August 2001
NSF 01/12/EPADW395
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Physical Removal of Giardia cysts and
Cryptosporidium oocysts in Drinking Water
Kinetico Incorporated
CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration
System
Prepared by
Q
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
eiVetVeiV
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
&EPA
r ixwvjIvvm a
ETV
U.S. Emironmental Protection Agency NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
COAGULATION AND FILTRATION USED IN DRINKING
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
APPLICATION:
PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF GIARDIA CYSTS AND
CRYPTOSPORIDIUM OOCYSTS IN DRINKING WATER
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
CPS100CPT COAGULATION AND FILTRATION SYSTEM
COMPANY:
KINETICO INCORPORATED
ADDRESS:
10845 KINSMAN ROAD
NEWBURY, OHIO 44065
PHONE: (440)564-9111
FAX: (440) 564-9541
WEB SITE:
www.kinetico.com
EMAIL:
glatimer@kinetico.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high
quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution,
permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders groups which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Drinking Water Treatment Systems
(DWTS) Pilot, one of 12 technology areas under ETV. The DWTS Pilot recently evaluated the
performance of a coagulation and filtration system used in drinking water treatment system applications.
This verification statement provides a summary of the test results for the Kinetico Incorporated
CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System Cartwright, Olsen and Associates, an NSF-qualified
field testing organization (FTO), performed the verification testing.
01/12/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2001
VS-i
-------
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the Kinetico Incorporated CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System was
conducted for 12 days between March 24 and April 4, 2000, and three protozoan challenges were
performed between April 24 to 26, 2000. Between March 24 and April 4, 2000, raw water characteristics
were: average pH 8.3, temperature 12.3°C, and turbidity 3.4 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU). The
process flow rate through the pretreatment components was held at a constant 3.8 gpm while the flow rate
through the filtration vessels was allowed to decrease against filter head resulting in an average filter flow
rate of 2.8 gpm. The following coagulant doses were used: 266 mg/L of 2.64% Ferric Chloride (20.7
mg/L of 35% aqueous solution Ferric Chloride) and 351 mg/L of 3.47% AQM 100 (25.3 mg/L of 50%
aqueous solution Aluminum Chlorhydrate), which were added into the influent water stream of the
pretreatment components; and 182 mg/L of 0.10% C-1592 (0.54 mg/L of cationic, 34% aqueous solution
Emulsion Polyacrylamide), which was introduced into the influent water stream of the filtration vessels.
The average length per filter run was 5.6 hours and the average filtered water production was 1,024
gallons per run. The average effluent turbidity was 0.4 NTU. Source water conditions changed
considerably during the 19-day period before the protozoan challenges. During the protozoan challenges
the raw water characteristics were: average pH 8.7, temperature 15.9°C, and turbidity 14.7 NTU. The
average effluent turbidity was 1.6 NTU. Results of the samples collected from the system effluent (i.e.
combined pretreatment and filtration trains) indicate that Giardia lamblia (G. lamblia) logio removals
ranged from 2.6 to 3.6 and Cryptosporidiumparvum (C. parvum) logio removals ranged from 3.4 to 5.7 at
filter train flow rates of 2.2 to 2.6 gpm over the challenge filter runs.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Kinetico CPS100CPT has two distinct water treatment trains; a pretreatment train and a filtration
train. The pretreatment train consists of an in-line static mixer, a settling tank and a clarifier. Within the
pretreatment train, coagulants (2.64% Ferric Chloride and 3.47% AMQ 100) are introduced into the
chlorinated raw water and mixed through an in-line static mixer. The coagulated raw water is allowed to
floe and settle within a settling tank. Supernatant from the settling tank is further processed through a
clarifier. An additional coagulant (0.10% C-1592) is added to the effluent from the clarifier prior to entry
into the filtration train.
Within the filtration train, water is re-pressurized by a centrifugal pump and filtered through automatic
backwashing, alternating filters. The alternating filters (designated A and B) contain Macrolite® media, a
synthetic ceramic, filter media. The Macrolite® media meets the requirements of ANSI/NSF Standard 61
and is NSF listed as of the date of this report. Macrolite® of the 70/80 mesh size has a bulk density of
0.96 grams/cc. The specific gravity (as measured by ASTM D2840) is 2.23 g/cc. The collapse strength
for the media of this size has not been measured, however, for a larger sphere (30/50 mesh) the collapse
strength (as measured by ASTM D 3102) is a nominal 7,000 psi for 10% and nominal 8,000 psi for 20%
collapse. The uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 mesh media was analyzed in accordance with AWWA
Standard B100-96 by Bowser-Momer, Inc in December 1997. The results are summarized below.
Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Media (AWWA Standard B100-96)
Sieve Size, USA Std.
Nominal, mm
Effective, mm
Percent passing
#45
0.355
0.360
100.0
#50
0.300
0.307
99.9
#60
0.250
0.249
79.8
#70
0.212
0.212
28.9
#80
0.180
0.180
7.2
#100
0.150
0.150
0.4
Effective Size: 0.19 mm
Uniformity Coefficient: 1.2
01/12/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2001
VS-ii
-------
Kinetico performed an analysis of the 70 mesh media (lot # 352) employing a mercury/penetrometer
Micromeritics Autopore II 9220 instrument to estimate the uniformity of the media in June 1998. Results
were as follows:
During verification testing, the process flow rate through the pretreatment train was held at a constant 3.8
gpm while the flow rate through the filtration train was allowed to decrease against filter head. Typically
filter flow rates decreased from 3.3 gpm to approximately 2.7 gpm. To accommodate decreases in filter
flow, the pretreatment train included an overflow weir, discharging to waste, at the outlet of the clarifier.
Accessories and instrumentation included with the system included flow rate and pressure sensors and
monitors, on-line turbidimeters, pressure gauges, and an electrical enclosure containing a programmable
logic controller. The equipment also contained data transfer connections available for remote monitoring.
Electrical power was required for operation of the re-pressurization pump, analytical instruments and
system instrumentation.
The filtration train itself is skid mounted and is shipped absent of media. The total weight of the filtration
train, without media, is approximately 300 pounds. The physical dimensions of the filtration train were
261/4m wide x 53 'A" long x 76" high. Physical dimensions of the settling tank were 36" diameter x 78
high. Physical dimensions of the clarifier were 22!^" wide x 51 %" long x 51" high. The pretreatment anc
filtration trains together had a footprint of approximately 24.8 ft2.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The host site for this demonstration was the University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic
Laboratory (SAFHL), which has direct access to untreated and treated Mississippi river water. SAFHL is
located on the Mississippi River at Third Avenue S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55414. Chlorinated river
water was supplied to the system.
Methods and Procedures
The verification test was divided into tasks that evaluated the system's treatment performance,
specifically its ability to physically remove G. lamblia cysts and C. parvum oocysts from the feed water,
and documented the system's operational parameters.
Water quality parameters that were monitored during the verification test included: pH, temperature,
turbidity, particle counts, free chlorine residual, alkalinity, total hardness, total organic carbon (TOC),
ultraviolet absorbance (UVA) at 254 nanometer (nm), true color, aluminum, iron, manganese, algae, total
coliforms, and E. coli. Laboratory analyses were performed in accordance with the procedures and
protocols established in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition
(SM) or EPA approved methods as listed in the report
Three seeding challenges employing G. lamblia cysts and C. parvum oocysts occurred between April 24
and 26, 2000. The protozoan analyses (identification and enumeration) were conducted using EPA
Method 1623. The mixed cocktail of cysts and oocysts was added to the raw water upstream of the
Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Media (Micromeritics Autopore)
Total intrusion volume
Total pore area
Median pore diameter by volume
Median pore diameter by area
Median pore diameter by 4V/A
0.2098 mL/g
0.18 sq-m/g
53.7990 nm
52.5351 (im
46.5685 (im
01/12/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2001
VS-iii
-------
pretreatment train. The analyses of the influent samples indicated that the cocktail contained 150, 260,
and 363 G. lamblia cysts per liter, and 8,000, 21,000, and 45,000 C. parvum oocysts per liter,
respectively, for each of the three seeding challenges. Samples for protozoa analyses were collected on a
side-stream and filtered through Gelman capsule filters. Post clarifier and filter effluent samples were
collected at time zero (based on tracer test data), and at times 1/2 hour, 1.0 hour, and 2.0 hour (if filter
runs allowed) after time zero. Seeded influent source water was collected and filtered through a Gelman
capsule filter throughout the duration of the microbial injection.
Operating conditions were documented during each day of verification testing, including: filter flow rate,
coagulants used, chemical feed volumes and dose rates, filter headloss, occurrence and volume of
backwashes, hours of operation, power use, filtered water production, and waste production.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
Source Water
Between March 24 and April 4, 2000, average raw water characteristics were: pH 8.3, temperature
12.3°C, and turbidity 3.4 NTU. Source water conditions changed considerably during the 19-day period
before the protozoan challenges. During the protozoan challenges, average raw water characteristics
were: pH 8.7, temperature 15.9°C, and turbidity 14.7 NTU.
Operation and Maintenance
During the verification period of March 24 through April 4, 2000, there were 42 filter runs; 21 filter runs
for each filter "A" and "B". Coagulants used included solutions of 2.64% Ferric Chloride and 3.47%
AQM 100, which were added into the influent water stream of the pretreatment components, and a
solution of 0.10 % C-1592, which was introduced into the influent water stream of the filtration vessels.
The average length per filter run was 5.6 hours and the average filtered water production was 1,024
gallons per run. The average filtration flow rate was 2.8 gpm with an average minimum flow rate of 2.5
gpm and an average maximum flow rate of 3.1 gpm. The average effluent turbidity was 0.4 NTU. The
following table summarizes the averages per filter run for several operating parameters.
Average Operating Conditions for 42 Filter Runs (March 24 through April 4, 2000)
Filter Run
Ave. Pre-Treatment Ave. Filter-Train
APSI
Total
Backwash
Length
Train Flow Rate
Flow Rate
End Run
Volume
Volume
(Hrs)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(psig)
(gal)
(gal)
Average
5.61
3.8
2.8
19
1,024
80
Minimum
1.72
3.8
2.6
9
363
53
Maximum
8.57
3.9
3.1
20
1,657
98
Std. Dev
1.57
0.0
0.1
2
259
11
95% Conf. Int.
5.15,6.07
NA
2.8,2.9
18,20
945,1,103
77, 84
The failure of a pressure differential switch, which caused the operation of the filtration system to become
non-automatic, combined with continuous monitoring required for the operation of the pretreatment train
made the operation of the Kinetico CPS100CPT labor intensive. The system was staffed 24 hours per day
during testing. Manual tasks included stabilization and monitoring of the coagulant chemistry, manual
backwashing, and data recording. If coagulation chemistry is stabilized, such as what was experienced
for an extended period during verification testing, and the filtration train is operating on an automatic
basis, the Kinetico CPS100CPT could be operated with less technician interface. Minimal changes in
source water characteristics may negatively influence performance of coagulation chemistry and
continuous monitoring would be necessary to be aware when such changes occur so corrective action can
be taken on a timely basis.
01/12/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2001
VS-iv
-------
The O&M manual provided by the manufacturer primarily defined installation, operation and
maintenance requirements for the filtration train of the Kinetico CPS100CPT. The O&M manual was
reviewed for completeness and used during equipment installation, start-up, system operation, and
trouble-shooting. The manual provided adequate instruction to perform these functions. In cases where
system components failed, such was concluded based upon a review of the information in the O&M
manual. Specific component failures included an on-line turbidimeter manufactured by Geat Lakes
International and a pressure differential switch manufactured by Orange Research. In both cases,
Kinetico was responsive to remedy component failures. The Kinetico O&M manual did not contain
information on the pretreatment train (settling tank and clarifier).
Coagulant Usage
Coagulant doses used between March 24 and April 4, 2000 included 266 mg/L of 2.64% Ferric Chloride
(20.7 mg/L of 35% aqueous solution Ferric Chloride) and 351 mg/L of 3.47% AQM 100 (25.3 mg/L of
50% aqueous solution Aluminum Chlorhydrate), which were added into the influent water stream of the
pretreatment components, and 182 mg/L of 0.10% C-1592 (0.54 mg/L of cationic, 34% aqueous solution
Emulsion Polyacrylamide), which was introduced into the influent water stream of the filtration vessels.
A total of 83.25 liters of 3.60% AQM 100, 62.80 liters of 2.72% Ferric Chloride, and 27.49 liters of
0.10% CI592 were used during the verification testing period between March 24 and April 4, 2000.
These volumes, converted to undiluted solutions as provided by the chemical supplier, are equivalent to
3.00 liters of AQM 100, 1.71 liters of Ferric Chloride, and 0.03 liters of C1592.
Protozoan Contaminant Removal
The system (i.e. combined pretreatment and filtration trains) demonstrated 2.6 to 3.6 logio reductions of
G. lamblia cysts and 3.4 to 5.7 logio reductions of C. parvum oocysts. These results were obtained at an
average pretreatment train flow rate of 3.7 gpm and at a filter train flow rates of 2.2 to 2.6 gpm over the
challenge filter runs. Filter runs during challenge testing were considerably short (4.4 hours) due to
changes in the water quality of the Mississippi River. During the first challenge, effluent samples were
only collected during the first hour after time zero before terminal head loss occurred across the filter. On
the two subsequent challenges, effluent samples were collected during a two-hour period after time zero.
Finished Water Quality
The average effluent turbidity during the twelve days between March 24 and April 4, 2000 was 0.4 NTU.
The average effluent turbidity during the protozoan challenges was 1.6 NTU. A summary of the influent
and effluent water quality information for the verification period of March 24 through April 4, 2000 is
presented in the following table.
Influent/Effluent Water Quality (March 24-April 4,2000)
Parameter
# of Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
11/11
150/140
140/140
150/140
Total Coliform (cfu/lOOmL)
2/2
NA/NA
<1/<1.2
>200/>200
E. coli (CFU/lOOmL)
2/2
NA/NA
<1/<1
1/7
Total Hardness (mg/L)
2/2
NA/NA
160/160
160/160
TOC (mg/L)
2/2
NA/NA
11/8.9
12/9.0
UVA254 (cm-1)
2/2
NA/NA
0.151/0.125
0.185/0.240
Turbidity (NTU)*
494/7,061
3.3/0.4
2.6/0.03
4.0/5.0
Note: All calculations involving results with below PQL values used 1/2 the PQL in the calculation.
NA = Average was not performed for data sets with two samples (i.e. n=2).
*Influent turbidity measurements involved a bench-top turbidimeter. Effluent turbidity measurements were
made with an on-line turbidimeter.
01/12/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2001
VS-v
-------
Power Consumption
During the verification testing period of March 24 through April 4, 2000, the system used 196 kWh for
39,812 gallons through the filtration train. This equates to 203 gallons of filtered water per kWh.
Original Signed by
E. Timothy Oppelt
9/26/01
Original Signed by
Gordon Bellen
E. Timothy Oppelt Date
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Gordon Bellen
Vice President
Federal Programs
NSF International
10/02/01
Date
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warrantie s as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report is not a NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Physical Removal of
Microbiological and Particulate Contaminants dated May 14, 1999, the Verification
Statement, and the Verification Report (NSF Report # 01/12/EPADW395) are available
from the following sources:
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
1. Drinking Water Treatment Systems ETV Pilot Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
01/12/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2001
VS-vi
-------
August 2001
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Physical Removal of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts
in Drinking Water
Kinetico Incorporated CPS100CPT
Coagulation and Filtration System
Prepared for:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Prepared by
Philip C. 01 sen
Cartwright, 01 sen and Associates, LLC
Cedar, Minnesota 55011
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development has
financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under Cooperative Agreement
No. CR 824815. This verification effort was supported by Drinking Water Treatment Systems Pilot
operating under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. This document has been
peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public release.
11
-------
Foreword
The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test performed for
NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Cartwright,
Olsen & Associates, LLC (COA) in cooperation with Kinetico, Inc. The test was conducted during
March and April of 2000 at the University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory.
Throughout its history, the EPA has evaluated the effectiveness of innovative technologies to protect
human health and the environment. A new EPA program, the Environmental Technology Verification
Program (ETV) has been instituted to verify the performance of innovative technical solutions to
environmental pollution or human health threats. ETV was created to substantially accelerate the
entrance of new environmental technologies into the domestic and international marketplace.
Verifiable, high quality data on the performance of new technologies is made available to regulators,
developers, consulting engineers, and those in the public health and environmental protection industries.
This encourages more rapid availability of approaches to better protect the environment.
The EPA has partnered with NSF, an independent, not-for-profit testing and certification organization
dedicated to public health, safety and protection of the environment, to verify performance of small
package drinking water systems that serve small communities under the Drinking Water Treatment
Systems (DWTS) ETV Pilot. A goal of verification testing is to enhance and facilitate the acceptance of
small package drinking water treatment equipment by state drinking water regulatory officials and
consulting engineers while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each location where the
equipment's use is contemplated. NSF will meet this goal by working with manufacturers and NSF-
qualified Field Testing Organizations (FTO) to conduct verification testing under the approved
protocols.
The ETV DWTS Pilot is being conducted by NSF 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, Cincinnati, Ohio. It is important to note that
verification of the equipment does not mean that the equipment is "certified" by NSF or "accepted" by
EPA. Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by
these organizations for those conditions tested by the FTO.
111
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Verification Statement VS-i
Title Page i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms ix
Definitions xi
Acknowledgments xiii
Chapter 1 - Introductioa 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 NSF International 2
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization 2
1.2.3 Manufacturer 3
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories 3
1.2.5 University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory 4
1.2.6 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 5
1.3 Verification Testing Site 5
1.3.1 Source Water 5
1.3.2 Effluent Discharge 7
Chapter 2 - Equipment Description and Operating Processes 8
2.1 Historical Background 8
2.2 Equipment Description 9
2.3 Operator Licensing Requirements 15
Chapter 3 - Methods and Procedures 16
3.1 Experimental Design 16
3.1.1 Objectives 16
3.1.1.1 Evaluation of Stated Equipment Capabilities 16
3.1.1.2 Evaluation of Equipment Performance Relative To Water Quality Regulations 16
3.1.1.3 Evaluation of Operational and Maintenance Requirements 16
3.1.1.4 Evaluation of Equipment Characteristics 17
3.2 Verification Testing Schedule 17
3.3 Initial Operations 17
3.3.1 Characterization of Influent Water Quality 18
3.3.2 Coagulant Chemistry 18
3.3.2 Filter Loading Rate 18
3.3.4 Verification ofResidence Time 19
iv
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
3.4 Verification Task Procedures 19
3.4.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation 19
3.4.2 Task 2 - Influent and Effluent Water Quality Characterization 21
3.4.3 Task 3 - Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance 22
3.4.4 Task 4 - Microbiological Contaminant Removal Testing 24
3.4.4.1 Preparation of Microbial Doses 25
3.4.4.2 Analytical Schedule 26
3.4.4.2 Data Evaluation 26
3.4.4.3 Evaluation Criteria 27
3.5 Recording Data 27
3.5.1 Objectives 27
3.5.2 Procedures 28
3.5.2.1 Logbooks 28
3.5.2.2 Photographs 28
3.5.2.3 Chain of Custody 28
3.5.2.4 On-line Measurements 28
3.5.2.5 Spreadsheets 29
3.6 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators 29
3.6.1 Representativeness 29
3.6.2 Statistical Uncertainty 29
3.6.3 Accuracy 30
3.6.4 Precision 30
3.7 Equipment 31
3.7.1 Equipment Operations 31
3.7.1.1 Analytical Equipment 31
3.8 Health and Safety Measures 32
3.9 QA/QC Procedures 32
3.9.1 QA/QC Verifications 32
3.9.2 On-Site Analytical Methods 33
3.9.2.1 pH 33
3.9.2.2 Temperature 33
3.9.2.3 Turbidity 34
3.9.2.4 Particle Counting 34
3.9.2.5 Particle Free Water (PFW) 35
3.9.2.6 Pressure Gauges 35
3.9.3 Off-Site Analysis For Chemical and Biological Samples 36
3.9.3.1 Organic Parameters, Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance 36
3.9.3.2 Microbial Samples: Coliform and Algae 36
3.9.3.3 Inorganic Samples 36
v
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
3.9.3.4 True Color 36
Chapter - 4 Results and Discussion 37
4.1 Introduction 37
4.2 Initial Operations Period Results 37
4.2.1 Characterization of Influent Water Quality 38
4.2.2 Coagulant Chemistry 38
4.2.3 Filter Loading Rate 39
4.2.4 Verification of Residence Time 39
4.3 Verification Testing Results and Discussions 41
4.3.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation 41
4.3.1.1 FlowRate 41
4.3.1.2 Automatic Operation 42
4.3.1.3 Pretreatment Train 42
4.3.1.4 Turbidimeters 45
4.3.2 Task 2 - Influent and Effluent Water Quality Characterization 45
4.3.3 Task 3 - Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance 47
4.3.4 Task 4 - Microbiological Contaminant Removal Testing 50
4.3.4.1 Water Characteristics 50
4.3.4.2 Operational and Analytical Data 52
4.3.4.3 Discussion of Results 58
4.4 Equipment Characteristics Results 61
4.4.1 Qualitative F actors 61
4.4.1.1 Susceptibility to changes in environmental conditions 61
4.4.1.2 Operational requirements 63
4.4.1.3 Evaluation of O&M Manual 63
4.4.1.4 Safety 64
4.4.2 Quantative F actors 64
4.4.2.1 Power Requirements 64
4.4.2.2 Coagulant Chemical Requirements 64
4.5 QA/QC Results 64
4.5.1 Data Correctness 65
4.5.1.1 Representativeness 65
4.5.1.2 Statistical Uncertainty 65
4.5.1.3 Accuracy 65
4.5.1.4 Precision 65
4.5.2 Daily QA/QC Results 66
4.5.3 Bi-Weekly QA/QC Verification Results 67
4.5.4 Results Of QA/QC Verifications At The Start Of Each Testing Period 68
vi
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
4.5.5 Analytical Laboratory QA/QC 73
Chapter 5 - References 74
Tables Page
Table 1-1. Influent Water Quality (March 24 - April 4, 2000) 6
Table 1-2. Influent Water Particle Count (counts/ml) (March 24 - April 4, 2000) 7
Table 2-1. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Media (AWWA Standard B100-96) 12
Table 2-2. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Media (Micromeritics Autopore) 12
Table 3-1. Filtration Performance Capability Objectives 20
Table 3-2. Analytical Data Collection Schedule 21
Table 3-3. Operational Data Collection 24
Table 4-1. Dosage Requirements 43
Table 4-2. Coagulant/Polymer Chemistry 44
Table 4-3. Influent Water Quality (March 24 - April 4, 2000) 45
Table 4-4. Effluent Water Quality (March 24 - April 4, 2000) 46
Table 4-5. Average Operating Conditions Per Filter Run 48
Table 4-6. Average Particle Size & Turbidity (March 24 - April 4, 2000) 50
Table 4-7. Influent Water Quality During Protozoan Challenge Events (April 24 - April 26, 2000) 51
Table 4-8. Effluent Water Quality During Protozoan Challenge Events (April 24 - April 26, 2000) ....51
Table 4-9. Operating Conditions During Each Protozoan Challenge Event 52
Table 4-10. Coagulant/Polymer Chemistry During Challenge Events 52
Table 4-11. Average Operating Conditions Per Filter Run During Challenge Events 53
Table 4-12. Pretreatment and Filter Train Flow Rates During Challenge Events 53
Table 4-13. G. lamblia Logio Removals 57
Table 4-14. C. parvum Logio Removals 58
Table 4-15. Notable Changes In Source Water Conditions 63
Figures Page
Figure 2-1. Process Design Schematic Of The ETV Test Station for the Kinetico CPS100CPT
Coagulation and Filtration System 10
Figure 3-1. Process Design of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Test Station 23
Figure 4-1. Tracer Test #1 40
Figure 4-2. Tracer Test #2 40
Figure 4-3. Gallons Per Filter Run & Raw Influent Turbidity 49
Figure 4-4. 3-7 |im Particle Count Logio Removal During Challenge #1 54
Figure 4-5. 3-7 |im Particle Count Logio Removal During Challenge #2 55
Figure 4-6. 3-7 |im Particle Count Logio Removal During Challenge #3 56
Figure 4-7. Challenge #1 Process Flow Rate Characteristics vs. Change In Pressure Across
Filter 60
vii
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Figures Page
Figure 4-8. Challenge #2 Process Flow Rate Characteristics vs. Change In Pressure Across
Filter 60
Figure 4-9. Challenge #3 Process Flow Rate Characteristics vs. Change In Pressure Across
Filter 61
Figure 4-10. Mississippi River Flow Rate (CFS) at SAFHL (January 1 - May 1, 2000) 62
Figure 4-11. Verification of 3 |j,m Influent Particles 68
Figure 4-12. Verification of 10 |j,m Influent Particles 69
Figure 4-13. Verification of 15 |j,m Influent Particles 69
Figure 4-14. Verification of Mix of 3, 10 & 15 |j,m Influent Particles 70
Figure 4-15. Verification of 3 |j,m Effluent Particles 70
Figure 4-16. Verification of 10 |j,m Effluent Particles 71
Figure 4-17. Verification of 15 |j,m Effluent Particles 71
Figure 4-18. Verification of 3, 10 & 15 |j,m Effluent Particles 72
Photos Page
Photo 1. Front view of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System at SAFHL 14
Photo 2. Side view of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System at SAFHL 14
Appendices
A Laboratory Approval Statement
B Macrolite MSDS and Operation and Maintenance Manual for CPS100CPT
C Data Spreadsheets
D Data Logbook
E Laboratory Chain of Custody Forms
F Laboratory Reports and Challenge Testing Reports and Bench Sheets
G Coagulation Chemistry Log
H QA/QC Documentation
viii
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
APHA American Public Health Association
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWWA American Water Works Association
°C Degrees Celsius
cfh Cubic feet per hour
cfrn Cubic feet per minute
CFU Colony Forming Units
cfs Cubic feet per second
CO A Cartwright, Olsen, and Associates, LLC
DAF Dissolved air flotation
DI Deionized (demineralized) water
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
°F Fahrenheit
F OD Field Operations Document
FTO Field Testing Organization
gallons Gallons are expressed as US gallons, 1 gal = 3.785 liters
gpm Gallons per minute
ICR Information Collection Rule
Kinetico Kinetico Incorporated
Log Logarithm to the base 10
Ln Logarithm to the base e
mgd Million gallons per day
mg/L Milligrams Per Liter
MPA Microbial Particulate Analysis
MWW Minneapoli s W ater W orks
|j,m Micron
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NSF NSF International, formerly known as National Sanitation Foundation
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
(oo)cyst A term used conventionally to refer to either or both cysts and oocysts
DWTS Drinking Water Treatment Systems
PFW Particle Free Water
PLC Programmable Logic Computer
PQL Practical Quantification Limit
psi Pounds per square inch
psig Pounds per square inch gauge
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
SM Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th
Edition
IX
-------
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCU Total Color Units
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSS Total Suspended Solids
Ten State's Standards Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and
Environmental Managers, Recommended Standards for Water Works
WEF W ater Environment F ederation
x
-------
Definitions
Backwashable Depth Filter
A granulated media filter intended to filter uncoagulated or coagulated water and designed to be
backwashed when either turbidity breakthrough occurs or terminal headloss is reached.
Coagulant
Although technically the coagulant is the product of a chemical reaction that is formed when chemicals
are added to water containing colloidal suspensions, the term is often used to refer to the chemicals that
are added. These include aluminum and ferric salts, along with organic polymers.
Coagulant aid
Activated silica when used to coagulate suspensions.
Coagulation
The destabilization of colloidal and suspended materials in water using coagulant chemicals, thus
allowing the particles to agglomerate into floe.
Colloid
In water treatment the term refers to charged, suspended particles such as clays, metal salts and
microbes that coagulate into larger agglomerates in water, thus allowing filtration.
Conventional filtration treatment
A treatment train involving coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration.
Direct filtration
A process involving coagulation through chemical coagulant addition and filtration, but excluding the
sedimentation step.
Filtration
A process for removing particulate matter from water by passage through porous media.
Flocculation
The employment of stirring through hydraulic or mechanical means to agglomerate smaller floe into
larger particles for more ready separation.
Granular Media Filter
A deep bed filter containing granular media used to filter water that has not been coagulated. These
filters rely on straining particles out of the water, or by attachment of the particles to the media.
XI
-------
Sedimentation
Separation of solids prior to filtration by gravity settling or through other hydraulic means.
Ten State's Standards
A compilation of accepted civil engineering water treatment plant design standards, published as "Great
Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers,
Recommended Standards for Water Works," 1992.
Xll
-------
Acknowledgments
The Field Testing Organization, Cartwright, Olsen & Associates (COA), was responsible for all
elements in the testing sequence, including collection of samples, calibration and verification of
instruments, data collection and analysis, data management, data interpretation and the preparation of
this report.
Cartwright, Olsen & Associates, LLC
19406 East Bethel Blvd.
Cedar, Minnesota 55011
Phone: (763)434-1300
Fax: (763) 434-8450
Contact Person: Philip C. Olsen
E-mail: p.olsen@ix.netcom.com
Challenge seeding and elution of filter cartridges for concentration of Cryptosporidium parvum (C.
parvum) oocysts was performed by:
Debra Huffman Environmental Consulting
6762 Millstone Dr.
New Port Richey, Fl. 34655
Phone: (727) 553-3946
Fax: (727) 893-1189
Contact Person: Debra Huffman, Ph.D.
E-mail: dhuffinan@marine.usf.edu
The laboratory that conducted the protozoa analytical work of this study was:
BioVir Laboratories, Inc.
685 Stone Road
Benicia, CA 94510
Phone: (707) 747-5906 or (800) 442-7342
Fax: (707) 747-1751
Contact Person: Richard E. Danielson, Ph.D., Quality Assurance Officer, Principal
Analyst/ Supervi sor
The laboratory that conducted the remaining laboratory analytical work of this study was:
Spectrum Labs Inc.
301 West County Road E2
St. Paul, MN 55112
Phone: (651)633-0101
Fax: (651)633-1402
Contact Person: Gerard Herro, Laboratory Manager
E-mail: gherro@spectrum-labs.com
Xlll
-------
The Manufacturer of the Equipment was:
Kinetico Incorporated
10845 Kinsman Road
Newbury, Ohio 44065
Phone: (440) 564-9111 or (800) 432-1166
Fax: (440)564-9541
Contact Person: Glen Latimer, Operations Manager
E-mail: glatimer@kinetico.com
CO A wishes to thank NSF International, especially Mr. Bruce Bartley, Project Manger, and Carol
Becker and Kristie Wilhelm, Environmental Engineers for providing guidance and program management.
Glen Latimer, Manager Municipal Sales, Chip Fatheringham, Coordinator-Pilot Operations, Sam
Mason, Research Scientist, Skip Wolf and Jeff Hoover, Kinetico Incorporated are to be commended
for providing the treatment system and the excellent technical and product expertise.
The University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory staff including Scott Morgan,
M.S., P.E. Research Fellow, Jeff Marr, Research Fellow, Julie A. Tank, Jr. Engineer, and Jason
McDonald, Jr. Engineer, are to be recognized for their assistance during setup, and tear down as well as
assistance during the operation.
CO A also wishes to thank the Minnesota Department of Health, Drinking Water Protection for their
invaluable analytical and operational assistance, especially Gerald Smith, P.E., Public Health Engineer,
and Anita C. Anderson, Public Health Engineer.
xiv
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
Program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high
quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution,
permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders groups
which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by
developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory (as
appropriate) testing, collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations
are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known
and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Drinking Water Treatment Systems
(DWTS) Pilot, one of 12 technology areas under ETV. The DWTS Pilot evaluated the performance
Kinetico Inc.'s CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System. The field testing included protozoan
challenges to evaluate the system's capability to physically remove Cryptosporidium parvum (C.
parvum) and Giardia lamblia (G. lamblia). This document provides the verification test results for
the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System was a cooperative
effort between the following participants:
NSF International
Cartwright, 01 sen & Associates, LLC
Kinetico Incorporated
Debra Huffman Environmental Consulting
BioVir Laboratories
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The following is a brief description of each ETV participant and their roles and responsibilities.
1
-------
1.2.1 NSF International
NSF is a not-for-profit standards and certification organization dedicated to public health safety and the
protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, NSF has been
instrumental in the development of consensus standards for the protection of public health and the
environment. NSF also provides testing and certification services to ensure that products bearing the
NSF Name, Logo and/or Mark meet those standards. The EPA partnered with the NSF to verify the
performance of drinking water treatment systems through the EPA's ETV Program.
NSF provided technical and primarily quality oversight of the verification testing. An audit of the field
analytical and data gathering and recording procedures was conducted. NSF also reviewed the Field
Operations Document (FOD) to assure its conformance with pertinent ETV generic protocol and test
plan. NSF also conducted a review of this report and coordinated the EPA and technical reviews of
this report.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: (734) 769-8010
Fax: (734) 769-0109
Contact Person: Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
E-mail: bartley@nsf.org
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization
Cartwright, Olsen & Associates (COA), a Limited Liability Company, conducted the verification testing
of Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System. COA is a NSF-qualified Field Testing
Organization (FTO) for the DWTS ETV Pilot.
COA was responsible for conducting the verification testing. COA provided all needed logistical
support, established a communications network, and scheduled and coordinated activities of all
participants. COA was responsible for ensuring that the testing location and influent water conditions
were such that the verification testing could meet its stated objectives. COA prepared the FOD,
oversaw the testing, managed, evaluated, interpreted and reported on the data generated by the testing,
as well as evaluated and reported on the performance of the technology.
COA associates, in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Health and the University of
Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory conducted the onsite analyses and data recording
during the testing. Oversight of the daily tests was provided by COA's Project Manager and Director.
Contact Information:
Cartwright, Olsen & Associates, LLC
19406 East Bethel Blvd., Cedar, MN 55011
2
-------
Phone: (763) 434-1300
Fax: (763) 434-8450
Contact Person: Philip C. 01 sen, Project Manager
E-mail: p.olsen@ix.netcom.com
1.2.3 Manufacturer
The treatment system is manufactured by Kinetico Incorporated, a manufacturer of non-electric,
demand operated water processing systems. The company was founded by two engineers to develop a
non-electric, metered water softener and has grown rapidly into one of the largest manufacturers of
water treatment systems worldwide. Headquartered in Newbury, Ohio,
Kinetico was responsible for supplying a field-ready model number CPS100CPT Coagulation and
Filtration System equipped with all necessary components including treatment equipment,
instrumentation and controls and an operations and maintenance manual. Kinetico was responsible for
providing logistical and technical support as needed as well as providing technical assistance to the FTO
during operation and monitoring of the equipment undergoing field verification testing.
Contact Information:
Kinetico Incorporated
10845 Kinsman Road, Newbury, Ohio 44065
Phone: (440) 564-9111 or (800) 432-1166
Fax: (440)564-9541
Contact Person: Glen Latimer
E-mail: glatimer@kinetico.com
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories
Challenge seeding and recovery of G. lamblia and C. parvum (oo)cysts was performed by:
Debra Huffman Environmental Consulting
6762 Millstone Drive, New Port Richey, FL 34655
Phone: (727) 553-3946
Fax: (727) 893-1189
Contact Person: Debra Huffman, Ph.D.
E-mail: dhuffinan@marine.usf.edu
Protozoan laboratory work was performed by BioVir Laboratories, Inc. of Benicia, California.
BioVir's laboratory is certified by the California Department of Health Services. Additionally, the
laboratory has received Protozoa Laboratory Approval from the EPA under the Information Collection
Rule (ICR) Program. A copy of the Laboratory Approval Statement is attached in Appendix A.
3
-------
Contact Information:
BioVir Laboratories, Inc.
685 Stone Road, Benicia, CA 94510
Phone: (707) 747-5906 or (800) 442-7342
Fax: (707) 747-1751
Contact Person: Richard E. Danielson, Ph.D., Quality Assurance Officer, Principal
Analyst/ Supervi sor
Spectrum Labs, Inc performed tests for coliform bacteria and off-site non-microbial work. Spectrum's
laboratory provided analytical services for total coliform, total alkalinity, total hardness, true color,
UV254 absorbance, aluminum, algae, (number and species), total suspended solids (TSS), iron and
manganese, and total organic carbon (TOC).
Contact Information:
Spectrum Labs Inc.
301 West County Road E2, St. Paul, MN 55112
Phone: (651)633-0101
Fax: (651)633-1402
Contact Person: Gerard Herro, Laboratory Manager
E-mail: gherro@spectrum-labs.com
1.2.5 University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory
The University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory (SAFHL), Department of Civil
and Mineral Engineering, located on Hennepin Island at the head of St. Anthony Falls in the heart of
Minneapolis, is literally carved from the limestone ledge forming the falls on the Mississippi River.
SAFHL's primary purpose is to provide a research program to support graduate studies in water
resources engineering and hydromechanics.
During the testing of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System, SAFHL provided
the use of their facility, and assisted COA in the installation, initial operations and equipment operation
and monitoring during the performance verification period.
Contact Information:
University of Minnesota
St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory
Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering
Mississippi River at Third Avenue S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414-2196
Phone(612)627-4010
Fax: (612) 627-4609
Contact Person: Scott Morgan, M.S., P.E. Research Fellow
E-mail: morga016@tc.umn.edu
4
-------
1.2.6 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA through its Office of Research and Development has financially supported and collaborated
with NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. CR 824815. This verification effort was supported by
DWTS Pilot operating under the ETV Program. This document was reviewed for technical and quality
content by the EPA.
1.3 Verification Testing Site
In March and April of 2000, the ability of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System
to remove C. parvum oocysts and G. lamblia was tested at the University of Minnesota, SAFHL.
The University of Minnesota, SAFHL, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering is located on the
Mississippi River at Third Avenue, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55414-2196.
1.3.1 Source Water
The University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory has direct access to untreated and
treated Mississippi river water. River water treated by the Minneapolis Water Works (MWW)
treatment plant and supplied to the Hydraulic Laboratory through the Minneapolis potable water
distribution system can also be blended with untreated water to achieve targeted turbidity levels during
initial operations and verification testing.
The Mississippi River, at SAFHL's location, is considered part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin
area. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Department of Interior, National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program provides the following description of this area: Geology,
geomorphology, climate, hydrology and land covering this area control the occurrence and flow of
water, and the distribution of water-quality constituents. Landforms within this Upper Mississippi River
Basin are primarily results of Pleistocene glaciation. Soils developed en glacial deposits range from
heavy, poorly-drained clay soils developed on ground moraine to light, well-drained sands on outwash
plains. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the southern and western parts of the study area: forests
cover much of the northern and eastern parts of the basin area, and the Twin Cities (location of the
MWW) dominates the east-central part of the basin area.
The Upper Mississippi's River Basin is underlain by glacial sediments and by a thick sequence of
limestone, shale, shaley sandstone and sandstone of Precambrian and Paleozoic age.
The climate of the Minneapolis, Minnesota area is sub-humid continental. The average monthly
temperature ranges from -12 °Celsius (°C, or 11 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) in January to 23°C (74 °F)
in July. Average precipitation at the MWW is 30 inches. About three-quarters of the annual
precipitation falls from April to September.
During initial operations of the ETV test period (March 8 through March 23, 2000), the influent water
to the Kinetico CPS100CPT water exhibited the following average characteristics: turbidity of 6.7
5
-------
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU); temperature 8.6°C, pH 7.8; total alkalinity of 126 mg/L; total
hardness in the range of 120 to 160 mg/L; TOC concentration of 12.0 mg/L; UV254 absorption in the
range of 0.254 to 0.273; true color between 40 and 45 Total Color Units (TCU); total coliform was not
detected (Practical Quantification Limit [PQL] of 1 CFU/100 mL); iron 0.4 to 0.5 mg/L; aluminum in
the range of <0.05 to 0.06 irg/L; and manganese of 0.05 mg/L. Based upon data collected during
initial operations it was determined that untreated river water would be used during the ETV
performance verification period.
A summary of the influent water quality information for the verification period of March 24 through April
4, 2000 is presented below in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Influent Water Quality (March 24 -
Parameter # of
Samples
April 4,2000)
Average
Minimum
Maximum
PQL
Temperature (°C)
11
12.3
11.3
14.1
—
pH
12
8.3
8.1
8.5
...
Algae (Algae/mL)
2
See discussion
<1
See discussion
1
in Chapter 4
in Chapter 4
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
11
150
150
150
10
Aluminum (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.05
0.10
0.05
Total Coliform (cfu/lOOmL)
2
NA
<1
>200
1
E. Coli (CFU/lOOmL)
2
NA
<1
1
1
Total Hardness (mg/L)
2
NA
160
160
10
Iron (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.1
0.3
0.1
Manganese (mg/L)
2
NA
0.03
0.06
0.01
TOC (mg/L)
2
NA
11
12
0.05
UVA254 (cm"1)
2
NA
0.151
0.185
...
Free Chlorine (mg/1)
10
0.49
0.1
0.8
0.01*
Bench-top Turbidity (NTU)
494
3.3
2.6
4.0
...
Note: All calculations involving results with below PQL values used half the PQL in the calculation.
NA = Average was not performed on data sets with two samples (i.e. n=2).
* - This is the Estimated Detection Level (EDL) for free chlorine, this is not the same as the PQL. The EDL is the
calculated lowest concentration in a deionized water matrix that is different from zero with a 99% level of confidence.
Two samples of the influent water were collected for total coliform analysis. One measurement was
below the PQL of 1 CFU/lOOmL, while the other sample dated April 3, 2000, detected greater than
200 CFU/lOOmL. Two samples of the influent water were collected for E. coli analysis. The results
indicated that E. coli was not detected in the first sample (PQL of 1 CFU/lOOmL), while the second
sample dated April 3, 2000, measured 1 CFU/lOOmL. An algae sample dated March 27, 2000,
reported positive algae, and is discussed further in Chapter 4 Results and Discussions.
6
-------
Table 1-2 lists the influent water particle counts for the period March 24 through April 4, 2000.
Table 1-2. Influent Water Particle Count (counts/ml) (March 24-April 4,2000)
Particle Count Size Range
2-3 (im 3-5 (im 5-7 |im 7-10 pm 10- 15 |im
Average
1,341
4,104
2,751
5,310
2,343
Minimum
318
247
70
36
5
Maximum
1,673
4,489
2,967
5,800
3,400
Standard Deviation
131
222
128
278
300
95% Confidence Interval
1,378,1,343
4,100, 4,109
2,748,2,754
5,304, 5,316
2,336,2,349
1.3.2 Effluent Discharge
The effluent of the Kinetico CPS100CPT unit was discharged to Minneapolis Metropolitan sanitary
sewer. The Metropolitan Environmental Authority, which encompasses the Minneapolis Metro Area,
maintains a primary sewage treatment plant that discharges to the Mississippi River downstream of the
Hydraulic Laboratory. No discharge permits were required.
7
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description and Operating Processes
2.1 Historical Background
Particles in colloidal suspensions, where electrostatic forces keep the particles dispersed, have proven
to be a challenge to depth filtration. In many cases, chemical pretreatment, by agglomerating the
particles into larger floe, will allow solids separation of water matrices that otherwise resist filtration.
Protozoan (oo)cysts, especially C. parvum oocysts are small, from 4 to 6 microns (|im) in diameter,
relatively spherical in shape, and somewhat pliable. They have a slight electronegative surface charge
which serves to keep them separated from each other; that is, they behave as colloids in water
suspensions (Cushen, 1996; Drozd, 1996; American Water Works Association [AWWA], 1992;
Ongerth, 1996; Harter, 2000).
Large water treatment systems have long employed coagulation, flocculation, settling and filtration for
the production of quality water. Small systems have been more reluctant to build treatment plants that
use coagulation because of the higher level of operator training required and the need for continuing
monitoring. With the soon to be implemented Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules (ESWTR),
however, coagulation technologies may need to be considered for smaller systems in order to meet
tough new standards with a modest increase in costs.
Of the several treatment regimens that incorporate coagulation are those that include a settling basin,
where the floe is allowed to settle by gravity and the supernatant decanted and filtered. This is a scheme
common to municipal gravity filter systems.
Only in recent time has the scientific community been able to quantify the collection of material within the
filter bed, especially the particulate matter—including microbes—that lie below our visual capabilities.
We now know that particles that we cannot see can also be removed by filtration. Still under study,
however, are the mechanisms through which particulate matter, including microscopic life forms, are
accumulated within the filter media.
It has been assumed that along with simple straining, which is the physical capture of a small mass too
large to move through the pores between the media granules; small particles are captured through other
attachment mechanisms. Most of those mechanisms involve a surface charge attraction of the particle to
granulated media and as a result many experiments have been performed to both better understand the
process and to seek methods to improve it. Some particles are also assumed to be collected by impact
on and adherence to the surface of the filter media granules; while the actual mechanisms are not clearly
understood, straining is certainly among them.
The most common filtration system used in municipal treatment is the gravity filter, which uses the weight
or head of the water to force it through the filter at very low flow rates. Normal gravity filters, often
called "rapid" sand filters, operate at flow rates of 2 gpm per square foot (gpm/ft2) or higher.
8
-------
Also included among rapid sand filters are pressure filters, where the water is forced through a media
bed by high head pressures, and where the media is contained in a pressure vessel. They have long
been used for iron and manganese removal, but have not been as readily accepted for surface water
treatment where microbial matter is of concern (Ten State's Standards, 1992). The advantage—
especially to small systems—of rapid sand pressure filters are that they are relatively passive treatment
systems, involve minimal operator attention, are low in cost, and are long lived.
Filtration systems used in municipal treatment may employ a coagulation process. Variations of this
process include technologies useful to agglomerate small particles to enhance their removal by filtration,
or to cause their separation from the process stream before to filtration. Processes used to enhance
filtration typically employ the use of a coagulant injected into the filter influent, upstream of equipment
used to ensure thorough mixing. Other processes used to cause removal of particulate matter previous
to filtration employ one or a combination of the following technologies:
• sedimentation;
• sedimentation aided by tubes or plates;
• downflow contact clarification;
• upflow contact clarification;
• dissolved air flotation (DAF).
Of concern, however, is whether pressure filters, used in conjunction with a coagulation process, can
contain particles that are small, and more importantly, particles that may pose a threat to public health,
such as C. parvum. C. parvum oocysts are small, from 4 to 6 microns (|im) in diameter, relatively
spherical in shape, and somewhat pliable. They have a slight electronegative surface charge which
serves to keep them separated from each other; that is, they behave as colloids in water suspensions
(Cushen, 1996; Drozd, 1996; AWWA, 1992; Ongerth, 1996; Harter, 2000). G. lamblia cysts are
slightly larger, and elongated with one cross section 5 to 7 |j,m in diameter, and the other up to 15 |j,m in
cross section.
2.2 Equipment Description
The Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System is similar to conventional systems. The
CPS100CPT includes two distinct water treatment trains: a pretreatment train and a filtration train.
Chlorinated river water was supplied to the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System.
Within the pretreatment train, a coagulant (Ferric Chloride) was introduced into the chlorinated raw
water, mixed through an in-line static mixer, and allowed to floe and settle within a basin. Supernatant
from the settling basin was further processed through a clarifier and a polymer was added previous to
entry into the filtration train.
Within the filtration train, water was re-pressurized, and filtered through automatic backwashing,
alternating filters.
9
-------
The process flow rate through the pretreatment train was held at a constant 3.8 gpm while the flow rate
through the filtration train was allowed to decrease against filter head. Typically filter flow rates would
decrease from 3.3 gpm to approximately 2.7 gpm. To accommodate decreases in filter flow, the
pretreatment train included an overflow weir, discharging to waste, at the outlet of the clarifier.
The process design of the CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration system is represented in Figure 2-1.
Note:
Sample taps, flow meters,
System Influent pressure gauges and
System Effluent
Figure 2-1. Process Design Schematic Of The ETV Test Station for the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and
Filtration System
The Kinetico CPS100CPT components include the following:
Coagulant and polymer metering pumps: ProMinent® gamma/4b 1000 Programmable Smart Metering
Pump.
Static mixer: Ross 1" x 6" Stainless Steel In-Line Static Mixer.
10
-------
Settling Tank: The settling tank consisted of a high density polyethylene tank with an inside diameter of
35.11". Water entered this tank through an "H" type distributor near its bottom and exited 45.50 inches
above this point through an outlet collection trough. Water volume between inlet distributor and outlet
was 191 gallons. An outlet (with manual valve) was located below the tank inlet to serve as a means to
periodically expel sedimentation from the tank bottom.
Clarifier: The Clarifier was a Lanco Model 5 - 5GPM - C3302, as manufactured by Waterlink and
included a slant plate settler with pretreatment consisting of mixing and flocculation chambers. Total
working volume was 61 gallons. The outlet of the clarifier was plumbed to a repressurization pump
located on the filtration train skid. Located above and on an adjacent wall of the clarifier outlet sump a
weir had been installed to discharge excess water to waste. The sediment collection sump located at
the bottom of the clarifier was also plumbed for periodic discharge to waste if needed.
Repressurization: A Goulds Series XSH centrifugal pump.
Filtration: The equipment tested included two identical filters vessels identified as "A" and "B"
operating alternately. Each filter vessel was 10 inches in diameter and 54 inches in height, constructed
of fiberglass, and pressure rated to 100 pounds per inch (psi). Media bed depth was 24 inches. The
filtration system supports an initial service flow rate of 9.2 gpm/ft2 and is allowed to decrease until
terminal head loss is achieved. Backwash flow requirement is 6.4 gpm/ft2. Total water volume,
allowing for media displacement, per filter is 11.9 gallons.
Filtration media: The filter media is Macrolite®, a synthetic ceramic, filter media and is not covered
under AWWA standards for filter media (B100-89). Standard B100-89 is a purchase guide for filter
media and is not intended as a design standard; however, many of the testing parameters will be of
interest to public health administrators, especially those physical characteristics that may impact on the
longevity of the material. Thus, hardness, specific gravity, acid solubility, uniformity coefficients, particle
sieve size distributions (within manufacturing lots and from lot to lot) and other similar physical data has
been furnished by the manufacturer and is noted below.
Macrolite® of the 70/80 mesh size has a bulk density of 0.96 grams/cc. The specific gravity (as
measured by ASTM D2840) is 2.23 g/cc. The collapse strength for the media of this size has not been
measured, however, for a larger sphere (30/50 mesh) the collapse strength (as measured by ASTM D
3102) is a nominal 7,000-psi for 10% and nominal 8000 psi for 20% collapse.
11
-------
The uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 mesh media was analyzed in accordance with AWWA
Standard B100-96 by Bowser-Morner, Inc in December, 1997. The results of this analysis are
summarized below in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Media (AWWA Standard B100-96)
Sieve Size, USA Std.
Nominal, mm
Effective, mm
Percent passing
#45
0.355
0.360
100.0
#50
0.300
0.307
99.9
#60
0.250
0.249
79.8
#70
0.212
0.212
28.9
#80
0.180
0.180
7.2
#100
0.150
0.150
0.4
Effective Size: 0.19 mm
Uniformity Coefficient: 1.2
In addition, a Kinetico Inc. internal laboratory analysis in June of 1998 of 70 mesh media (lot #: 352)
employing a mercury/penetrometer Micromeritics Autopore II 9220 instrument produced the following
results as shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Media (Micromeritics Autopore)
Total intrusion volume 0.2098 mL/g
Total pore area 0.18 sq-m/g
Median pore diameter by volume (based on volume distribution curve) 53.7990 (im
Median pore diameter by area (based on area distribution curve) 52.5351 (im
Median pore diameter by 4V/A (based on 4V/A) 46.5685 pm
The pore diameters are those measures by an instrument, AutoPore n, performing an intrusion study of
the media. A measured volume of the media was placed in a glass penetrometer which was then
degassed by vacuum. A known volume of mercury was introduced into the penetrometer which was
then placed under pressure. As the mercury penetrates the interstitial spaces, the volume is
electronically measured. The volumes and pore sizes are then calculated from the data by use of the
Washburn Equation. The total intrusion volume is the maximum volume of mercury at the highest
pressure; the total pore area is the area of the pore wall as calculated on the pore shape as a right
cylinder. The Median Pore Diameter (volume) is the pore diameter at the 50th percentile point on the
volume distribution curve; the Median Pore Diameter (area) is the pore diameter at the 50th percentile
point on the area distribution curve and the Average Pore Diameter (4V/A) is based on the total pore
diameter wall area of a right cylinder.
A Material Safety Data Sheet for Macrolite® is included as a part of Appendix B. Macrolite® media
meets the requirements of ANSI/NSF Standard 61 and is NSF listed.
The specified flow rate for the system originally was 5 gpm (9.26 gpm/ft2), however, after initial
operations, the manufacturer elected to change and decrease flow rates through the system to optimize
equipment performance at this site. The flow rate through the filtration system was established at 3.3
gpm (6.0 gpm/ft2) and then allowed to decrease throughout each filter run as influenced by natural flow
restrictions caused by filter loading. As terminal head loss approached, filtration flow typically
12
-------
decreased approximately to 2.7 gpm. Flow rate through the pretreatment train was established at 3.8
gpm in order to assure adequate flow was available to the filter train during backwash cycles. Excess
flow delivered by the pretreatment train was discharged to waste through an overflow weir located in
the outlet sump of the clarifier.
Liquid holding volumes for the pretreatment train including the settling tank (191 gallons) and clarifier
(61 gallons) is 252 gallons. Liquid holding volume for the filtration train is 11.9 gallons. Corresponding
detention times are 66.32 minutes for the pretreatment train (at 3.8 gpm) and 3.61 to 4.41 minutes for
the filtration train (respectively at 3.3 gpm to 2.7 gpm)
Interconnecting plumbing of between components is 1" schedule 80 PVC. Length of interconnecting
plumbing is estimated at 8-ft for the 3.8 gpm flow and 10-ft for the 3.3 to 2.7 gpm flow. The only
exception is a 2" x 3' schedule 80 section of non-flooded pipe used to gravity feed 3.8 gpm from the
settling tank to the clarifier. Inner diameter of 1" schedule 80 pipe is 0.935". Gallons held per lineal
foot = 0.0357 gallons. Total estimated volume of 8-ft of 1" pipe = .29 gallons. Total estimated volume
of 10-ft of 1" pipe = 0.36 gallons. Detention time of 8-ft of 1" pipe @ 3.8 gpm flow rate = 0.08
minutes. Detention time of 10-ft of 1" pipe @3.3 gpm flow rate = 0.13 minutes. Detention time of 10-
ft of 1" pipe @ 2.7 gpm = 0.15 minutes.
Total system detention time with a filter flow rate of 3.3 gpm = 71.31 minutes
Total system detention time with a filter flow rate of 2.7 gpm = 70.06 minutes
Accessories and instrumentation included with the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration
System included flow rate and pressure sensors and monitors, on-line turbidimeters, pressure gauges,
and an electrical enclosure containing a programmable logic controller. The equipment also contained
data transfer connections available for remote monitoring.
The flow of water through the system was controlled with hydro pneumatically actuated valves mounted
on face piping constructed of Schedule 80 PVC. Automatic valves are actuated via a programmable
logic controller. The valves also had handles for manual activation.
Electrical power was required for operation of the re-pressurization pump, analytical instruments and
system instrumentation.
The filtration train was shipped skid mounted and absent of media. Filter media was loaded on site.
The total weight of the system, without media, was approximately 300 pounds. The physical
dimensions of the filtration train were 26 Va" Wide x 53 Vi Long x 76" High. The pretreatment train
included a settling tank and clarifier. Physical dimensions of the settling tank were 36" diameter x 78"
high. Physical dimensions of the clarifier were 22 VA wide x 51 Vi" long x 51" high. Total footprint of
the equipment, including settling tank, clarifier and filtration train, was approximately 24.8 ft2.
The following two photographs were taken of the equipment while it was on-site at the University
of Minnesota Hydraulic Laboratory for the verification testing.
13
-------
Photo 1. Front view of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System at SAFHL
Photo 2. Side view of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System at SAFHL
14
-------
2.3 Operator Licensing Requirements
While limited operator experience is required, most states will require a licensed water treatment plant
operator to operate and maintain the system on a regular (daily) schedule. Operator training for small
systems filter operation is limited and offered by the manufacturer on delivery of a system. The
manufacturer requires no special license beyond that required by the state of local public health
authorities. Kinetico reports that most systems are installed on small systems not requiring a license.
Operators of community water supplies have requirements that vary from state to state. In Minnesota,
there are four levels of community water plant operator qualification: A, B, C and D, depending on the
size of the community. At this time there is no requirement for licensing for operators of non-
community, non-transient public supplies; however the state is considering enacting such a requirement.
There is also no requirement for licensing for operators of transient, non-community public water
supplies, and there is little likelihood of such a requirement due to the nature of the owner/operator
status of most such facilities. Other states may have requirements beyond those noted here, although it
is expected that designers of public health water treatment installations will be familiar with any
requirements specific to their state or municipality. There may be possible Federal requirements
concurrent with the enactment of the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (ESWTR), but those are
not yet in effect.
15
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
3.1 Experimental Design
The experimental design of this verification study was developed to provide accurate information
regarding the performance of the treatment system. The impact of the field operations as they relate to
data validity was minimized, as much as possible, through the use of standard sampling and analytical
methodology. Due to the unpredictability of environmental conditions and mechanical equipment
performance, this document should not be viewed in the same light as scientific research conducted in a
controlled laboratory setting.
3.1.1 Objectives
The verification testing was undertaken to evaluate the performance of the Kinetico CPS100CPT
Coagulation and Filtration System treatment system. Specifically evaluated were Kinetico's stated
equipment capabilities and equipment performance relative to water quality regulations. Also evaluated
were the operational requirements and maintenance requirements of the system. The details of each of
these evaluations are discussed below.
3.1.1.1 Evaluation of Stated Equipment Capabilities
The experimental design plan was prepared to challenge the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and
Filtration System for its capability of removing C. parvum oocysts and G. lamblia cysts. Specifically,
this ETV test was undertaken to demonstrate that the Kinetico CPS100CPT was capable of providing
a minimum of 1.5 logio and 2-logi0 respectively for C. parvum and G. lamblia. Challenge studies
were conducted with viable C. parvum and G. lamblia to demonstrate reduction capabilities.
3.1.1.2 Evaluation of Equipment Performance Relative To Water Quality Regulations
With increased awareness of pathogens resistant to traditional disinfection techniques, and with
implementation of the ESWTR and the Groundwater Rule in the near future, it is expected that the
search for alternative disinfection technologies will grow significantly. The current ESWTR requires a 2-
logio removal of C. parvum. Further, turbidity standards will be reduced to 0.3 NTU in year 2002.
3.1.1.3 Evaluation of Operational and Maintenance Requirements
An overall evaluation of the operational requirements for the treatment system was undertaken as part of
this verification. This evaluation was qualitative in nature. The manufacturer's Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) manual and experiences during the daily operation were used to develop a
subjective judgment of the operational requirements of this system. The Kinetico O&M manual is
attached to this report as Appendix B.
16
-------
Verification testing also evaluated the maintenance requirements of the treatment system. Not all of the
system's maintenance requirements were necessary due to the short duration of the testing cycle. The
Kinetico O&M manual details various maintenance activities and their frequencies. This information, as
well as experience with common pieces of equipment (i.e., pumps, valves, etc.) was used to evaluate
the maintenance requirements of the treatment system.
3.1.1.4 Evaluation of Equipment Characteristics
The qualitative, quantitative and cost factors of the tested equipment were identified, in so far as
possible, during the verification testing. The relatively short duration of the testing cycle creates difficulty
in reliability identifying some of the qualitative, quantitative and cost factors. The qualitative factors
examined during the verification were operational aspects of the Kinetico CPS100CPT, for example,
susceptibility to changes in environmental conditions, operational requirements and equipment safety, as
well as other factors that might impact performance. The quantitative factors examined during the
verification testing process are costs associated with the system. Especially important are power and
coagulant chemical requirements. The operating conditions were recorded to allow reasonable
prediction of performance under other, similar conditions. Also to be noted and reported are any
occasional, anomalous conditions that might require operator response such as unexpected turbidity
breakthrough, chemical dosing or retention alterations, changes in disinfection levels, high levels of algae
growth, excessive turbidity spikes or frequent filter clogging.
3.2 Verification Testing Schedule
The verification testing started on March 8, 2000 and continued for 27 days of operation and data
recording. During this period a total of 209 filter cycles occurred. Daily testing concluded on April 26,
2000. Data was logged for a total of 657 hours of treatment system operation. The system was shut
down 13 times for a total of 50.75 hours due to adjustment of the coagulation chemicals, retention
process and plumbing adjustments. The system was also shut down for a total of 492 hours, between
April 4 and April 23, 2000 due to problems found in EPA method 1623 associated with the testing of
G. muris versus G. lamblia. The DYNAL immunomagnetic separation (IMS) technology used in EPA
Method 1623 to concentrate and clarify protozoa samples cannot be used on G. muris due to an
extremely low affinity for the G. muris cysts. The shut down on the test unit was due to the lead-time
needed to secure the G. lamblia for the retesting. Original testing was performed with G. muris due to
safety considerations, because G. muris is not a human pathogen.
Following procurement of the G. lamblia, the system was restarted. C. parvum and G. lamblia
challenge testing was performed on April 24 through April 26, 2000.
3.3 Initial Operations
The objective of the Initial Operations was to establish operational data including coagulant, filter run
times and backwashing schedules, and to qualify the equipment for performance with the selected
source water.
17
-------
The suitability of the influent water to the application of this technology was reviewed before testing.
Then an initial operations period was performed to allow the equipment manufacturer to refine the unit's
operating procedures and to make operational adjustments as needed to successfully treat the source
water. Information gathered during system start-up and optimization was used to refine the FOD.
The major operating parameters examined during initial operations were coagulant chemistry, filter
loading rate, and verification of residence time.
3.3.1 Characterization of Influent Water Quality
Mississippi River data from past years from local and regional sources was compiled and analyzed with
respect to the biological, physical and chemical characteristics of the water. Parameters studied at the
verification testing site include (but were not limited to) the following: Turbidity, Temperature and
temperature variations within a season, pH, Coliform, Total Alkalinity, Hardness, True Color, UV254
Absorbance, Aluminum, Algae, (number and species), iron and manganese, Total Organic Carbon
(TOC), Total Coliform, E. coli.
3.3.2 Coagulant Chemistry
Optimization of coagulant chemistry is dependent on chemical composition and temperature of the
source water, which is, subject to unpredictable change. Accordingly, it is of critical importance that
coagulant chemistry be studied and tested immediately prior to performance verification. This was first
accomplished with jar testing to identify suitable coagulant chemicals, dosage and contact time. Once
jar testing was complete initial test runs were performed to both terminal head loss and turbidity
breakthrough.
The following coagulants were used during initial test runs: Ferric Chloride, Aluminum Sulfate,
Hydrochloric Acid (for pH adjustment), and Aluminum Chlorhydrate. Coagulants were used at various
dosages, both independently and in combination.
3.3.2 Filter Loading Rate
Initial filter runs were performed to both terminal headloss and turbidity breakthrough. Total filtered
water volume was measured and characteristics of effluent water were evaluated throughout each filter
run. Terminal head loss was considered when a filter experienced a 20-psi change in pressure between
inlet and out. Turbidity breakthrough was considered reached when the turbidity in the effluent water
exceeded 0.5 NTU. Backwashing was initiated automatically, when either terminal headloss was
reached or when turbidity breakthrough occurred. Filters were backwashed until the waste stream ran
clear, as determined by turbidity of 5 NTU or less. Filters were run in a rinse cycle to waste for a
minimum of two bed volumes (approximately 20 gallons) before a filter was returned to service.
Variations in backwash flow rate were also studied. Manufacturers specification for service flow rate
was established at 9.2 gpm/ft2 and was allowed to decrease throughout each filter run as filter loading
increased. Backwash flowrate was established at 6.4 gpm/ft2.
18
-------
Upon return to service, the filter ripening period was monitored and timed. These data were used to
better understand time requirements for backwash, rinse and especially the expected duration of service
run cycles.
3.3.4 Verification of Residence Time
Tracer tests using sodium chloride were used to determine residence time of water held within the
Kinetico CPS100CPT coagulation and filtration system. Flow rates for this test were established at 3.8
gpm for the pretreatment train (252 gallons) and 3.3 gpm for the filtration train (12 gallons) with the
difference (0.8 gpm to 1.3 gpm) discharged to waste from the clarifier's outlet. These flow rates were
within the range initially expected during the microbial challenge events.
Sodium chloride brine was introduced into the influent stream through a metering pump and injection
port ahead of a static mixer located on the inlet of the coagulation, filtration system. Tracer test duration
was timed by using a stopwatch and a Total Dissolved Solids (IDS) meter was used to detect increases
in dissolved solids caused by elevated levels of sodium chloride. The use of sodium chloride over tracer
dye in this application was preferable because it can be conveniently measured at small increments; it
dissolves readily and hence is not itself impeded by the filter; and after it is rinsed clean it leaves no
residual on the filter media.
In addition to verifying the contact time needed for coagulation chemistry, data from these tests were
used to establish criteria for seeding and recovery studies such as determination sample collection
intervals during microbial challenge tests.
3.4 Verification Task Procedures
The procedures for each task of verification testing were developed in accordance with the
requirements of the EPA/NSF Protocol (EPA/NSF, 1999). The tasks were as follows:
Task 1 Verification Testing Runs & Routine Equipment Operation
Task 2 Influent and Effluent Water Quality Characterization
Task 3 Documentation of Operating Conditions & Treatment Equipment Performance
Task 4 Microbiological Contaminant Removal Testing
Detailed descriptions of each task are provided in the following sections.
3.4.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation
The objective of this task was to operate the equipment provided by the manufacturer for a prescribed
period of time and assess its ability to meet water quality goals and other performance characteristics
specified by the Manufacturer.
19
-------
Task 1 verification testing consisted of continuous evaluation of the treatment system, using the most
successful treatment parameters defined in Initial Operations.
Temperature, turbidity, and other influent water quality parameters such as algae, natural organic matter,
pH, alkalinity, and hardness, will influence coagulant chemistry and filtration. In order to offer a "worst
case" challenge to the equipment under test, verification testing conditions included cold water of
varying water quality.
The schedule required the equipment to be run continuously for 13.33 days. Preferably, this period was
to occur after the equipment has reached steady state operation in context to coagulation chemistry
requirements. Coagulation chemistry was monitored by comparing turbidity levels measured at three
sample ports; influent water, filter influent (after coagulation) and filter effluent. The Kinetico
CPS100CPT control functions allowed for differing conditions to initiate backwash. These conditions
included filter headloss and turbidity breakthrough.
Filter runs were not stopped until terminal headloss or turbidity breakthrough occurred, with the
exception of equipment maintenance or an interruption in power.
Standard operating parameters for filtration, backwash, and coagulant feed were established through the
use of the manufacturer's O&M Manual and initial operations of the treatment system. After
establishment of these parameters, the unit was operated under those conditions. Manufacturer
operating performance criteria from which collected data will be compared to is presented in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Filtration Performance Capability Objectives
Characteristic Definition Criteria
Initial turbidity Filtrate turbidity at 15 minutes 0.5 NTU or less
into run
Length of ripening period
Length of further ripening period
Operating turbidity
All turbidity
All data taken at equal
intervals
Time to reach 0.2 NTU
Time to reach 0.1 NTU
Turbidity from matured filter
0.5 hours or less
1.0 hour or less
0.10 NTU or less
0.5 NTU or less in 95% of all samples, or in
all data from continuous turbidimeters
8 hours minimum
Time to reach turbidity breakthrough Time to reach 0.5 NTU.
Water production
Volume of water during a filter 5,000 gallons per sq. ft. (2,750 gallons)
run
20
-------
3.4.2 Task 2 - Influent and Effluent Water Quality Characterization
Characterization of the treated water quality of the system was the driving force behind the development
of the experimental design of the ETV. The water quality analyses were selected to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the manufacturer's equipment. This task identified the water quality matrices of the
influent water and effluent water and the composition of the removed particulate material, with the
relationships to the terminal headloss and/or turbidity breakthrough point. This information was used to
evaluate performance of the water treatment equipment relative to stated performance goals. Influent
water and effluent water parameters were analyzed and recording during the verification period
according to the schedule in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Analytical Data Collection Schedule
Parameter
Frequency
Influent
Treated
On-Site Analyses
Temperature
Daily
X
pH
Daily
X
Turbidity
Continuous
X
X
Particle Counts
Continuous
X
X
Free Chlorine
Varied
X
Laboratory Analyses
Total Alkalinity
Daily
X
X
Total Organic Carbon
Weekly
X
X
Total Hardness
Weekly
X
X
UV Absorbance (254)
Weekly
X
X
True color
Weekly
X
X
Total Coliform
Semi-weekly
X
X
E. coli
Semi-weekly
X
X
Algae
Weekly
X
X
Aluminum
Weekly
X
X
Iron
Weekly
X
X
Manganese
Weekly
X
X
All testing was performed in accordance with the procedures and protocols established in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition (SM) or EPA approved
methods. All on-site testing instrumentation or procedures were calibrated and/or standardized daily by
FTO staff. Evaluation of water quality in this task was related with respect to manufacturer's claims of
performance in addition to the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Turbidity data of influent, effluent and backwash water was recorded continuously electronically on-line.
The on-line turbidity meter was checked daily against a bench turbidimeter, which was itself, checked
daily against turbidity standards. Any occurrences where the filter produced water of > 0.5 NTU were
recorded. These events were recorded separately for each filter, identified as "A" and "B".
Particle counts were evaluated and logio removals calculated by recording the change between influent
and effluent particle counts in the ranges of 2-3 |j,m, 3-5 |j,m, 5-7 |j,m, 7-10 |j,m, 10-15 |j,m, and 15+
|j,m. The aggregate of particle counting data obtained during verification testing was analyzed to
determine the median logio removal and the 95th percentile logio removal during the test period. The
21
-------
filter runs varied between 1 and 12 hours, filter run performance is discussed further in Section 4.0,
Results and Discussions.
3.4.3 Task 3 - Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance
The process design of the pretreatment train of the Kinetico CPS100CPT coagulation and filtration
system was largely a result of initial operations. Once coagulation chemistry was stabilized during the
initial operations period, the equipment package included the following process, described in order of
water flow: Coagulant injection ¦=!> Mixing ¦=!> Settling ¦=!> Clarifier ¦=!> Polymer injection ¦=!>
Repressurization ¦=!> Filtration.
The test station used within the experimental design of this study consisted of flow rate monitors,
regulating valves, pumps, metering pumps, static mixer, and sample collection stations for recovery of
(oo)cysts during microbial challenge testing.
The manufacturer requires the Kinetico CPS100CPT System to be supplied with chlorinated feed
water. Accordingly, the test station included a liquid sodium hypochloride metering pump to assure a
measurable concentration of free chlorine was present within the blended feed water supply. Further,
during protozoan seeding studies, injection of sodium hypochloride was discontinued several hours
previous to the beginning of the filter run in which the challenge was to be conducted.
A Watts Reduced Pressure Zone (RPZ) backflow prevention device was installed on the untreated river
water supply line to ensure (oo)cysts were not inadvertently introduced into this source water supply.
The process design of the test station is represented in Figure 3-1.
22
-------
Figure 3-1. Process Design of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Test Station
23
-------
During each day of Verification Testing, operating conditions were documented. The operational
parameters and frequency of the readings are listed in Table 3-3 below. Documentation includes
descriptions of pretreatment chemistry for coagulation and the treatment processes used and their
operating conditions. Performance of the water treatment equipment including rate of filter head loss
gain, frequency and duration of filter backwash and need for cleaning of pretreatment tankage and
clarifiers were documented.
Treatment equipment operating parameters for both pretreatment and filtration were monitored and
recorded on a routine basis. This included a complete description of pretreatment chemistry; mixing and
flocculation intensities, operating parameters for clarification ahead of filtration; rate of flow; and filtration
rate. Data on filter head loss and backwashing were also collected. Electrical energy consumed by the
treatment equipment was also measured and recorded. Data for rates of waste production were also
collected.
Table 3-3. Operational Data Collection
Parameter Frequency
Coagulant Used
Chemical Feed Volume and
Dose Rate
Clarifier
Influent water and Filter
Flow
Filter Headloss
Backwashing
Electric Power
Hours of Operation
Filtered Water Production
Watershed Events
Name of chemical, supplier, strength, dilution from stock solution.
Checked rate and recorded every two hours, refill as required and note volume
consumed and time.
Manufacturer, type, model and process flow rate. Record each time sludge is
extracted from collection sump.
Checked and record every 30 minutes. Flow rates were allowed to decrease
throughout filter runs to better represent actual system operating conditions.
Recorded at beginning of run and every 30 minutes, also recorded at end of run
or when breakthrough occurs.
Recorded date, time, influent and filtered water meter reading and recorded filter
effluent water volume. Noted terminal headloss prior to filter backwash.
Described reason for backwash; noted backwash rate and volume for each
backwash.
Read meter once daily at same time.
Continuous operation, Total recorded at end of verification period.
Calculated total volume per filter run and total for each day per filter.
Recorded weather, snow melt, construction, excessive traffic or other events that
could impact on source water quality daily at end of shift.
3.4.4 Task 4 - Microbiological Contaminant Removal Testing
This task measured the ability of the filter to remove seeded microorganisms. This portion of the study
was of central importance, as it was the ability of the filters to remove the target microorganisms C.
parvum and G. lamblia that was the primary claim of the manufacturer, and of greatest interest to the
public water community. The ability to remove oocysts and cysts in the range of 4-6 |j,m and 7-15 |j,m
was challenged and verified. Analyses for G. lamblia cysts and C. parvum oocysts were conducted
during the microbial removal phase removal phase of the evaluation. These analyses were conducted
using EPA Method 1623.
24
-------
3.4.4.1 Preparation of Microbial Doses
The C. parvum isolate used in this study was purchased from the University of Arizona and is also
referred to as the Harley Moon or Iowa strain. This strain was originally isolated from a calf and has
been maintained by passage through neonatal calves. A lot number was assigned to each calf on the
day the calf was infected and a batch number was given for the day the oocysts were shed. These lot
and batch numbers are recorded to validate oocysts' age. The oocysts excreted in the feces of
experimentally infected calves were isolated from the feces by discontinuous sucrose gradients followed
by microcentrifuge-scale cesium chloride gradients (Arrowood and Sterling, 1987; Arrowood and
Donaldson, 1996). The purified oocysts were stored at 4°C in 0.01% Tween 20 solution containing
100 units of penicillin, 100 |ig of streptomycin, and 100 |ig of gentamicin per mL to retard bacterial
growth. Oocysts were used within 90 days of isolation in all experiments.
The G. lamblia cysts were less than four weeks old at the time of the study, and were purchased from
Waterborne Inc. The cysts were stored in phosphate buffered saline without preservatives. At a field
lab near the site they were divided into the required number of doses, and into the required
concentration of approximately 108 oocysts and approximately 107 cysts for injection into the water
stream.
The doses were prepared by removing an aliquot of the enumerated cyst and oocyst suspension and
diluting them with deionized water to a volume containing the target number of cysts and oocysts.
The inoculation point was through an injection probe at the intake of the static mixer. An inert carboy
containing a diluted preparation of suspension and stirred by a magnetic stir bar was connected by
tubing to an injection probe that reached into the axis of the static mixer. Each challenge test injected
approximately 108 total oocysts and 107 total cysts in 600 milliliters of deionized, particle free water
containing 0.01% Tween 20. There were no additional detergents, wetting agents or other chemicals
added to the suspension.
Based on previous hydraulic tracer tests conducted with sodium chloride, at flow rates similar to what
was experienced during the microbial challenge studies, steady state concentrations were achieved
within 120 minutes after initiation of tracer injection. Accordingly, during each microbial challenge
study, effluent samples collections did not begin until 120 minutes after continuous injection of (oo)cysts
began.
When the carboy containing the seeded suspension was near empty, two volumes (600 milliliters) of
particle free sanitized water was added to force the excess (oo)cysts through the injection line to the
inoculation point.
During the seedings, 10-liter samples were filtered through a Gelman capture filter on a side stream for
protozoan evaluation. These samples were collected at the influent to the pretreatment train, effluent of
the pretreatment train, and the effluent of the filter train. These Gelman capsule filters were evaluated in
accordance with the procedures indicated in EPA Method 1623.
25
-------
A seeded suspension containing between 107 cysts and 108 oocysts is capable of indicating 3 logio
reduction as follows: The seeding introduced between 107 and 108 (oo)cysts concentrated into 600 mL
of water for a density of approximately 1.66 x 105 cysts to 1.66 x 106 oocysts/mL into the process
stream. The process stream diluted this concentration evenly into 1,360 liters for a concentration of
approximately 7.5 cysts and 75 oocysts/mL. The seed was introduced evenly over the duration of the
sample collection period. Time zero defined the point in time that steady state seed concentration could
be expected at the filter outlet and effluent samples could be taken. Based on hydraulic tracer tests
previously conducted with sodium chloride brine, time zero was established at 120 minutes after seeding
commenced. Since a 10-liter grab sample was collected through a Gelman capsule filter for EPA
Method 1623 (April 1999) evaluation, 10,000 milliliters was evaluated, potentially capable of a 3+logi0
reduction evaluation if expected Gelman capsule recovery rates were realized.
3.4.4.2 Analytical Schedule
There were three challenges employing a mixed cocktail of G. lamblia cysts and C. parvum oocysts,
which were added to the raw water upstream of the coagulant chemical and the mixing chamber.
During the seeding, 10-liter samples for protozoa evaluation (identification and enumeration) were
collected on a side stream and filtered through Gelman capsule filters. Post clarifier and filter effluent
samples were collected as follows:
1) At time zero (based on tracer test data)
2) At time 1/2 hour
3) At time 1.0 hour
4) At time 2.0 hour (as filter run time allows)
Seeded influent source water was collected and filtered through a Gelman capsule filter throughout the
duration of the microbial injection.
Simultaneous with the seeding, in line particle counters located at the raw water intake, at the filter inlet
following the static mixer, and at the effluent of the filter, recorded the particle analyses in the ranges of
2-3 |j,m, 3-5 |j,m, 5-7 |j,m, 7-10 |j,m, 10-15 |j,m, and 15+ |j,m.
This sequence was repeated for a total of three successive runs of the same filter. Since both filters are
identical, only one filter of the two was employed for the seeding studies.
3.4.4.2 Data Evaluation
The data from electronic particle counters were analyzed to determine the median logio removal as well
as the 95th percentile removal for the verification period. The particle counter was continuous, and
recorded the particle analyses in the ranges of 2-3 |j,m, 3-5 |j,m, 5-7 |j,m, 7-10 |j,m, 10-15 |j,m, and 15+
|j,m. The data was presented as time series data to display trends of particle count over time.
26
-------
Protozoa densities between influent and filtered water were analyzed by EPA Method 1623 for median
logio removal and 95th percentile logio removal for each of the operating points noted above.
3.4.4.3 Evaluation Criteria
All particle counting and turbidity data taken during the challenge period were correlated with the
microbial samples. Microbial results were compared with the logio removals for coagulation and
filtration processes in the SWTR, and with respect to Kinetico expected values.
3.5 Recording Data
The chemical parameters and operator read operating data was maintained in a bound logbook and
transferred to computer spread sheets. The control system for the Kinetico CPS100CPT included
automatic data recording access and automatic systems were employed where possible. Other readings
were manually logged.
In addition to the items noted in the data sheets (contained in Appendices C), any variations in the
treatment plant regimen were noted. Among the changes possible were changes in chemical coagulants
and retention in response to varying and unusual source water episodes, such as weather related
incidents (ice outs, storms), unusual river traffic or contaminant spills. The source water during initial
operations and the verification period initially was a chlorinated blend of finished and untreated river
water. Eventually, source water was limited to chlorinated, unfiltered river water.
Table 3-2 lists the continuous, daily, weekly, and semi-weekly water quality analyses that were
recorded. The results of continuous analysis were recorded in a computer, daily on-site analyses were
recorded in the operations logbook, and semi-weekly analyses were recorded in the laboratory
logbooks and also recorded on separate laboratory report sheets. The data spreadsheets are attached
to this report as Appendix C.
Documentation of study events was facilitated through the use of logbooks, photographs, data sheets
and chain of custody forms. The data management system used in the verification testing program also
involved the use of computer spreadsheet software and manual recording methods for recording
operational parameters. Data handling is a critical component of any equipment evaluation testing.
Care in handling data assures that the results are accurate and verifiable. Accurate sample analysis is
meaningless without verifying that the numbers are being entered into spreadsheets and reports
accurately and that the results are statistically valid.
3.5.1 Objectives
The objective was to tabulate the collection of data for completeness and accuracy, and to permit ready
retrieval for analysis and reporting. In addition, the use of computer spread sheets allowed manipulation
of the data for arrangement into forms, useful for evaluation. A second objective was the statistical
27
-------
analysis of the data as described in the "NSF/EPA ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for
Physical Removal of Microbiological and Particulate Contaminants" (EPA/NSF 1999).
3.5.2 Procedures
The data handling procedures were used for all aspects of the verification test. Procedures existed for
the use of the logbooks used for recording the operational data, the documentation of photographs
taken during the study, the use of chain of custody forms, the gathering of on-line measurements, entry
of data into the customized spreadsheets, and the method for performing statistical analyses.
3.5.2.1 Logbooks
CO A as the FTO for the project was responsible for the maintenance of the logbooks and field
notebooks. Data was collected in bound logbooks and on charts from the instrumentation panels and
individual testing instruments. There was a single field logbook containing all on-site operating data
which remained on site and contained instrument readings, on-site analyses and any comments
concerning the test run with respect to either the nature of the influent water or the operation of the
equipment (attached as Appendix D).
Each page of the logbook was sequentially numbered and identified as Kinetico Coagulation ETV Test.
Each completed page was signed by the on-duty FTO staff. Errors were crossed with a single line and
initialed. Deviations from the FOD whether by error or by a change in the conditions of either the test
equipment or the water conditions were noted in the logbook. The logbook will included a carbon copy
of each page. The original logbook was stored on-site, the carbon copy sheets forwarded to the
project engineer of CO A at least once per week. This not only eased referencing the original data, but
offered protection of the original record of results.
3.5.2.2 Photographs
Photographs were logged into the field logbook,
photographer.
3.5.2.3 Chain of Custody
These entries include time, date, and identify of the
Original chain of custody forms traveled with the samples from the test site to the laboratory (copies of
which are attached as Appendix E).
3.5.2.4 On-line Measurements
Data from a computer recording continuous on-line measurements for turbidity and particle counts were
printed on a hard copy and copied to a disk on a daily basis. The data transfer disks were stored off
site, at the FTO's office.
28
-------
3.5.2.5 Spreadsheets
A COA technician entered data into a computer spreadsheet program (Microsoft© Excel) on a daily
basis from the logbook and from any analytical reports. A back-up copy of the computer data was
maintained off site. The database for the project was set up in the form of custom-designed
spreadsheets. All data from the laboratory notebooks and the data logbook were entered into the
appropriate spreadsheet. COA operators conducted data entry. All recorded calculations were
checked at this time. Following data entry, the spreadsheet was printed out and the printout was
checked against the handwritten data sheet. Corrections were noted on the hard copies and corrected
on the screen, and then a corrected version of the spreadsheet was printed out. The COA operator or
engineer performing the entry or verification step initialized each step of the verification process.
Each challenge test run was numbered for coordination with the on-site data from that run along with the
laboratory testing data. The operating conditions for each test run were entered into the logbooks and
onto the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet consolidated the information from Tasks 2, 3, 4, and the results
from any and all off-site laboratory analyses.
The computer data was entered onto a computer on site and then was transferred to the COA office
computer on diskette.
3.6 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators
3.6.1 Representativeness
Water quality parameter samples for the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System were
taken as indicated in Table 3-2. Off-site samples were delivered to the laboratory for analysis. The
holding times are those indicated in EPA 40 CFR, Ch. 1, § 136.3 and SM1060. On-site samples were
taken utilizing SM 1060 sampling techniques.
Operating data, such as flow rate, volume measurements and pressure gauges were recorded and the
time noted. Operational parameters were recorded and graphed.
3.6.2 Statistical Uncertainty
Statistical 95% confidence calculations were performed for critical water quality data. Each of the
water quality parameters was analyzed, and confidence intervals determined by taking a minimum of
three discrete samples for each of the parameters at one operating set during the testing period.
The formula used for confidence interval calculations is:
confidence interval
2
29
-------
Where:
S = standard deviation
n = number of measurements in data set
t = distribution value with n-1 degrees of freedom
a = the significance level defined for 95% confidence as: 1-0.95 = 0.05.
95% confidence interval = X ± f
1,0.975
(S /-Jn)
3.6.3 Accuracy
For water quality parameters, the accuracy referred to the difference between the sample result and the
true or reference value. Care in sampling, calibration and standardization of instrumentation and
consistency in analytical technique ensured accuracy.
For operating parameters such as flow rates and pressures, high levels of accuracy were ensured by
redundant testing by confirming flow meters with bucket and stopwatch measurements. Pressure gauge
calibrations were verified by reference to NIST-traceable standard gauges.
Performance evaluation was established by calibration of instruments used on-site and by conformance
to SM and EPA protocols.
Accuracy was measured by spiking a known value to a solute, or by using a standard sample. The
spiked (or standard) sample was analyzed and the following equations were used:
For a spiked sample:
%R = 100
A - B
For a standard:
Where:
%R = 100 x
Observed
True
%R = Percent recovery
A = Result of spiked sample
B = Result of un-spiked sample
S = Spike value
3.6.4 Precision
Precision was the measure of the degree of consistency from test to test, and was assured by
replication. In the case of on-site testing for water quality, precision was ensured by triplicate tests and
averaging; for single reading parameters, such as pressure and flow rate, precision was ensured by
redundant readings from operator to operator.
30
-------
Travel blanks were not required for this testing.
Matrix and method blanks were used for turbidity measurements, pH standardization, and for
calibration of the particle counter both with respect to enumeration and size distribution.
Samples analyzed in duplicate and triplicate included on-site parameters such as: bench-top turbidity,
pH and bench-top particle counts.
The equation employed for precision for duplicate samples was:
Pi ~ D2
(Di + D2)/2
RPD = — x 100
Where:
RPD = Relative percent difference.
Dl = First sample value
D2 = Second sample value
The equation employed for precision for triplicate samples was:
S(100)
% Relative Standard Deviation = —=—
x
Where:
S = Standard deviation
x = Mean of recovery values
3.7 Equipment
3.7.1 Equipment Operations
The operating procedures for the filtration train of the Kinetico CPS100CPT are described in an
Operations Manual. The Operations Manual for the treatment system was maintained on-site and is
attached to this document as Appendix B. Operating procedures and equipment descriptions are
described in detail in Chapter 2 of this report. The manufacturer provided on-site instruction for the
operation of the pretreatment train in lieu of an Operations Manual.
3.7.1.1 Analytical Equipment
The following analytical equipment was used on-site during the verification testing:
A Hach 21 OOP portable turbidimeter (serial number 96090012047) was used for benchtop
turbidity analysis.
31
-------
Pressure gauges were Ametek 556L (0 to 100 psi.) with calibration field verified with a National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable pressure gauge. There were four gauges
on the system. Pressure gauges were located on the inlet and outlet of each filter vessel.
• NIST-traceable Miller Weber Thermometer, Model P63C, Serial number 3E7652 was used for
temperature.
A rotameter (Blue and White model f40750LN-12 (0 to 10 gpm) and a paddle wheel (Burkart,
model #423-927B) were used to measure flow rates.
On-line turbidity measurements were taken with Great Lakes Model 95T/SS4_turbidimeters.
On-line particle count measurements were taken with Met One PCX particle counters (Serial
numbers: 951702969 and 971000352).
• Free chlorine measurements were taken with a HACH 2010 spectrophotometer.
3.8 Health and Safety Measures
There were two major safety concerns for on-site staff with respect to this testing procedure.
1) The equipment tested used various chemicals, which if not handled properly, could be
dangerous,
2) The microbes used during testing were highly infectious.
Accordingly, built into the equipment were a number of safety features. Since this equipment has been
designed for installation in water treatment plants, interlock connections, breakers and other protective
devices have been included in its manufacture.
For protection against accidental infection by oocysts, strict environmental laboratory procedures were
followed. Protective clothing such as gloves, glasses and lab coats was on hand and used when
appropriate. The capture filters removed from the filtration housing were double bagged for shipment in
protective containers. Laboratory personnel trained in biological safety performed the handling of all
live oocysts and oocyst-containing materials.
3.9 QA/QC Procedures
The objective of the QA/QC Procedures was to control the methods and instrumentation procedures
such that the data were not subject to corruption. Adherence to analytical methods as published in SM
or EPA methodology was assured. Moreover, instrumentation and standard reagents were referenced
to NIST. Instruments used to gather data were standardized and calibrated in accordance with the
schedules noted below.
3.9.1 QA/QC Verifications
Daily QA/QC Verifications included:
On-line turbidimeter flow rates verified volumetrically with a 1,000 mL graduated cylinder and
stopwatch;
32
-------
On-line turbidimeter readings standardized against a calibrated bench turbidimeter;
pH meter calibration was verified at pH 7 and pH 10 with NIST-traceable pH buffers
Benchtop turbidimeter calibration was verified against secondary standards of 0.5, 1 and 3
NTU;
On-line particle counter flow rates were verified volumetrically with a 100 mL graduated
cylinder and stopwatch;
Two chemical feed pumps were used. Flow rates were verified volumetrically with a graduated
cylinder and stopwatch.
Bi-weekly QA/QC Verifications included:
On-line flow meters were cleaned and flow verified volumetrically with a 55 gallon graduated
container and stopwatch. The flow rate through the system as determined by stopwatch and
calibrated bucket, and was compared to the flow rate as indicated on the flow meters and the
results noted in the logbook.
QA/QC Verifications at the beginning of each testing period included:
Cleaning and re-calibration of on-line turbidimeters;
Verification of particle counter calibration using NIST microspheres at 3, 10 and 15 |im size;
Pressure gauge readings were compared with that of a NIST-traceable gauge;
Inspection of particle counters and turbidimeter tubing for unimpeded flow and integrity.
Further descriptions of these verifications are provided below.
3.9.2 On-Site Analytical Methods
Specific instrumentation methods for on-site QA/QC accuracy were conducted during verification
testing. Water quality parameters were measured by analytical or instrument methods outlined in
Standard Methods (SM). Specific instrumentation methods for on site QA/QC accuracy were as
follows:
3.9.2.1 pH
Analysis was by SM 4500-H+, A two-point calibration with NIST-traceable pH buffers were
performed daily at pH 7 and pH 10. Between tests the pH probe was kept wet in KC1 solution. For
on-site determination of pH, field procedures were used to limit absorbance of carbon dioxide to avoid
skewing results by poorly buffered water. The samples were taken in a dedicated beaker and promptly
analyzed.
3.9.2.2 Temperature
Temperatures were measured in accordance with SM2550 daily. The thermometer used was a NIST-
traceable thermometer, marked in 0.1° C increments. During initial operations temperature did not
fluctuate during any 24-hour period. Therefore during the verification period, temperature was
measured once per day, rather than twice per day as proposed within the FOD.
33
-------
3.9.2.3 Turbidity
The on-line turbidimeters remained on during the duration of the testing period. On-line and bench top
turbidimeters were used, and the bench top turbidimeter was the calibration standard for the test. The
benchtop turbidimeter was calibrated at the start of testing and then weekly, during the testing period,
against standards of 0.1, 0.5 and 3.0 NTU, and with the Gelex standard prepared in accordance with
manufacturers methods. The bench top turbidimeter was a Hach 21 OOP, and is designed to shut off
automatically after a specified period of inaction to preserve the battery, accordingly, it was not left on
at all times. Manufacturers procedures for maintenance were followed and the schedules for
maintenance and cleaning noted in the logbook.
Samples were taken from a sample tap at a slow steady stream and along the side of a triple rinsed
dedicated beaker to avoid air entrapment. Sample was poured from the beaker into a double rinsed
clean sample vial and inserted into the chamber. This was repeated for influent and effluent samples,
and the reading of the on-line turbidimeter was noted when the sample was drawn
All glassware for turbidity measurements were kept clean and handled with lint free laboratory tissue.
Sample cells were additionally wiped with a silicone oiled velvet cloth.
3.9.2.4 Particle Counting
Particle counters were factory calibrated by Pacific Scientific Instruments using polystyrene latex
spheres traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (certifications dated August 24,
1999 and March 3, 2000). Particle counter calibration was verified on-site with calibrated, mono-sized
polymer microspheres on March 31, 2000. The procedure for monosphere verification was as
described in the ETV Test Plan was designed for batch type particle counters, not on-line counters. On
line particle distribution requires a different procedure that is described below.
Particle free water prepared off-site was used as dilution water. To one liter of dilution water an
amount of particle suspension was added to measure approximately 2,000 particles per milliliter. The
particle sizes were NIST-traceable for size and included 3 |j,m, 10 |j,m and 15 |j,m particles. Batch and
true sizes are noted in the logbook as follows:
Duke Scientific Corp 3.0 ± 0.027 |j,m
10.0 ± 0.061 |j,m
15.0 ± 0.08 |j,m
On site particle counter verification was performed for size distribution only, although counts were
corroborated. Particle counters cannot be field verified for count accuracy.
This procedure was performed eight times, four each for the influent and effluent counters. Although the
test plan specified 2 |j,m, 10 |j,m and 15 |j,m sizes, CO A requested of NSF that the 2 |j,m size be
replaced with 3|j,m particles. Particle counting is done by segregating the particles into bins and since
the lower limit of the counter was 2 |j,m, the count of particles at that level would be uncertain. The
34
-------
verifications were then performed with 3 |j,m, 10 |j,m 15 |j,m mono-sizes, and once with a mixture of all
three sizes at the 1,000 particles per milliliter, or 3,000 pc/mL total.
Specially equipped hoses were attached to the influent and effluent ports of the particle counter sensor.
The influent hose was inserted into a flask containing either dilution water or the particle mixture, and the
effluent hose attached to a pump.
Dilution water was suctioned through the particle counter and the pump rate adjusted to 100 mL/min.
When the counts and flows were stable, the influent hose was switched to the particle suspension, which
was mixed gently with a magnetic mixer. Those particle counts were logged and the distribution noted
to assure separation into the proper particle count bin, and the time noted for correlation to the
computer data recorder. After several sensor readings, the hose was switched back to the dilution
water to clear the sensor and to stabilize the counter. During the procedure the flow was carefully
controlled at 100 mL/min, and exceptions noted since reductions or increases in the flow rate alter the
counts significantly.
This procedure was repeated for each particle size and for a cocktail consisting of approximately 1,000
particles of each size per mL.
Maintenance of the particle counter is important. Manufacturer recommended maintenance was
followed and noted in the logbook.
Procedures for particle counting were those as noted in SM 2560 (and subsections appropriate to the
equipment in use).
3.9.2.5 Particle Free Water (PFW)
Particle free water (PFW) was a necessary component of the testing procedure and was prepared fresh
and as often as storage limitations would allow. Fresh PFW was necessary to limit biological growth
that could affect the particle counts. Field conditions made the production of PFW in accordance with
SM difficult, however, commercially prepared deionized (demineralized) water (DI) water, filtered on
site thorough a 0.2 |j,m filter was suitable for particle counting suspension and other reagent preparation
in this application. Particle free water, even DI water filtered through a 0.2 |j,m filter however, was
subject to contamination by airborne particles. There was no clean room available on site. Following
consultation with the particle counter manufacturer, the FTO used MWW water filtered off-site as
dilution water. Since the particle counts were low (less than 99/mL), this was suitable dilution water.
As with turbidity, glassware associated with the particle counters was dedicated and cleaned with
laboratory glassware detergent, then triple rinsed with PFW.
3.9.2.6 Pressure Gauges
The pressure gauges for this study were glycerin filled Ametek 556L. The pressure gauges used to
determine headloss in the filters were verified against a NIST-traceable pressure gauge.
35
-------
3.9.3 Off-Site Analysis For Chemical and Biological Samples
Table's la and lb of the Code of Federal Regulations 40 Parts 136.3 cross-reference SM, EPA
methods, ASPM methods and USGS methods. Spectrum Labs follows EPA, SM or other accepted
methodology for all of their analytical procedures. For example, to analyze alkalinity, EPA method
§310.1 is used; this correlates to SM 2320B, which is the same as ASPM 1067-92 and USGS i-1030-
85. All four of the testing methods are the same.
3.9.3.1 Organic Parameters, Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance
Total organic carbon, microbiological and solids load measurements were important to this study.
Samples for analysis were collected in glass bottles supplied by Spectrum and were delivered by courier
to Spectrum Labs (the travel time was approximately twenty minutes). Samples were preserved, held
and shipped in accordance with SM 5010B and SM 1060. Samples were analyzed at the laboratory
for TOC by EPA method §415.1. UV254 was analyzed using SM 5910B.
3.9.3.2 Microbial Samples: Coliform and Algae
Samples were collected in glass bottles supplied by Spectrum Labs and kept at 4°C in the proper
shipping cooler. Coliform samples were preserved with sodium thiosulfate. Because of the brief travel
time (less than 20 minutes) it was not deemed necessary to preserve algae samples in Lugol's solution.
Total Coliform Bacteria and E. coli bacteria were analyzed at the laboratory using the EPA MI Agar
Method, (EPA 600 R 00 013), and algae analyzed using SM 10200F (when algae were found, SM
10900 was used for speciation).
3.9.3.3 Inorganic Samples
Inorganic Samples were collected, preserved and shipped in accordance with SM 3010B and C and
1060 and EPA §136.3, 40 CFR Ch.l. Proper bottles and preservatives where required (Iron and
Manganese for example) was used. Although the travel time was brief, samples were shipped cooled.
Samples were analyzed at the laboratory in accordance with the following methods: total alkalinity -
EPA method §310.2, color - EPA method §110.2, total hardness - EPA method §130.1, iron - EPA
method §200.7, and manganese used EPA method §200.7
3.9.3.4 True Color
True color was measured in accordance with SM 2120 with a spectrophotometer at 455 nm. The
samples were collected in glass vials and maintained at a temperature of 4°C during shipment to
Spectrum Labs. The samples were warmed to room temperature before analysis. Samples were
analyzed in accordance with EPA method §110.2.
36
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
The verification testing for the Kinetico CPS100CPT system that occurred at the University of
Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory in Minneapolis, Minnesota, commenced on March
8, 2000, and concluded on April 26, 2000. The system was operated for a period of 32 days during
this period. Microbial challenge testing was performed twice. The first challenge test was performed
using G. muris and C. parvum Method 1623. It was subsequently found that the DYNAL
immunomagnetic separation (IMU) technology (prescribed in EPA Method 1623) to concentrate and
clarify protozoa samples could not be used on G. muris due to an extremely low affinity for G. muris
cysts. Because it would not be possible to replicate identical source water quality conditions at a later
date, comparative performance data for the reduction of G. muris and C. parvum could not be
provided by completing the analyses for only C. parvum from the first challenge series. Due to this
limitation, in addition to cost constraints, analyses for C. parvum were discontinued on samples from
the first challenge series. The Kinetico CPS100CPT system was then shut down for a total of 492
hours, between April 4 and April 23, 2000 due to the lead-time needed to secure the G. lamblia for
the retesting. C. parvum and G. lamblia challenge testing was performed on April 24 through April
26, 2000.
This section of the verification report presents the results of the testing and offers a discussion of the
results. Results and discussions of the following are included: initial operations, equipment
characteristics, effluent water quality, C. parvum and G. lamblia removal, and QA/QC.
4.2 Initial Operations Period Results
The objective of the initial operations period was to establish operational data including coagulant, filter
run times and backwashing schedules, and to qualify the equipment for performance with the selected
source water. The initial operations period allowed the equipment manufacturer to refine the unit's
operating procedures and to make operational adjustments as needed to successfully treat the source
water.
The unit was on site at the University of Minnesota in October of 1999 and was operated during initial
operations to establish the optimum treatment scheme prior to initiation of verification testing. This was
achieved during January of 2000. The manufacturer was on-site during February, and was unable to
stabilize the coagulation chemistry previous to the NSF mandated start date. Therefore, the verification
period for Kinetico CPS100CPT system began before proper chemical stabilization was achieved.
This resulted in 17 days of the performance verification period being dedicated to establishing
stabilization of coagulation chemistry, which was achieved on March 24, 2000 at 17:22. In this report,
the period of time between March 8, 2000 and March 23, 2000 is considered a continuation of initial
operations.
37
-------
The major operating parameters examined during initial operations were coagulant chemistry, filter
loading rate, and establishment of residence time. Influent water characterization also occurred during
the initial operations period.
4.2.1 Characterization of Influent Water Quality
Characterization of the influent water was an integral part of the initial operations phase. Historical raw
surface water from 1999 were obtained from the City of Minneapolis, Municipal Water Works
department, reviewed for the same time frame as the verification testing period (March and April)
exhibited the following characteristics: the temperature varied from 0.3°C to 13.2°C; pH was in the
range of 7.6 to 8.2, and turbidity averaged between 5.2 and 18.6 NTU. Actual water samples taken
for the initial operations period and analyzed by Spectrum Labs, showed the following water
characteristics: total alkalinity ranged of 100 mg/L to 140 mg/L; aluminum was equal to or less than
0.06 mg/L, total hardness averaged 140 mg/L; true color ranged between 40 and 45 TCU, iron was
equal to or less than 0.50 mg/L, manganese of 0.05 mg/L, TOC of 12 mg/L, and UVA254 between
0.254 and 0.273. Total coliform bacteria and E. coli were not detected or were below the PQL of 1
CFU/lOOmL.
During the initial operations phase (March 8 through March 23, 2000) influent raw water samples
demonstrated the following compositions: average turbidity of 6.7 NTU, average temperature of 8.5°C
and range of 6.9°C to 9.7°C, and average pH of 7.8. Water samples analyzed by Spectrum
Laboratories exhibited the following characteristics: no total coliform was detected or was below the
PQL of 1 CFU/lOOmL, total alkalinity averaged 126 mg/L, hardness ranged between 120 and 160
mg/L, true color ranged between 40 and 45 TCU, UV254 Absorbance ranged between 0.254 and
0.273, aluminum between <0.05 and 0.06 mg/L, iron equal to or les than 0.5 mg/L, manganese of 0.05
mg/L, and TOC of 12 mg/L. E. coli was not detected during the initial operations period.
Algae were detected in the influent water samples on March 20, 2000, as Chlamydomonas 490
Algae/mL, and Diatoma 245 Algae/mL. Effluent water samples taken on March 20, 2000, showed the
following Algae results: Nitschia 735 Algae/mL, Navicula 140 Algae/mL, Chlamydomonas 245
Algae/mL, Chloratella 315 Algae/mL, Chlorella 240 Algae/mL, Diatoma 140 Algae/mL, Filamentous
70 Algae/mL, and Golenkinea 35 Algae/mL.
Review of all of the data collected during the initial operations period indicated that the technology
should be suitable for this site.
4.2.2 Coagulant Chemistry
The following coagulants and chemicals were used during initial test runs: Ferric Chloride, Aluminum
Sulfate, Hydrochloric Acid (for pH adjustment), Cationic Polyacrylamide, and Aluminum Chlorhydrate.
Coagulants were used at various dosages, both independently and in combination. Jar testing in
different combinations and doses augmented testing and adjustment of the system. Changes made to
chemistry during the stabilization period are listed in Appendix G.
38
-------
The system was shut down 13 times for a total of 50.75 hours due to adjustment of the coagulation
chemicals, retention process and plumbing adjustments during the initial 17-day period. Stabilization
was achieved on March 23, 2000. Coagulants required were identified as Ferric Chloride, AQM 100,
and C-1592 (chemical specification/identification sheets provided in Appendix G). Changes to
pretreatment equipment were also required to satisfy coagulation chemistry requirements of the source
water. These changes included the addition of a 191-gallon settling tank and a clarifier (refer to Section
2.2).
4.2.3 Filter Loading Rate
During initial operations filter loading rates and characteristics were observed. Because filter
performance was dependent upon stabilization of coagulation chemistry, filter performance remained
inconsistent until the beginning of the verification period. During initial operations, COA concluded it
would be in the best interest of future operators to evaluate coagulant technologies previous to
evaluation of filter performance. The equipment under test was designed for automatic (unattended)
operation. During initial operations filter run periods of less than 1 hour were observed. Because it was
difficult to for an operator to maintain a targeted process flow rate without continuous monitoring, COA
concluded that maintaining the process flow of the filtration system would not provide performance data
that could be translated into meaningful information for field application. Accordingly, the filtration flow
rate was allowed to decrease throughout each filter run as influenced by natural flow restrictions caused
by filter loading. Flow rates were typically 3.3 gpm at the start of each filter run and decreased to 2.7
gpm as terminal head loss was approached.
4.2.4 Verification of Residence Time
The purpose of the tracer tests was to establish hydraulic characteristics of the Kinetico CPS100CPT
prior to the C. parvum and G. lamblia challenge study. Tracer tests using sodium chloride were
performed on March 28 and March 30, 2000, respectively. Samples were collected from the raw
water, the water after the contact tank, the water after the clarifier, and the effluent water from the
Kinetico CSP100CPT. Samples were analyzed for increases in Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by a
TDS monitor as a marker for sodium chloride concentrations. The following two graphs illustrate the
results of the tracer tests.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the tracer test that was performed on March 28, 2000 with a concentration of
Sodium Chloride in the range of 14 to 26 mg/1. The results of the first tracer test were inconclusive and
it was determined that a second test should be performed. The second test was performed with a
higher concentration of Sodium Chloride (range 702 to 784 mg/1). Samples were collected at the same
sample locations as in the tracer test #1 and analyzed for TDS. Figure 4-2 represents the data of tracer
test #2.
39
-------
Elasped Time (minutes)
—~— P1 (Raw) —A— P2 (Contact Tank) —•— P3 (Clarifier) —*— P4 (Effluent)
Figure 4-1. Tracer Test # 1
800 -
700 -
600 -
500 -
O)
t
400 -
P
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 -
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
0 40 80 120 165 205
Time Elasped (minutes)
• P1 (Raw) —•— P2 (Contact Tank) —*— P3 (Clarifier) —o— P4 (Effluent)
Figure 4-2. Tracer Test #2
During tracer test #2 Sodium Chloride was injected immediately after the 10-minute data collection
point. The corresponding data on Figure 4-2, displays a sharp increase in effluent IDS at 45 minutes
and steady state concentrations between system influent and effluent streams within approximately 120
minutes after initiation of sodium chloride injection. Within these 120 minutes, average flow rate through
the pretreatment train (252 gallons) was 3.92 gpm and average flow rate through the filter train (11.9
gallons) was 3.42 gpm.
40
-------
4.3 Verification Testing Results and Discussions
The results and discussions of testing runs, routine equipment operations, influent and effluent water
quality, operating conditions and equipment performance, and microbiological removal tasks of the
verification testing are presented below.
4.3.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation
The objective of this task was to operate the equipment provided by the manufacturer for a period of
13.33-days (320 hours) and assess its ability to meet water quality goals and other performance
characteristics specified by Kinetico, Inc.
The verification testing for Kinetico CPS100CPT system started on March 24, 2000. During this
period, coagulation chemistry and/or dose was changed or adjusted in some manner 4 times and a total
of 42 filter cycles were monitored. During the performance verification period, the system was shut
down for a total of 448.5 hours, between April 4 and April 23, 2000, due to problems found in EPA
method 1623 associated with the testing of G. muris versus G. lamblia. This shut down was due to
the lead-time needed to secure the G. lamblia for retesting. Due to this interruption, the equipment was
not operated continuously during the performance verification period. The time of equipment operation
during the performance verification period was 13.6 days (327.35 hours).
Between April 4 and April 23, source water conditions changed considerably and the coagulation
chemistry used previous to equipment shutdown only performed marginally 19 days later. This resulted
in filter run times that were considerably shorter than what had previously been demonstrated between
March 24 and April 4, 2000. Due to cost constrains and scheduling requirements, significant efforts to
re-stabilize coagulation chemistry could not be pursued. For this reason, operational data from these
two periods (March 24 - April 4, and April 23 - April 26) were analyzed separately. In addition,
because microbial challenges were conducted between April 23 and April 26, operational data for that
period is included in Task 4 - Microbiological Contaminant Removal Testing.
4.3.1.1 Flow Rate
The specified filter flow rate for the system was 5 gpm, however, during the initial operations and the
chemical stabilization period, the manufacturer dected to reduce the overall flows through the system.
The flow through the pretreatment train was set at 3.8 gpm. As previously described (see filter loading
rate Section 4.2.3), the filter train flow rate was established at 3.3 gpm and then allowed to decrease
throughout each filter run as influenced by natural flow restrictions caused by filter loading.
It was necessary to provide a consistent flow rate through the pretreatment system in order to maintain
stabilization of coagulation chemistry. The pretreatment train flow rate of 3.8 gpm exceeds the
maximum filter flow rate in order to provide 3.5 gpm for filter backwash and provide continuous flows
through the filtration train influent on-line turbidimeter and particle counter. As filter head pressure
41
-------
increased and flow decreased, excess water was directed to waste through a weir located at the outlet
of the clarifier.
4.3.1.2 Automatic Operation
The filtration equipment provided by the manufacturer was to operate automatically and provide for
automatic backwash cycles to occur based upon turbidity breakthrough, pressure differential, or
elapsed filter run time. This automation failed due to a faulty pressure differential gauge/switch. The
manufacturer attempted to secure a replacement gauge from its supplier (Orange Research) but, with no
success. Accordingly, the backwash system was operated manually during the verification testing.
4.3.1.3 Pretreatment Train
The pretreatment train for the Kinetico CPT consisted of a settling tank, clarifier, chemical metering
pumps, an in-line mixer, and various ancillary control valves and flow meters (Refer to equipment
description in Section 2.2). With the exception of the chemical metering pumps, the pretreatment
system was operated manually. Accordingly, the operator was required to monitor system flow and
sedimentation rates on a continuous basis and perform adjustments when needed.
Coagulants used during the verification testing period included: AQM 100, Ferric Chloride, and C-
1592. Chemical specification/identification sheets are provided in Appendix G.
Coagulants were supplied by the manufacturers as follows:
AQM 100: Aluminum Chlorhydrate, 50% Aqueous Solution
Ferric Chloride 35% Aqueous Solution
C-1592: Emulsion Polyacrylamide, 34% Aqueous Solution
A diluted solution containing 3.60% AQM 100 and 2.12% Ferric Chloride introduced into the influent
water stream of the pretreatment train with one metering pump through one injection point and a diluted
solution containing 0.10 % of C-1592 was introduced into the influent water stream of the filtration train
with a separate metering pump and injection point. With the operational data provided in Table 4-2 and
4-3, it is calculated that a total of 83.25 liters of 3.60% AQM 100, 62.80 liters of 2.72% Ferric
Chloride, and 27.49 liters of 0.10% C1592 were used during the verification testing period between
March 24 and April 4, 2000. These volumes, converted to undiluted solutions as provided by the
chemical supplier, are equivalent to 3.00 liters cf AQM 100, 1.71 liters of Ferric Chloride, and 0.03
liters of CI 592.
During the verification test period of March 24 through April 4, 2000, the pretreatment train treated a
total of 63,462 gallons of water and the filtration train of the Kinetico equipment package treated
39,812 gallons of water. Dosage requirements per gallon treated during this period are as follow:
42
-------
Table 4-1 Dosage Requirements
Coagulant
Diluted Dose
Undiluted Dose,
Diluted Dose
Undiluted Dose,
(L/1000 gallon)
as supplied
(mg/L)
as supplied
(L/1000 gallon)
(mg/L)
AQM 100
1.31
0.0472
351
25.3
Ferric Chloride
0.99
0.0269
266
20.7
CI 592
0.58
0.0006
182
0.54
Table 4-2 describes the coagulation chemistry requirements for the verification period. The coagulation
chemistry was very sensitive to changes in influent water quality. This required continuous 24-hour
monitoring by a technician in order to maintain stabilization of coagulant chemistry. Coagulation
chemistries employed and changes made during initial operations and the performance verification
period are included in Appendix G.
43
-------
Table 4-2. Coagulant/Polymer Chemistry
Date
Time
Chemical
(Undiluted as
provided by
supplier)
Peristaltic
Pump Setting
(Speed/Stroke
)
Measured Ave. Pre- 'Dosage 'Dosage
Chemical treatment and (Diluted as (Undiluted as
Addition Filter Train introduced by provided by
Rate Flow Rate peristaltic supplier)
(mL/min) (gpm) pump) (mg/L)
(mg/L)
03/24/00
19:42
AQM 100
100/30
10.0
*3.8
401
28.9
Ferric Chloride
305
23.5
C-1592
20/40
1.8
2.95
161
0.47
03/25/00
10:06
AQM 100
100/30
8.3
*3.8
333
24.0
Ferric Chloride
253
19.5
C-1592
20/40
1.53
2.93
138
0.41
03/26/00
8:00
AQM 100
100/30
7.5
*3.8
301
21.7
Ferric Chloride
228
17.6
C-1592
20/40
1.7
2.88
156
.46
03/27/00
16:00
AQM 100
100/30
7.5
*3.8
301
21.7
Ferric Chloride
228
17.6
C-1592
20/40
1.7
2.87
156
0.46
03/28/00
17:05
AQM 100
100/30
7.5
3.8
301
21.7
Ferric Chloride
228
17.6
C-1592
20/40
1.7
2.83
159
0.47
03/29/00
19:16
AQM 100
100/30
7.5
3.85
297
21.4
Ferric Chloride
226
17.4
C-1592
20/40
1.7
2.93
153
0.45
03/30/00
17:31
AQM 100
100/30
7.5
3.85
297
21.4
Ferric Chloride
226
17.4
C-1592
20/40
1.7
2.88
156
0.46
03/31/00
12:40
AQM 100
100/30
10.0
3.8
401
28.9
Ferric Chloride
305
23.5
C-1592
20/40
1.6
2.73
155
0.46
04/01/00
16:58
AQM 100
100/30
10.0
3.8
401
28.9
Ferric Chloride
305
23.5
C-1592
20/40
1.6
2.77
153
0.45
04/02/00
15:20
AQM 100
100/30
10.0
3.8
401
28.9
Ferric Chloride
305
23.5
C-1592
20/40
1.6
2.65
160
0.47
04/03/00
17:18
AQM 100
100/30
10.0
3.8
401
28.9
Ferric Chloride
305
23.5
C-1592
20/40
1.6
2.70
157
0.46
04/04/00
8:06
AQM 100
100/30
10.0
3.8
401
28.9
Ferric Chloride
305
23.5
C-1592
20/40
1.6
2.75
154
0.45
04/04/00
11:30
Shut down until
protozoan
challenge series.
Dosages are calculated based on daily average pretreatment train and filter train flow rates (gpm).
Chloride was injected into the feed stream to the pretreatment train. C-1592 was injected into the
filter train.
* = Estimated values.
AQM 100, Ferric
feed stream to the
44
-------
4.3.1.4 Turbidimeters
Both on-line turbidimeters supplied with the equipment package required frequent cleaning and
verification of calibration. The turbidimeters were cleaned and re-calibrated 22 times during the
verification period.
Communications problems between the on-site computer monitor and the on-line filter train influent
turbidimeter between March 24 and March 28 resulted in manual recording of on-line turbidity data
every 30 minutes between March 24 and March 28. On March 31, the on-line filter train influent
turbidimeter sensor failed and a replacement turbidimeter was installed on April 2. The Hach 21 OOP
benchtop was used to record influent turbidity every 30 minutes during this time period.
4.3.2 Task 2 - Influent and Effluent Water Quality Characterization
A summary of the influent water quality information for the verification period of March 24 through April
4, 2000 is presented in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Influent Water Quality (March 24-April 4,2000)
#of
Parameter Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
PQL
Temperature (°C)
11
12.3
11.3
14.1
...
pH
12
8.3
8.1
8.5
...
Algae (Algae/mL)
2 See discussion
<1
See discussion
1
in text
in text
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
11
150
140
150
10
Aluminum (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.05
0.10
0.05
Total Coliform (cfu/lOOmL)
2
NA
<1
>200
1
E. coli (CFU/lOOmL)
2
NA
<1
1
1
Total Hardness (mg/L)
2
NA
160
160
10
Iron (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.1
0.3
0.1
Manganese (mg/L)
2
NA
0.03
0.06
0.01
TOC (mg/L)
2
NA
11
12
0.05
UVA254 (cm-1)
2
NA
0.151
0.185
...
Free Chlorine (mg/1)
10
0.49
0.1
0.8
0.01*
Pre-treatment Train Influent Turbidity (NTU)
494
3.3
2.6
4.0
...
Filter Train Influent Turbidity (NTU)**
515
7.7
0.3
25.1
...
Note: All calculations involving results with below PQL values used 1/2 the PQL in the calculation.
NA = Average was not performed on data sets with two samples (i.e. n=2).
* This is the Estimated Detection Level (EDL) for free chlorine, this is not the same as the PQL. Hach (manufacturer
of the DRT/2010 Spectrophotometer) provides a value called the Estimated Detection Limit for USEPA accepted
and approved programs. The EDL is the calculated lowest concentration in a deionized water matrix that is
different from zero with a 99% level of confidence.
** Due to communications problems between computer and on-line monitors, filter train influent turbidity readings
are based upon visual readings and manual recordings.
Temperature of the influent water varied during the testing period due to changes in the Mississippi River
water temperature. It ranged from 11.3°C to 14.1°C. Water temperature steadily increased during the
period as the air temperature changed. This difference in water temperature was to be expected due to
seasonal warming changes. The pH of the influent water was stable during the testing period at an
45
-------
average pH of 8.3. The following average influent water characteristics were also observed during the
verification period of March 24 through April 4, 2000: total alkalinity averaged 150 mg/L, total
hardness of 160 mg/L, and TOC concentration in two samples was less than or equal to 12.0 mg/L.
Two samples of the influent water were collected for total coliform analysis. One measurement was
below the PQL of 1 CFU/lOOmL, while the other sample dated April 3, 2000, detected greater than
200 CFU/lOOmL. Two samples of the influent water were collected for E. coli analysis. The results
indicated that E. coli was not detected in the first sample (PQL of 1 CFU/lOOmL), while the second
sample dated April 3, 2000, measured 1 CFU/lOOmL.
One sample of the influent water was collected for algae analysis during the verification testing period.
Algae samples dated March 27, 2000, reported the following results: Cyclotella 70 Algae/mL,
Asterionella 455 Algae/mL, Nitzschia 2200 Algae/mL, Chlamydomonas 70 Algae/mL, Fragilaria 35
Algae/mL, Chlorella 175 Algae/mL, Ankistodesmus 450 Algae/mL, Chloratella 35 Algae/mL,
Staurastum 35 Algae/mL, Dinobyran 35 Algae/mL, and Rhodomonas 35 Algae/mL. The algae results
were not unexpected as the Mississippi river is subject to variable alga blooms as the river undergoes
different climatic and flow changes. Since the algae were not being used as surrogates, their
identification is of less consequence, however, they do accelerate filter loading, resulting in shorter filter
run times.
A summary of the effluent water quality information for the verification period of March 24 through April
4, 2000 is presented in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Effluent Water Quality (March 24-April 4,2000)
Parameter
#of
samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
PQL
Algae (Algae/mL)
2
NA
<1
<1
1
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
11
140
140
140
10
Aluminum (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.05
0.11
0.05
Total Coliform (cfu/lOOmL)
2
NA
<1.2
>200
1
E. coli (CFU/lOOmL)
2
NA
<1
7
1
Total Hardness (mg/L)
2
NA
160
160
10
Iron (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.1
0.3
0.1
Manganese (mg/L)
2
NA
0.01
0.07
0.01
True Color (TCU)
1
NA
10
10
1
TOC (mg/L)
2
NA
8.9
9.0
0.05
UVA254 (cm-1)
2
NA
0.125
0.240
...
On-Line Turbidity (NTU)
7,061
0.4
0.03
5.0
...
Note: All calculations involving results with below PQL values used half the PQL in the calculation.
NA = Average was not performed on data sets with one or two samples (i.e. n=l or n=2).
The results of the testing of the effluent water are follows: total alkalinity of 140 mg/L, total hardness of
160 mg/L, true color of 10 TCU, and TOC concentration less than or equal to 9.0 mg/L. Two
measurements were collected for total coliform analysis; the results of the first sample indicated that total
coliform was not detected (PQL of 1.2 CFU/lOOmL), while >200 CFU/lOOmL of total coliform was
detected in the other sample dated April 3, 2000.
46
-------
No algae were detected at the PQL of 1 Algae/mL in the effluent water samples. E. coli was detected
on April 3, 2000, at 7 CFU/lOOmL. E. coli from the sample collected on March 27, 2000 was below
the PQL detection of 1 CFU/lOOmL during the testing period. The samples dated March 27, 2000,
for total coliform bacteria and E. coli did not contain a sufficient sample volume for a 100 mL analysis.
Drinking water compliance samples (SDWA) must be 100 mL volumes to report <1 coliform/lOOmL
or <1 E. co/z/lOOmL. This sample analysis must therefore be reported as
-------
Table 4-5. Average Operating Conditions Per Filter Run
Length
Ave.
Ave.
Ave. Pre-
Ave.
Min.
Max.
APSI
Total
Backwash
Date
Run
of Run
Influent
Effluent
Treatment
Filter-Train Filter Train
Filter Train
End
Volume
Volume
#
(Hrs)
Turbidity Turbidity Train Flow
Flow Rate
Flow Rate
Flow Rate
Run
(gal)
(gal)
(NTU)
(NTU)
Rate (gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(psig)
3/24/00
A1
2.83
3.4
1.2
-
3.0
2.7
3.3
20
597
82
3/25/00
A2
3.75
3.3
0.7
-
3.0
2.8
3.3
20
845
77
3/25/00
A3
6.01
3.1
0.2
-
2.9
2.7
3.3
20
1203
76
3/26/00
A4
5.01
3.2
0.1
-
2.9
2.6
3.3
19
985
96
3/26/00
A5
4.15
3.3
0.4
-
2.9
2.6
3.2
20
803
97
3/27/00
A6
6.07
3.3
0.1
-
2.9
2.6
3.2
20
1178
53
3/27/00
A7
6.05
3.4
0.1
-
2.8
2.2
3.2
20
1199
98
3/28/00
A8
5.53
3.4
0.1
-
2.9
2.6
.32
20
1081
77
3/28/00
A9
6.03
3.4
0.2
3.8
2.8
2.6
3.2
20
1158
97
3/29/00
A10
6.10
3.3
0.2
3.8
3.0
2.6
3.2
20
1158
70
3/29/00
All
5.50
3.2
0.3
3.9
2.9
2.6
3.2
20
1090
98
3/30/00
A12
4.70
3.4
0.4
3.9
3.0
2.7
3.2
18
593
78
3/30/00
A13
7.02
3.3
0.6
3.8
2.7
2.5
3.0
20
1206
96
3/31/00
A14
6.73
3.2
0.9
3.8
2.7
2.4
3.0
22
1089
73
3/31/00
A15
5.35
3.1
0.5
3.8
2.7
2.5
3.0
20
940
97
4/1/00
A16
7.23
3.3
0.3
3.8
2.9
2.5
3.0
20
1241
74
4/2/00
All
7.73
3.2
0.4
3.8
2.7
2.5
3.0
21
1156
74
4/2/00
A18
5.73
3.2
0.6
3.8
2.7
2.4
3.0
20
931
69
4/3/00
A19
5.60
3.4
1.0
3.8
2.7
2.5
3.0
20
953
90
4/3/00
A20
5.08
3.2
0.4
3.8
2.7
2.5
3.0
20
846
71
4/4/00
A21
3.87
3.5
0.6
3.8
2.8
2.7
3.0
20
566
-
3/24/00
B1
5.00
3.3
0.3
-
2.9
2.6
3.3
20
1007
71
3/25/00
B2
3.07
3.4
1.3
-
2.9
2.6
3.3
20
621
-
3/25/00
B3
6.10
3.2
0.3
-
2.9
2.5
3.3
20
1175
95
3/26/00
B4
6.18
3.2
0.1
-
2.9
2.6
3.2
20
1184
77
3/26/00
B5
5.13
3.2
0.2
-
2.8
2.5
3.2
20
985
96
3/26/00
B6
4.02
3.4
0.5
-
2.6
2.2
3.2
20
745
74
3/27/00
B7
8.47
3.2
0.1
-
2.9
2.5
3.3
20
1657
77
3/28/00
B8
6.53
3.4
0.1
-
2.8
2.1
3.2
20
1275
75
3/28/00
B9
6.08
3.7
0.1
-
2.8
2.5
3.2
20
1137
75
3/29/00
B10
6.63
3.3
0.2
3.8
2.8
2.5
3.1
20
1239
77
3/29/00
Bll
3.68
3.2
0.2
3.9
3.0
2.8
3.2
13
756
76
3/30/00
B12
1.72
3.2
0.3
3.8
3.1
3.0
3.2
9
363
74
3/30/00
B13
8.57
3.2
0.5
3.8
2.7
2.3
3.2
20
1451
67
3/31/00
B14
3.75
3.4
0.6
3.8
2.8
2.6
3.0
13
660
89
3/31/00
B15
6.08
3.2
0.3
3.8
2.7
2.3
3.0
20
1023
72
4/1/00
B16
7.85
3.2
0.3
3.8
2.7
2.3
3.0
20
1310
72
4/1/00
B17
3.00
3.0
0.2
3.8
2.7
2.4
3.0
20
1190
95
4/2/00
B18
7.25
3.1
0.3
3.8
2.6
2.3
3.0
20
1107
70
4/2/00
B19
6.05
3.4
0.9
3.8
2.6
2.4
3.0
20
976
93
4/3/00
B20
7.22
3.2
1.0
3.8
2.7
2.4
3.0
20
1188
71
4/4/00
B21
7.13
3.3
0.7
3.8
2.7
2.3
3.0
20
1155
72
Average
5.61
3.4
0.4
3.8
2.8
2.5
3.1
19
1,024
80
Minimum
1.72
3.0
0.1
3.8
2.6
2.1
3.0
9
363
53
Maximum
8.57
3.7
1.3
3.9
3.1
3.0
3.3
20
1,657
98
Std. Dev
1.57
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
2
259
11
95% Conf. Int.
5.15,6.07
3.2,3.3
0.3,0.5
NA
2.8,2.9
2.4,2.6
3.1,3.2
18, 20
945, 1,103
77, 84
- = No data recorded.
48
-------
Power used by the Kinetico CPS100CPT was recorded by the use of a dedicated electrical power
meter. During the verification testing and challenge period the Kinetico CPS100CPT System used 263
kWh for 48,031 gallons of water filtered. This equates to 183 gallons of filtered water per kWh.
Figure 4-3 is a graphic presentation of the gallons per filter run for both filter runs "A" and "B" and
corresponding raw influent turbidity during the verification testing period. "Average Raw Turbidity"
noted in Figure 4-3 is representative of incoming water from the river. As noted in the Table 4-3, the
average raw turbidity (pre-treatment train) is 3.4 NTU, and the average total volume is 1,024 gallons.
0£
L.
a)
0)
Q.
ra
O
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
T/m
ftn ~
i\
^,
At
Iv \
*
\
/ •
I \
\r
i
.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Filter Run
¦Total Volume —I—Average Raw Turbidity
Figure 4-3. Gallons Per Filter Run & Raw Influent Turbidity
49
-------
Table 4-6 lists the average on-line particle size and turbidity reading obtained during the verification
testing period. The particle counts in the 3-7|im size range of interest for the raw influent water were: 3-
5|im average of 4,104, and 5-7|im average size of 2,751. The particle count averages in the same 3-
7|im size range for effluent water were: 3-5|im average of 587, and 5-7|im average of 227. Turbidity
averages for the verification period were of 3.4 NTU for tie pre-treatment train water influent, 7.7
NTU for the filter train influent, and 0.4 NTU for the filter train effluent.
Table 4-6. Average Particle Size & Turbidity (March 24- April 4, 2000)
Parameter
#of
samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Std.
Dev
95% Confidence
Interval
Particle Countsfcounts/ml)
Influent 2-3 |im
7,061
1,341
318
1,673
131
1,338,1,343
Influent 3-5 |im
7,061
4,104
246
4,489
222
4,100,4,109
Influent 5-7 |im
7,061
2,751
70
2,967
128
2,748,2,754
Influent 7-10 (jm
7,061
5,310
36
5,800
278
5,304, 5,316
Influent 10-15 |im
7,061
2,343
5
3,400
300
2,336,2,349
Effluent 2-3 (jm
7,061
436
19
2,006
249
430,441
Effluent 3-5 (jm
7,061
587
12
4,497
531
576, 599
Effluent 5-7 (jm
7,061
261
4
2,837
281
255,267
Effluent 7-10 (jm
7,061
227
3
5,542
341
219,234
Effluent 10-15 (jm
7,061
78
1
3,181
146
74,81
Turbiditv (NTU)
Bench-top Influent Turbidity
494
3.3
2.6
4.0
0.2
3.3,3.3
On-line Effluent Turbidity
7,061
0.4
0.0
5.0
0.4
0.4,0.4
Watershed events were noted in logbook. Data from the logbook and historical weather data from the
Minnesota State Climatology Office (DNR Waters), and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers was
compiled and is presented in Appendix H detailing daily climatic events. A mild winter and
extraordinarily high temperatures in February and March lead to the occurrence of spring run-off and
area lake ice-out dates to coincide with the ETV test period. Potential watershed events could lead to
changes in water chemistry, which in turn could effect coagulant chemistries and filter performance. It is
noted that performance of the Kinetico CPS100CPT system was very sensitive to changes in river
water quality.
4.3.4 Task 4 - Microbiological Contaminant Removal Testing
The purpose of this task was to demonstrate the Kinetico CPSlOOCPT's ability to reduce C. parvum
and G. lamblia within defined influent water quality specifications.
4.3.4.1 Water Characteristics
Chlorination was discontinued during protozoan challenge test runs. Accordingly, unfiltered river water
served as the source water during these challenges. A summary of the influent water quality information
for the challenge period of April 24 through April 26, 2000 is presented in Table 4-7. Two samples of
50
-------
the influent water were collected for total coliform analysis; one measurement detected 4 CFU/lOOmL,
while the other sample dated April 26, 2000, detected 290 CFU/lOOmL. Two samples of the influent
water were collected for E. coli analysis; the sample dated April 25, 2000, detected 4 CFU/lOOmL;
the second sample dated April 26, 2000, measured 8 CFU/lOOmL.
Algae were detected as 325 Algae/mL on April 26, 2000 during the verification testing challenges as the
following parameters: Nitzschia 176 Algae/mL, Ankistodesmus 48 Algae/mL, Navicula 75 Algae/mL,
and Golekinea 26 Algae/mL. Based upon the algae and the total coliform results, it can be stated that
an "algae bloom" was in process in the source water during the third challenge test.
Table 4-7. Influent Water Quality During Protozoan Challenge Events (April 24-April 26,2000)
Parameter # of samples Average Minimum Maximum PQL
Algae (Algae/mL)
2
See discussion in
<1
See discussion in
1
text
text
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
3
140
140
140
10
Aluminum (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.05
<0.05
0.05
Total Coliform (cfu/100/mL)
2
NA
4
290
1
E. coli (CFU/lOOmL)
2
NA
4
8
1
Total Hardness (mg/L)
2
NA
160
160
10
Iron (mg/L)
2
NA
0.2
0.2
0.1
Manganese (mg/L)
2
NA
0.06
0.08
0.01
TOC (mg/L)
2
NA
12
13
0.05
UVA254 (cm-1)
2
NA
0.250
0.254
...
Temperature (C)
4
15.9
14.5
16.9
...
pH
4
8.7
8.5
8.9
...
Bench-top Turbidity (NTU)
4
3.5
2.7
4.4
...
Note: All calculations involving results with below PQL values used half the PQL in the calculation.
NA = Average was not performed on data sets with two samples (i.e. n=2).
A summary of the effluent water quality information for the challenge period of April 24 through April
26, 2000 is presented in Table 4-8. Total coliform and E. coli were not detected or were below the
PQL of 1 CFU/lOOmL in the influent samples collected.
Table 4-8. Effluent Water Quality During Protozoan Events (April 24-April 26), 2000)
Parameter
# of samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
PQL
Algae (Algae/mL)
2
NA
<1
<1
1
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
3
74
57
100
10
Aluminum (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.05
0.26
0.05
Total Coliform (cfu/100/mL)
2
NA
<1
<1
1
E. coli (CFU/lOOmL)
2
NA
<1
<1
1
Total Hardness (mg/L)
2
NA
160
190
10
Iron (mg/L)
2
NA
<0.1
0.2
0.1
Manganese (mg/L)
2
NA
0.11
0.13
0.01
TOC (mg/L)
2
NA
4.4
5.7
0.05
UVA254 (cm-1)
2
NA
0.031
0.036
...
On-line Turbidity (NTU)
404
1.6
0.2
5.0
...
Note: All calculations involving results with below PQL values used half the PQL in the calculation.
NA = Average was not performed on data sets with two samples (i.e. n=2).
51
-------
4.3.4.2 Operational and Analytical Data
The Kinetico CPS100CPT was shut down for a total of 448.5 hours, between April 4 and April 23,
2000 due to problems found in EPA method 1623 associated with the testing of G. muris versus G.
lamblia. Due to this interruption, the equipment was not operated continuously during the performance
verification period. During this 19-day period, source water conditions changed considerably. Upon
re-starting the equipment on April 23, COA and Kinetico were unable to stabilize coagulation chemistry
to the point that had been achieved previous to April 4. Cost constrains and reporting deadlines
prohibited a significant effort to re-stabilize coagulation chemistry. As a consequence, filter runs were
considerably shorter during microbial challenge testing. Filter runs averaged 705 gallons during
challenge testing as compared to 1,026 gallons previous to April 4, 2000.
The Kinetico CPS100CPT included two identical filters vessels identified as "A" and "B" operating
alternately. During the challenge testing only filter "B" was used for the sample collection. Table 4-9
summarizes operating conditions for filter "B" during the challenge testing.
Table 4-9. Operating Conditions During Each Protozoan Challenge Event
Challenge #
Date
Temperature pH
(°C)
1
4/24/00
15.4 8.5
2
4/26/00
16.9 8.9
3
4/26/00
16.9 8.9
Table 4-10 lists the Kinetico CPS100CPT coagulant/polymer chemistry and dosage during the
challenge events.
Table 4-10. Coagulant/Polymer Chemistry During Challenge Events
Peristaltic
Measured
Pretreatment
'Dosage
'Dosage
Date
Challeng
Chemical
Pump Setting
Chemical
and Filter
(Diluted as
(Undiluted as
e Run #
(Speed/Stroke Addition Rate
Train Flow
introduced by
provided by
)
(mL/min)
Rate (gpm)
peristaltic
supplier)
pump)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
04/24/00
1
AQM 100
80/95
60
3.7
2,471
128.5
Ferric Chloride
1,877
145.9
C-1592
20/40
3.7
2.6
376
1.11
04/26/00
2
AQM 100
88/100
68.3
3.7
2,813
202.6
Ferric Chloride
2,137
166.1
C-1592
20/40
3.1
2.2
372
1.09
04/26/00
3
AQM 100
88/100
68.3
3.7
2,813
202.6
Ferric Chloride
2,137
166.1
C-1592
20/40
3.1
2.2
372
1.09
1 Dosages are calculated based on average flow rates shown in Table 4-10. AQM 100, Ferric Chloride was injected
into the feed stream to the pretreatment train. C-1592 was injected into the feed stream to the filter train
52
-------
Table 4-11 lists operating conditions per each protozoan challenge filter run.
Table 4-11. Average Operating Conditions Per Filter Run During Challenge Events
Run
Average
Average Effluent
Average Pre-
Average
APSI
Total
Date
Challeng
Length
Influent
Turbidity
Treatment
Filter-Train
End Run
Volume
e
(Hours)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Train Flow rate
Flow rate
(psig)
(Gallons)
Run #
(NTU)
(gpm)
(gpm)
4/24/00
1
4.0
2.6
0.6
3.7
2.6
20
649
4/26/00
2
4.75
3.7
1.6
3.7
2.6
20
790
4/26/00
3
4.53
3.7
18.4
3.7
2.2
32
677
'influent turbidity samples for benchtop analysis were not taken during challenge due to operator safety concerns.
Influent turbidity values above reflect measurements taken previous to challenge runs.
The flow rates during each of the challenge events are listed below in Table 4-12. A hydraulic tracer
test (Section 4.2.4) established a time of 120 minutes to achieve equilibrium between tracer
concentrations between influent and effluent streams. Average flow rates over this 120 minute period
during the tracer test were 3.9 gpm through the pretreatment train (252 gallons) and 3.4 gpm through
the filter train (11.9 gallons).
Table 4-12. Pretreatment and Filter Train Flow Rates During Challenge Events
Pretreatment Filter Train 'Pretreatment 'Filter Train Pretreatment Train Filter Train
Date
Challenge
Train Flow Rate
Flow Rate
Train Flow Rate
Flow Rate
Flow Rate
Flow Rate
Run #
at Start of Run
at Start of
at 120 minutes
at 120
at end of run
at end of run
(gpm)
Run
(gpm)
minutes
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
(gpm)
4/24/00
1
3.4
2.9
3.4
2.8
3.3
1.6
4/26/00
2
3.5
3.0
3.7
3.0
3.7
2.5
4/26/00
3
3.5
3.2*
3.7
2.8
3.7
1.0
*3.2 gpm is the measured value at time zero plus 49 minutes. The value recorded at time zero was 2.2 gpm, but it was
concluded that this value was an anomaly.
Figure 4-4 shows the particle count logio removal and turbidity results during the challenge test run #1 in
the 3-7 |j,m range. Steady state injection of protozoan seed into the influent stream began at time 3:35
PM and concluded at time 6:35 PM. Logio removals of particles sized 3-7 |im dropped from 4.02 to
1.66 during challenge #1 on April 24th. Filter influent turbidity ranged from 5.93 NTU to 24.91 NTU.
A high turbidity spike occurred at 6:34 PM. This was caused by air entrapped within the turbidimeter
cell. At 6:34 PM a small vortex occurred in the clarifier outlet. This allowed air to become entrained
within the filter influent stream that supplies the turbidimeter. After this event the influent turbidimeter
remained unstable until the end of the filter run. Filter effluent turbidity gradually increased over the filter
run from 0.15 NTU at the beginning to 0.96 NTU near the end of the filter run.
53
-------
Turbidity for the influent stream was performed with a benchtop as compared to an on-line turbidimeter.
Accordingly, benchtop samples were not evaluated during the protozoan challenge period due to safety
concerns of the personnel responsible for recording turbidity values. Accordingly, Figures 4-4 through
4-6 do not show turbidity values for the influent stream.
5.00
O
TO £
Sr 3.00
O
c ^
O CO
tt "O
= g 2.00
is w
DC
s
1.00
0.00
Micro Sample Collections
,
W
-
r\
*
1
¦
¦
—1
30
+ 25
-- 20
-- 15
£
¦o
5
10 a
+ 5
0
3:27
PM
3:51
PM
4:15
PM
4:39 5:03
PM PM
5:27
PM
5:51
PM
6:15
PM
6:39
PM
7:03
PM
Time of day on 4/24/00
• Log Reduction'
'Filter Influent Turbidity
• Filter Effluent Turbidity
Figure 4-1. 3-7 jim Particle Count Log10 Removal During Challenge #1
54
-------
Figure 4-5 shows the particle count logio removal and turbidity results during challenge test run #2 in the
3-7 |j,m range. Steady state injection of protozoan seed into the influent stream began at time 7:10 AM
and concluded at time 11:10 AM. Logio removals of particles sized 3-7 |im dropped from 2.69 to
0.17 during challenge #2 on April 26. Filter influent turbidity decreased from 15.43 NTU to 2.65 NTU
while filter effluent turbidity increased from 0.45 to 0.80 over the first 3 hours and 20 minutes of filter
run #2. After that point, floe from the settling tank began to overflow into the clarifier and subsequently
introduced into the filter influent stream. After that point (approximately 10:30 AM) turbidimeter and
particle counter readings became unstable. Filter influent/effluent turbidities increased and logio particle
removals decreased.
Micro Sample Collections ¦
A *
!'±. ' HulfjH i
» 1.00
? 0.50
0.00
7:10 7:34 7:58 8:22 8:46 9:10 9:34 9:58 10:22 10:46 1 1:10 1 1:34 1 1:58
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM
Time of Day on 4/26/00
• Log Reduction'
¦Filter Influent Turbidity
• Filter Effluent Turbidity
Figure 4-5. 3-7 jim Particle Count Log10 Removal During Challenge #2
55
-------
Figure 4-6 shows the particle count logio removal during the last challenge test run #3 in the 3-7 |j,m
range. Steady state injection of protozoan seed into the influent stream began at time 4:15 PM and
concluded at time 8:15 PM. Logio removals of particles sized 3-7|im dropped from 2.94 to -0.12
during challenge #3 on April 26th. Filter influent turbidity increased from 9.69 to 74.74 NTU and filter
effluent turbidity increased from 0.18 to 4.98 NTU over the course of this filter run. Significant
decreases in logio reductions and increases in turbidity values can be attributed to floe discharging from
the clarifier into the filter influent beginning approximately 2 hours after the start of this filter run.
It is noted in the logbook that the operators were experiencing significant instability in coagulation
chemistry throughout the period of microbial challenge testing. In addition to generally contributing to
shorter filter run times, it can be observed in Figure 4-5 that during challenge #2 that logio reductions of
3-7 jam micron particles decreased and influent turbidity increased considerably at the end of that filter
run. During challenge #3, particle and turbidity reduction began to fall off precipitously after the first two
hours of operation. Because challenge #3 was the last challenge that could be conducted given, time
and financial constraints previously mentioned, it was decided to continue the filter run beyond the
manufacturer's terminal head loss specification of 20 psi and continue to collect microbial samples.
56
-------
Tables 4-13 and 4-14 illustrate the G. lamblia and C. parvum logio removal rates achieved by the
Kinetico CPS100CPT system as a result of the microbial challenge testing. Samples were collected
from the raw seeded water, the clarifier effluent, and the filtration train effluent. Samples were analyzed
in accordance with EPA method 1623. Resultant data from samples collected from the Kinetico
CPS100CPT system effluent (i.e. combined pretreatment and filtration train) indicate that G. lamblia
logio removals ranged from 2.6 to 3.6 and C. parvum logio removals ranged from 3.4 to 5.7 at a filter
train flow rates of 2.2 to 2.6 gpm over the challenge filter runs.
Table 4-13. G. lamblia Logio Removals
Run# (1)
Influent GiardialL
(2)
Effluent GiardialL
(3)
Logio Removal
Run 1
Raw seeded water
Time zero clarifier
Time zero filter
Time '/Siour clarifier
Time '/Siour filter
Time 1-hour clarifier
Time 1-hour filter
Run2
Raw seeded water
Time zero clarifier
Time zero filter
Time '/Siour clarifier
Time '/Siour filter
Time 1-hour clarifier
Time 1-hour filter
Time 2-hour clarifier
Time 2-hour filter.
Run3
Raw seeded water
Time zero clarifier
Time zero filter
Time '/Siour clarifier
Time '/Siour filter
Time 1-hour clarifier
Time 1-hour filter
Time 2-hour clarifier
Time 2-hour filter.
363
363
363
363
363
363
363
EST 260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
0.1
<0.09
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
0.2
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
0.1
3.6
>3.6
>3.6
>3.6
>3.6
>3.6
>3.4
>3.5
>3.4
>3.4
>3.4
>3.4
>3.4
>3.4
>3.2
>3.2
2.6
2.9
>3.2
2.6
>3.2
3.2
EST: Estimated value due organisms being too numerous to count.
(1) =BioVir result influent organisms per liter in capture filter
(2) = BioVir result effluent organism per liter in capture filter
(3) = Logi0(influent concentration/effluent concentration)
57
-------
Table 4-14 presents the C. parvum challenge logio results.
Table 4-14. C. parvum Logio Removals
Run #
(1)
Influent Crypto!L
(2)
Effluent Crypto!L
(3)
Logio Removal
Run 1
Raw seeded water
Time zero clarifier
Time zero filter
Time '/Siour clarifier
Time '/Siour filter
Time 1-hour clarifier
Time 1-hour filter
Run2
Raw seeded water
Time zero clarifier
Time zero filter
Time '/Siour clarifier
Time '/Siour filter
Time 1-hour clarifier
Time 1-hour filter
Time 2-hour clarifier
Time 2-hour filter.
Run3
Raw seeded water
Time zero clarifier
Time zero filter
Time '/Siour clarifier
Time '/Siour filter
Time 1-hour clarifier
Time 1-hour filter
Time 2-hour clarifier
Time 2-hour filter.
EST 45,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
EST 21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
0.3
<0.09
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.5
<0.1
1.8
3.1
<0.3
0.2
6.7
3.5
0.9
1.4
0.1
2.3
5.2
>5.7
5.4
5.7
>5.7
>5.7
>5.3
4.8
5.3
4.8
4.1
>5.3
4.1
3.8
>4.4
4.6
3.1
3.4
3.9
3.8
4.9
3.5
EST: Estimated value due organisms being too numerous to count.
(1) =BioVir result influent organisms per liter in capture filter
(2) = BioVir result effluent organism per liter in capture filter
(3) = Logi0(influent concentration/effluent concentration)
4.3.4.3 Discussion of Results
Three seeding studies were performed for the removal of G. lamblia and C. parvum in accordance
with EPA method 1623. During the course of each challenge, concentrations of 3-7 |im sized particles
and turbidity were monitored continuously. Filter runs during challenge testing were considerably short.
During the first challenge, effluent samples were only collected during the first hour after time zero before
terminal head loss occurred across the filter. On the two subsequent challenges, effluent samples were
collected during a two-hour period after time zero.
58
-------
Resultant data from samples collected from the system effluent indicate that G. lamblia logio removals
ranged from 2.6 to 3.6 and C. parvum logio removals ranged from 3.4 to 5.7 at a filter train flow rates
of 2.2 to 2.6 gpm over the challenge filter runs. There were numerous effluent samples during the study
that were below the detectable limit for both cysts and oocysts. During challenge #2 there were no G.
lamblia cysts detected in any of the effluent samples, while C. parvum oocysts were detected in the
filter effluent at times 0, '/knd 2 hours, and in the clarifier effluent at time 1 and 2 hours. The greatest
number of filter effluent samples containing cysts occurred during challenge 3, which yielded the lowest
coagulation and filtration system removals of 2.6 logio for G. lamblia and 3.4 logio for C. parvum.
Turbidity and particle count data (3-7 jam sized particles), recorded simultaneously during the same filter
runs, are incongruent with protozoan challenge results (refer to Figures 4-4 through 4-6). This
difference is attributable to two factors. First, turbidity and particle count data was limited to filter
influent and effluent streams while protozoan challenge data included filter influent, effluent and
pretreatment (pre-coagulation) streams. Second, the results of the protozoan challenge study suggest
the technologies employed within the CPS100CPT pretreatment train were very effective for the
removal of G. lamblia and C. parvum. As a result, too few (oo)cysts remained within the filter influent
stream to provide an adequate challenge of the filter train to establish protozoan reduction performance
of the filter train, independent of pre-filtration technologies employed by the Kinetico CPS100CPT
system.
As previously mentioned within this report, filter flow rates were allowed to decrease due to increasing
filter head pressure during each filter run. The equipment package was operated in this manner in order
to replicate true field operation. Further, and also previously mentioned within this report, pre-filtration
technologies within this equipment package were subjected to a higher flow rate than the media filter.
These flow rates were relatively similar at the beginning of each filter run with the difference primarily
satisfying backwash flow demands in addition to on-line filter influent turbidimeter and particle counter
demands. As the filter flow rate decreased due to filter loading, the excess available from the clarifier
entered a discharge weir located at the clarifiers' outlet. Process flow rates experienced during each
microbial challenge are presented in Figures 4-7 through 4-9.
59
-------
Figure 4-7 illustrates process flow rates during challenge #1.
Figure 4-8 illustrates process flow rates during challenge #2.
60
-------
Figure 4-9 illustrates process flow rates during challenge #3. Note terminal head loss (20 Apsi) was
reached at 7:20 PM. As discussed above, the filter run was continued and microbial samples were
taken beyond the point of terminal head loss.
(/)
(/)
2
o
<
3 Q.
(/> —'
<2 S
bi +¦>
o
O)
c
ro
O
4:05 5:05 6:05 7:05 7:20 7:38 7:50 8:05 8:23 8:33
PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM
Time of Day on 4/26/00
H— Raw Influent Flow Rate •
• Filter Effluent Flow Rate
¦DPSI
Figure 4-9. Challenge #3 Process Flow Rate Characteristics vs. Change In Pressure Across Filter
During the verification microbial challenge testing conducted April 24-26, 2000, the Kinetico
CPS100CPT system demonstrated 2.6 to 3.6 logio reductions of G. lamblia cysts and 3.4 to 5.7 logio
reductions of C. parvum oocysts. These results were obtained at an average pretreatment train flow
rate of 3.8 gpm and average filtration train flow rate of 2.2 to 2.6 gpm, which is below the
manufacturer's specified flow rate of 5 gpm.
4.4 Equipment Characteristics Results
The qualitative, quantitative and cost factors of the tested equipment were identified during the
verification period, in so far as possible. The results of these three factors are limited due to the
relatively short duration of the testing period.
4.4.1 Qualitative Factors
The qualitative factors examined during the verification were operational aspects of the Kinetico
CPS100CPT, specifically, susceptibility to changes in environmental conditions, operational
requirements and equipment safety, as well as other factors that might impact performance.
4.4.1.1 Susceptibility to changes in environmental conditions
Equipment performance was very sensitive to changes in source water characteristics influenced by
environmental conditions. This susceptibility was specific to the performance of the pretreatment train.
61
-------
During the beginning of this test optimizing the coagulant usage was especially problematic due to rapid
changes in river water quality caused from the occurrence of unseasonably warm climatic temperatures,
rain, and snow melt. Fifteen days were required after system start-up to identify the correct coagulant
chemistry to attain satisfactory performance results so performance verification testing could begin.
Data obtained from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, St. Anthony Falls Locks and Dams (location of
SAFHL) shows that the Mississippi River stream discharge flow increased dramatically previous to the
start of the ETV testing period of March 8th (Figure 10). This increase is primarily attributable to spring
snow melt and associated run-off into the Mississippi river. Flow rates sharply increased during the last
week of February and peaked on March 3rd. Thereafter, spring runoff declined until the approximate
start of the ETV performance verification period (March 24th). Thereafter, river flow rates remained
comparatively stable.
-------
the filtration train. Average filter influent turbidity increased from 8.2 NTU to 23.9 NTU between these
two respective periods, while system influent (untreated river water) only increased from 3.3 NTU to
3.5.NTU.
Table 4-15. Notable Changes In Source Water Conditions
Parameter
Average
(March 24-April 4,2000)
Average
(April 24-April 26,2000)
Temperature (°C)
pH
Untreated River Water Turbidity (NTU)
12.3
3.3
8.3
15.9
8.7
3.5
Water quality appeared to have had a significant impact on the coagulation chemistry of the Kinetico
CPS100CPT System. Accordingly, it is suspected that the unstabilization of coagulation chemistries
experienced during the challenge testing period can be attributed to changes in water quality parameters
that were not measured and/or a mechanical aberration within the equipment being tested.
4.4.1.2 Operational requirements
The failure of a pressure differential switch, causing the operation of the filtration system to become non-
automatic, combined with continuous monitoring required for the operation of the pretreatment train
made the operation of the Kinetico CPS100CPT very labor intensive. During the initial operations and
verification testing periods, the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System was staffed 24
hours per day. Manual tasks included stabilization and monitoring of the coagulant chemistry, manual
backwashing, and data recording. If coagulation chemistry is stabilized, such as what was experienced
for an extended period during verification testing, and the filtration train is operating on an automatic
basis, the Kinetico CPS100CPT could be operated with less technician interface. Minimal changes in
source water characteristics may negatively influence performance of coagulation chemistry and
continuous monitoring would be necessary to be aware when such changes occur so corrective action
can be taken on a timely basis.
4.4.1.3 Evaluation of O&M Manual
The O&M manual provided by the manufacturer primarily defined installation, operation and
maintenance requirements for the filtration train of the Kinetico CPS100CPT. The manual provided
information pertaining to basic installation, start-up, and operational process. A process schematic,
trouble shooting guide, and associated O&M manuals for components used within the Kinetico
CPS100CPT were also provided. Warranty policies described within the O&M manual included those
pertaining to equipment and labor. The manufacturer also describes guarantees pertaining to the
Kinetico CPSlOOCPT's process and design. The Kinetico O&M manual did not contain information
on the pretreatment train (settling tank and clarifier).
The O&M manual was reviewed for completeness and used during equipment installation, start-up,
system operation, and trouble-shooting. It was found that the manual provides adequate instruction for
all tasks required to perform these functions. In cases where CPS100CPT system components failed,
63
-------
such was concluded based upon the use of the O&M manual. Specific component failures included an
on-line turbidimeter manufactured by Great Lakes International and a pressure differential switch
manufactured by Orange Research. In both cases, Kinetico was responsive in their efforts to remedy
component failures. Great Lakes International also was responsive in providing replacement equipment
in addition to field assistance. Orange Research was non-responsive.
4.4.1.4 Safety
The Kinetico CPS100CPT did not introduce safety concerns beyond what is normally expected in the
operation of a small coagulation/filtration system. Primary safety concerns dealt with handling of
chemicals used to chlorinate and to enhance coagulation of source water. Standard safety precautions
must be followed when handling these chemicals and Material Safety Data Sheets must be located in the
same vicinity where they are being handled.
4.4.2 Quantitative Factors
The quantitative factors examined during the verification testing were power and coagulant chemical
requirements. Operating conditions were recorded to allow reasonable prediction of performance
under other, similar conditions.
4.4.2.1 Power Requirements
Power used by the Kinetico CPS100CPT was recorded by the use of a dedicated electrical power
meter. During the verification testing period of March 24 through April 4, 2000, the system used 196
kWh for 39,812 gallons through the filtration train. This equates to 203 gallons of filtered water per
kWh.
4.4.2.2 Coagulant Chemical Requirements
A diluted solution containing 3.47% AQM 100 and 2.64% Ferric Chloride was introduced into the
influent water stream with one metering pump through one injection port and a diluted solution
containing 0.10 % of C-1592 was introduced into the influent water stream with a separate metering
pump and injection port. Given the data provided in Table 4-1 (Section 4.3.1.3) it is calculated that a
total of 83.25 liters of 3.60% AQM 100, 62.80 liters of 2.72% Ferric Chloride, and 27.49 liters of
0.10%) CI592 were used during the verification testing period between March 24 and April 4, 2000.
These volumes, converted to undiluted solutions as provided by the chemical supplier, are equivalent to
3.00 liters of AQM 100, 1.71 liters of Ferric Chloride, and 0.03 liters of C1592.
4.5 QA/QC Results
The objective of this task is to assure the high quality and integrity of all measurements of operational
and water quality parameters during the ETV project. QA/QC verifications were recorded in the
64
-------
laboratory logbooks or spread sheets. QA/QC documentation and calibration certifications are
attached to this report as Appendix H.
4.5.1 Data Correctness
Data correctness refers to data quality, for which there are four indicators:
• Representativeness
• Statistical Uncertainty
• Accuracy
• Precision
Calculation of all of the above data quality indicators were outlined in the Chapter 3, Methods &
Procedures. All water quality samples were collected according to the sampling procedures specified
by the EPA/NSF ETV protocols, which ensured the Representativeness of the samples.
4.5.1.1 Representativeness
Operational parameters graphs and discussions are included under Task 3 - Documentation of
Operations Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance. Individual operational parameters, such
as flow rate, particle count data, turbidity data, and testing equipment verification are presented below in
discussions on Daily, Bi-Weekly and Start of Testing Period QA/QC Results.
4.5.1.2 Statistical Uncertainty
Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated for the water quality parameters with a
minimum of three discrete samples for each parameter at one operating set. These include influent and
effluent turbidity, particle count, flow rates, and various other filter runs performance data as discussed
in Task 3 - Documentation of Operations Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance.
4.5.1.3 Accuracy
For this ETV study, the accuracy refers to the difference between the sample result, and the true or
reference value. Calculations of data accuracy were made to ensure the accuracy of the testing
equipment in this study. Accuracy of parameters as flow rate, particle count data, turbidity data, and
pressure gauges are presented below in discussions on Daily, Bi-Weekly and Start of Testing Period
QA/QC Results. Percent recovery calculations for the verification of the pressure gauges are provided
in Appendix H.
4.5.1.4 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and provides an
estimate of random error. Precision was ensured by calculating the relative percent standard deviation
or the relative percent difference, and having it be equal to or less than 30%. For single reading
65
-------
parameters, such as pressure and flow rates, precision was ensured by redundant readings from
operator to operator. The pH meter was calibrated with NIST-traceable standards previous to each
daily measurement. Precision of temperature measurement was ensured by use of a NIST-traceable
thermometer.
4.5.2 Daily QA/QC Results
Daily readings for water quality were listed in the logbook and then transcribed to computer format.
Logbooks contained carbon paper second sheets that were separated and maintained off site at the
COA offices. Computer diskettes were used to download data and then transferred physically to the
COA offices.
The on-line influent turbidimeter flow rate averaged 1,360 mL/minute during the verification period of
March 24 though April 4, 2000. This average was calculated only to show that the limits were
observed. The maximum rate during the testing period was 1760 mL/minute, the minimum was 900
mL/minute. The acceptable ranges of flows as specified by the manufacturer are 190 mL/minute to
26,582 mL/minute. The turbidimeter readings are accurate within those ranges; however, the time from
beginning of flow to stable turbidity indication is lengthened with the lower flows. Influent flow rates
were verified daily with a 2,000 mL graduated cylinder and stopwatch.
The on-line effluent turbidimeter flow rate averaged 1,499 mL/minute. This average was calculated only
to show that the limits were observed. The maximum rate during the testing period was 2,050
mL/minute, the minimum was 940 mL/minute. The acceptable ranges of flows as specified by the
manufacturer are 190 mL/minute to 26,582 mL/minute. The turbidimeter readings are accurate within
those ranges; however, the time from beginning of flow to stable turbidity indication is lengthened with
the lower flows. Effluent flow rates were verified daily with a 2,000 mL graduated cylinder and
stopwatch.
The on-line influent turbidity readings were checked daily against the bench-top turbidimeter, and the
readings were within acceptable limits of 20% of RPD. The readout from the GLI Model 95T/8320
on-line influent turbidity averaged 7.7 NTU during the verification period of March 24 through April 4,
2000; the average from the Hach 2100P benchtop turbidimeter was 6.3 NTU. The discrepancy
between the two turbidimeters (on-line and benchtop) of 7.7 NTU and 6.3 NTU is acceptable and
within limits. Communications problems between the on-site computer monitor and the on-line filter
train influent turbidimeter between March 24 and March 28 resulted manual recording of on-line
turbidity data every 30 minutes between March 24 and March 28. The influent turbidimeter (LMI
Model GLI 8220) sensor failed on March 31 and a replacement turbidimeter (LMI Model GLI 8320)
was installed on April 2. The Hach 2100P benchtop was used to record influent turbidity every 30
minutes between these dates.
The readout from the GLI Model 95T/8320 on-line effluent turbidity averaged 0.4 NTU during the
period; the average from the Hach 21 OOP benchtop turbidimeter was 0.4 NTU. The effluent turbidity
readings were checked daily, and the readings were within acceptable limits. Due to the recording
66
-------
limitations of the on-line and the bench-top turbidimeter, the RPD is not within the expected 30% for
those reading beneath 0.2 and above 50 NTU. Maximum readings are suspect due to this limitation
(i.e., on-line reading at 20:33 on 4/26 was 74.72 NTU, the bench-top reading recorded at 20:33 on
4/26 was 91.10 NTU). This limitation was also evident in low level readings (i.e. on-line reading at
15:34 on 3/27 was 0.06 NTU, the average of 3 bench-top readings for 15:34 on 3/27 was 0.13 NTU).
The average of all on-line and bench-top turbidity values recorded during the verification testing period
are equal (0.4 NTU).
To assure ongoing calibration of the on-line turbidimeters, their sensor cell was cleaned and recalibrated
each time turbidimeter flow rates were verified.
The influent water particle counter flow rate averaged 101 mL/minute. To determine the flow rate of the
on-line influent water particle counter the flow rate was measured using a graduated cylinder and
stopwatch. The maximum flow rate measured was 104 mL/minute, the minimum was 99 mL/minute.
The target flow rate specified by the manufacturer is 100 mL/minute. Efforts were made to keep the
flow rate between 95 mL/minute to 105 mL/minute and the flow was adjusted whenever those
boundaries were crossed. The effluent water particle counter flow rate averaged 101 mL/minute. The
flow was measured using a graduated cylinder and stopwatch.
The temperature was recorded daily with a NIST-traceable Miller Weber Thermometer, Model P63C.
The pH meter was calibrated daily to NIST-traceable pH buffers at 7.00 and 10.00 daily. The pH
meter was a Cole Palmer Oakton® WD-35615 Series. The pH calibration buffers were Oakton pH
Singles 7.00 (model #35653-02), and pH Singles 10.00 (model #35653-03). The pH calibration was
performed prior to the recorded inlet pH measurement. pH was measured from raw water sample tap.
During each day chemical feed pump flow and stroke settings were repeatedly verified and documented
in the logbook. Flow rates were verified volumetrically with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch. A 100
mL graduated cylinder was used for the pump injecting a polymer (C-1592) at a rate of 1.5 to 3.2
mL/minute. A 1,000 mL graduated cylinder was used for the pump injecting coagulants (Ferric
Chloride/AQMIOO) at a rate of 8.3 to 68.3 mL/minute.
4.5.3 Bi-Weekly QA/QC Verification Results
Digital flow meter readings were verified by bucket and stopwatch using a measured container on April
4, 2000. Flows were measured at 3.66 and 2.76 gpm respectively for the coagulation and filtration
system. Comparative flows displayed by the digital flow meters were 3.81 and 2.89 gpm. This
represents a factor of error of -0.15 gpm for the coagulation, and -0.13 gpm for the filtration
respectively for each flow meter. This was within acceptable limits.
Flow rate rotometer readings were verified (bucket and stopwatch) using a measured container on
March 18, 2000. Flows were measured at 5.80 and 4.47 gpm respectively for the coagulation and
filtration system. Comparative flows displayed by the rotometer were 5.75 and 4.75 gpm. This
67
-------
represents a factor of error of -0.05 gpm (0.9% for coagulation) and +0.28 gpm (6% for filtration)
respectively for each rotometer. These error factors are within acceptable limits.
The test period only required one scheduled verification of the on-line flow meters. The on-line flow
meters were verified (bucket and stopwatch), using a measured container on March 18, 2000. The
rotometer flow was measured at 4.75 gpm. The bucket/stopwatch was measured three times at 4.47
gpm. This represents an error of 6%, or 0.28 gpm, which was within an acceptable range.
4.5.4 Results Of QA/QC Verifications At The Start Of Each Testing Period
The tubing and all water lines used on the treatment system were inspected before verification testing
began (March 18, 2000). The tubing and lines were good condition and replacements were not
necessary.
Particle counters used on site were Met One PCX models. The particle counters were calibrated by
Pacific Scientific Instruments using polystyrene latex spheres traceable to NIST standards. Particle
counters used on site had factory calibration certificates from Pacific Scientific (dated: August 24, 1999,
and March 3, 2000).
Calibration was verified on site with NIST mono-sized polymer microspheres on March 31, 2000 as
described in 3.9.2.4 above. The following figures show the distribution as counted by the MetOne
particle counter during the verification of calibration using NIST-traceable microspheres.
Approximately 2,000 particles per milliliter of microspheres were added each time.
Figure 4-11 shows the particle counts during the influent 3 |j,m verification. The Figure shows the
addition of the added particles as would be expected.
—1—
Influent C:10-15
-m-
Influent C:15+
Influent C:2-3
Influent C:3-5
-B-
Influent C:5-7
-o-
Influent C:7-10
o
21:38
21:39
21:40 21:41 21:42 21:43
Time of day on 3/31/00
21:44 21:45
Figure 4-11. Verification of 3 (lm Influent Particles
68
-------
Figure 4-12 shows the particle counts during the influent 10 |j,m verification. The Figure shows the
addition of the added particles as would be expected.
H—Influent: 10-15
¦9— Influent: 15+
-A— Influent: 2-3
— Influent: 3-5
¦0— Influent: 5-7
¦o— Influent: 7-10
2,000
1,600
(A
a>
O 1,200
0
21:00 21:01
21:02 21:03 21:04 21:05 21:06 21:07 21:08
Time of day on 3/31/00
Figure 4-12. Verification of 10 |lm Influent Particles
Figure 4-13 shows the particle counts during the influent 15 |j,m verification. The Figure shows the
addition of the added particles as would be expected.
—I—Influent: 10-15
—¦—Influent: 15+
—A— Influent: 2-3
—x— Influent: 3-5
—a— Influent: 5-7
-o— Influent: 7-10
2,000
E
"jjj 1,600
o
"E 1,200
re
Q.
+T 800
3
O
o 400
0
20:45
20:46 20:47 20:48 20:49 20:50 20:51
Time of day on 3/31/00
20:52 20:53
Figure 4-13. Verification of 15 |lm Influent Particles
69
-------
Figure 4-14 shows the particle counts during the influent "cocktail" mix of 3, 10 and 15 |j,m verification.
The Figure shows the addition of the added particles as expected.
—1—
Influent C: 10-15
-m-
Influent C:15+
-A-
Influent C:2-3
Influent C:3-5
-B-
Influent C:5-7
Influent C:7-10
£ 1,200
0
22:02
22:04 22:06 22:07 22:08
Time of day on 3/31/00
22:10
Figure 4-14. Verification of Mix of 3,10 & 15 (lm Influent Particles
Figure 4-15 shows the particle counts during the effluent 3 |j,m verification. The Figure shows the
addition of the added particles in the 3 |j,m size range as expected.
—I—Effluent C: 10-15
—¦— Effluent C: 15+
—Effluent C:2-3
—Effluent C:3-5
—B— Effluent C:5-7
—o— Effluent C:7-10
0
21:28
21:29 21:30 21:31
21:32 21:33 21:34 21:36
Time of day on 3/31/00
Figure 4-15. Verification of 3 (lm Effluent Particles
70
-------
Figure 4-16 illustrates the particle counts during the 10 |j,m effluent verification The Figure shows the
addition of the added particles in the 10 |j,m size range as expected.
—1—
Effluent C: 10-15
-m-
Effluent C: 15+
-A-
Effluent C:2-3
Effluent C:3-5
-B-
Effluent C:5-7
-o-
Effluent C:7-10
21:15
21:12 21:13 21:14
Time of day on 3/31/00
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
21:11
in
a>
o
r
re
o.
(A
-4-i
c
3
o
o
Figure 4-16. Verification of 10 |lm Effluent Particles
Figure 4-17 illustrates the particle counts during the 15 |j,m effluent verification. The Figure shows the
addition of the added particles in the 15 |j,m size range as expected.
—I—Effluent: 10-15
—¦— Effluent: 15+
—6— Effluent: 2-3
—X— Effluent: 3-5
—B— Effluent: 5-7
—o— Effluent: 7-10
0
20:37
20:38
20:39 20:40 20:41
Time of day 3/31/00
20:42
20:43
Figure 4-17. Verification of 15 |lm Effluent Particles
71
-------
Figure 4-18 illustrates the particle counts during the "cocktail" mix of 3, 10, and 15 |j,m effluent
verification. The Figure shows the addition of the added particles in the 3, 10, and 15 |j,m size range as
expected.
-1—
Effluent C: 10-15
-m-
Effluent C: 15+
Effluent C:2-3
Effluent C:3-5
-B-
Effluent C:5-7
-o-
Effluent C:7-10
1,400
1,200
nr
E 1,000
w
a>
o 800
re
3 600
c
3 400
o
o
200
0
22:13
22:14 22:15 22:16
Time of day on 3/31/00
22:17
Figure 4-18. Verification of 3,10 & 15 |lm Effluent Particles
Particles that were added included:
Duke Scientific Corp 3.0 ± 0.027 |j,m
10.0 ± 0.061 |j,m
15.0 ± 0.08 |j,m
Visual inspections of the particle counter and turbidimeter tubing showed unimpeded flow and integrity.
Pressure gauges were verified on March 18 and 19, 2000 by comparing the pressure shown on the
gauge with the pressure shown on a NIST-traceable pressure gauge (Identification Number 9286-11).
The NIST-traceable pressure gauge verified the pressure gauges on March 18 and 19. Tank B at inlet
44 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), NIST at 45 psig, outlet Tank B inlet 22 psig, NIST 22. This
represents a factor of error of 2% (inlet) and 0% (outlet) respectively for each gauge. Tank A gauges
were verified on the inlet 44 psig, NIST 44 psig, outlet 27 psig, NIST 27 psig. This represents a factor
of error of 0% (inlet) and 0% (outlet) respectively for each gauge. These error factors are within
acceptable limits.
CO A performed calibration procedures on the benchtop, Hach 21 OOP turbidimeter on March 17,
2000. The instrument was calibrated to the manufacturer's recommended standards of 20, 100 and
800 NTU with fresh Formazin suspensions. The manufacturer explains that since the response signal is
linear from O20 NTU efforts to standardize to lower levels are fruitless and may instead throw the
readings off. Calibration standards are further required to be at least 65 NTU apart. In addition,
72
-------
weighting the curve to the range of interest (in this case at levels less than 5 NTU) also provides the
opportunity for increasing error. The manufacturer's recommended settings were also observed in
subsequent calibrations.
The benchtop turbidimeter was calibrated against freshly prepared Formazin dilutions from a standard
suspension (4000 NTU). The standards were prepared using NIST-traceable glassware, including
pipettes and volumetric flasks.
Fixed Gelex secondary standards were calibrated to the instrument following manufacturers instructions
following the instrument calibration. This is done each time the instrument is calibrated with Formazin
suspension thereby standardizing the Gelex cells to that instrument for that period. When the instrument
is recalibrated, the Gelex cells are also. Additional secondary standards of 0.1, 0.5, 1 and 3 NTU were
prepared from fresh Formazin stock, or purchased as a standard from Hach. These standards were
referenced daily. While the comparison of the readings to the standards at 0.5, 1 and 3 NTU were
relatively stable, the reference of 0.1 NTU was somewhat ambiguous as it is at or near the limit of
detection for this instrument.
Turbidity samples were collected from a sample tap at a slow steady stream and along the side of a
triple rinsed dedicated beaker to avoid air entrapment. The sample was poured from the beaker into a
double rinsed clean sample vial. All glassware for turbidity measurements was kept clean and handled
with lint free laboratory tissue. The sample cells were further wiped with velvet, silicon oilcloth.
4.5.4 A nalytical Laboratory QA/QC
QA/QC procedures for laboratory analysis were based on SM, 19th Ed., (APHA, 1995) and EPA
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, (EPA, 1995).
Calibration results of the analytical instrumentation used to conduct the analyses on effluent water is
recorded and kept on file at Spectrum Labs, Inc. QA/QC procedures and documentation pertinent to
this verification test are on file at Spectrum Laboratories, and Cartwright, Olsen & Associates, LLC. It
was noted that the Spectrum QC data documentation lacked the reviewer's initials and the date of
review. The written response from Spectrum regarding this issue indicated that they believed that the
review occurred, however, the documents lack the notation of the review. A review of the QC data
and results of analytical instrumentation indicate that adequate controls were in place to render the data
obtained acceptable.
The QA/QC for the field collection of water samples using EPA Method 1623 was achieved throughout
the testing. All samples collected using the Gelman filter cartridges were maintained at 4°C prior to and
during shipping to BioVir Laboratories where the filters were processed. All samples were processed
to completion within 72 hours of sample collection as stated in EPA Method 1623.
73
-------
Chapter 5
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this report:
Adin, A. and Rebhum, M. A model to predict concentration and headloss profiles in filtration. Journal
AWWA, 444-453 (1977).
Amirtharajah, A. "Some theoretical and conceptual views of filtration", American Water Works
Association Seminar Proceedings, American Water Works Association, Denver CO, 21-26, 1988.
Amirtharajah, A. and O' Melia, C.R., Coagulation Processes: Destabilization, Mixing and Flocculation,
in Water Quality and Treatment, AWWA, Denver CO. pp. 269-365.
ANSI/AWWA B100-89, AWWA Standard for Filtering Material, American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO, 1989.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environmental
Federation, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition,
APHA, AWWA, WEF, Washington D C, 1995.
American Water Works Association, Operational Control of Coagulation and Filtration
Processes, Manual of Water Supply Practices M37, American Water Works Association, Denver,
CO, 1992.
Arrowood, M.J. and Sterling, C.R. Isolation of Cryptosporidium oocysts and sporozoites using
discontinuous sucrose and siopycnic gradients. Journal of Parasitology 73: 314-319 (1987).
Arrowood, M.J. and Donaldson, K. Improved purification methods for calf-derived Cryptosporidium
parvum oocysts using discontinuous sucrose and cesium gradients. Journal of Peukaryotic
Microbiology 43: 89S (1996).
Clancy, J.L., McKelvey G., Latimer, G., and Shramko, J. "Performance of the Kinetico Pressure
Filtration System in a Pilot Plant Challenge Using Giardia lamblia Cysts and Cryptosporidium
Oocysts", Paper presented at the American Water Works Association Annual Conference, June
1993.
Cleasby, J.L., Logsdon G. S. Granular Bed and Precoat Filtration in Water Quality and Treatment,
Fifth Edition. Journal A WWA, 8.1-8.99, 1999.
Cleasby, J. L., Williamson, M.M., & Bauman, E.R. Effect of filtration rate changes on quality
American Water Works Association, 869-880, 1963.
74
-------
Cleasby, J.L. Approaches to a filterability index for granular filters American Water Works
Association, 372-381, Aug. 1969.
Cushen, A.D., Kugrens, P., and Hendricks D.W. Zeta Potentials of Selected Algae,
Cryptosporidium oocysts, Giardia cysts, Environmental Engineering Technical Report 53-5204-96-3,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, 1996.
Drozd, C. and Schwartzbrod J.. Hydrophobic and Electrostatic Cell Surface Properties of
Cryptosporidium parvum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 62 (4): 1227-1232 (1996).
Frey, M.N. et.al., "A Synthesis Report of Cryptosporidium." Paper presented at the American Water
Works Association Annual Conference Presentation, Atlanta, Georgia, June 18, 1997.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers,
Recommended Standards for Water Works, (Commonly referred to as the Ten State's Standards,
TSS) Health Education Services, Albany NY, 1992.
Hancock, C.M, Ward, J.V., Hancock, K.W., Klonicki P.T. and Sturbaum, C.D. Assessing Plant
Performance Using MP A, Journal AWWA, 12:88:24-34, (1996).
Harter, T. Wagner, S. and Atwill, E.R Colloid Transport and Filtration of Cryptosporidium parvum in
Sandy Soils and Aquifer Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 24 (1): 62-70 (2000).
Kiminski, J.C. Correspondence in New England .Journal, of Medicine 331 (22): 1529-1530, (1994).
LeChevallier, M.W. et al. Giardia and Cryptosporidium spp. in Filtered Drinking Water Supplies,
Applied and Environmental. Microbiology, 57 (9) 2617-2621 (1991).
MacKenzie, W.R. et al, A Massive Outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium Infection Transmitted
through the Public Water Supply. New England Journal of Medicine 331 (3): 161-167 (1994).
McTigue, N.E. and Cornwell, D.A. The Use of Particle Counting for the Evaluation of Filter
Performance, A WW A Seminar Proceedings, AWWA Denver CO, pp. 47-76 1988.
McTigue, N. E. and MacPhee, M.J. Engineering Pilot Plant Studies for Assessing Pathogen Removal
Treatment: Design and Operational Considerations. Environmental Engineering and Technology.
Newport News, Virginia.
Ongerth, J.E., and Proctor Precoraro, J. Electrophoretic Mobility of Cryptosporidium oocysts and
Giardia cysts, Journal of Environmental Engineering. 122 (3): (ASCE) 228-231 (1996).
O'Melia, C.R., Gray, K.A., and Tao, C. Polymeric Inorganic Coagulants, AWWARF, Denver, CO,
1989.
75
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Method 1622. Cryptosporidium in water by
Filtration/IMS/FA, Draft of December 1997, EPA-821-R-97-023. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Method 1623. Cryptosporidium and (jiardia in water by
Filtration/IMS/FA, EPA-821-R-99-006. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Notice of Data Availability, 62 Fed. Reg. 59486-59577
(1997) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt 141, 142)(proposed).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/NSF International. ETV Protocol: Protocol for Equipment
Verification Testing for Physical Removal of Microbiological and Particulate Contaminants,
EPA/NSF, April 20, 1998, updated May 14, 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/NSF International. EPA Test Plan: NSF Equipment
Verification Testing Plan, Backwashable Depth Filtration for the Removal of Microbiological
and Particulate Contaminants, EPA/NSF, April 20, 1998, updated May 14, 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water, Guidance Manual for Compliance
with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water System Using Surface Water
Sources, EPA No. 68-1-6989, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., March 1991b.
"U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program" Upper Mississippi River
Basin Study Unit, July 12, 1997, http:/www.cr.usgs.gov/umis/descrip.html, (November 10, 1999).
Watanabe, M.E. New Cryptosporidium Testing Methods, Environmental Science and Technology.
30(12): 532A-535A (1996).
76
------- |