2
Measurement
3
Time
Initial
Air
Q(cfin)
T(ฐC)
Raw Water
Qraw(gpm)
Radon, (pCi/L)
pHraw (before pretreatment)
pH,.aw (after pretreatment)
T PC")
1 raw \ ^ J
Finished
Qfrn (gpm)
Radonfm (pCi/L)
Removal (Radon,;uv-Radonn)/Radoni;uv)
(%)
April 2002
Page 4-29
-------
TABLE 12.2: Operating and Water Quality Data Requirements for Air-Stripping Processes
Parameter
Frequency for Sampling
Raw Water Flow
3 / Daily
Finished Water Flow
3 / Daily
List Each Pretreatment Chemical Used,
And Dosage
Daily Data Or Monthly Average
Hours Operated Per Day
Daily
Hours Operator Present Per Day
Monthly Average
Power Consumption (kWh/Million
Gallons)
Monthly
Independent check on rates of flow
Weekly
Verification of chemical dosages
Monthly
Feed Water and Finished Water Characteristics
Radon
Weekly
Temperature
Every two weeks
pH
Every two weeks
Iron
Every two weeks
Manganese
Every two weeks
Total Alkalinity
Every two weeks
Total Hardness
Every two weeks
Calcium Hardness
Every two weeks
TDS/Conductivity
Every two weeks
Turbidity
Every two weeks
Coliforms
Every two weeks
HPC
Every two weeks
April 2002
Page 4-30
-------
13.0 TASK 6: FINISHED WATER QUALTIY
13.1 Introduction
Water quality data shall be collected for the raw and finished water as provided previously h Table
12.2. At a minimum, the required sampling shall be one sampling at start-up and two sampling events
per month while raw water samples are collected. Water quality goals and target removal goals for the
aeration equipment should be proven and reported in the PSTP.
13.2 Objectives
The objective of the entire effort is to verily the Manufacturer's Objectives. A list of the minimum
number of water quality parameters to be monitored during equipment Verification Testing is provided
in Table 12-2. The actual water quality parameters selected for testing and monitoring shall be
stipulated in the PSTP.
13.3 Work Plan
The PSTP shall identify the treated water quality objectives to be achieved in the Statement of
Performance Objectives of the equipment to be evaluated in the Verification Testing Program. The
PSTP shall also identify in the Statement of Performance Objectives the radon removal that shall be
monitored during equipment testing. The Statement of Performance Objectives prepared by the PSTP
shall indicate the range of water quality under which the equipment can be challenged while successfully
treating the contaminated water supply.
It should be noted that many of the drinking water treatment systems participating in the Air-Stripping
Verification Testing Program will be capable of achieving multiple water treatment objectives. Although
this Air-Stripping Process Plan is oriented towards removal of radon, the Manufacturer may want to
look at the treatment systems removal capabilities for additional water quality parameters.
Many of the water quality parameters described in this task shall be measured on-site by the NSF-
qualified FTO. A state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory shall perform analysis of
the remaining water quality parameters. Representative methods to be used for measurement of water
quality parameters in the field are described in Table 13.1. Where appropriate, the Standard Methods
reference numbers and USEPA method numbers for water quality parameters are provided for both the
field and laboratory analytical procedures.
For the water quality parameters requiring analysis at an off-site laboratory, water samples shall be
collected in appropriate containers (containing necessary preservatives as applicable) prepared by the
state-certified or third party- or EPA- accredited laboratory. These samples shall be preserved, stored,
shipped and analyzed in accordance with appropriate procedures and holding times, including chain-of
custody requirements, as specified by the analytical lab.
April 2002
Page 4-31
-------
TABLE 13.1: Water Quality Analytical Methods
Parameter
AWWA Method 1
EPA Method 2
Radon
7500-Rn
Temperature
2550
170.1
pH
4500-Tr
150.2
TDS/Conductivity
2510
120.1
Turbidity
2130
180.1
Total Alkalinity
2320
310.2
Total Hardness
2340
130.2
Calcium Hardness
3500-Ca
215.2
Iron
3500-Fe
236.1
Manganese
3500-Mn
243.1
Coliforms
9221 / 9222 / 9223
HPC
9215 B
1) AWWA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1999.
2) EPA, Methods and Guidance for Analysis of Water, EPA 821 -C-97-001, April 1997.
13.4 Analytical Schedule
13.4.1 Removal of Radon
During the steady-state operation of each aeration testing period, radon mass balances shall be
performed on the raw and finished water in order to determine the radon removal capabilities of the
air-stripping system.
13.4.2 Raw Water Characterization
At the beginning of each aeration testing period, the raw water and finished water shall be
characterized at a single set of operating conditions by measurement of the water quality parameters
identified in Table 12.2.
13.4.3 Water Quality Sample Collection
Water quality data shall be collected at established intervals during each period of aeration testing.
The minimum monitoring frequency for the required water quality parameters is once at start-up and
weekly for radon and every two weeks for the remaining water quality parameters. The water
April 2002
Page 4-32
-------
quality sampling program may be expanded to include a greater number of water quality parameters
and to require a greater frequency of parameter sampling.
13.4.4 Raw Water Quality Limitations
The characteristics of feedwater encountered during each 60-day testing period shall be explicitly
stated. Accurate reporting of such raw water characteristics such as those identified in Table 12.2
are critical for the Verification Testing Program, as these parameters can substantially influence
aeration performance.
13.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Requirements
Removal or reduction of radon
Water quality and removal goals specified by the Manufacturer
14.0 TASK 7: QUALITY ASSURANCE^UALITY CONTROL
14.1 Introduction
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the operation of the aeration equipment and the
measured water quality parameters shall be maintained during the Equipment Verification Testing
Program.
14.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task is to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during the Equipment
Verification Testing Program. 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 QA/QC Work Plan
Equipment flow rates and associated transmitter signals should be calibrated and verified on a routine
basis. A routine daily walk through during testing shall be established to check that each piece of
equipment or instrumentation is operating properly. Particular care shall be taken to verify that
chemicals are being fed at the defined flow rate, and into a flow stream that is operating at the expected
flow rate. This will provide correct chemical concentrations in the flow stream. In-line monitoring
equipment such as flow meters, etc. shall be checked monthly 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 are in
addition to any specified checks outlined in the analytical methods.
When collecting water quality data, all system flow meters will be calibrated using the classic bucket and
stopwatch method where appropriate. Hydraulic data collection will include the measurement of the
finished water flow rate by the "bucket test" method. This would consist of filling a calibrated vessel to
April 2002
Page 4-33
-------
a known volume and measuring the time to fill the vessel with a stopwatch. This will allow for a direct
check of the system flow measuring devices.
14.3.1 Daily QA/QC Verification
On-line temperature meters (check and verify components)
On-line pH meters (check and verify components)
14.3.2 Monthly QA/QC Verification
Pretreatment chemical feed pump flow rates (verify volumetrically over a specific time
period)
On-line flow meters/rotometers (clean equipment to remove any debris or biological buildup
and verify flow volumetrically to avoid erroneous readings)
Air filters (verify good condition of air filters, replace if necessary)
Dififuser conditions (verify good condition of diffuser, replace if necessary)
Packing condition (verify good condition of packing, treat or replace if necessary)
Piping (verify good condition of all piping and connections, replace if necessary)
14.4 Analytical Methods
Use of either bench-top field analytical equipment will be acceptable for the verification testing;
however, on-line equipment is recommended for ease of operation. Use of on-line equipment is also
preferable because it reduces the introduction of error and the variability of analytical results generated
by inconsistent sampling techniques. However, standard and uniform calibration and standardization
techniques that are approved should be employed. Table 13.3 lists American Water Works
Association (AWWA) and EPA standard methods of analysis.
15.0 TASK 8: COST EVALUATION
This Plan includes the assessment of costs of verification with the benefits of testing air-stripping
technologies over a wide range of operating conditions. Therefore, this Plan requires that one set of
operating conditions be tested over a 60-day testing period. These equipment Verification Tests will
provide information relative to systems, which provide desired results and the cost, associated with the
systems. These parameters will be used with the equipment Verification Test costs to prepare cost
comparisons if pilot scale units are provided for Verification Testing purposes.
Operation and maintenance (O & M) costs realized in the equipment Verification Test can be utilized
for calculating cost estimates. O & M costs for each system will be determined during the equipment
Verification Tests. The O & M costs that will be recorded and compared during the Verification Test
include:
Labor;
April 2002
Page 4-34
-------
Electricity;
Chemical dosage; and
Equipment replacement frequency.
The capital and O & M costs will vary based on geographic location.
O & M costs should be provided for each air-stripping system that is tested. In order to receive the full
benefit of the equipment Verification Test Programs, these costs should be considered along with quality
of system operations. Other cost considerations may be added to the cost tables presented in this
section as is needed prior to the start-up of the Verification Tests. A summary of O & M costs are
outlined in Table 15.1.
Table 15.1 Operations and Maintenance Cost
Cost Parameter
Specific Utility Values
Labor rate + fringe ($/personnel-hour)
Labor overhead factor (% of labor)
Number of O&M personnel hours per week
Power Consumption (kWh/Million Gallons)
Electric rate ($/kWh)
Cost of Packing Materials ($)
Packing Material or Aeration Equipment Replacement (%/year)
Cost of Chemicals ($)
Chemical Dosage (per week)
O&M Cost ($/Kgal)
16.0 SUGGESTED READING
APHA, AWWA, and WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
20th Edition, Washington D.C. 1999.
Atoulikian, Richard G. "Proper Design of Radon Removal Facilities for Cost-Effective Treatment."
Journal NEWWA. December 1997.
April 2002
Page 4-35
-------
Cothern, C. Richard, and Rebers, Paul A. Radon, Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water. Lewis
Publishers, Chelsea, MI 1990.
Deininger, Rolf A. "Monitoring for Radon in Water." Journal A WW A.
Dixon, Kevin L., Lee, Ramon G., Smith, James and Zielinski, Paul "Evaluating Aeration Technology for
Radon Removal." Journal A WW A, April 1991.
Dixon, Kevin L. and Lee, Ramon G., "Occurrence of Radon in Well Supplies." Journal A WW A, July
1988.
Dzombak, David A., Roy, Sujoy B. and Fang, Hung-Jung, "Air-Stripper Design and Costing
Computer Program." Journal A WW A, October 1993.
Freiburger, Eric J., Jacobs, Timothy L. and Ball, William P., "Probabilistic Evaluation of Packed-
Tower Aeration Designs for VOC Removal." Journal A WW A, October 1993.
Graves, Barbara, Radon in Ground Water, Lewis Publishers/NWWA Conference, Chelsea, MI
1987.
Hand, David W., Crittenden, John C., Gehin, Joseph L. and Lykins, Jr., Benjamin W., "Design and
Evaluation of an Air-Stripping Tower for Removing VOCs from Groundwater." Journal A WWA,
September 1986.
Kinner, Nancy E., Malley, Jr., James P., Clement, Jonathan A. and Fox, Kim R., "Using POE
Techniques to Remove Radon." Journal AWWA, June 1993.
Lowry, Jerry D., "Measuring Low Radon Levels in Drinking Water Supplies." Journal AWWA, April
1991
Martins, K.L., "Practical Guide to Determine the Impact of Radon and Other Radionuclides on Water
Treatment Processes." Water Scientific Tech^ 26:1255-1264, Great Britain 1992.
Parrotta, Marc J., "Radioactivity in Water Treatment Wastes: A USEPA Perspective." Journal
AWWA, April 1991.
Pontius, Frederick W. and Paris, David B., "Congress to Decide Fate of Radon Standard." Journal
AWWA, January 1994.
Rand, Peter W., Lacombe, Eleanor H. and Perkins, Jr., W. Dana, "Radon in Homes Following Its
Reduction in a Community Water Supply." Journal AWWA, April 1991.
USEP A. Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon. Report to the United States Congress on
Radon in Drinking Water. USEPA #811-R-94-001, March 1994.
April 2002
Page 4-36
------- |