April 2003
02/02/WQPC- SWP
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
Wastewater from Individual
Residential Homes
AQUAPOINT, Inc.
Bioclere™ Model 16/12
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
£EF¥V U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
AEFA ET
U.S. Environmental NSF International
Protection Agency
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
BIOLOGICAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT -
NITRIFICATION AND DE NITRIFICATION FOR
NITROGEN REDUCTION
APPLICATION:
REDUCTION OF NITROGEN IN DOMESTIC
WASTEWATER FROM INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL
HOMES
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
BIOCLERE™ MODEL 16/12
COMPANY:
AQUAPOINT, INC.
ADDRESS:
241DUCHAINE BLVD.
NEW BEDFORD, MA 02745
PHONE: (508)998-7577
FAX: (508) 998-7177
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
httD ://www. aauaDoint. com
Aauapoint fffiaauaDoint. com
NSF International (NSF) operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The
WQPC evaluated the performance of a fixed film trickling filter biological treatment system for nitrogen
removal for residential homes. This verification statement provides a summary of the test results for the
Aquapoint, Inc. Bioclere™ Model 16/12 system. The Barnstable County (Massachusetts) Department of
Health and the Environment (BCDHE) performed the verification testing.
The EPA created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate 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, stakeholder groups
consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters, and 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
02/02/W QPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
VS-i
-------
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
verifiable quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the Aquapoint, Inc. (AQP) Bioclere™ Model 16/12 was conducted over a thirteen
month period at the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC), located at Otis Air
National Guard Base in Bourne, Massachusetts. Sanitary sewerage from the base residential housing was
used for the testing. An eight-week startup period preceded the verification test to provide time for the
development of an acclimated biological growth in the Bioclere™ system. The verification test included
monthly sampling of the influent and effluent wastewater, and five test sequences designed to test the unit
response to differing load conditions and power failure. The Bioclere™ system proved capable of
removing ammonia nitrogen in the aerobic unit and nitrate in the anaerobic/anoxic primary tank. The
influent total nitrogen (TN), as measured by the TKN, averaged 37 mg/L with a median of 38 mg/L. The
effluent TN average 16 mg/L over the verification period, with a median concentration of 14 mg/L, which
included an average TKN concentration of 10 mg/L and a median concentration of 6.3 mg/L. The system
operating conditions (pump and timer settings) remained constant during the test. Only routine
maintenance and system checks were performed for most of the test, except when a nozzle-plugging
problem occurred. The plugged nozzles impacted treatment performance, but performance improved
quickly once they were cleared.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The AQP, Inc. Bioclere™ Model 16/12 uses a fixed film trickling filter for wastewater treatment. A
complete treatment system has two stages of treatment. The first stage of treatment occurs in the primary
tank (a 1,000 gallon single compartment septic tank) in which the solids are settled and partially digested.
Septic tank effluent flows by gravity to the Bioclere™ unit, which is a separate system that provides
secondary wastewater treatment. Microorganisms present in the wastewater attach to the Bioclere™
proprietary plastic filter media, and use the nutrients and organic materials provided by the constant
supply of fresh wastewater to form new cell mass. The open spaces within the media allow air to freely
pass through, providing oxygen to support the microorganisms.
The system has a recycle line for pumping of recycled solids from the Bioclere™ clarifier section (located
below the plastic media) back to the primary tank. The pump operated for 1.5 minutes every 2.5 hours
during the test, controlling the recycle rate to the primary tank. A dosing pump, set to run on a 3 minutes
on/5 minute off cycle, circulated treated effluent from the clarifier section back the top of the unit, where
the wastewater is sprayed over the media using a manifold and nozzle system. Air (oxygen) is supplied to
the Bioclere™ by a fan located on the top of the unit, which runs continuously.
The Bioclere™ system is designed to remove total nitrogen from the wastewater by nitrification and
denitrification. Nitrification occurs in the aerobic Bioclere™ unit, where ammonia nitrogen is converted
to nitrite and nitrate (predominately nitrate). Denitrification occurs in the anaerobic/anoxic primary tanks,
where the nitrite/nitrate is converted to nitrogen. The verification testing was performed using a full scale,
commercially available unit, which was received as a self-contained system ready for installation.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The MASSTC site, initially funded by the State of Massachusetts and operated by BCDHE, is located at
the Otis Air National Guard Base in Bourne, Massachusetts. The site uses domestic wastewater from the
base residential housing and sanitary wastewater from other military buildings for use in testing. A
02/02/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
vs-ii
-------
chamber located in the main sewer line upstream of the base wastewater treatment facility provides a
location to obtain untreated wastewater. The raw wastewater, after passing through a one-inch bar screen,
is pumped to a dosing channel at the test site. This channel is equipped with four recirculation pumps,
which are spaced along the channel length to ensure mixing such that the wastewater is of similar quality
at all locations along the channel. Wastewater is dosed to the test unit using a pump submerged in the
dosing channel. A programmable logic controller (PLC) is used to control the pumps and the dosing
sequence or cycle.
Methods and Procedures
All methods and procedures followed the ETV Protocol for Verification of Residential Wastewater
Treatment Technologies for Nutrient Reduction, dated November 2000. The Bioclere™ was installed by a
contractor, in conjunction with the BCDHE support team in June 1999 as part of an earlier test program.
The unit was installed in accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Manual supplied by AQP. In
order to prepare for ETV testing, the entire Bioclere™ system was emptied of wastewater and cleaned.
Solids were removed from the primary tank and the clarifier section of the Bioclere™ filter unit. All
pumps, lines, and associated equipment were cleaned. The filter media was repeatedly flushed and solids
removed from the bottom of the unit. Clean water was recirculated to further clean the media and lines.
The entire unit was then drained and remained off until the startup period.
In early January 2001, fresh water was added to the unit and the system was cycled for several days to
make sure the unit was operating properly, the dosing pumps were calibrated, and the PLC was working
properly. An eight-week startup period, following the startup procedures in the AQP Technical Manual,
allowed the biological community to become established and allowed the operating conditions to be
monitored. Startup of the cleaned Bioclere™ system began on January 15, 2001, when the primary tank
was filled approximately two thirds (2/3) full with clean water and one third (1/3) with raw wastewater
from the dosing channel. The dosing sequence was then started, with the unit's pumps and timers on the
factory default settings.
The system was monitored during the startup period through visual observation, routine calibration of the
dosing system, and collection of influent and effluent samples. Six sets of samples were collected for
analysis. Influent samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, temperature, BOD5, TKN, NH3, and TSS. The
effluent was analyzed for pH, alkalinity, temperature, CBOD5, TKN, NH3, TSS, dissolved oxygen, N02,
and N03.
The verification test consisted of a thirteen-month test period, incorporating five sequences with varying
stress conditions simulating real household conditions. The five stress sequences were performed at two-
month intervals, and included washday, working parent, low loading, power failure and vacation test
sequences. Monitoring for nitrogen reduction was accomplished by measurement of nitrogen species
(TKN, NH3, N02, N03). Biochemical (BOD5) and carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5)
and other basic parameters (pH, alkalinity, TSS, temperature) were monitored to provide information on
overall system treatment performance. Operational characteristics, such as electric use, residuals
generation, labor to perform maintenance, maintenance tasks, durability of the hardware, and noise and
odor production, were also monitored.
The Bioclere™ system has a design capacity of 400 gallons per day. The verification test was designed to
load the system at design capacity (±10 percent) for the entire thirteen-month test, except during the low
load and vacation stress tests. The Bioclere™ system was dosed 15 times per day with approximately 26-
27 gallons of wastewater per dose. The unit received five doses in the morning, four doses mid-day, and
six doses in the evening. The dosing volume was controlled by adjusting the pump run time for each
cycle, based on twice weekly pump calibrations.
02/02/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
vs-iii
-------
The sampling schedule included collection of twenty-four hour flow weighted composite samples of the
influent and effluent wastewater once per month under normal operating conditions. Stress test periods
were sampled on a more intense basis with six to eight composite samples being collected during and
following each stress test period. Five consecutive days of sampling occurred in the twelfth month of the
verification test. All composite samples were collected using automatic samplers located at the dosing
channel (influent sample) and at the discharge of the Bioclere™ unit. Grab samples were collected on
each sampling day to monitor the system pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature.
All samples were cooled during sample collection, preserved, if appropriate, and transported to the
laboratory. All analyses were in accordance with EPA approved methods or Standard Methods. An
established QA/QC program was used to monitor field sampling and laboratory analytical procedures.
QA/QC requirements included field duplicates, laboratory duplicates and spiked samples, and appropriate
equipment/instrumentation calibration procedures. Details on all analytical methods and QA/QC
procedures are provided in the full Verification Report.
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
Overview
Evaluation of the AQP Bioclere™ Model 16/12 at MASSTC began on January 15, 2001, when the
Bioclere™ pumps and timers were activated, and the initial dosing cycles activated. Flow was set at 400
gpd, resulting in 15 doses per day with a target of 26.7 gallons per dose. The startup period continued
until March 13, 2001. Six samples of the influent and effluent were collected during the startup period.
Verification testing began on March 13, 2001 and continued for 13 months until April 17, 2002. The extra
month of dosing and sampling (13 months versus the planned 12 months) was added to the test to obtain
data on the system response as the temperatures began to rise in the spring. During the verification test, 53
sets of samples of the influent and effluent were collected to determine the system performance.
Startup
Overall, the unit started up with no difficulty. The startup instructions in the Technical Manual were easy
to follow and provided the necessary instructions to get the unit up and operating. No changes were made
to the unit during the startup period, and no special maintenance was required. Daily observation showed
that biological growth was established on the media.
The Bioclere™ system performance for CBOD5, TSS, and TN remained relatively steady throughout the
startup period. Effluent CBOD5 varied between 13 and 51 mg/L, with the lowest value at the end of the
startup period. There was some indication of TN reduction occurring, with effluent concentrations
varying between 27 and 36 mg/L compared to influent concentrations of 34 to 46 mg/L. However, it did
not appear that the nitrifying organisms had established themselves in the system. Low wastewater and
ambient temperatures were considered the primary reason for the slow trend toward improved reduction
in both CBOD5 and TN. The temperature of the effluent wastewater was about 5 °C when the unit was
started and remained in the 5 to 7 °C range through March 13.
Verification Test Results
The daily dosing schedule during normal operations remained constant through the entire verification test.
A daily dosing sequence of 15 doses was performed every day except during the low load (September
2001) and vacation stress (February 2002) periods. Volume per dose and total daily volume varied only
slightly during the test period. The daily volume averaged on a monthly basis ranged from 387 to 407
gallons per day. This compared closely to the 400 gallons per day design capacity.
The sampling program emphasizes sampling during and following the major stress periods. This results in
a large number of samples being clustered during five periods, with the remaining samples spread over
02/02/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
vs-iv
-------
the remaining months (monthly sampling). Therefore, impacts of a stress test or an upset condition
occurring during concentrated sampling periods can have an impact on the calculation of average values.
Both average and median results are presented, as the median values compared to average values can help
in analyzing these impacts. In the case of the Bioclere™ results, the median concentrations are lower than
the average concentrations due to the upset condition when the nozzles plugged during the working parent
stress test.
The TSS and BOD5/CBOD5 results for the verification test, including all stress test periods, are shown in
Table 1. The influent wastewater had an average BOD5 of 210 mg/L and a median BOD5 of 200 mg/L.
The TSS in the influent averaged 160 mg/L and had a median concentration of 140 mg/L. The Bioclere™
effluent showed an average CBOD5 of 14 mg/L with a median CBOD5 of 10 mg/L. The average TSS in
the effluent was 16 mg/L and the median TSS was 10 mg/L. CBOD5 concentrations in the effluent
typically ranged from 4 to 20 mg/L, and TSS ranged from 4 to 17 mg/L, except during an apparent upset
condition that occurred in July 2001.
Table 1. BOD5/CBOD5 and TSS Data Summary
bod5
CBODs
TSS
Influent
Effluent
Percent
Influent
Effluent
Percent
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Removal
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Removal
Average
210
14
93
160
16
90
Median
200
10
95
140
10
93
Maximum
380
60
98
410
62
98
Minimum
72
3.5
78
40
2
63
Std. Dev.
70
11
5.0
71
16
7.0
Note: The data in Table 1 are based on 53 samples.
The nitrogen results for the verification test, including all stress test periods, are shown in Table 2. The
influent wastewater had an average TKN concentration of 37 mg/L, with a median value of 38 mg/L, and
an average ammonia nitrogen concentration of 23 mg/L, with a median of 23 mg/L. Average TN
concentration in the influent was 37 mg/L (median of 38 mg/L) based on the assumption that the nitrite
and nitrate concentrations in the influent were negligible. The Bioclere™ effluent had an average TKN
concentration of 10 mg/L and a median concentration of 6.3 mg/L. The average NH3-N concentration in
the effluent was 6.2 mg/L and the median value was 2.8 mg/L. The nitrite concentration in the effluent
was low, averaging 0.45 mg/L. Effluent nitrate concentrations averaged 5.3 mg/L with a median of 4.4
mg/L. Total nitrogen was determined by adding the concentrations of the TKN (organic plus ammonia
nitrogen), nitrite and nitrate. Average TN in the Biocbre™ effluent was 16 mg/L (median 14 mg/L) for
the thirteen month verification period. The Bioclere™ system averaged a 57 percent reduction of TN for
the entire test, with a median removal of 64 percent.
Verification Test Discussion
Beginning in late March and early April, temperatures began to increase and the nitrifying population
clearly became established, as indicated by the decrease in the TKN and NH3 concentrations in the
effluent. Nitrate concentrations increased somewhat in this same period, but the data show that
denitrification was also occurring. The concentration of organic matter in the effluent, as measured by
CBOD5 and TSS concentrations, also decreased. During May and June, the TN concentration in the
effluent was in the range of 8.8 to 11 mg/L. The Washday stress test in May 2001 showed no negative
impact on nitrogen reduction.
02/02/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
VS-V
-------
Table 2. Nitrogen Data Summary
TKN
Ammonia
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Temperature
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(°C)
Influent
Effluent
Influent Effluent
Influent Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Average
37
10
23
6.2
37 16
5.2
0.45
15
Median
38
6.3
23
2.8
38 14
4.4
0.34
15
Maximum
46
35
27
22
46 36
14
1.5
23
Minimum
24
1.9
18
0.7
24 6.2
<0.1
0.07
7.4
Std. Dev.
4.4
10
2.1
7.0
4.4 8.4
3.5
0.26
4.9
Note: The data in Table 2 are based on 53 samples, except for Temperature, which is based on 51 samples.
In early July 2001, the data show that there was loss of the nitrifying population in the unit, with total
nitrogen levels in the effluent of 25 to 36 mg/L. The effluent concentrations of CBOD5 and TSS also
increased during this time, indicating the system was under stress. It -was discovered that two of the
nozzles in the Bioclere™ unit were clogged. AQP responded to the problem and cleaned the nozzles, and
within two to three weeks, the TN concentration decreased to 9.4 mg/L, similar to the period before the
problem occurred. The CBOD5 and TSS levels in the effluent also decreased, returning to the levels
measured before the nozzle plugging occurred. The loss of nitrogen and CBOD5 removal efficiency
during the nozzle-plugging problem makes it unclear whether the Working Parent dose sequence would
have had an impact on the system.
Once the nitrifying population was reestablished, the Bioclere™ system continued to reduce the total
nitrogen concentration on a consistent basis (7.7 to 11 mg/L) until December. This period included the
Low Dose sequence, when the Bioclere™ was dosed with 50 percent of the daily design loading, which
appears to have had no impact on the system operation. The temperature of the wastewater began to
decrease in October, as would be expected. While the trend was not clear, the late November sample
indicated a lower removal of nitrogen was occurring as compared to September and October. The Power
Failure stress test (power shut off for 48 hours) was started on December 3, 2001. Sample results for the
post stress period showed effluent total nitrogen had increased to 18 mg/L, while subsequent monitoring
over the next few weeks showed the total nitrogen concentration to be in the range of 6.2 to 19 mg/L.
Most of the concentrations were in the 13 to 19 mg/L range, with influent levels of 35 to 46 mg/L. The
lower nitrogen removal efficiencies in the December to February period correspond to lower temperatures
in the wastewater. It appears that the Power Failure stress test may have contributed to the change in
efficiency by stressing the nitrifying population. The lower temperatures in the wastewater appeared to
have slowed the total nitrogen removal and possibly the re-establishment of the nitrifying population.
The Vacation stress test in February had no noticeable impact on the system performance for nitrogen
removal. The last scheduled samples for total nitrogen in the first week of March showed that the
Bioclere™ system was removing TN in the 60 to 66 percent range, somewhat lower than the efficiencies
of the previous summer and fall. The temperature of the wastewater appeared to have an effect on the
nitrogen reduction levels based on both the startup data and on the December 2001 to February 2002. The
test period was extended one additional month to determine if removal would improve as the wastewater
temperature increased. The final sample showed a sharp decrease in TN from 16 mg/L on March 8 to 8
mg/L on April 17. During this period, the temperature of the wastewater increased to 14.3 °C from 9.2 °C.
Operation and Maintenance Results
Noise levels associated with mechanical equipment were measured once during the verification period
using a decibel meter. Measurements were made one meter from the unit, and one and a half meters above
02/02/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
vs-vi
-------
the ground, at 90° intervals in four (4) directions. The average decibel level was 49.5, with a minimum of
45.5 and maximum of 52.8. The background level was 37.7 decibels.
Odor observations were made monthly for the last eight months of the verification test. The observations
were qualitative based on odor strength (intensity) and type (attribute). Observations were made during
periods of low wind velocity (<10 knots), at a distance of three feet from the treatment unit, and recorded
at 90° intervals in four directions. There were no discernible odors found during any of the observation
periods.
Electrical use was monitored by a dedicated electric meter serving the Bioclere™ system. The average
electricity use was 4.2 kW/day. The Bioclere™ system does not require or use any chemical addition as
part of the normal operation of the unit.
During the test, very few problems were encountered with the operation of the system with the exception
of the plugged nozzles after five and half months of operation. The plugging problem was discovered
when the effluent's visual characteristic changed and had notably more suspended solids. In addition,
during the nozzle plugging, the noise level of the spray hitting the inside of the media containment
structure was slightly louder, signaling higher flow through one of the nozzles and overloading of a
portion of the media bed. The nozzles were cleaned again in the fall by AQP in accordance with the
quarterly maintenance check recommended in their O&M manual. AQP installed a new set of helical
nozzles in January 2002. These nozzles required no additional cleaning through the remainder of the test.
AQP believes that the nozzle plugging problem was a unique occurrence as this type of unit had been
operated at MASSTC and many other locations without a problem. AQP added a statement regarding the
nozzle issue at the end of the Verification Report.
Routine quarterly maintenance by a person knowledgeable of the treatment system was recommended in
the O&M manual, and was confirmed to be appropriate by the BCDHE staff during the test. The
maintenance should involve checking the two pumps (recirculating and recycling), the fan, and cleaning
the distribution manifold and nozzles. The maintenance check should also include measurement of the
sludge depth in the primary tank, observation of the condition of the media, and a visual inspection of the
effluent. Pump cycle times should be verified and alarms checked.
The treatment unit itself proved durable for the duration of the test and appears to generally be a durable
fiberglass design. The piping is standard PVC that is appropriate for the applications. Pump and level
switch life are always difficult to estimate, but the components used are made for wastewater applications
by a reputable and known manufacturer.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QA audits of the MASSTC and BCDHE laboratory were completed by NSF International during testing.
NSF personnel completed a technical systems audit to assure the testing was in compliance with the test
plan, a performance evaluation audit to assure that the measurement systems employed by MASSTC and
the BCDHE laboratory were adequate to produce reliable data, and a data quality audit of at least 10
percent of the test data to assure that the reported data represented the data generated during the testing. In
addition to quality assurance audits performed by NSF International, EPA QA personnel conducted a
quality systems audit of NSF International's QA Management Program, and accompanied NSF during
audits of the MASSTC and BCDHE facilities.
02/02/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
vs-vii
-------
Original signed by Original signed by
Hugh W. McKinnon 5/30/03 Gordon E. Bellen 6/3/03
Hugh W. McKinnon Date Gordon E. Bellen Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report in no way constitutes an NSF Certification of the specific product
mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETV Protocol for Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment
Technologies for Nutrient Reduction, dated November 2000, the Verification Statement,
and the Verification Report are available from the following sources:
1. ETV Water Quality Protection Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
EPA's Office of Wastewater Management has published a number of documents to assist
purchasers, community planners and regulators in the proper selection, operation and
management of onsite wastewater treatment systems. Two relevant documents and their
sources are:
1. Handbookfor Management of Onsite and Clustered Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems http://www, epa. gov/owm/onsite
2. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual
http: // www, epa/ gov/owm/ mtb/decent/toolbox, htm
02/02/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. April 2003
vs-viii
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Nutrient Reduction in Domestic Wastewater
From Individual Residential Homes
AQUAPOINT, Inc.
Bioclere™ Model 16/12
Prepared for
NSF International
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by
Scherger Associates
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
ETV Water Quality Protection Center
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08837
April 2003
-------
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 a
Cooperative Agreement. The Water Quality Protection Center, Source Water Protection area,
operating under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, supported this
verification effort. 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 the Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment (BCDHE). Scherger
Associates prepared the Verification Report. The verification test was conducted from January
2001 through April 2002 at the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC)
test site in Bourne, Massachusetts.
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 was developed 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
are made available to end users regulators, developers, consulting engineers, and those in the
public health and environmental protection industries. This encourages 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 various treatment systems designed to remove pollutants and protect water used
as a source for drinking water and other uses under the Source Water Protection (SWP) area of
the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC). A goal of verification testing is to enhance and
facilitate the acceptance of small treatment systems and equipment by state regulatory officials
and consulting engineers, while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each location
where the equipment's use is contemplated. NSF meets this goal by working with manufacturers
and NSF-qualified Testing Organizations (TO) to conduct verification testing under the approved
protocols. The Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment is one such TO.
NSF is conducting the WQPC-SWP with participation of manufacturers, under the sponsorship
of the EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Urban Watershed Management Branch, Edison, New Jersey. 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 TO.
111
-------
Table of Contents
Verification Statement VS-i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
Glossary of Terms vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms ix
Acknowledgments x
1.0 Introducti on 1-1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1-1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1-1
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization (VO) 1-2
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1-3
1.2.3 Testing Organization 1-3
1.2.4 Technology Vendor 1-5
1.2.5 ETV Test Site 1-6
1.2.6 Technology Panel 1-6
1.3 Background - Nutrient Reduction 1-7
1.3.1 Fixed Film Trickling Filter - Biological Nitrification 1-7
1.3.2 Biological Denitrification 1-9
2.0 Technology Description and Operating Processes 2-1
2.1 Technology Description 2-1
2.2 Equipment Description and Process Description 2-1
2.3 Equipment Specifications 2-7
2.4 Operation and Maintenance 2-7
2.5 Vendor Claims 2-8
3.0 Methods and Test Procedures 3-1
3.1 Verification Test Plan and Procedures 3-1
3.2 MASSTC Test Site Description 3-1
3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures 3-2
3.3.1 Introduction 3-2
3.3.2 Objectives 3-3
3.3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures 3-3
3.4 Verification Testing - Procedures 3-4
3.4.1 Introduction 3-4
3.4.2 Objectives 3-4
3.4.3 System Operation- Flow Patterns and Loading Rates 3-4
3.4.3.1 Influent Flow Pattern 3-5
3.4.3.2 Stress Testing Procedures 3-5
3.4.3.3 Sampling Locations, Approach, and Frequency 3-7
3.4.3.4 Residuals Monitoring and Sampling 3-10
3.4.4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping 3-11
3.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Performance 3-12
iv
-------
3.4.5.1 Electric Use 3-12
3.4.5.2 Chemical Use 3-12
3.4.5.3 Noise 3-13
3.4.5.4 Odors 3-13
3.4.5.5 Mechanical Components 3-13
3.4.5.6 Electrical/Instrumentation Components 3-13
4.0 Results and Discussion 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Startup Test Period 4-1
4.2.1 Startup Flow Conditions 4-1
4.2.2 Startup Analytical Results 4-2
4.2.3 Startup Operating Conditions 4-3
4.3 Verification Test 4-4
4.3.1 Verification Test - Flow Conditions 4-4
4.3.2 BOD5/CBOD5 and Suspended Solids Results 4-5
4.3.3 Nitrogen Reduction Performance 4-12
4.3.3.1 Results 4-12
4.3.3.2 Discussion 4-13
4.3.4 Residuals Results 4-24
4.4 Operations and Maintenance 4-26
4.4.1 Electric Use 4-26
4.4.2 Chemical Use 4-27
4.4.3 Noise 4-27
4.4.4 Odor Observations 4-28
4.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Observations 4-28
4.5 Aquapoint, Inc. - Discussion of Test Results 4-30
4.5.1 Nozzle Clogging Problem 4-30
4.5.2 Data Presentation 4-31
4.6 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control 4-31
4.6.1 Audits 4-31
4.6.2 Precision 4-32
4.6.3 Accuracy 4-35
4.6.4 Representativeness 4-37
4.6.5 Completeness 4-37
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
5.1 Cited References 5-1
5.2 Additional Background References 5-1
Appendices
Appendix A - Technical - Operations and Maintenance Manual
Appendix B - Verification Test Plan
Appendix C - MASSTC Field SOP's
Appendix D - Lab Data and QA/QC Data
Appendix E - F ield Lab Log Book
Appendix F - Spreadsheets with calculation and data summary
Appendix G - Field Operations Logs
v
-------
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Bioclere™ 16/12 Specifications 2-7
Table 3-1. Historical MASSTC Wastewater Data 3-2
Table 3-2. Sampling Matrix 3-8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule for Bioclere™ System 3-10
Table 3-4. Summary of Analytical Methods and Precision and Accuracy Requirements 3-11
Table 4-1. Flow - Volume Data during the Startup Period 4-2
Table 4-2. Influent Wastewater Quality - Startup Period 4-3
Table 4-3. Bioclere™ Effluent Quality during the Startup Period 4-3
Table 4-4. Bioclere™ Influent Volume Summary 4-5
Table 4-5. Bioclere™ BOD/CBOD and TSS Results 4-10
Table 4-6. Bioclere™ Nitrogen Data for Influent and Effluent 4-21
Table 4-7. Bioclere™ Alkalinity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen Results 4-23
Table 4-8. Solids/Scum Depth Measurement 4-25
Table 4-9. TSS and VSS Results for Bioclere™ Solids Samples 4-25
Table 4-10. Summary of Bioclere™ Electrical Usage 4-27
Table 4-11. Bioclere™ Noise Measurements 4-27
Table 4-12. Odor Observations 4-28
Table 4-13. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - Nitrogen Compounds 4-33
Table 4-14. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - CBOD, BOD, Alkalinity, TSS 4-33
Table 4-15. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - pH, Dissolved Oxygen 4-34
Table 4-16. Laboratory Precision Data - Nitrogen Compounds 4-35
Table 4-17. Laboratory Precision Data - CBOD, BOD, Alkalinity, TSS 4-35
Table 4-18. Accuracy Results - Nitrogen Analyses 4-36
Table 4-19. Accuracy Results - CBOD, BOD, Alkalinity 4-36
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Bioclere™ Schematic Representation 2-3
Figure 2-2. Flow Schematic of Bioclere™ System 2-4
Figure 2-3. Bioclere™ Primary Tank 2-5
Figure 2-4. Bioclere™ Unit 2-6
Figure 4-1. Bioclere™ BOD/CBOD Results 4-8
Figure 4-2. Bioclere™ Total Suspended Solids Results 4-9
Figure 4-3. Bioclere™ Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Results 4-16
Figure 4-4. Bioclere™ Ammonia Nitrogen Results 4-17
Figure 4-5. Bioclere™ Total Nitrogen Results 4-18
Figure 4-6. Bioclere™ Nitrite and Nitrate Effluent Concentrations 4-19
Figure 4-7. Bioclere™ Influent Temperature 4-20
vi
-------
Glossary of Terms
Accuracy - a measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a number
of measurements to the true value and includes random error and systematic error.
Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in one
direction.
Commissioning - the installation of the nutrient reduction technology and start-up of the
technology using test site wastewater.
Comparability - a qualitative term that expresses confidence that two data sets can contribute to
a common analysis and interpolation.
Completeness - a qualitative and quantitative term that expresses confidence that all necessary
data have been included.
Precision - a measure of the agreement between replicate measurements of the same property
made under similar conditions.
Protocol - a written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, scope and procedures for
the study. A protocol shall be used for reference during Vendor participation in the verification
testing program.
Quality Assurance Project Plan - a written document that describes the implementation of
quality assurance and quality control activities during the life cycle of the project.
Residuals - the waste streams, excluding final effluent, which are retained by or discharged
from the technology.
Representativeness - a measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or
environmental condition.
Standard Operating Procedure - a written document containing specific procedures and
protocols to ensure that quality assurance requirements are maintained.
Technology Panel - a group of individuals established by the Verification Organization with
expertise and knowledge in nutrient removal technologies.
Testing Organization - an independent organization qualified by the Verification Organization
to conduct studies and testing of nutrient removal technologies in accordance with protocols and
test plans.
Vendor - a business that assembles or sells nutrient reduction equipment.
Verification - to establish evidence on the performance of nutrient reduction technologies under
specific conditions, following a predetermined study protocol(s) and test plan(s).
Verification Organization - an organization qualified by EPA to verify environmental
technologies and to issue Verification Statements and Verification Reports.
Verification Report - a written document containing all raw and analyzed data, all QA/QC data
sheets, descriptions of all collected data, a detailed description of all procedures and methods
used in the verification testing, and all QA/QC results. The Verification Test Plan(s) shall be
included as part of this document.
Verification Statement - a document that summarizes the Verification Report and is reviewed
and approved by EPA.
vii
-------
Verification Test Plan - A written document prepared to describe the procedures for conducting
a test or study according to the verification protocol requirements for the application of nutrient
reduction technology at a particular test site. At a minimum, the Verification Test Plan includes
detailed instructions for sample and data collection, sample handling and preservation, and
quality assurance and quality control requirements relevant to the particular test site.
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
AQP
Aquapoint, Inc.
BDCHE
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
BOD5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five day)
CBOD5
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five day)
coc
Chain of Custody
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DQI
data quality indicators
DQO
data quality objectives
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ETV
Environmental Technology Verification
GAI
Groundwater Analytical, Inc.
gal
gallons
gpm
gallons per minute
MASSTC
Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mL
milliliters
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NH3/NH4
Ammonia Nitrogen
N02
Nitrite Nitrogen
N03
Nitrate Nitrogen
NSF
NSF International
NRMRL
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M
Operation and maintenance
ORD
Office of Research and Development, EPA
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
QA
Quality assurance
QAPP
Quality assurance project plan
QC
Quality control
QMP
Quality management plan
RPD
Relative percent difference
SAG
Stakeholders Advisory Group
SOP
Standard operating procedure
SWP
Source Water Protection Area, Water Quality Protection Center
TKN
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN
Total Nitrogen
TO
Testing Organization
VO
Verification Organization
VR
Verification Report
VTP
Verification Test Plan
WQPC
Water Quality Protection Center
IX
-------
Acknowledgments
The Testing Organization (TO), the Barnstable County Department of Health and the
Environment, was responsible for all elements in the testing sequence, including collection of
samples, calibration and verification of instruments, data collection and analysis, and data
management. Mr. George Heufelder was the Project Manager for the Verification Test.
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable MA 02630
(508)375-6616
Contact: Mr. George Heufelder, Project Manager
Email: gheufeld@capecod.net
The Verification Report was prepared by Scherger Associates.
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(734)213-8150
Contact: Mr. Dale A. Scherger
Email: Daleres@aol.com
The laboratories that conducted the analytical work for this study were:
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment Laboratory
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable MA 02630
(508) 375-6606
Contact: Dr. Thomas Bourne
Email: bcdhelab@cape.com
Groundwater Analytical, Inc. (GWI)
228 Main St.
Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
(508)759-4441
Contact: Mr. Eric Jensen
The Manufacturer of the Equipment was:
Aquapoint, Inc.
241 Duchaine Blvd.
New Bedford, MA 027455
(508) 998-7577
Contact: Mr. John Lafreniere
Email: aquapoint@aquapoint.com
x
-------
The TO wishes to thank NSF International, especially Mr. Thomas Stevens, Project Manager,
and Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator, for providing guidance and program management.
XI
-------
1.0 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 innovative, 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, consulting engineers, and regulators; 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 Water Quality Protection
Center (WQPC), one of six Centers under ETV. Source Water Protection (SWP) is one area
within the WQPC. The WQPC-SWP evaluated the performance of the Aquapoint (AQP)
Bioclere™ Model 16/12 for the reduction of nitrogen (TKN, NH3, NO2, NO3) present in
residential wastewater. AQP sells the Bioclere™ to treat wastewater from single-family homes,
small commercial businesses, and similar applications. The unit is designed to replace
conventional septic tank systems and to provide nitrogen reduction in addition to the removal of
organics and solids present in these wastewaters. The Bioclere™ system is based on fixed film
trickling filter technology and uses highly permeable plastic filter media. This document
provides the verification test results for the AQP Bioclere™ Model 16/12, in accordance with the
Protocol for the Verification for Residential Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Nutrient
Reduction (November 2000)^.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the Bioclere™ system was a cooperative effort between the following
participants:
NSF International
Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center
Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment Laboratory
Groundwater Analytical, Inc.
Scherger Associates
1-1
-------
Aquapoint, Inc.
EPA
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization (VO)
The Water Quality Protection Center of the ETV is administered through a cooperative
agreement between EPA and NSF International (NSF). NSF is the verification partner
organization for the WQPC and the Source Water Protection (SWP) area within the center. NSF
administers the center, and contracts the Testing Organization to develop and implement the
Verification Test Plan (VTP).
NSF's responsibilities as the Verification Organization included:
• Review and comment on the site specific VTP;
• Coordinate with peer-reviewers to review and comment on the VTP;
• Coordinate with the EPA Project Manager and the technology vendor to approve the
VTP prior to the initiation of verification testing;
• Review the quality systems of all parties involved with the Testing Organization and
subsequently, qualify the companies making up the Testing Organization;
• Oversee the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing;
• Carry out an on-site audit of test procedures;
• Oversee the development of a verification report and verification statement;
• Coordinate with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement;
and,
• Provide QA/QC review and support for the TO
Key contacts at NSF for the Verification Organization are:
Mr. Thomas Stevens, Program Manager
(734) 769-5347 email: Stevenst@NSF.org
Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator
(734) 827-6821 email: MRoush@NSF.org
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
(734)769-8010
1-2
-------
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Management
Branch, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL), provides administrative, technical, and quality assurance guidance and
oversight on all ETV Water Quality Protection Center activities. The EPA reviews and approves
each phase of the verification project. The EPA's responsibilities with respect to verification
testing include:
• Verification Test Plan review and approval;
• Verification Report review and approval; and,
• Verification Statement review and approval.
The key EPA contact for this program is:
Mr. Ray Frederick, Project Officer, ETV Water Quality Protection Center
(732)-321-6627 email: Frederick.ray@epa.gov
U.S. EPA, NRMRL
Urban Watershed Management Branch
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
1.2.3 Testing Organization
The Testing Organization (TO) for the verification testing was the Barnstable County
Department of Health and Environment (BCDHE). Mr. George Heufelder of the BCDHE was
the project manager. He had the responsibility for the overall development of the Verification
Test Plan (VTP), oversight and coordination of all testing activities, and compiling and
submitting all of the test information for development of this final report.
Mr. Dale Scherger of Scherger Associates was contracted by NSF to work with BCDHE to
prepare the Verification Report (VR) and Verification Statement (VS).
The BCDHE Laboratory, and its subcontractor, Groundwater Analytical, Inc., provided the
laboratory services for the testing program and provided consultation on analytical issues
addressed during the verification test period.
The responsibilities of the TO included:
• Preparation of the site specific Verification Test Plan;
1-3
-------
• Conducting Verification Testing, according to the Verification Test Plan;
• Installation, operation, and maintenance of the Bioclere™ system in accordance
with the Vendor's O&M manual(s);
• Controlling access to the area where verification testing was carried out;
• Maintaining safe conditions at the test site for the health and safety of all
personnel involved with verification testing;
• Scheduling and coordinating all the activities of the verification testing
participants, including establishing a communication network and providing
logistical and technical support on an "as needed" basis;
• Resolve any quality concerns that may be encountered and report all findings to
the Verification Organization;
• Managing, evaluating, interpreting and reporting on data generated by verification
testing;
• Evaluation and reporting on the performance of the technology; and,
• If necessary, document changes in plans for testing and analysis, and notify the
Verification Organization of any and all such changes before changes are
executed.
The key personnel and contacts for the TO are:
Mr. George Heufelder, Project Manager
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable, MA 02630
(508)375-6616
Email: gheufeld@capecod.net
Mr. Sean Foss, Facility Operations Manager:
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable, MA 02630
(508)563-6757
Email: sfoss@capecod.net.
Dr. Thomas Bourne, Laboratory Manager
Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment Laboratory
Superior Court House (P.O. Box 427)
Barnstable, MA 02630
(508) 375-6606
Email: bcdhelab@cape.com
1-4
-------
Mr. Eric Jensen
Groundwater Analytical, Inc. (GAI)
228 Main St.
Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
(508)759-4441
Scherger Associates was responsible for:
• Preparation of the Verification Report; and,
• Preparation of the Verification Statement
The key contact at Scherger Associates is:
Mr. Dale A. Scherger
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(734)213-8150
Email: Daleres@aol.com
1.2.4 Technology Vendor
The nitrogen reduction technology evaluated was the Bioclere™ Model 16/12 sold by AQP.
AQP was responsible for supplying all of the equipment needed for the test program, and
supporting the TO in ensuring that the equipment was properly installed and operated during the
verification test period. Specific responsibilities of the vendor include:
• Initiate application for ETV testing;
• Provide input regarding the verification testing objectives to be incorporated into
the Verification Test Plan;
• Select the test site;
• Provide complete, field-ready equipment and the operations and maintenance
(O&M) manual(s) typically provided with the technology (including instructions
on installation, start-up, operation and maintenance) for verification testing;
• Provide any existing relevant performance data for the technology;
• Provide assistance to the Testing Organization on the operation and monitoring of
the technology during the verification testing, and logistical and technical support
as required;
• Review and approve the site-specific VTP;
• Review and comment on the Verification Report; and,
• Provide funding for verification testing.
1-5
-------
The key contact for AQP is:
Mr. John Lafreniere
Aquapoint, Inc.
241 Duchaine Blvd.
New Bedford, MA 027455
(508) 998-7577
Email: Aquapoint@aquapoint.com
1.2.5 ETV Test Site
The Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC) was the host site for the
nutrient reduction verification test. MASSTC was initially funded by the State of Massachusetts.
The Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment operates the center and
provides all staff for the center. The MASSTC is located at Otis Air National Guard Base,
Bourne, MA. The site was designed as a location to test septic treatment systems and related
technologies. MASSTC provided the location to install the technology and all of the
infrastructure support requirements to collect domestic wastewater, pump the wastewater to the
system, operational support, and maintenance support for the test. Key items provided by the test
site were:
• Logistical support and reasonable access to the equipment and facilities for sample
collection and equipment maintenance;
• Wastewater that is "typical" domestic, relative to key parameters such as BOD5 TSS,
total nitrogen and phosphorus;
• A location for sampling of raw wastewater and a sampling arrangement to collect
representative samples;
• Automatic influent pumping systems capable of controlled dosing to the technology
being evaluated to simulate a diurnal flow variation and to allow for stress testing.
Sufficient flow of wastewater to accomplish the required controlled dosing pattern;
• An accessible but secure site to prevent tampering by outside parties; and,
• Wastewater disposal of both the effluent from the testing operation and for any
untreated wastewater generated when testing is not occurring.
1.2.6 Technology Panel
Representatives from the Technology Panel assisted the Verification Organization in reviewing
and commenting on the Verification Test Plan.
1-6
-------
1.3 Background - Nutrient Reduction
Domestic wastewater contains various physical, chemical and bacteriological constituents, which
require treatment prior to release to the environment. Various wastewater treatment processes
exist which provide for the reduction of oxygen demanding materials, suspended solids and
pathogenic organisms. Reduction of nutrients, principally phosphorus and nitrogen, has been
practiced since the 1960's at treatment plants where there is a specific need for nutrient reduction
to protect the water quality and, hence, the uses of the receiving waters, whether ground water or
surface water. The primary reasons for nutrient reduction are to protect water quality for
drinking water purposes (drinking water standards for nitrite and nitrate have been established),
and to reduce the potential for eutrophication in nutrient sensitive surface waters by the reduction
of nitrogen and/or phosphorus.
The reduction of nutrients in domestic wastewater discharged from single-family homes, small
businesses and similar locations within watersheds is desirable for the same reasons as for large
treatment facilities. First, reduction of watershed nitrogen inputs helps meet drinking-water
quality standards for nitrate and nitrite; and second, the reduction of both nitrogen and
phosphorus helps protect the water quality of receiving surface and ground waters from
eutrophi cation, and the consequent loss in ecological, commercial, recreational and aesthetic uses
of these waters.
Several technologies and processes can remove nutrients in on-site domestic wastewater. The
Bioclere Process is based on the fixed film (trickling filter) biological process for nitrification
and the anoxic conditions in the septic tank for biological denitrification. A brief discussion of
these processes is given below.
1.3.1 Fixed Film Trickling Filter - Biological Nitrification
The EPA has published a fact sheet describing the nitrification process in trickling filter systems,
Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Trickling Filter Nitrification, EPA September 2000 (-2\ This
fact sheet provided the information presented below. A more comprehensive source of
information is the EPA Manual for Nitrogen Control (EPA/625/R-93/010/3).
Nitrification is a process carried out by bacterial populations (Vitrosomonas and Nitrobacter)
that oxidize ammonium to nitrate with intermediate formation of nitrite. These organisms are
considered autotrophic, because they obtain energy from the oxidation of inorganic nitrogen
compounds. The two steps in the nitrification process and their equations are as follows:
1) Ammonia is oxidized to nitrite (N02)by Nitrosomonas bacteria.
2 NH4+ + 3 02 =2 N02" +4rf + 2 H20
2) The nitrite is converted to nitrate (NC>3)by Nitrobacter bacteria.
2 N02" + 02 = 2 N03=
1-7
-------
Since complete nitrification is a sequential reaction, systems must be designed to provide an
environment suitable for the growth of both groups of nitrifying bacteria. These two reactions
essentially supply the energy needed by nitrifying bacteria for growth. Several major factors
influence the kinetics of nitrification, including organic loading, hydraulic loading, temperature,
pH, and dissolved oxygen concentration.
1. Organic loading: The efficiency of the nitrification process is affected by the organic
loadings. Although the heterotrophic biomass is not essential for nitrifier attachment, the
heterotrophs (organisms that use organic carbon for the formation of cell tissue) form
biogrowth to which the nitrifiers adhere. The heterotrophic bacteria grow much faster
than nitrifiers at high BOD5 concentrations. As a result, the nitrifiers can be over grown
by heterotrophic bacteria, which can cause the nitrification process to cease. Before
nitrification can take place, the soluble BOD must be sufficiently reduced to eliminate
this competition, generally down to 20-30 mg/L.
2. Hydraulic loading: Wastewater is normally introduced at the top of the attached growth
reactor and trickles down through a medium. The value chosen for the minimum
hydraulic loading should ensure complete media wetting under all influent conditions.
Both hydraulic and organic loadings are important parameters that must be considered.
The total hydraulic flow to the filter can be controlled to some extent by recirculation of
the treated effluent. Recirculation also increases the instantaneous flow at points in the
filter and reduces the resistance to mass transfer. This also increases the apparent
substrate concentration and the growth and removal rate. The third major benefit of
recirculation in nitrifying trickling filters is the reduction of the influent BOD5
concentration, which makes the nitrifiers more competitive. This in turn increases the
nitrification efficiency and increases the dissolved oxygen concentration.
3. Temperature: The nitrification process is very dependent on temperature and occurs over
a range of approximately 4 to 45 °C (39 to 113 °F). Typically, at temperatures below 10
°C, nitrification rates slow dramatically, and may stop altogether at around 5 °C. Above
10 °C, the nitrification rate increases with temperature, and reaches a maximum at 30 to
35 °C.
4. pH: The nitrification process produces acid. The acid formation lowers the pH and can
cause a reduction in the growth rate of the nitrifying bacteria. The optimum pH for
Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter is between 7.5 and 8.5. At a pH of 6.0 or less nitrification
normally will stop. Approximately 7.1 pounds of alkalinity (as CaCOs) are destroyed per
pound of ammonia oxidized to nitrate.
5. Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The concentration of dissolved oxygen affects the rate of
nitrifier growth and nitrification in biological waste treatment systems. The DO
concentration at which nitrification is limited can be 0.5 to 2.5 mg/L in either suspended
or attached growth systems under steady state conditions, depending on the degree of
mass-transport or diffusional resistance and the solids retention time. The maximum
nitrifying growth rate is reached at a DO concentration of 2 to 2.5 mg/L. However, it is
1-8
-------
not necessary to grow at the maximum growth rate to get effective nitrification if there is
adequate contact time in the system. As a result there is a broad range of DO values
where DO becomes rate limiting. The intrinsic growth rate of Nitrosomonas is not limited
at DO concentrations above 1.0 mg/L, but DO concentrations greater than 2.0 mg/L may
be required in practice. Nitrification consumes large amounts of oxygen with 4.6 pounds
of O2 being used for every pound of ammonia oxidized.
1.3.2 Biological Denitrification
Denitrification is an anoxic process where nitrate serves as the source of oxygen for bacteria and
the nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas. Denitrifying bacteria are facultative organisms that can use
either dissolved oxygen or nitrate as an oxygen source for metabolism and oxidation of organic
matter. If both dissolved oxygen and nitrate are present, the bacteria will tend use the dissolved
oxygen first. Therefore, it is important to keep dissolved oxygen levels as low as possible.
Another important aspect of the denitrification process is the presence of organic matter to drive
the denitrification reaction. Organic matter can be in the form of raw wastewater, methanol,
ethanol, or other organic sources. When these sources are not present, the bacteria may depend
on internal (endogenous) carbon reserves as organic matter. The endogenous respiration phase
can sustain a system for a time, but may not be a consistent enough source of carbon to drive the
reaction to completion or to operate at the rates needed to remove the elevated nitrate levels
present in nitrified effluent.
The denitrifying reaction using methanol as a carbon source can be represented as follows:
6N03= + 5CH3OH = 5C02 + 3N2 + 7H20 + 60H"
Several conditions affect the efficiency of the denitrification process including the anoxic
conditions, the temperature, presence of organic matter, and pH.
1. Dissolved oxygen - The level of dissolved oxygen has a direct impact on the denitrifying
organisms. As dissolved oxygen increases, denitrification rate decreases. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations below 0.3-0.5 mg/L in the anoxic zone are typically needed to
achieve efficient denitrification.
2. Temperature affects the growth rate of denitrifying organisms with higher growth rates
occurring at higher temperatures. Denitrification normally occurs between 5 and 35 °C
(41 to 95 °F). As in the case of nitrification, denitrifying rates drop significantly as
temperature falls below 10 °C.
3. Organic matter - The denitrification process requires a source of organic matter.
Denitrification rate varies greatly depending upon the source of available carbon The
highest rates are achieved with addition of an easily assimilated carbon source such as
methanol. Somewhat lower denitrification rates are obtained with raw wastewater or
1-9
-------
primary effluent as the carbon source. The lowest denitrification rates are observed with
endogenous decay as the source of carbon.
4. pH and alkalinity - The optimum pH range for most denitrifying systems is 7.0 to 8.5.
The process will normally occur in a wider range, pH 6 - 9, but denitrifying rates may be
impacted near the extremes of the range. Acclimation of the population can lower the
impact of pH on growth rates. An advantage of the denitrification process is the
production of alkalinity that helps buffer the decrease in alkalinity in the nitrification
process. Approximately 3.6 pounds of alkalinity (as CaCCb) are produced per pound of
nitrate nitrogen removed.
1-10
-------
2.0 Technology Description and Operating Processes
2.1 Technology Description
The AQP, Inc. Bioclere™ Model 16/12 uses a fixed film trickling filter for wastewater treatment.
Trickling filters consist of a bed of highly permeable media over which wastewater is applied
and allowed to trickle through. The Bioclere™ uses a proprietary plastic filter media.
Microorganisms present in the wastewater attach to this media and use the nutrients and organic
materials provided by the constant supply of fresh wastewater to form new cell mass. The open
spaces within the media allow air to freely pass through, providing oxygen to support the
microorganisms.
In the trickling filter, the organic material in the wastewater is degraded by microorganisms
attached to the media in the form of a biological film or slime layer. The outer portions of the
slime layer remain aerobic. As the microorganisms multiply, the thickness of the slime layer
increases and the diffused oxygen is consumed before it can penetrate the full depth of the layer,
resulting in an anaerobic environment near the surface of the media. As the layer increases in
thickness, the absorbed organic matter is metabolized before it can reach the microorganisms
near the media face. As a result, of having no external organic source available for cell carbon,
the microorganisms near the media face enter into an endogenous growth phase and loose their
ability to cling to the media. The wastewater flowing through the filter then washes the slime off
the media and a new slime layer begins to form. This phenomenon is called sloughing and is
primarily a function of the organic and hydraulic loading on the filter. The hydraulic loading
accounts for shear velocities and the organic loading accounts for the rate of metabolism in the
slime layer. Since treatment is achieved by the wastewater being in direct contact with the
biomass on the media, recirculation of wastewater through the media is typically required to
achieve treatment.
2.2 Equipment Description and Process Description
The Bioclere™ unit is a separate system that provides secondary wastewater treatment. A
complete treatment system has two stages of treatment. The first stage of treatment occurs in the
primary tank in which the solids are settled and partially digested. This primary tank can be an
existing or new septic tank, or a similar type of tank. A return line is installed in the tank to carry
treated wastewater and solids from the Bioclere™ clarifier section back to the primary tank. The
typical primary tank size is 1,000 gallons.
The Bioclere™ is a single complete unit that includes a top section that holds the trickling filter
media (plastic media), and a bottom section that serves as a clarifier to settle and remove solids.
A media dosing pump conveys treated wastewater from the clarifier/sump to the top of the unit,
where the wastewater is sprayed over the media. A treated wastewater/solids return pump,
located in the bottom of the clarifier, pumps treated wastewater and accumulated solids back to
the primary tank. A fan located on the top of the unit provides an air supply (oxygen) to the
media.
2-1
-------
Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show the basic system flow diagram and schematic representation of the
Bioclere™ Model 16/12. The system operated for this test is designed to handle 400 gpd.
Additional information on the unit is presented in the Technical Manual in Appendix A.
Wastewater flows by gravity from the 1,000 gallon single compartment primary tank to the
clarifier section of the Bioclere™ filter module. The primary tank effluent enters the baffled zone
in the 350 gallon clarifier section beneath the Bioclere™ filter module, where it mixes with the
wastewater from the trickling filter. The clarified wastewater (mixture of primary tank
wastewater and trickling filter treated wastewater) is pumped by a media dosing pump to the
distribution assembly, which doses the surface of the filter media. The media dosing pump
operates on a timed sequence that is specific to the site wastewater characteristics. The operating
cycle for the dosing is alternating periods (3 minutes) of dosing followed by a period of no
dosing (5 minutes), repeated continuously over a 24-hour day. Adjustments are made to the
timing sequence to optimize the filter performance.
The biological film on the filter media (35.3 cubic feet of media) thickens over time until
carbonaceous material and oxygen can no longer penetrate to the bacteria on the inside surfaces
nearest the media. When this occurs, the biological film begins to slough from the media and
passes through the media bed and into the clarifier section of the unit. The solids settle in the
clarifier. The treated wastewater/solids return pump in the bottom of the clarifier periodically
pumps the nitrified wastewater and settled solids back to the primary tank. The approach
provides a self-cleaning mechanism for the filter media and solids do not build up in the clarifier.
The return of nitrified wastewater (with elevated nitrate levels) to the septic tank allows
denitrification to occur under anoxic conditions present in the septic tank.
Oxygen is supplied by a fan, located in the top of the housing of the Bioclere™ unit. The air is
forced through the Biofilter and vented through the effluent line. The fan is sized to provide a
supply of oxygen from the ambient air to the treatment system. The oxygen supply is critical to
the operation of the aerobic system.
All wastewater flow, including the discharge flow, is by gravity thorough the Bioclere™ system.
The pumps are used only for the actual treatment process. The media dosing pump moves the
wastewater from the clarifier back to the top of the filter media and the wastewater trickles over
the media. If the pump is not operating or there is a power failure, wastewater will flow through
the primary settling chamber and into the clarifier section. Wastewater will then exit the clarifier
section by gravity and out to the tile field. Under this condition, the wastewater will not backup
in the system, but also will not receive the aerobic biological treatment provided by the filter
unit.
2-2
-------
\Avt»
Figure 2-1. Bioclere™ Schematic Representation
2-3
-------
wjtsii iw. rj btwsfviis VD iro
L TC DCJALLAnCW REFfirSWn HBOEPC MOCL L£ HREi
2. CTHEF: NEDtLL KM IE SUTCHIUEi
3. It V0fl V4i i: ASMR-EHO TMZOJ& MLBC, VOf K m It HH3/M 1D M£ AID
4. SArfUlI- WY K JtfOlfcBMCO Rr CO?PlWS 1 tOMH *» HP€ TP THE J-JG? Wfl CAPPDG A? ME
5. if wsrftLun ih itcuici w*tcd atmcT srrr emonedi rar wrurM RCDimcuKri
& cmiwcinr h ra ami ill cuoffe STwraurcs #b rcin*M MSTAUTm
it fLDv schmfe i
1W I
IP
r*jai. aart.
-f
.vK
<&-
_ Hii 'in,
^LlfUnlll*
Figure 2-2. Flow Schematic of Bioclere™ System
2-4
-------
UP 've "tHS «]
fficvru unc man
miheie iMPtvi
luI
iH£T
1W Boflter Recycle Line
Irts-toiU4"t(ori ftt PHrwy Tank,
HUES FDR HHfUtfilS'
1, JLtJFt WE BACK ta S£Pf lC 1ANI-
VTM rn uv pflhil
a use ppe:'a«!E rirnfGi nut
IWft sump? 3EPTDM rm.
icrai « rvs -pi.
TO JC UID
sreut iw»: s
fife rn e OvjT^c,o
— A&ti»rr w v«.l
r-ft HT L.ICJ'r C4I IfJ-LLO
ai dthftK ar lmuoi itfix
Ck IdHMZ fWtH DUfLtl
UVtM fti *.*K MTHSt-
fm cmitxcM. xpfLXATiiie.
»n crEnasw mr at kiojmjv
-r=r
£,u Gfll&Cfe STTJHr
u-Li—r H3MC «-Vt.
-^TrrPriWfr KEL JEX 3K3F
HFV BEWTW. tfi '¥?45
dp wf-7377 fm ae ?*-?rr?
'wV
iL L2L_L1_
Figure 2-3. Bioclere™ Primary Tank
2-5
-------
Figure 2-4. Bioclere™ Unit
2-6
-------
2.3 Equipment Specifications
The specifications for the Bioclere™ Model 16/12 are summarized in Table 2-1. All of the
piping used in the systems is either schedule 40 or 80 PVC pipe. Figures 2-1 through 2-4 show
additional information on the specifications for the unit. The Technical Guide, presented in
Appendix A, provides information on the timer system and other system details.
Table 2-1. Bioclere™ 16/12 Specifications
Item
Quantity
Tank Assembly
1
Filter Media
1 (2 cubic meters)
Distribution system
1
Nozzles
3
Media Dosing Pump
1 Grundfos KP 150
Wastewater/Solids
1 Grundfos KP 250
Return Pump
Latches
4 Moore 702-L-C-SS
Baffle
1
Fan Module assembly
1
Control Panel
1
Technical Manual
1
Padlocks
2 Abus
1 %key
2
The initial pump timer settings are designed for a five-bedroom house. The pre-
programmed timer is setup for denitrification. Settings are preprogrammed as follows:
Media Dosing Pump on 3 minutes
Media Dosing Pump off 5 minutes
Wastewater/Solids Return Pump on 1.5 minutes
Wastewater/Solids Return Pump off 2.5 hours
The flow rates for the media dosing pump and treated wastewater/solids return pump vary by the
head at a particular installation. In a typical installation, as was the used at MASSTC, the media
dosing pump flow rate is 20 to 25 gpm. The treated wastewater/solids return pump operates at
30-35 gpm.
2.4 Operation and Maintenance
AQP provides a Technical Manual with the unit. A copy of this manual is presented in Appendix
A. The manual provides installation, startup, operation and maintenance descriptions for the unit.
Bioclere™ provides periodic maintenance service for their units. According to the manual, the
unit is checked weekly for the first two weeks of operation with the assistance of the
homeowner. The manual indicates that these first two checks are primarily focused on
2-7
-------
determining that the fan is running and that the timer is sequencing the two pumps correctly.
After the first two weeks, the recommended maintenance interval is quarterly (every three
months). A maintenance checklist is provided in the Technical Manual. The following items are
listed as items to be checked:
• Check pumps and fan operation visually and adjust if necessary
• Check and clear spray nozzles, if necessary
• Check condition of biomass
• Check clarity of final effluent
• Verify accuracy of timers on control panel through two complete dosing cycles
• Adjust irrigation rate, if necessary
• Check control panel
• Lubricate fan module, if necessary
2.5 Vendor Claims
AQP claims the Bioclere™ can be designed to consistently reduce ammonia nitrogen in
wastewater despite seasonal temperature variations. They claim that nitrogen is reduced
substantially and cost effectively by recirculating nitrified wastewater from the Bioclere™ to the
primary settling tank. AQP claims Bioclere™ is a cost-effective system for the secondary
treatment of wastewater, designed for years of dependability. The manufacturer claims the
natural fixed film biological process is extremely stable, simple to manage and inexpensive to
operate. AQP states that the Bioclere™ reduces the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and
total suspended solids (TSS) to levels that meet or exceeds NSF and EPA standards. Vendor
test data is provided in Appendix A of the Technical Manual.
2-8
-------
3.0 Methods and Test Procedures
3.1 Verification Test Plan and Procedures
A Verification Test Plan (VTP) was prepared and approved for the verification of the Aquapoint,
Bioclere™ Model 16/12, and is included in Appendix B. This VTP, Test Plan for The
Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center for the Verification Testing of the AWT
Bioclere™ Nutrient Reduction Technology <4>, February 2001 detailed all of the procedures and
analytical methods to be used to perform the verification test. The VTP was prepared in
accordance with the SWP protocol, Protocol for the Verification of Residential Wastewater
Treatment Technologies for Nutrient Reduction November 2000. The VTP included tasks
designed to verify the nitrogen reduction capability of the Bioclere™ unit and to obtain
information on the operation and maintenance requirements of the Bioclere™. There were two
distinct phases of fieldwork to be accomplished as part of the VTP. The first phase was startup of
the unit. The second phase was a one year verification test that included normal dosing and stress
conditions. While the Protocol requires twelve months of sampling, an extra month was added
since the testing ended in a cold weather month (March). The extra one-month of data was
collected to show the response of the system coming out of a cold weather period.
Each of the testing elements performed, during the technology verification, are described in this
section. In addition to a description of sample collection methods, equipment installation, and
equipment operation, this section also describes the analytical protocols. Quality Assurance and
Quality Control procedures and data management approach are discussed in detail in the VTP.
3.2 MASSTC Test Site Description
The MASSTC site is located at Otis Air National Guard Base in Bourne, Massachusetts. The site
is designed to provide domestic wastewater for use in testing various types of residential
wastewater treatment systems. The domestic wastewater source is the sanitary sewerage from the
base residential housing and other military buildings. The sewer system for the base flows to an
on-base wastewater treatment facility. An interceptor chamber located in the main sewer line
upstream of the base wastewater treatment facility, constructed when the MASSCTC was built in
1999, provides a location to obtain untreated wastewater. The screened wastewater is pumped
through an underground two-inch line to the dosing channel at the test site. The design of the
interceptor chamber provides mixing of the wastewater just ahead of the transfer pump to ensure
a well-mixed wastewater is obtained for the influent feed at the test site. The raw wastewater
passes through a bar grate located before the transfer pump. This bar grate has one inch spacing
between the bars to remove large or stringy materials that could clog the pump or lines.
The screened wastewater is pumped to the dosing channel at a rate of approximately 29 gallons
per minute (gpm) on a continuous basis for 18 hours per day, yielding at total flow of
approximately 31,000 gallons per day (gpd). Wastewater enters the dosing channel, an open top
concrete channel, sixty-five feet long by 2 feet wide by 3 feet deep, via two pipes midway in the
channel. Approximately 4-6,000 gallons per day is withdrawn for test purposes in various
treatment units. The excess wastewater flows by gravity to the base sanitary sewer and is treated
3-1
-------
at the base wastewater treatment plant. The dosing channel is equipped with four mixing pumps.
These pumps, spaced along the channel length, keep the wastewater in the channel constantly
moving to ensure the suspension of solids, and to ensure that the wastewater is of similar quality
at all locations along the channel.
Dosing of wastewater to the individual test units is accomplished by individual influent dosing
pumps submerged in-line along the dosing channel. The influent dosing pumps are connected to
the treatment technology being tested by underground PVC pipe. A programmable logic
controller (PLC) is used to control the pumps and the dosing sequence or cycle. The PLC was
custom designed by Orenco, Inc. for this application. Each technology influent dosing pump can
be controlled individually for multiple start and stop times, and for pump run time. For the
Bioclere™ system, the volumetric dosages were set to meet the dosing sequence described in the
VTP. The Bioclere™ system was dosed 15 times per day with approximately 26-27 gallons of
wastewater. The volume was controlled by adjusting the influent dosing pump run time for each
cycle.
MASSTC maintains a small laboratory at the site to monitor basic wastewater treatment
parameters. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and volumetric
measurements are routinely performed to support the test programs at the site. These field
parameters were performed at the site during the Bioclere™ test.
The MASSTC has been in operation since 1999. Screened wastewater quality has been
monitored as part of several previous test programs, and is within the requirements established in
the Protocol for raw wastewater quality. The data is presented in Table 3-1. Influent wastewater
monitoring was part of the startup and verification testing, and is described later in this section.
Results of all influent monitoring during the verification test are presented in Chapter 4.
Table 3-1. Historical MASSTC Wastewater Data
Parameter
Average
Standard
(mg/L)
Deviation
BOD5
180
61
TSS
160
59
Total Nitrogen
34
4.6
Alkalinity
170
28
pH
7.4
0.13
3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures
3.3.1 Introduction
AQP provided an installation, operation, and maintenance manual for the Bioclere™. This
manual is presented in Appendix A. The Bioclere™ system had been installed at MASSTC in
June 1999, as part of an on-going testing program. The existing system, a single compartment,
3-2
-------
1,000 gallon primary tank and a Bioclere™ filtration unit, were used for the startup and
verification tests for the ETV program.
3.3.2 Objectives
The objectives of the installation and start-up phase of the VTP were to:
• Install the Aquapoint Bioclere™ Model 16/12 in accordance with the Technical Manual;
• Start-up and test the Bioclere™ to ensure all processes were operating properly, timers
were set for proper automatic operation, and any leaks that occurred during the
installation were eliminated;
• Make any modifications needed to achieve operation; and,
• Record and document all installation and start-up conditions prior to beginning the
verification test.
3.3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures
The installation of the Bioclere™ was performed by a contractor in conjunction with the
BCDHE support team, and supported by the AQP staff. The installation was performed in June
1999 as part of an earlier test program. In order to prepare for startup of the Bioclere™ for the
ETV verification, the entire Bioclere™ system was emptied of wastewater and cleaned in
October 2000. Solids were removed from the primary tank and the clarifier section of the
Bioclere™ filter unit. All pumps, lines, and associated equipment were cleaned. The filter media
was repeatedly flushed and solids removed from the bottom of the unit. Clean water was
recirculated in the unit from November through mid-December to further clean the media and
lines. The entire unit was then drained and remained off until the beginning of the startup period
in January.
The VTP and Protocol allow for an eight-week startup period. During the startup, the biological
community is established and operating conditions are adjusted, if needed, for site condition. The
startup procedures in the Technical Manual were followed as written. This included filling the
primary tank and filter system with water and checking each component of the system for proper
operation.
In early January fresh water was added to the unit and the system was cycled for several days to
make sure the unit was operating properly, the influent dosing pump was calibrated, and the PLC
was working properly. Startup of the cleaned Bioclere™ system began on January 15, 2001. The
primary tank was filled approximately two thirds (2/3) full with clean water and one third (1/3)
with wastewater from the dosing channel. The dosing sequence was started on January 15 with a
setting of 15 doses of wastewater per day, with a target of 26.67 gallons of wastewater per dose.
This dose setting provided a target total daily flow of 400 gallons per day. The pumps and timers
on the unit were started using the factory default settings.
The system was monitored during the startup period of January 15 through Mirch 11, 2001
through visual observation of the system, routine calibration of the dosing system, and the
3-3
-------
collection of influent and effluent samples. Samples for analysis were collected during weeks
two, three, five, seven and eight (two sets) of the startup period. Influent samples were collected
for pH, alkalinity, temperature, BOD5, TKN, NH3, and TSS analyses. The effluent was also
monitored for pH, alkalinity, temperature, CBOD5, TKN, NH3, TSS, dissolved oxygen, NO2, and
NO3. Procedures for sample collection, analytical methods, and other monitoring procedures
were the same procedures used during the one-year verification period. These procedures are
described later in this section.
3.4 Verification Testing - Procedures
3.4.1 Introduction
The verification test procedures were designed to verify nitrogen reduction of the AQP
Bioclere™ treatment technology. The verification test consisted of a thirteen-month test period,
incorporating five stress periods with varying stress conditions simulating real household
conditions. Dosing volume was set to the design capacity of the Bioclere™ system. Monitoring
for nitrogen reduction was accomplished by measurement of nitrogen species (TKN, NH3, NO2,
NO3). Carbonaceous oxygen demand (CBOD) and other basic parameters (pH, alkalinity, TSS,
Temperature) were monitored to provide information on overall treatment performance.
Operational characteristics such as electric use, residuals generation, labor to perform
maintenance, maintenance tasks, durability of the hardware, noise and odor production were also
monitored.
Verification results and observations are presented in this Verification Report in Section 4.0.
3.4.2 Objectives
The objectives of the verification test were to:
• Determine nitrogen reduction performance of the Bioclere™ system;
• Monitor removal of other contaminants (BOD5. CBOD5, TSS);
• Determine operation and maintenance characteristics of the technology; and,
• Assess chemical usage, energy usage, generation of byproducts or residuals, noise and
odors.
3.4.3 System Operation- Flow Patterns and Loading Rates
The flow and loading patterns used during the thirteen-month verification test were designed in
accordance with the Protocol as described in the VTP (Appendix B). The flow pattern was
designed to simulate the flow from a "normal" household. Several special stress test periods
were also incorporated into the test program. The Bioclere™ system tested had a design capacity
of 400 gallons per day. The target for total daily flow to the unit was 400 gallons per day.
3-4
-------
3.4.3.1 Influent Flow Pattern
The influent flow dosed to Bioclere™ was controlled by the use of timed pump operation. The
dosing pump was set to provide 15 doses of equal volume (target - 26.7 gallons per dose) in
accordance with the following schedule:
• 6 a.m. - 9 a.m. 33 percent of total daily flow in 5 doses
• 11 a.m. - 2 p.m. 27 percent of total daily flow in 4 doses
• 5 p.m. - 8 p.m. 40 percent of total daily flow in 6 doses
The influent dosing pump was controlled by a programmable logic controller, which permitted
timing of the fifteen individual doses to within one second. The pump flow rate and time setting
was calibrated by sequencing the influent dosing pump for one cycle and collecting the entire
volume of flow in a "calibrated" barrel. The barrel was initially calibrated by placing measured
volume of water into the barrel. The dosing flow volume was checked by this calibration method
at least twice per week. Calibration results were recorded in the field logbook.
The total daily flow to the Bioclere™ was targeted to be 400 gallons per day (26.67 gallons per
dose). After each calibration test, the measured volume was compared to this target rate. If the
volume was more than 10 percent above or below the target, the influent dosing pump run time
was increased or decreased to adjust the volume per dose back to the target volume. If the run
time was changed, then a second calibration was performed to determine the total volume for the
new timer setting. The QC requirement for the dosing volume was plus/minus 10 percent of the
rated capacity (400 gallons per day) based on a thirty (30) day average, with the exception of
periods of stress testing. All calibration tests were recorded in the field logbook.
In addition to the twice weekly direct calibrations, the PLC system results were checked on a
daily basis. The PLC system recorded the number of doses delivered each day for each pump
operated by the system. The PLC was checked to confirm that 15 doses were delivered each day.
The PLC was also checked to ensure that the start and stop times were set properly. Any changes
made to the settings or problems with dose cycles were recorded on the log.
Flow information was entered into a spreadsheet that showed each day of operation, the influent
dosing pump run time, the gallons pumped per dose, and the number of doses delivered to the
unit.
3.4.3.2 Stress Testing Procedures
One stress test was performed following every two months of operation at the normal design
loading during the verification test. Five stress scenarios were run during the thirteen (13) month
evaluation period. These special tests were designed to test the Bioclere™ response to differing
load conditions and a power/equipment failure.
Stress testing included the following simulations:
3-5
-------
• Wash-day stress
• Working parent stress
• Low-loading stress
• Power/equipment failure stress
• Vacation stress
Washday stress simulation consisted of three (3) washdays in a five (5) day period, with each
washday separated by a 24-hour period of dosing at the normal design loading rate. During a
washday, the system received the normal flow pattern; however, during the course of tie first
two (2) dosing periods per day, the hydraulic loading included three (3) wash loads [three (3)
wash cycles and six (6) rinse cycles]. The volume of wash load flow was 28 gallons per wash
load. The hydraulic loading was adjusted so that the total bading did not exceed the design
loading rate. Common detergent (Arm and Hammer Fabri-Care) and non-chlorine bleach was
added to each wash load at the manufacturers recommended amount.
The working parent stress simulation consisted of five (5) consecutive days when the Bioclere™
was subjected to a flow pattern where approximately 40 percent of the total daily flow was dosed
between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and approximately 60 percent of the total daily flow was dosed
between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. This simulation also included one (1) wash load [one (1) wash cycle
and two (2) rinse cycles]. The total hydraulic loading did not exceed the design loading rate
during the stress test period.
The low-loading stress simulation consisted of testing the unit at 50 percent of the design flow
(220 gallons per day) loading for a period of 21 days. Approximately 35 percent of the total
daily flow was dosed between 6 a.m. and 11 a.m., approximately 25 percent of the flow was
dosed between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., and approximately 40 percent of the flow was dosed between
5 p.m. and 8 p.m.
The power/equipment failure stress simulation consisted of a standard daily flow pattern until 8
p.m. on the day when the power/equipment failure stress is initiated. Power to the Bioclere™
was turned off at 9 p.m. and the flow pattern was discontinued for 48 hours. After the 48-hour
period, power was restored and the system dosed with approximately 60 percent of the total daily
flow over a three (3) hour period, which included one (1) wash load [one (1) wash cycle and two
(2) rinse cycles].
The vacation stress simulation consisted of a flow pattern where, on the day that the vacation
stress was initiated, approximately 35 percent of the total daily flow was dosed between 6 a.m.
and 9 a.m. and approximately 25 percent of the total daily flow was received between 11 a.m.
and 2 p.m.. The flow pattern was discontinued for eight (8) consecutive days, with power
continuing to be supplied to the technology. Between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. of the ninth day, the
technology was dosed with 60 percent of the total daily flow, which included three (3) wash
loads [three (3) wash cycles and six (6) rinse cycles].
3-6
-------
3.4.3.3 Sampling Locations. Approach, and Frequency
3.4.3.3.1 Influent Sampling Location
Influent wastewater was sampled from the dosing channel at a point near the Bioclere™ influent
dosing pump intake, approximately four to six inches from the channel floor. The influent
sampling site selection was based on the layout of the dosing channel at the MASSTC facility.
Screened wastewater enters the sixty-five foot long dosing channel via two pipes midway
between the channel end and the channel outlet. Influent dosing pumps for individual systems
are located in-line along the dosing channel. The influent wastewater-sampling site was located
close to the AQP Bioclere™ influent dosing pump to ensure a representative sample of
wastewater was obtained.
3.4.3.3.2 A QP Bioclere™ Effluent Sampling Location
For the Bioclere™ effluent, the sampling site was located in the normal effluent pipe of the
Bioclere™ as close to the final treatment unit as was practicable. During installation and setup of
the Bioclere™, a sampling point, consisting of a tee-cross with sump of sufficient size to retain
sample volume for both grab and automated sampler, was installed in the effluent pipe. The
sump was only large enough to retain approximately one liter of fluid and was readily flushed
and replenished by the normal flow of treated effluent. The sump was located so that it could be
cleaned of any attached and settled solids. Qeaning of the sampling location by brushing to
remove any accumulated solids was performed on a regular basis prior to each sampling period.
3.4.3.3.3 Sampling Procedures
Both grab and 24-hour flow weighted composite samples were collected at the influent and
effluent sampling locations. Grab samples were collected from both locations for the
measurement of pH and temperature. Dissolved oxygen was measured at the treated effluent
location when flow across the sampling point was occurring. The grab samples were collected by
dipping a sample collection bottle into the flow at the same location as the automatic sampler
used for composite sample collection. The sample bottle was labeled with the sampling location,
time and date. All pH and temperature measurements were performed at the on-site laboratory
immediately after sample collection.
Composite samples were collected using automated samplers at each sample collection point.
The automated samplers were programmed to draw equal volume of sample from the waste
treatment stream at the same frequency, number (15), and timing as influent wastewater doses.
Samples taken in this manner were therefore flow proportional. The effluent sampler timing was
delayed to correspond to the passage of a flow pulse through the Bioclere™ system based on the
influent dosing pump timer setting. The automatic samplers were calibrated before each use and
the volume of sample collected was checked to ensure that the proper number of individual
samples was collected in the composite container. Detailed sampling procedures are described in
the MASSTC SOPs (Appendix C).
Table 3-2 shows a summary of the sampling matrix for the verification test.
3-7
-------
Table 3-2. Sampling Matrix
Sample Location
PARAMETER
SAMPLE
INFLUENT
FINAL
TESTING
TYPE
EFFLUENT
LOCATION
bod5
24 Hour
composite
V
Laboratory
CBOD5
24 Hour
composite
V
Laboratory
Suspended Solids
24 Hour
composite
V
V
Laboratory
PH
Grab
V
V
Test Site
Temperature (°C)
Grab
V
V
Test Site
Alkalinity (as CaCC^)
24 Hour
composite
V
V
Laboratory
Dissolved Oxygen
Grab
V
Test Site
TKN (as N)
24 Hour
composite
V
V
Laboratory
Ammonia (as N)
24 Hour
composite
V
V
Laboratory
Total Nitrate(as N)
24 Hour
composite
V
Laboratory
Total Nitrite (as N)
24 Hour
composite
V
Laboratory
3.4.3.3.4 Sampling Frequency
Table 3-3 shows a summary of the sampling schedule that was followed during the test. Sample
frequency followed the VTP, and included sampling under design flow conditions on a monthly
basis and more frequent sampling during the special stress test periods.
Normal Monthly Frequency
Samples of the influent and effluent were collected once per month for the thirteen-month test
period (March 2001 - April 2002). The initial VTP was designed for a twelve-month test
program; however, the test period was extended for one additional month to provide data for the
month of April when temperatures were expected to be higher.
Stress Test Frequency
Samples were collected on the day each stress simulation was initiated and when approximately
50 percent of each stress sequence was completed. For the Vacation and Power/Equipment
failure stresses, there is no 50 percent sampling. Beginning twenty-four (24) hours after the
completion of washday, working-parent, low loading, and vacation stress scenarios, samples
were collected for six (6) consecutive days. Beginning forty-eight (48) hours after the
completion of the power/equipment failure stress, samples were collected for five (5)
consecutive days.
3-8
-------
Final Week
Samples were also collected for five (5) consecutive days at the end of the yearlong evaluation
period.
The decision was made to extend the test period of one additional month to monitor changes in
the system that would be influenced by the temperature of the wastewater. Therefore, there was
one additional set of samples (April 17, 2002) collected after the five-day sampling of the "final
week."
3.4.3.3.5 Sample Handling and Transport
Samples collected in the automatic samplers were collected with ice surrounding the sample
bottle to keep the sample cool. The composite sample container was retrieved at the end of the
sampling period, shaken vigorously, and poured into new bottles that were labeled for the
various scheduled analysis. Sample bottles used for TKN and ammonia analyses were supplied
by the laboratory with preservative. Sample container type, sample volumes, holding times, and
sample handling and labeling procedures were detailed in the VTP (Appendix B) and in the
MASSTC SOP, Attachment I (Appendix C).
BCDHE personnel transported the samples to the BCDHE laboratory via automobile. The
samples were packed in coolers with ice to maintain the temperature of all transported samples at
4 °C. Subsample containers analyzed at the GAI laboratory were transported from BCDHE
laboratory to GAI by GAI personnel. Travel time to BCDHE was approximately 40 minutes.
Travel time from BCDHE to GAI was approximately 45 minutes.
3-9
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule for Bioclere™ System
Month/Day
Sampling Event
Jan 23 and 31, 2001
Startup - 2 sampling events
February 14 and 28, 2001
Startup - 2 sampling events
March 7 and 13, 2001
Startup - 2 sampling events
March 21, 2001
Normal monthly sample
April 18, 2001
Normal monthly sample
May 8,10, and 13-18, 2001
Wash day stress - 8 samples
June 6, 2001
Normal monthly sample
July 3, 2001
Normal monthly sample
July 10 and 13-20, 2001
Working Parent stress - 8 samples
August 1, 2001
Normal monthly sample
September 5, 2001
Normal monthly sample
September 18, 27 and
Low Loading stress - 8 Samples
October 9-14, 2001
October 31, 2001
Normal monthly sample
November 28, 2001
Normal monthly sample
December 3, and 9-13, 2001
Power Failure stress - 6 samples
December 28, 2001
Normal monthly sample
January 16, 2002
Normal monthly sample
February 4 and 14-19, 2002
Vacation Stress - 7 samples
March 4-8, 2002
Final week sampling - 5 samples
April 17, 2002
Additional monthly sample
3.4.3.4 Residuals Monitoring and Sampling
Byproducts or residuals generated by the Bioclere™ system are returned to the primary tank.
Solids from the incoming wastewater and the Bioclere™ system settle in the primary tank and
accumulate slowly over time. Measurements of solids depth in the primary tank were made twice
near the end of the testing period, in the thirteenth and fourteenth months after startup. A coring
solids measurement tool (Core Pro) was used to estimate the depth of solids and the scum layer
in the 1,000 gallon primary tank. The sampling device is a clear tube with a check valve on the
bottom. The tube is pushed through the solids to the bottom of the tank. The valve closes and the
entire sample column, water and solids, are removed from the tank. The column height is
checked to ensure that no sample has leaked from the device. The solids depth is then determined
by measuring the height of the solids in the clear tube using a tape measure or ruler. This
approach gives a direct measurement of the depth of solids. The thickness of any scum layer
present is measured by ruler or tape also. Three measurements of solids depth were made at each
of the two access manholes. A measurement of solids depth in the Bioclere™ unit clarifier was
also made in March near the end of the testing period. The solids measurement tool was inserted
into the unit's central riser and a measurement of solids in the bottom of the treatment
unit/process tank recorded in the Field Log.
3-10
-------
Samples of solids were recovered from the Core Pro during the final measurement period by
emptying the probe contents into a clean container and sending the sample to the BCDHE
laboratory for VSS and TSS analysis. This sample included both the solids and the water present
in the tube. Thus, the concentration measurements for solids represent the concentration as if the
entire contents of the tank were mixed. To estimate the solids concentration in the settled
material at the bottom of the tank, the depth of solids and the depth of water column need to be
accounted for, and the ratio used to calculate an estimated solids percent.
3.4.4 Analytical Testing and Record Keeping
As shown in Table 3-3, fifty-three (53) samples of the influent and effluent for the Bioclere™
unit were collected over the thirteen-month verification period. Table 3-2 presented the
parameter list. Samples included grab and composite samples for each sampling day. Industry
standard procedures (EPA Methods(5'6) or Standard Methods(7)) were used for all sample
analysis. The methods used for each constituent are shown in Table 3-4. Temperature, dissolved
oxygen and pH were measured onsite. All other analyses were performed by off site laboratories.
The Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment Laboratory performed the
analyses for alkalinity, total suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), nitrite, and nitrate. Groundwater
Analytical, Inc. (GAI) was responsible for the analyses for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and
ammonia.
Table 3-4. Summary of Analytical Methods and Precision and Accuracy Requirements
§ I'.ir.um-li-r
Tiii'Mih
AlTl'plillK'l'
( lilrii.i
Ai'iTpliini'i-
( lilrii.i
\n.il\ 1i1-.1l Mi'ilmd
Duplicates (%)
Spikes (%)
PH
On-site
N/A
N/A
SM #423
Temperature (°C)
On-site
N/A
N/A
SM #2550
Dissolved Oxygen
On-site
N/A
N/A
SM #4500
Suspended Solids
BCDHE Laboratory
80-120
N/A
SM #2540 D
BOD5/ CBOD;
BCDHE Laboratory
80-120
N/A
SM #5210 B
Alkalinity
BCDHE Laboratory
80-120
N/A
SM #2320
Total Nitrite (as N)
BCDHE Laboratory
90-110
60-140
EPA 353.3
Total Nitrate (as N)
BCDHE Laboratory
90-110
60-140
EPA 353.3
TKN(asN)
GAI Laboratory
80-120
80-120
EPA 351.4
Ammonia (as N)
GAI Laboratory
80-120
80-120
EPA 350.1
SM - Standard Methods - 19th Edition
A Quality Assurance Project Plan was developed as part of the VTP and provided quality control
requirements and systems to ensure the integrity of all sampling and analysis. Precision and
accuracy limits for the analytical methods are shown in Table 3-4. The QAPP included
procedures for sample chain of custody, calibration of equipment, laboratory standard operating
3-11
-------
procedures, method blanks, corrective action plan, etc. Additional details are provided in the
VTP (Appendix B). Three laboratory audits were also performed during the verification test to
confirm that the analytical work was being performed in accordance with the methods and the
established QC objectives.
The results of all analyses from the off site laboratories were reported to the TO by hardcopy
laboratory reports. The laboratory data are presented in Appendix D. The off site laboratories
also provided a QA/QC data for the data sets. This data is included in Appendix D with the
laboratory reports. The on site laboratory maintained a laboratory logbook to record the results of
all analyses performed at the site. Copies of the on-site laboratory logbook are presented in
Appendix E.
The data received from the laboratories was summarized in an Excel spreadsheet by BCDHE
personnel at the test site. This data was proof read against the original laboratory reports by the
site staff. The data was also checked by NSF to ensure the data was accurate. The spreadsheets
included in Appendix F.
3.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Performance
Both quantitative and qualitative performance of the Bioclere™ unit was evaluated during the
verification test. A field log was maintained that included all observations made during the
startup of the unit. This field log was maintained throughout the verification test. Observations
regarding the condition cf the system, any changes in setup or operation (timer adjustments,
nozzle cleaning, etc.), or any problems that required resolution were recorded in the log by the
field personnel.
Observation and measurement of operating parameters included electric use, chemical use, noise,
odor, and evaluation of mechanical components, electrical/instrumentation components, and by-
product volumes and characteristics.
3.4.5.1 Electric Use
Electrical use was monitored by a dedicated electric meter serving the AQP Bioclere™. The
meter reading was recorded biweekly in the field log by BCDHE personnel. The meter
manufacturer and model number and any claimed accuracy for the meter was recorded in the
Field Log. At the end of the testing period, the electric meter was returned to the manufacturer
for calibration and the calibration data entered in the Field Log.
3.4.5.2 Chemical Use
For this ETV testing, the Bioclere™ did not use any process chemicals to achieve treatment.
3-12
-------
3.4.5.3 Noise
Noise levels associated with mechanical equipment (particularly compressors and blowers) were
measured once during the verification period. A decibel meter was used to measure the noise
level. Measurements were taken one meter from the unit and one and a half meters above the
ground, at 90° intervals in four (4) directions. The meter was calibrated prior to use. Meter
readings were recorded in the field log. Duplicate measurements at each quadrant were made to
account for variations in ambient sound levels.
3.4.5.4 Odors
Odor observations were made during the final eight months of the verification test. The
observation was qualitative based on odor strength (intensity) and type (attribute). Intensity was
stated as not discernable; barely detectable; moderate; or strong. Observations were made during
periods of low wind velocity (<10 knots). The observer stood upright at a distance of three (3)
feet from the treatment unit, at 90° intervals in four (4) directions. All observations were made
by the same BCDHE employee.
3.4.5.5 Mechanical Components
Performance and reliability of the mechanical components such as compressors or blowers,
mixers, and chemical and wastewater pumps were observed and documented during the test
period. These observations included recording in the Field Log of equipment failure rates,
replacement rates, and the existence and use of duplicate or standby equipment.
3.4.5.6 Electrical/Instrumentation Components
Electrical components, particularly those that might be adversely affected by the corrosive
atmosphere of a wastewater treatment process, and instrumentation and alarm systems were
monitored for performance and durability during the course of verification testing. Observations
of any physical deterioration were noted in the Field Log. Any electrical equipment failures,
replacements, and the existence and use of duplicate or standby equipment were recorded in the
Field Log.
3-13
-------
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
Evaluation of the AQP Bioclere™ Model 16/12 at MASSTC began in January 2001. The unit
was filled with a mixture of fresh water and wastewater on January 15, 2001, the pumps and
timers were activated, and the initial dosing cycles activated. Flow was set at 400 gpd, resulting
in 15 doses per day with a target of 26.7 gallons per dose. The startup period continued until
March 13, 2001. Six samples of the influent and effluent were collected during the startup
period. Verification testing began on March 13, 2001 and continued for 13 months until April 17,
2002. The extra month of dosing and sampling (13 months versus the planned 12 months) was
added to the test to obtain data on the system response as the temperatures began to rise in the
spring. During the verification test, 53 sets of samples of the influent and effluent were collected
to determine the system performance.
This chapter presents the results of the sampling and analysis of the influent and effluent to/from
the unit, a discussion of the results, and observations on the operation and maintenance of the
unit during startup and normal operation. Summary of results are presented in these sections.
Complete copies of all spreadsheets with individual daily, weekly, or monthly results are
presented in Appendix F.
4.2 Startup Test Period
The startup period provided time for the Bioclere™ to develop a biological growth that was
acclimated to the site-specific wastewater. The startup also provided an opportunity for the
Bioclere™ system to be adjusted, if needed, to optimize performance at the site. These first eight
weeks of operation also provided site personnel an opportunity to become familiar with the
Bioclere™ operation and maintenance requirements. Samples were collected during weeks 2, 3,
5, 7, and 8 (two sets) of the startup period.
4.2.1 Startup Flow Conditions
The flow conditions for the Bioclere™ were established at the design capacity of 400 gallons per
day. The influent dosing pump was set to deliver 15 doses per day at approximately 26.7 gallons
per dose. Five (5) doses were delivered between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m., four (4) doses between 11
a.m. and 2 p.m., and six (6) doses between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. The dosing sequence remained
constant during the startup and verification tests, except during the stress test sequences
described in Section 3.3.3.2. The volume of wastewater dosed to the unit during the startup
remained mostly constant and only minor adjustments to the influent dosing pump run time were
required. Table 4-1 shows a summary of the flow volumes during the startup period. The daily
flow records are in Appendix F.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. Flow - Volume Data during the Startup Period
Week
Average
Actual Daily Volume
Doses/day Gallons/dose
(Gallons)
Jan 15 - 20
Jan 21 - 27
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
26.6
26.8
399
402
407
396
396
335
429
404
Jan 28 - Feb 3
27.1
26.4
26.4
22.4
28.6
26.9
Feb 4- 10
Feb 11 - 17
Feb 18-24
Feb 25 - Mar 3
Mar 4- Mar 12
4.2.2 Startup Analytical Results
The results of the influent and effluent monitoring during the startup period are shown Tables 4-
2 and 4-3. The first set of samples was taken 9 days after the unit was started. The initial data
showed that the unit reduced the CBOD5 and TSS to 25 mg/L and 8 mg/L, respectively. The
Bioclere™ was also reducing some of the total nitrogen (41 mg/L in the influent, 29 mg/L in the
effluent). Overall, the system appeared to be acclimating quickly. No adjustments to the system
were made. Daily observations and additional sampling to determine the condition of the unit
continued for the next eight weeks.
As can be seen in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, the Bioclere™ system performance for CBOD5, TSS, and
TN remained somewhat steady throughout the startup period. The unit came on line within a few
days and performance remained steady. There was some TN reduction occurring, but it did not
appear that the nitrifying organisms had established themselves in the system. The temperature
was considered likely to be the primary reason for the lack of a trend toward improved reduction
in both CBOD5 and TN. The temperature of the effluent wastewater was about 5 °C when the
unit was started and remained in the 5 - 7 °C range through March 13.
Based on the stable conditions shown by the Bioclere™ system and the fact the startup had
extend for eight weeks, the decision was made to end the startup period and begin the
verification test with the unit operating conditions remaining the same as the initial startup.
4-2
-------
Table 4-2. Influent Wastewater Quality - Startup Period
Inl'liii'iil
Dull'
Alk;ilinil\
HOD
DO
Ammuniii
PH
TK\
IN
ISS
Temp.
(inji/l.) u<>
/l.)
u<>
C ¦«(¦(),
(IJOD
/l.)
DC)
(nii>/l.)
Ammoniii
(inii/l.)
Nitrate
(lll!*/l.)
Nitrite
(niii/l.)
I'll
(niji/1.)
TKN
(nii>/l.)
IN
(llli>/l.)
TSS
(mg/L)
I'llTlui'iil
Temp.
( "O
1/23/01
180
25
11
23
0.8
0.12
7.9
28
29
8
5.2
1/31/01
150
22
6.6
16
0.4
0.03
7.9
27
27
18
5.0
2/14/01
190
28
8.7
24
1.0
0.18
8.0
35
36
39
5.5
2/28/01
180
51
6.7
23
<0.1
0.11
7.9
31
31
32
7.3
3/7/01
160
30
8.6
24
0.6
0.32
8.1
29
30
24
5.4
3/13/01
160
13
9.0
22
1.1
0.42
8.0
28
30
16
6.6
4.2.3 Startup Operating Conditions
The Bioclere™ system was started with the factory default settings for the media dosing pump
and the treated wastewater/solids return pump. The media dosing pump was set to be on for 3
minutes and off for 5 minutes. The treated wastewater/solids return pump was set to run for 1.5
minutes every 2.5 hours. The startup instructions in the Technical manual (Appendix A) were
easy to follow and provided the necessary instructions to get the unit up and operating.
No changes were made to the unit during the startup period. Daily observation showed that
biological growth was established on the media. No special maintenance was required during the
startup period. Overall, the unit started up with no difficulty.
4-3
-------
4.3 Verification Test
Based on the stable operating conditions observed and monitored in the Bioclere™ system and in
accordance with the startup period set forth in the VTP, the verification test was started officially
on March 12-13, 2001. A final startup sample was collected on March 12-13. After that time all
results were considered part of the verification test period. The data collected during startup is
not included in any of the data summaries presented in the verification test sections below. As
stated above, there was no change made to the basic operation of the system. All Bioclere™
operating parameters (pumps, timers, alarms, etc.) remained the same as during the initial startup
period.
4.3.1 Verification Test - Flow Conditions
The daily dosing schedule during normal operations remained constant throughout the entire
verification test. A daily dosing sequence of 15 doses was performed every day except during the
low load (September 2001) and vacation stress (February 2002) periods. Volume per dose and
total daily volume varied only slightly during the test period. Table 4-4 shows the average
monthly volumes for the verification period. As this data shows, the actual wastewater volume
dosed to the Bioclere™ was very close to the targeted volume of 400 gallons per day.
4-4
-------
Table 4-4. Bioclere™ Influent Volume Summary
Ave Monthly
Mon/Year
Doses/day
Gallon/dose
Gallon/day
Mar-01
15
26.2
392
Apr-01
15
25.8
387
May-01
15
26.9
403
Jun-01
15
26.3
395
Jul-01
15
26.0
391
Aug-01
15
25.9
389
Sep-01
15
14.9
401(1)
Oct-01
15
26.6
400(1)
Nov-01
15
27.1
407
Dec-01
15
27.1
406(2)
Jan-02
15
26.4
395
Feb-02
15
26.5
397(3)
Mar-02
15
26.6
400
Apr-02
15
26.2
393
Average
15
26.4
397
Maximum
27.1
407
Minimum
25.8
387
Std. Dev.
0.4
6.2
(1) September/October 2001- Low load test; flow data only for normal flow
(2) December 2001 - Power/Equipment Failure test; average flow data does not
include the days without flow
(3) February 2002 - Vacation test - 10-day test; no flow for 8 days,
Only nine doses on first and last day; Low or no flow days excluded from
averages
4.3.2 BOD5/CBOD5 and Suspended Solids Results
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the results for BOD5/CBOD5 and total suspended solids (TSS) in the
influent and effluent for the verification test. Table 4-5 presents the results with a summary of
the data (average, maximum, minimum, standard deviation). CBOD5 was measured in the
effluent as required in the Protocol. The use of the CBOD5 analysis was specified because the
effluent from nutrient reduction systems was expected to be low in oxygen demanding organics,
and has a large number of nitrifying organisms present, which can cause nitrification to occur
during the first five days of the test. The CBOD5 analysis is used to inhibit nitrification during
the analysis, and give a better measurement of the oxygen demanding organics in the effluent.
The BOD5 test was used for the influent, which had much higher levels of oxygen demanding
organics, and was expected to have a very low population of nitrifying organisms. In the
4-5
-------
standard BOD5 test, it is assumed that little nitrification occurs within the five days of the test.
Therefore, the oxygen demanding organics are the primary compounds measured in the
wastewater influent. Using the BOD5 of the influent and the CBOD5 in the effluent should
provide a good comparison of the oxygen demanding organics removal of the system.
The influent wastewater had an average BOD5 of 210 mg/L and a median BOD5 of 200 mg/L.
The TSS in the influent averaged 160 mg/L and had a median concentration of 140 mg/L. The
Bioclere™ effluent showed an average CBOD5 of 14 mg/L with a median CBOD5 of 10 mg/L.
The average TSS in the effluent was 16 mg/L and the median TSS was 10 mg/L. The Bioclere™
system averaged 93 percent reduction of BOD5/CBOD5 with a median removal of 95 percent.
TSS removal averaged 90 percent over the thirteen-month period with a median removal of 93
percent. CBOD5 concentrations in the effluent typically ranged from 4 to 20 mg/L, and TSS
ranged from 4 to 17 mg/L, except during an apparent upset condition that occurred in July 2001.
This upset period is discussed later in this section and in the O&M section.
The verification sampling program emphasizes sampling during and following the major stress
periods. This results in a large umber of samples being clustered during five periods with the
remaining samples spread over the remaining months (monthly sampling). Therefore, impacts of
the stress test or an upset condition occurring during the concentrated sampling can have an
impact on the calculation of average values. Both average and median results are presented, as
the median values compared to average values can help in analyzing these impacts. In the case of
the Bioclere™ results, the median values are much lower than the average values due to the
upset condition when the nozzles plugged during the working parent stress test.
At the end of the startup period, the Bioclere™ system was reducing TSS and CBOD5, but had
not yet achieved the level of performance anticipated by AQP. During the period March 13
through April 18, wastewater temperature began to increase quickly (see Figure 4-7) and the
effluent concentration of TSS and CBOD5 began to trend lower. By the start of the first stress
test, (washday stress test, May 2001), the unit was producing effluent concentrations in the range
of 13 to 26 mg/L for CBOD5 and 2 to 13 mg/L for TSS. The washday stress test was started on
May 8 and concluded on May 11. There was no apparent impact on the CBOD5 and TSS
performance during this stress period. Post stress period monitoring showed an actual
improvement in performance in the week following the washday test. Both CBOD5 and TSS in
the effluent were 10 mg/L or less during the post stress test monitoring period.
In early July, the effluent quality began to deteriorate (July 3 results). The working parent stress
test was started on July 9 and was completed on July 13. During this time, visual observation of
the unit indicated that the effluent had high solids content and the dissolved oxygen content was
much lower in the effluent. AQP was notified of the condition of the unit and arrived at the site
on July 17. The unit was found to have two plugged nozzles. The nozzles were cleared and the
system performance improved over the next two weeks. By the August 1 monthly sampling
event, performance had returned to the levels achieved in late May and June. The plugged
nozzles clearly had an impact on both CBOD5 and TSS removal performance. The wastewater
was not being recycled at the established rate and treatment of the oxygen demanding organics
was reduced. The increased TSS indicated that the organisms on the media were probably
4-6
-------
stressed due to reduced and uneven recirculation flow, and began to slough. It is not clear what
impact the working parent stress test had on the system performance. The deterioration of the
performance prior to the stress period would suggest that the plugged nozzles were causing a
problem prior to the stress test, and that the higher effluent levels were due to lack of proper
wastewater circulation rather than the change in loading schedule during the working parent test.
The nozzle plugging issue is discussed further in the O&M section.
For the remainder of the test, August 2001 through April 2002, the Bioclere™ performance was
consistent. Data collected during the low load stress test in September-October and the
power/equipment failure test in December showed no change in either CBOD5 or TSS
performance. The vacation stress test was performed in February 2002. There was an increase in
CBOD5 (11 to 22 mg/L range) in the effluent during the post stress sampling period (February 15
to 19). These results may be due to the vacation stress test or could be within the normal
variation of the CBOD5 measurement in the effluent.
4-7
-------
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
C\J
CD
o
CO
25
CO
C\J
25
G)
CO
\—
CO
C\J
CD
o5
CO
CD
o
CD
o
CO
C\J
55
CO
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
G)
o
CO
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
CO
25
25
CD
CD
h-
CO
CD
"5~
o
o
T—
T—
CM
C\J
T_
C\J
CO
Date
Influent BOD Effluent CBOD
Figure 4-1. Bioclere™ BOD/CBOD Results
4-8
-------
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
J 275
ui
£ 250
w
w 225
g 200
| 175
150
125
100
75
50
25
-10.0
r>N oN r>N oN oN oN . r\^ . r\^ .oN r>N .
xq,n.f/f \SnaS\\Sn^Na^\\^\\^N a^No\^N a^Na^N
j>s #
-------
Table 4-5. Bioclere™ BOD/CBOD and TSS Results
BOD 5
CBODs
TSS
Influent
Effluent
Removal
Influent
Effluent
Removal
Date
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Percent
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Percent
3/21/01
140
18
87
74
2
98
4/18/01
160
15
91
110
13
88
5/08/01
140
26
81
130
8
94
5/10/01
210
13
94
180
14
92
5/13/01
380
7.7
98
220
9
96
5/14/01
320
20
94
230
5
98
5/15/01
87
4.0
95
160
8
95
5/16/01
72
3.5
95
130
7
95
5/17/01
180
6.2
97
96
4
96
5/18/01
180
10
94
100
6
94
6/06/01
200
10
95
140
3
98
7/03/01
260
41
84
250
57
77
7/10/01
210
11
95
290
61
79
7/13/01
200
19
90
130
41
69
7/15/01
160
25
84
200
53
74
7/16/01
180
34
81
210
41
80
7/17/01
180
40
78
410
47
89
7/18/01
290
38
87
300
31
90
7/19/01
330
60
82
300
62
79
7/20/01
310
25
92
290
52
82
8/01/01
110
4.0
96
96
14
85
9/05/01
190
20
90
40
15
63
9/18/01
340
5.5
98
180
12
93
9/27/01
260
7.3
97
240
9
96
10/09/01
190
5.9
97
120
9
93
10/10/01
250
9.9
96
180
10
94
10/11/01
220
6.4
97
97
10
90
10/12/01
230
7.8
97
130
8
94
10/13/01
260
12
95
170
11
93
10/14/01
270
7.0
97
120
8
93
4-10
-------
Table 4-5. Bioclere™ BOD/CBOD and TSS Results (continued)
BOD5
CBODs
TSS
Influent
Effluent
Removal
Influent
Effluent
Removal
Date
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Percent
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Percent
10/31/01
220
11
95
140
13
91
11/28/01
230
7.4
97
170
24
86
12/03/01
160
6.7
96
160
17
89
12/09/01
120
7.4
94
160
11
93
12/10/01
170
5.9
97
210
12
94
12/11/01
140
4.2
97
190
11
94
12/12/01
130
3.6
97
85
9
89
12/13/01
180
6.0
97
140
11
92
12/28/01
170
6.5
96
140
10
93
1/16/02
250
13
95
140
17
88
2/04/02
380
9.4
98
120
15
87
2/14/02
280
6.8
98
150
14
91
2/15/02
340
17
95
250
13
95
2/16/02
210
22
90
120
10
92
2/17/02
200
11
94
120
9
93
2/18/02
190
14
93
110
8
93
2/19/02
250
16
94
210
5
98
3/04/02
190
8.8
95
110
6
94
3/05/02
170
6.6
96
78
4
95
3/06/02
180
7.9
96
85
5
94
3/07/02
200
10
95
93
5
95
3/08/02
170
9.5
95
96
4
96
4/17/02
280
6.1
98
160
6
Samples
53
53
53
53
53
52
Average
210
14
93
160
16
90
Median
200
10
95
140
10
93
Max
380
60
98
410
62
98
Min
72
3.5
78
40
2
63
Std. Dev.
70
11
5
71
16
7
Samples = Number of samples used in the calculations
4-11
-------
4.3.3 Nitrogen Reduction Performance
4.3.3.1 Results
Figures 4-3 through and 4-5 show the results for the TKN, ammonia and total nitrogen (TN) in
the influent and effluent for the verification test. Figure 4-6 shows the results for nitrite and
nitrate in the effluent from the Bioclere™ system. Table 4-6 presents the results with a summary
of the data (average, maximum, minimum, standard deviation).
The influent wastewater had an average TKN concentration of 37 mg/L, with a median value of
38 mg/L, and an average ammonia nitrogen concentration of 23 mg/L, with a median of 23
mg/L. Average TN concentration in the influent was 37 mg/L (median of 38 mg/L), based on the
assumption that the nitrite and nitrate concentration in the influent was negligible. The
Bioclere™ effluent had an average TKN concentration of 10 mg/L and a median concentration
of 6.3 mg/L. The average NH3-N concentration in the effluent was 6.2 mg/L and the median
value was 2.8 mg/L. The nitrite concentration in the effluent was low averaging 0.45 mg/L.
Nitrate concentrations averaged 5.3 mg/L, with a median of 4.4 mg/L. Total nitrogen was
determined by adding the concentrations of the TKN (organic plus ammonia nitrogen), nitrite
and nitrate. Average TN in the Bioclere™ effluent was 16 mg/L (median 14 mg/L) for the
thirteen months verification period. The Bioclere™ system averaged a 57 percent reduction of
TN for the entire test period, with a median removal was 64 percent.
The verification test program emphasizes sampling during and following the major stress
periods. This results in a large number of samples being clustered during five periods with the
remaining samples spread over the remaining months (monthly sampling). Therefore, impacts of
the stress test or an upset condition occurring during the concentrated sampling can have an
impact on the calculation of average values. Both average and median results are presented as the
median values compared to average values can help in analyzing these impacts. In the case of the
Bioclere™ results, the median concentrations are lower than the average concentrations due to
the upset condition when the nozzles plugged during the working parent stress test.
Alkalinity, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature were measured during the -verification
test. These parameters can impact total nitrogen removal, and their measurement can provide
insight into the condition of the system. Table 4-7 shows the results for alkalinity, DO, and pH.
Temperature measurements are shown in Figure 4-7 and Table 4-6.
The pH of the influent was very consistent throughout the test ranging from pH 7.2 to 7.6. The
effluent from the Bioclere™ showed a slight increase in pH, consistently remaining in the pH 7.5
to 7.9 range. The alkalinity of the influent averaged 180 mg/L as CaC03 with a maximum
concentration of 210 mg/L and minimum of 160 mg/L. The effluent alkalinity was consistently
lower than the influent (as expected when nitrification/denitrification is occurring), with an
average concentration of 110 mg/L as CaC03. The only time the effluent alkalinity did not
decrease by at least 25 percent was during the upset period in July when the system performance
for nitrogen removal was severely impacted.
4-12
-------
The Dissolved Oxygen in the influent domestic wastewater was low, as would be expected. The
average DO in the influent was 0.4 mg/L and was less than 1.0 mg/L on all but one day of
testing. The Bioclere™ system is designed to operate as an aerobic system with the fan on the
top of the unit moving air through the media and aerating the wastewater. The DO in the effluent
from the Bioclere™ was normally above 5 mg/L, and averaged 6.3 mg/L over the thirteen
months of verification testing. The dissolved oxygen was significantly lower during the upset
period in July when two nozzles were plugged on the unit. DO in the first eighteen days of July
was in the 0.6 to 2.8 mg/L range. Once the nozzles were repaired, the DO immediately increased
to 5 mg/L.
4.3.3.2 Discussion
As discussed earlier in the startup section, at the end of the startup period (January 15- March 12,
2001), the Bioclere™ effluent was showing some reduction of total nitrogen, but only in the 25
percent to 30 percent range. Wastewater temperatures were still in the 5 -7 °C range. As shown
in Table 4-7, beginning in late March and earlier April, the temperatures began to increase and
the TN concentration in the effluent began to decrease. The nitrifying population clearly became
established in this period, as indicated by the decrease in the TKN and NH3 concentrations in the
effluent. Nitrate concentrations increased somewhat in this same period, but the data show that
denitrification was also occurring. During May and June, the TN reduction was typically above
70 percent. The Washday stress test in May 2001 did not have any negative impact on nitrogen
reduction.
In early July 2001, the data show that there was loss of the nitrifying population in the unit. In
addition, the effluent concentrations of CBOD5 and TSS increased indicating the system was
under stress. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, visual observation of the effluent before and during
the Working Parent stress test showed that solids were being lost and the effluent was very
cloudy. Two of the nozzles on the Bioclere™ unit were clogged. Within two to three weeks after
the nozzles were repaired, nitrogen removal increased to 69 percent (August 1, 2001), similar to
the period before the problem occurred. The CBOD5 and TSS levels in the effluent also
decreased, returning to the levels measured before the nozzle plugging occurred. The data would
suggest that loss of nitrogen and CBOD5 removal efficiency was due to the nozzle plugging
problem rather than the stress of the working parent dose sequence. Loss of nitrogen removal
occurred before the start of the stress test. The dissolved oxygen in the effluent had decreased to
less than 1 mg/L a week before the stress test, and was in the 2 to 3 mg/L range during the stress
test period. After the nozzles were repaired, dissolved oxygen immediately jumped to 5 mg/L,
similar to the levels measured in May and June.
Once the nitrifying population was reestablished (by August 1, 2001), the Bioclere™ system
continued to reduce the total nitrogen concentration on a steady basis (60-80 percent reduction)
until December. The low load stress test, performed in September, did not have any impact on
treatment performance. The temperature of the wastewater began to decrease in October as
would be expected. While the trend was not clear, the late November sample indicated a lower
removal of nitrogen was occurring as compared to September and October. The power failure
stress test was started on December 3, 2001. Power was off for 48 hours. Sample results for the
4-13
-------
post stress period showed total nitrogen removal had decreased to the low 50 percent range.
Subsequent monitoring over the next few weeks showed a continued slight increase in total
nitrogen in the effluent. The lower nitrogen removal efficiencies in the December to February
period correspond to lower temperatures in the wastewater. The power failure stress test may
have contributed to the change in efficiency by stressing the nitrifying population. The lower
temperatures in the wastewater appeared to have slowed the total nitrogen removal and possibly
the re-establishment of the nitrifying population.
In mid February, the data showed a slight decrease in the total nitrogen concentration in the
effluent. The effluent then remained steady in TN levels through early March. The vacation
stress test in February had no noticeable impact on the system performance for nitrogen removal.
The last scheduled samples for total nitrogen in the first week of March showed that the
Bioclere™ system was removing TN in the 60 to 66 percent range. This was somewhat lower
than the earlier efficiencies of the previous summer and fall. The temperature of the wastewater
appeared to have an effect on the nitrogen reduction levels based on both the startup data and on
the December 2001 to February 2002. The test period was extended one additional month to
determine if removal would improve as the wastewater temperature increased. The final sample
(April 17) showed a steep decrease in TN from 16 mg/L (March 8) to 8 mg/L and removal
efficiency increased to 80 percent. The temperature of the water increased to 14.3 °C from 9.2
°C.
The dissolved oxygen levels in the effluent may also impact the total nitrogen removal,
particularly the removal of nitrate in the primary tank. A portion of the effluent (approximately
50 to 60 percent of the daily wastewater loading) is recycled to the primary tank where the
removal of nitrate occurs under anoxic conditions. If the DO in the recycled effluent increases
the DO in the primary tank, it can result in a decrease in nitrate removal. The best nitrate removal
occurred when the system was in normal flow mode and the DO in tie system effluent was
typically 5 to 7 mg/L. During the late fall and winter months, the DO in the effluent increased to
typically 7 to 9 mg/L or even higher. The nitrate concentration increased in the effluent during
this period, which also corresponded to the decreasing temperatures described above. The
influence of the recycled effluent on primary tank dissolved oxygen levels would be greater
during the vacation stress period (February, 2002) as there was no influent flow during this time.
Thus, while temperature of the wastewater may be the primary influence on the nitrifying
population on the media, higher dissolved oxygen may also have contributed to a decrease in
nitrate removal in the primary tank.
The alkalinity results collected during the test can be used as a check on system conditions as
well. The nitrification process consumes alkalinity as ammonia is converted to nitrite and nitrate.
Thus, the alkalinity will decrease when the nitrifying population is very active. The
denitrification process produces alkalinity as nitrate is converted to nitrogen. An examination of
the alkalinity data shows that the results follow the expected pattern. The nitrification process
will consume approximately 7.1 mg of alkalinity per mg of nitrogen converted to nitrate, and the
denitrification process will produce 3.6 mg of alkalinity per mg of nitrate converted to nitrogen.
The overall net effect is that 3.5 mg/L of alkalinity will be consumed for each 1 mg/L of total
nitrogen removed. The average TN removal was 21 mg/L and the average alkalinity consumed
4-14
-------
was 74 mg/L, yielding a ratio of 3.52 mg/L of alkalinity consumed per mg of total nitrogen
removed.
The verification test provided a long enough test period to collect data that included both a long
run of steady performance by the Bioclere™ and a period of upset conditions due to the nozzle
plugging issue. The alkalinity and DO data followed an expected pattern during the test. When
the system experienced the nozzle problems, the DO dropped from the typical 5 mg/L or higher
level to less than 3 mg/L. System performance deteriorated and nitrogen reduction efficiency
dropped to less than 10 percent. This would be expected, as the nitrifying organisms do not
survive well at low DO. At the same time that the system performance decreased, the alkalinity
of the effluent, which had been consistently lower than the influent, increased. During the July
upset period, the alkalinity of the influent and effluent were essentially the same. These two
parameters, dissolved oxygen and alkalinity, appear to provide good indicator parameters for the
condition and performance of the system for nitrogen reduction. Both of these parameters can be
measured in the field using quick and simple procedures. It would appear that these simple field
checks could be used to provide a fast indicator if the system is experiencing an upset condition.
Overall, the TN reduction averaged 57 percent, with a median removal of 64 percent. As would
be expected, removals were higher in the warmer period and somewhat lower during cold
temperature months. Total nitrogen reduction ranged from a low of 50 percent to a high of 85
percent during normal operating periods (excludes the upset July 2001 and the first day after
startup ended March 21, 2001).
4-15
-------
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
T—
CO
C\J
CD
o
CO
T—
25
CO
C\J
25
CD
£2
y—
CO
C\J
CD
o5
CO
CD
o
CD
o
CO
C\J
¦*—
55
CO
¦*—
C\J
¦<—
CNj
CO
CNj
G)
¦*—
o
¦*—
CO
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
CO
CNj
¦*—
CO
25
25
CD
CD
CO
G)
o
o
C\J
C\J
C\J
CO
Date
TKN Influent TKN Effluent
Figure 4-3. Bioclere™ Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Results
4-16
-------
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
C\J
CD
o
CO
25
CO
C\J
25
o5
CO
CO
C\J
CD
o5
CO
CD
o
CD
o
CO
C\J
¦*—
LO
CO
¦*—
C\J
¦<—
CNj
CO
C\J
G)
¦*—
o
¦*—
CO
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
¦*—
CO
25
55
CD
CD
CO
G)
o
o
C\J
C\J
C\J
CO
Date
NH4 Influent NH4 Effluent
Figure 4-4. Bioclere™ Ammonia Nitrogen Results
4-17
-------
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
C\J
CD
o
CO
55
CO
C\J
uo
G)
CO
\—
CO
C\J
CD
o5
CO
cd
o
CD
o
CO
C\J
lB
CO
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
G)
o
CO
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
CO
55
55
CD
CD
h-
CO
CD
"5~
o
o
T—
T—
CM
C\J
T_
C\J
CO
Date
TN Inlfuent TN Effluent
Figure 4-5. Bioclere™ Total Nitrogen Results
4-18
-------
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
y—
CO
C\J
CD
o
CO
25
CO
C\J
25
5)
CO
h-
00
CM
CD
o5
CO
CD
o
CD
o
CO
C\J
25
CO
C\J
CNj
CO
CNj
G)
o
CO
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
CO
55
25
2>
2>
h-
CO
o5
¦*—
o
o
CM
C\J
¦*—
C\J
CO
Date
Nitrate Effluent Nitrite Effluent
Figure 4-6. Bioclere™ Nitrite and Nitrate Effluent Concentrations
4-19
-------
25.00
WD Stress WP Stress
LL Stress
PF Stress
Vac. Stress
20.00
• •
15.00
o
Q.
E
o
10.00
••••
5.00
0.00
I 1^1 I I I I I I I I I I I
I o o o o o o
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 I I J, I I J, I I J, I I J, I I J, I I J, I I J, I I J, I
CO
CM
00
C\J
Si
o
CO
o
CD
o
lB
o
LO
o
LO
o
CD
o
CO
o
o
CO
h-
o
o
h-
o
o
C\J
o
C\J
C\J
CO
o
o
CO
CD
o
LO
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
CO
o
CO
CO
o
c\j c\i c\j c\i
C\J
C\J
Cvl
o
CM
o
C\l
o
C\J
o
Cvl
o
CO
C\J
Si
o
C\l
o
CO
o
CO
o
Cvl
o
CO
o
C\l
o
CO
o
Cvl
o
CO
o
o
Date
Figure 4-7. Bioclere™ Influent Temperature
4-20
-------
Table 4-6. Bioclere™ Nitrogen Data for Influent and Effluent
TKN
Ammonia
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Temperature
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(°C)
Date
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Removal
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
3/21/01
39
23
25
19
39
25
36
1.7
0.30
7.4
4/18/01
34
6.0
25
2.5
34
11
68
4.6
0.18
9.5
5/8/01
33
5.9
19
2.7
33
10
69
4.0
0.22
5/10/01
39
6.3
27
2.6
39
10
73
3.8
0.24
14
5/13/01
42
6.0
26
3.1
42
10
77
3.5
0.23
16
5/14/01
43
5.8
25
2.8
43
10
78
3.5
0.31
15
5/15/01
40
6.5
25
2.9
40
10
74
3.6
0.31
15
5/16/01
39
6.4
25
2.4
39
10
74
3.3
0.31
15
5/17/01
37
5.9
26
2.5
37
11
71
4.3
0.37
14
5/18/01
43
4.7
25
2.3
43
9.0
79
4.0
0.33
14
6/6/01
41
4.7
27
2.3
41
00
00
78
3.6
0.54
18
7/3/01
40
25
24
17
40
25
37
<0.1
0.07
20
7/10/01
36
35
21
21
36
36
0
0.70
0.34
21
7/13/01
33
31
18
22
33
32
3
0.70
0.27
20
7/15/01
37
32
24
21
37
34
9
1.1
0.44
22
7/16/01
41
34
23
22
41
36
13
1.1
0.55
22
7/17/01
36
31
24
22
36
33
9
1.1
0.50
22
7/18/01
42
30
24
20
42
32
24
1.1
0.63
22
7/19/01
29
31
24
20
29
33
-15
1.6
0.82
21
7/20/01
31
27
23
18
31
30
2
1.8
1.5
21
8/1/01
30
5.6
20
2.8
30
9.4
69
3.1
0.75
22
9/5/01
29
7.2
20
4.6
29
11
62
3.2
0.72
23
9/18/01
34
3.3
22
1.3
34
7.8
77
4.2
0.35
21
9/27/01
40
2.9
21
0.70
40
7.7
81
4.5
0.33
20
10/9/01
29
3.0
20
1.1
29
11
63
6.9
0.78
18
10/10/01
30
3.0
20
1.3
30
11
64
7.0
0.86
18
10/11/01
33
3.4
21
1.5
33
11
66
6.9
1.0
18
10/12/01
36
1.9
21
1.3
36
10
72
7.1
0.95
18
10/13/01
24
2.7
22
1.5
24
9.1
62
5.8
0.59
19
4-21
-------
Table 4-6. Bioclere™ Nitrogen Data for Influent and Effluent (continued)
TKN
Ammonia
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Temperature
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(°C)
Date
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Removal
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
10/14/01
39
2.4
25
2.3
39
9.4
76
6.3
0.68
18
10/31/01
38
4.5
24
2.3
38
7.5
80
2.6
0.45
15
11/28/01
37
4.4
24
1.9
37
15
61
9.8
0.41
15
12/3/01
40
6.5
23
4.3
40
10
76
3.0
0.23
14
12/9/01
37
4.1
23
2.0
37
18
52
13
0.63
14
12/10/01
38
3.1
21
1.5
38
18
53
14
0.67
13
12/11/01
37
2.9
23
1.6
37
17
53
14
0.54
13
12/12/01
36
2.6
22
1.7
36
16
55
13
0.52
12
12/13/01
42
3.3
22
1.4
42
6.2
85
2.5
0.43
13
12/28/01
43
4.7
23
2.4
43
15
65
9.8
0.53
9.4
1/16/02
37
9.5
26
5.2
37
19
50
8.6
0.53
8.5
2/4/02
38
14
25
8.2
38
19
50
4.7
0.34
8.7
2/14/02
31
4.1
21
1.2
31
14
56
9.4
0.10
10
2/15/02
46
6.0
21
2.3
46
15
67
00
00
0.24
7.9
2/16/02
40
6.4
27
3.7
40
15
62
8.5
0.27
2/17/02
35
7.2
23
4.6
35
16
54
8.6
0.30
8.0
2/18/02
36
7.2
24
4.7
36
8.9
75
1.4
0.31
8.0
2/19/02
36
6.5
23
4.9
36
14
61
7.1
0.30
7.6
3/4/02
40
8.3
25
5.6
40
15
62
6.5
0.31
9.5
3/5/02
39
7.4
21
5.2
39
13
66
5.7
0.32
8.7
3/6/02
39
7.4
24
5.0
39
14
65
6.2
0.24
8.7
3/7/02
41
8.4
24
4.9
41
15
64
6.3
0.21
9.2
3/8/02
39
9.2
24
5.9
39
16
60
6.3
0.16
9.2
4/17/02
41
6.5
23
4.2
41
8
80
1.6
0.30
14
Samples
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
51
Average
37
10
23
6.2
37
16
57
5.2
0.45
15
Median
38
6.3
23
2.8
38
14
64
4.4
0.34
15
Maximum
46
35
27
22
46
36
85
14
1.5
23
Minimum
24
1.9
18
0.70
24
6.2
-15
<0.1
0.07
7.4
Std. Dev.
4.4
10
2.1
7.0
4.4
8.4
24
3.5
0.26
4.9
Samples = Number of samples used in the calculations
4-22
-------
Table 4-7. Bioclere™ Alkalinity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen Results
Alkalinity
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
(mg/L as CaCOj)
(m
g/L)
(su.)
Date
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
3/21/01
200
150
0.4
9.9
7.6
7.9
4/18/01
200
84
1.9
7.8
7.6
7.8
5/08/01
170
100
n/s
n/s
7.4
7.7
5/10/01
190
120
0.6
6.0
7.4
7.8
5/13/01
190
120
0.4
5.2
7.5
7.5
5/14/01
170
110
0.6
4.6
7.5
7.9
5/15/01
170
120
0.5
5.7
7.4
7.7
5/16/01
190
190
0.4
6.2
7.4
7.7
5/17/01
180
94
0.5
7.5
7.5
7.8
5/18/01
180
80
0.5
7.5
7.6
7.8
6/06/01
180
86
0.3
5.8
7.4
7.8
7/03/01
190
160
0.4
0.6
7.4
7.5
7/10/01
180
180
0.8
2.5
7.5
7.8
7/13/01
170
190
0.8
2.8
7.5
7.9
7/15/01
200
190
0.1
2.5
7.5
7.8
7/16/01
200
190
0.1
0.9
7.6
7.9
7/17/01
200
190
0.2
2.4
7.4
7.7
7/18/01
190
190
0.2
1.8
7.3
7.6
7/19/01
200
180
0.2
5.0
7.2
7.7
7/20/01
190
170
0.2
5.2
7.4
7.8
8/01/01
180
110
0.2
5.5
7.4
7.7
9/05/01
170
120
0.2
2.9
7.3
7.7
9/18/01
180
110
0.2
3.3
7.3
7.8
9/27/01
200
100
0.1
4.2
7.3
7.7
10/09/01
180
94
0.1
6.6
7.4
7.8
10/10/01
180
94
0.1
7.5
7.3
7.6
10/11/01
190
86
0.1
6.9
7.3
7.8
10/12/01
180
88
0.1
7.0
7.2
7.8
10/13/01
170
90
0.1
6.8
7.3
7.7
10/14/01
180
86
0.1
6.7
7.4
7.8
n/s - no sample
4-23
-------
Table 4-7. Bioclere™ Alkalinity, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen Results (continued)
Alkalinity
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
(mg/L as CaCO,)
(m
g/L)
(S.U.)
Date
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
10/31/01
190
76
0.3
7.3
7.3
7.6
11/28/01
190
82
0.4
7.7
7.4
7.6
12/03/01
170
92
0.1
5.9
7.3
7.6
12/09/01
200
74
0.2
7.0
7.4
7.6
12/10/01
180
68
0.2
7.7
7.5
7.5
12/11/01
180
60
0.2
7.7
7.3
7.5
12/12/01
180
58
0.4
8.3
7.4
7.5
12/13/01
190
58
0.2
7.9
7.5
7.6
12/28/01
200
76
0.3
7.8
7.5
7.6
1/16/02
190
90
0.3
9.3
7.6
7.9
2/04/02
170
110
0.5
7.9
7.4
7.7
2/14/02
170
80
0.2
9.8
7.4
7.6
2/15/02
210
98
0.6
9.7
7.3
7.7
2/16/02
190
94
0.3
8.9
7.4
7.8
2/17/02
190
92
0.1
8.6
7.5
7.7
2/18/02
190
90
0.2
7.2
7.5
7.7
2/19/02
180
110
0.3
7.0
7.4
7.7
3/04/02
170
90
0.9
6.2
7.4
7.6
3/05/02
160
88
0.8
9.7
7.4
7.5
3/06/02
170
88
0.8
5.8
7.4
7.5
3/07/02
180
87
0.3
7.6
7.4
7.6
3/08/02
180
90
0.6
7.8
7.4
7.6
4/17/02
190
120
0.1
5.3
7.4
7.7
Samples
53
53
52
52
53
53
Average
180
110
0.4
6.3
n/c
n/c
Median
180
94
0.3
6.9
7.4
7.7
Maximum
210
190
1.9
9.9
7.6
7.9
Minimum
160
58
0.1
0.6
7.2
7.5
Std. Dev.
10
40
0.3
2.3
n/c
n/c
n/c - not calculated
Samples = Number of samples used in the calculations
4.3.4 Residuals Results
During the treatment of wastewater in the Bioclere™ system, solids will accumulate in the
primary tank and to some degree in the clarifier section in the bottom of the trickling filter unit.
Inert solids will be removed in the primary tank system just as in a normal septic system.
Biological solids will also accumulate both from influent wastewater solids and from the
recycling of solids generated by the trickling filter during periods when solids slough from the
media. Eventually, a buildup of solids will reduce the capacity of the primary tank and the solids
will need to be removed.
4-24
-------
The approximate quantity of residuals that accumulated in the system was estimated by
measuring the depth of solids in the primary tank and in the Bioclere™ clarifier. Measurement of
solids depth is difficult in the primary tank (septic tank) as access to the unit is limited to
manways in the top of the unit. Solids depth was estimated at three locations from the two
manways using a Core Pro solids measuring device. A column of water and solids was removed
from the tank, and the undisturbed solids depth in the clear tube measured with a ruler. The
column was mixed and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The measurements were made twice
near the end of the test, in February 2002 and in March 2002. The results are presented in Table
4-8. The solids depth was measured in the Bioclere™ clarifier in March. The depth of solids was
12 inches.
Table 4-8. Solids/Scum Depth Measurement
\ Win way Location
Primary '
l ank Solids/Scum Depth
in Inches
l-asl
Middle
West
A \ ciauc
February 4, 2002 Septic Tank Inlet End
10
17
24
17
February 4, 2002 Septic Tank Outlet End
13
10
25
16
February 4, 2002 Scum Depth Inlet End
0
0
0
0
February 4, 2002 Scum Depth Outlet End
0
0
0
0
March 8, 2002 Septic Tank Inlet End
25
13
5
14
March 8, 2002 Septic Tank Outlet End
23
19
14
19
March 8, 2002 Scum Depth Inlet End
0
0
0
0
March 8, 2002 Scum Depth Outlet End
0
0
0
0
Note: Measurement is estimated solids depth in the Primary Tank.
In order to characterize the solids in the primary tank, total suspended solids and volatile
suspended solids were measured in the samples collected in March. These data are presented in
Table 4-9. These concentrations represent the solids concentration in the total sample collected,
which includes the solids and water present in the sample tube. Based on an average of 16 inches
of solids present in the tube and an additional 32 inches of water (depth in the septic tank), the
concentration of solids needs to be multiplied by a factor of 3.0 to estimate the actual solids
concentration in the settled solids layer.
Table 4-9. TSS and VSS Results for Bioclere™ Solids Samples
Dale
Location
TSS (m«/l.)
VSS (mg/1.)
3/8/02
Primary Tank
73 UU
1300
3/8/02
Clarifier Section
4500
730
The mass of solids present in the septic tank can be estimated from these data. The average
concentration of solids in the septic tank, 7,300 mg/L multiplied by the tank total volume of
1,000 gallons shows that the solids accumulated during the test was approximately 61 pounds.
4-25
-------
The solids in the clarifier section, 4,500 mg/L and a volume of 350 gallons, shows an additional
solids load of 13 pounds. The solids in the clarifier appeared to be in equilibrium as solids were
pumped out of the unit to the primary tank. Thus, the solids level should remain steady in the
conical section of the clarifier.
The total mass of solids can also be estimated using the settled solids concentration and the tank
dimensions. The primary tank holds a volume of approximately 21 gallons per inch of depth.
Therefore, the solids volume, based on an average 16 inches depth, was about 350 gallons. The
settled solids concentration is estimated to be 2.2 percent (22,000 mg/L) using the ratio of total
depth to solids depth described above (factor of 3.0). Based on a settled solids concentration of
22,000 mg/L, the weight of dry solids accumulated was approximately 64 pounds. The volatile
solids represented 18 percent of the solids in the tank.
4.4 Operations and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance performance of the Bioclere™ unit was monitored throughout the
verification test. A field log was maintained that included all observations made over the
thirteen-month test period. Data was collected on electrical and chemical usage, noise, and odor.
Observations were recorded on the condition of the Bioclere™, any changes in setup or
operation (timer adjustments, nozzle cleaning, etc.) or any problems that required resolution. A
complete set of field logs is included in Appendix G.
4.4.1 Electric Use
Electrical use was monitored by a dedicated electric meter serving the Bioclere™ system. The
meter reading was recorded biweekly in the field log by BCDHE personnel. Table 4-10 shows a
summary of the electrical use from startup through the end of the verification test. The complete
set of electrical readings is presented in a spreadsheet in Appendix F. The average electrical use
was 4.5 kilowatts per day based on the entire data set. There was one set of data for the August
29 to 31, 2001 period that showed an average daily use of 49.5 kW/day. It is not known why this
anomaly in the data occurred. If this one reading, representing a two-day period, is removed from
the database, the average electrical use was 4.2 kW/day with a maximum of 10 kW/day. The
Bioclere system has a fixed pump cycle time that should result in steady reproducible power use.
This was case for most of the test period. There were no alarms on the two days with abnormally
high electrical use. Most likely, these readings are in error and the average of 4.2 kW/day is most
likely the most representative data for the Bioclere unit.
4-26
-------
Table 4-10. Summary of Bioclere™ Electrical Usage
kW/day
kW/day(l)
Count
195
193
Average
4.50
4.24
Maximum
49.5
9.50
Minimum
0.00
0.00
Std. Dev.
3.52
1.32
(1) Electrical meter reading on Aug 31, 2001 indicated a use
of 99 kilowatts over a two-day period. This gave an average
of 49.5 kW/day for the period. This data is not included in
this summary, as it appears to be incorrect data.
4.4.2 Chemical Use
The Bioclere™ system did not require or use any chemical addition as part of the normal
operation of the unit.
4.4.3 Noise
Noise levels associated with mechanical equipment (particularly compressors and blowers) were
measured once during the verification period. A decibel meter was used to measure the noise
level. Measurements were taken one meter from the unit and one and a half meters above the
ground, at 90° intervals in four (4) directions. The meter was calibrated prior to use. Table 4-11
shows the results from this test.
Table 4-11. Bioclere™ Noise Measurements
Location
First Reading
Second Reading
Average
(decibels)
(decibels)
Background
37.5
38.0
37.7
Bioclere™
East
47.3
47.2
47.2
South
46.3
45.5
45.9
West
52.8
52.6
52.7
North
52.5
52.6
52.6
Decibel is a log scale so averages are calculated on a log basis.
4-27
-------
4.4.4 Odor Observations
Odor observations were made monthly for the last eight months of the verification test. The
observation was qualitative based on odor strength (intensity) and type (attribute). Intensity was
stated as not discernable; barely detectable; moderate; or strong. Observations were made during
periods of low wind velocity (<10 knots). The observer stood upright at a distance of three (3)
feet from the treatment unit, and recorded any odors at 90° intervals in four (4) directions
(minimum number of points). All observations were made by the same BCDHE employee.
Table 4-12 summarizes the results for the odor observations. As can be seen, there were no
discernible odors found during any of the observation periods.
Table 4-12. Odor Observations
Date Number of Observation
Points observed
9/10/01
8 No discernable odor
10/20/01
8 No discernable odor
11/22/01
8 No discernable odor
12/09/01
8 No discernable odor
1/27/02
8 No discernable odor
2/17/02
8 No discernable odor
3/02/02
8 No discernable odor
3/31/02
8 No discernable odor
4.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Observations
The Bioclere™ is a trickling filter that uses proprietary hollow cylindrical corrugated plastic
media for the growth of bacteria for treatment combined with bacteria resident in the septic tank.
The system in total is generally comprised of a single compartment septic tank and the filter
material enclosed in a more-or-less cylindrical container with a conical bottom. Beneath the
media is a timed media dosing pump that circulates effluent over the media bed. A pump
situated at the bottom of a conical collection area beneath the filter returns treated wastewater
and collected solids to the septic tank on a timed cycle. The effluent rate from the system is
determined somewhat by the influent supply rate; however, it was noted that due to the volume
of effluent recirculating over the media during a timed-dose, the effluent discharge is delayed if
the influent pulse is coincident with a recirculation cycle.
During the test, very few problems were encountered with the operation of the system. The
effluent distribution nozzles were initially helical spray nozzles. These nozzles plugged in early
July after five and a half months of operation. The plugging problem was discovered when the
effluent's visual characteristic changed and had notably more suspended solids. In addition,
during the nozzle plugging, the noise level of the spray hitting the inside of the media
containment structure was slightly louder, signaling higher flow through one of the nozzles and
4-28
-------
overloading of a portion of the media bed. AQP was called to report the problem and they
responded with a visit to the site. The nozzles were cleaned and the system placed back into
service. Once the nozzles were cleaned, the clarity of the effluent returned within one week. The
nozzles were cleaned again in the fall by AQP in accordance with the quarterly maintenance
check that is recommended in the O&M manual. Based on the inspections of the nozzles by AQP
in the MASSTC service application, a new set of helical nozzles was installed in January 2002.
These nozzles needed no additional cleaning through the remaining period of the test.
Proper operation of the nozzles is important to the performance of the unit. Periodic checks of
the nozzles are recommended as part of the quarterly maintenance program. AQP believes that
the nozzle plugging problem was a unique occurrence as this type of unit had been operated at
MASSTC and many other locations without a problem. They have added a statement regarding
the nozzle issue at the end of this report (Section 4.4).
In general, the liquid effluent can be described as clear, occasionally having a slight cloudy
appearance. Any more extreme cloudiness signaled a problem, such as was observed when the
nozzles were clogged.
No other problems were encountered during the test period. No particular design considerations
are necessary relative to placement, as the unit makes very little noise. Since approximately two
feet of the system protrudes out of the ground, some siting considerations based on this feature
may be desired.
The routine operation and maintenance of the system was straightforward with the exception of
the nozzle plugging problem described above. The discovery of the nozzle problem was based on
simple observation of the clarity of the effluent and on the change in sound coming from the unit.
This problem could be easily found by an observant homeowner or during regular quarterly
maintenance. Based on observations of the unit for a 15 month period, it estimated that the
routine quarterly maintenance, as recommended in the O&M manual, will require one to two
hours of time by a person knowledgeable of the treatment system. The skill level needed is
estimated to be typical of a Class II Massachusetts treatment plant operator.
The maintenance, provided by a qualified service provider, should involve checking the two
pumps (media dosing pump and treated wastewater/solids return pump), the fan, and cleaning the
distribution manifold and nozzles. The maintenance check should also include measurement of
the solids depth in the primary tank, observation of the condition of the media, and a visual
inspection of the effluent. Pump cycle times should be verified and alarms checked.
Homeowner participation should be limited to an occasional check that the fan is operating (can
check by placing hand on housing top and feeling vibration) and listening for the periodic
operation of the media dosing pump sending water through the spray nozzles. The spray nozzle
and pump sound can be easily heard within a few feet of the unit. If there is an alarm, the owner
should call the maintenance number shown on the front panel of the unit.
4-29
-------
The primary tank should be checked for solids depth and if solids have built up in the septic tank,
pumping of the septic tank should be scheduled. There is no guidance on the solids depth in the
septic tank that would indicate that the tank should be pumped. In a typical or standard
residential septic tank system pumping can be expected to occur every 3 to 5 years. More
frequent pumping of solids from the septic tank can be expected based on the additional solids
load generated by the Bioclere System. The regular maintenance checks should include
measurement of solids level in the primary tank. When the level of solids buildup to 30 to 36
inches (48 inches of depth available to the outlet) in depth, the tank will need to be pumped to
ensure that good solids separation continues in the tank.
The verification test ran for a period of thirteen months, which provided sufficient time to
evaluate the overall performance of the System. However, a much longer period (several years)
would be needed to evaluate the life cycle for the equipment, pumps, floats, filter and
distribution assembly, etc. The basic components of the System should perform well under
typical home wastewater conditions. The treatment unit itself proved durable for the duration of
the test and appears to generally be a durable fiberglass design. The piping is standard PVC that
is appropriate for the applications. Pump and level switch life is always difficult to estimate, but
the equipment used is made for wastewater applications and is from a reputable and known
manufacturer.
A final observation/recommendation is that the O&M manual, while well documented, should be
changed to remove the "if necessary" comments in the routine check list for cleaning the nozzles.
Cleaning and inspecting the condition of the distribution manifold and the nozzles should be
required.
4.5 Aquapoint, Inc. - Discussion of Test Results
Aquapoint, Inc. has reviewed this report and has prepared the discussion and comments in the
two subsections below.
4.5.1 Nozzle Clogging Problem
A period of upset occurred during the "working parent" stress testing in July 2001. As stated in
this report, the reduction in treatment efficiency was most likely a direct result of the two nozzles
that were completely plugged. This greatly reduced the amount of wastewater that was
distributed over the media bed, minimizing contact with the biofilm. The corkscrew nozzles
were cleaned and the treatment performance improved rapidly. The Bioclere nozzles were
cleaned periodically from August 2001 through January 2002, as needed. On January 30, 2002,
the standard corkscrew nozzles were removed and replaced with the raindrop type nozzles.
This same Bioclere unit underwent NSF Standard 40 testing over a 6-month period (October
2000) at MASSTC. The nozzles did not experience any plugging over the 6-month period and
did not require any cleaning or maintenance. It should also be noted that this type of plugging
has not been experienced in over 100 field installations.
4-30
-------
During the ETV testing, the Bioclere operated for approximately 4 months without any nozzle
cleaning or maintenance. Shortly thereafter, two of the three nozzles became completely
plugged with debris around the time of the working parent stress testing. After this occurrence, it
was determined that the nozzles were repeatedly plugged with medicine capsules commonly
found in the waste stream. The medicine capsules may be unique to the waste stream generated
at the Air Force Base.
In the future, the nozzle plugging problem experienced at the test center may be overcome by: 1)
installing the rain drop type of nozzles with a 3/8" diameter opening in the Bioclere unit, 2)
installing a 1500 gallon two compartment primary tank or 3) installing a septic tank effluent
screen.
4.5.2 Data Presentation
The ETV protocol is based on monthly sampling during normal operation and intensive daily
sampling following stress tests. Therefore, any upset or unique conditions occurring during the
stress test (even if not caused by the stress test) may impact the calculation of average values for
the entire test period. The nozzle-clogging problem described above occurred at the same time as
the working parent stress test. The effluent was tested eight times during and following this
stress-testing period. These eight samples represent 15 percent of the total samples collected (8
out of 53) during the yearlong ETV test. The overall average effluent pollutant concentrations
were increased by the overweighing of data from this upset. If the upset period from July 3
through July 20, 2001 is not used in the calculations, the average total nitrogen concentration
decreases from 16 mg/L to 12mg/L, with the average removal increasing from 57 percent to 72
percent. CBOD5 and TSS performance calculations are also impacted by including the data from
the upset period. The CBOD5 average concentration drops from 14 mg/L to 10 mg/L, with the
removal improving from 93 percent to 95 percent, if the data from July 3 through July 20 is not
included in the average calculations. The average TSS concentration decreases from 16 mg/L to
10 mg/L with an increase in removal efficiency increasing from 90 percent to 94 percent.
4.6 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
The VTP included a QA/QC Plan (QAPP) with critical measurements identified and several
QA/QC objectives established. The verification test procedures and data collection followed the
QAPP and summary results are reported in this section. The full laboratory QA/QC results and
supporting documentation are presented in Appendices D, E, and F.
4.6.1 Audits
Two (2) audits of the MASSTC and Barnstable County Health Department Laboratory were
conducted by NSF during the verification test. These audits in August 2001 and January 2002
found that the field and laboratory procedures were generally being followed. Recommendations
for changes or improvements were made and the responsible organizations responded quickly to
these recommendations. The finding of these audits was that the overall approach being used in
the field and the laboratory were in accordance with the established QAPP.
4-31
-------
The only finding that needed immediate attention during the first lab audit in August 2001 was
the lack of method blanks in the nitrite and nitrate tests at the proper frequency. The calibration
standards gave a very good linear relationship and the analyses were considered valid. Corrective
action was accomplished immediately. All other findings were paper work related such as
updating training records and SOPs. Recommendations were made to improve the detail placed
in the field logs, and to be sure, that calibrations were documented and field duplicate samples
collected as planned. The second audit in January 2002 found that recommendations had been
implemented and no new findings were identified for immediate corrective action. The field and
lab managers were reminded of activities that needed to be completed before the end of the test
in accordance with the Test Plan.
A third audit was conducted at the end of the verification test. This audit reviewed the records
and procedures that were used. A list of documents and data that were needed for the final report
was prepared and discussed with the field and laboratory managers.
Internal audits of the field and laboratory operations were also conducted at least quarterly by
BCDHE. These audits specifically reviewed procedures and records for the ETV project. Any
shortcomings found during these internal audits were corrected as the test continued.
4.6.2 Precision
Precision measurements were performed throughout the verification test by the collection and
analysis of duplicate samples. Field duplicates were collected to monitor the overall precision of
the sample collection and laboratory analyses. There were three or four similar verification tests
running simultaneously at the MASSTC. Field duplicates were generally collected on each
sampling day, with the sample selected for replication rotating among the three or four
technologies. The results for the field duplicates are presented in a spreadsheet in Appendix D.
Summaries of the data are presented in Tables 4-13 through 4-15.
The precision for nitrogen compounds was generally excellent particularly given the low levels
of ammonia, TKN, and nitrate in some of the effluent samples. A few sample esults were
outside the target window of either 10 percent RPD (nitrite, nitrate) or 20 RPD percent (TKN,
NH3), but in most cases the results were for samples that were very low in concentration. As an
example, one set of data for TKN showed replicate one as 0.9 mg/L and replicate two as 0.5
mg/L with a detection limit of 0.5 mg/L. The calculated RPD for this sample is 57 percent. Even
though the relative percent difference (RPD) is high, the data is reasonable given the low
concentration found in the samples.
The test plan did not differentiate between laboratory precision and field precision. Typically,
field precision targets are wider than laboratory goals to account for sampling variation, in
addition the laboratory variation. Also, the precision goals for nitrite and nitrate were set very
tight (10 percent RPD), which would appear to be tighter than required for acceptable
wastewater analysis and evaluation of these parameters. Using the 10 percent RPD criteria, 8 out
of 49 field duplicates for nitrate exceeded the target, and 7 out of 50 duplicates for nitrite
4-32
-------
exceeded the window. TKN showed 10 out of 59 field duplicates exceeded the target of 20
percent RPD. Ammonia results were similar with 6 out of 60 samples above the target of 20
percent RPD, with all exceedances for samples having a concentration of less than 1 mg/L.
Table 4-13. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - Nitrogen Compounds
TKN
Ammonia
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Statistics
Rep 1
Rep 2
RPD
Rep 1
Rep2
RPD
Number
60
60
59
60
60
60
Average
14
15
13
8.9
00
00
11
Median
7.5
8.1
6.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
Maximum
49
51
135
29
28
133
Minimum
<0.5
<0.5
0.0
<0.2
<0.2
0
Std. Dev.
14
14
22
9.1
9.0
21
Nitrite
Nitrate
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Statistics
Rep 1
Rep 2
RPD
Rep 1
Rep2
RPD
Number
50
50
46
50
50
49
Average
0.32
0.33
5.3
6.9
6.9
6.3
Median
0.30
0.30
2.0
6.2
6.1
4.3
Maximum
0.95
1.1
33
15
15
36
Minimum
<0.05
<0.05
0.0
<0.1
0.70
0.0
Std. Dev.
0.20
0.22
8.4
4.1
4.2
8.3
Number = Number of analyses used in the calculations
Table 4-14. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - CBOD, BOD, Alkalinity, TSS
CBOD5
bod5
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Statistics
Rep 1
Rep 2
RPD
Rep 1
Rep2
RPD
Number
50
50
50
10
10
10
Average
10
10
20
220
210
10
Median
6.7
6.7
14
230
220
11
Maximum
60
54
110
280
270
23
Minimum
1.9
2.3
0.51
140
150
1.1
Std. Dev.
11
9.5
19
44
43
6.6
TSS
(mg/L)
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaC03)
Statistics
Rep 1
Rep 2
RPD
Rep 1
Rep2
RPD
Number
60
60
59
60
60
60
Average
32
31
31
120
120
3.4
Median
7
9
12
110
100
1.8
Maximum
260
260
190
220
220
27
Minimum
1
<1
0
56
54
0
Std. Dev.
57
54
43
46
46
5.6
Number = Number of analyses used in the calculations
4-33
-------
Table 4-15. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - pH, Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
(S.U.)
(mg/L)
Statistics
Rep 1
Rep 2
RPD
Rep 1
Rep2
RPD
Number
60
55
55
12
12
12
Average
7.4
7.4
0.4
5.9
5.9
0
Median
7.4
7.5
0.1
5.8
5.8
0
Maximum
8.0
8.0
3.8
9.9
9.9
0
Minimum
6.6
6.8
0
2.5
2.5
0
Std. Dev.
1.0
0.3
0.6
2.2
2.2
0
Calculated using log scale
All replicates gave same value
Number = Number of analyses used in the calculations
The CBOD5 and TSS data tended to have poorer precision than the other analyses, because this
data is based on treated effluent samples that are below 10 mg/L. Comparison of average values
and median values shows that much of the TSS data is at low concentration. Both CBODs and
TSS have detection limits of about 1 mg/L. TSS is generally reported to one significant figure at
levels below 10 mg/L. It is expected that precision will be poorer at the lower concentrations and
near the detection limit of the methods. Further, the influence of variability in sample collection
can be seen in this data as well. The laboratory precision data presented in Table 4-17 shows a
tighter precision for TSS (13 percent in lab versus 31 percent for field duplicates). The difficulty
of getting a well-mixed sample for low level suspended solids undoubtedly added to the lower
precision for the TSS test. Overall, the TSS results showed 26 out of 59 samples were outside the
target of 20 percent RPD and 18 out of 50 samples were outside the target for CBOD5. Only 2
out of 16 CBOD5 samples exceeded the target when the concentration was above 10 mg/L.
While this data indicates that precision is lower at the lower concentrations, the overall data set
provides the needed information that showed the ability of the treatment unit to significantly
reduce TSS and CBOD5 in the wastewater. Laboratory procedures, calibrations, and data were
audited and found to be in accordance with the published methods and good laboratory practice.
The laboratories performed lab duplicates on a frequency of at least one per batch or 10 percent
of samples. The laboratory precision data is summarized in Tables 4-16 and 4-17. The various
nitrogen analyses showed excellent precision, as did the alkalinity results. Nitrite results showed
no samples (60 total) exceeded the very tight target of 10 percent RPD. Nitrate results showed 14
out 211 values exceeded the 10 percent RPD target, but only 1 result out 211 exceeded a 20
percent difference.
The CBOD5 and TSS precision was generally within the target objective of 20 percent RPD,
except when the concentrations were low. As discussed above, when effluent samples were
below 10 mg/L the calculated percent differences were higher, as would be expected. The
CBOD5 and BOD5 analyses used very similar procedures, and were performed together under the
same conditions in the laboratory. The BOD5 data showed much higher precision (average of 8
percent) than the CBOD5 (average 15 percent). This is primarily due to the higher concentrations
of BOD5 (influent wastewater samples). In summary, 18 out of 57 results exceeded the CBOD5
target of 20 percent RPD, but none of the samples over 10 mg/L exceeded the target (0 out of
4-34
-------
17); BOD5 results showed 7 out of 64 results were above the target; and 8 out of 44 TSS samples
showed RPD above 20 percent. On-site audits and review of procedures and calibrations
indicated that good laboratory practice was being followed. There were no identified, systematic
errors, which would account for the difference. The data for all analyses was judged acceptable
and useable for evaluating the treatment efficiency.
Table 4-16. Laboratory Precision Data - Nitrogen Compounds
Statistics
Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
TKN
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Number
59
53
67
211
Average
7.6
3.1
2.7
3.1
Median
4.7
0
0.0
2.1
Maximum
55
36
18
25
Minimum
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
Std. Dev.
11
6.6
4.3
3.7
Number = Number of analyses used in the calculations
Table 4-17. Laboratory Precision Data - CBOD, BOD, Alkalinity, TSS
Statistics
CBOD5
(mg/L)
BOD5
(mg/L)
Rep 1
Rep 2
RPD
Rep 1
Rep2
RPD
Number
57
57
57
64
64
64
Average
18
18
15
160
160
7.7
Median
5.9
6.7
7.6
170
170
4.4
Maximum
100
100
73
500
530
32
Minimum
<2.0
2.0
0
<2.0
<2.0
0
Std. Dev.
24
24
15
120
120
8.1
TSS
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
(mg/L as CaC03)
Statistics
Rep 1
Rep 2
RPD
Rep 1
Rep2
RPD
Number
44
44
44
48
48
48
Average
72
73
13
83
84
6.1
Median
52
54
5
80
80
1.8
Maximum
290
310
130
190
190
40
Minimum
1
4
0
2
2
0
Std. Dev.
73
72
24
58
59
12
Number = Number of analyses used in the calculations
4.6.3 Accuracy
Method accuracy was determined and monitored using a combination of matrix spikes and lab
control samples (known concentration in blank water) depending on the method. Recovery of the
spiked analytes was calculated and monitored during the verification test. Accuracy was in
control throughout the verification test. All recoveries for all spiked samples for alkalinity,
BOD5, nitrite, and nitrate were within the established windows. Only 1 result out of 51 spiked
samples was outside the recovery target for CBOD5. Tables 4-18 and 4-19 show a summary of
the recovery data. All quality control data is presented in Appendix D.
4-35
-------
Table 4-18. Accuracy Results - Nitrogen Analyses
TKN
Ammonia
(% Recovery)
(%
Recovery)
Statistics
Matrix
Lab Control
Matrix
Lab Control
Spike
Sample
Spike
Sample
Number
54
59
50
57
Average
95
100
99
107
Median
96
99
100
107
Maximum
137
114
112
120
Minimum
62
86
51
91
Std. Dev.
16
6.2
9.3
7.2
Nitrite
Nitrate
(% Recovery)
(%
Recovery)
Statistics
Matrix
Lab Control
Matrix
Lab Control
Spike
Sample
Spike
Sample
Number
50
54
24
119
Average
104
99
98
99
Median
104
99
97
98
Maximum
123
120
113
116
Minimum
80
82
85
81
Std. Dev.
10
9.7
8.4
8.0
Number = Number of analyses used in the calculations
Table 4-19. Accuracy Results - CBOD, BOD, Alkalinity
CBOD5
bod5
Alkalinity
(% Recovery)
(% Recovery)
(% Recovery)
Statistics
Lab Control Sample
Lab Control Sample
Lab Control
Sample
Number
51
54
61
Average
100
101
100
Median
101
101
100
Maximum
106
109
113
Minimum
77
84
93
Std. Dev.
5
4
3
Number = Number of analyses used in the calculations
The balance used for TSS analysis was calibrated routinely with weights that were NIST
traceable. Calibration records were maintained by the laboratory and inspected during the on site
audits. The temperature of the drying oven was also monitored using a thermometer that was
calibrated with an NIST traceable thermometer. The pH meter was calibrated using a three-point
calibration curve with purchased buffer solutions of known pH. Field temperature measurements
were performed using a thermometer that was calibrated using a NIST traceable thermometer
provided to the field lab by the BCDHE laboratory. The dissolved oxygen meter was calibrated
daily using ambient air and temperature readings in accordance with the SOP. The noise meter
was calibrated prior to use and all readings were recorded in the field logbook. All of these
traceable calibrations were performed to ensure the accuracy of measurements.
4-36
-------
4.6.4 Representativeness
The field procedures, as documented in the MASSTC SOPs (Appendix C), were designed to
ensure that representative samples were collected of both influent and effluent wastewater. The
composite sampling equipment was calibrated on a routine basis to ensure that proper sample
volumes were collected to provide flow weighted sample composites. Field duplicate samples
and supervisor oversight provided assurance that procedures were being followed. As discussed
earlier, the challenge in sampling wastewater is obtaining representative TSS samples and
splitting the samples into laboratory sample containers. The field duplicates showed that there
was some variability in the duplicate samples. However, based on 60 sets of field duplicates, the
overall average TSS of the replicates was very close (32 and 31 mg/L). This data indicated that
while individual sample variability may occur, the long term trend in the data was representative
of the concentrations in the wastewater.
The laboratories used standard analytical methods and written SOP's for each method to provide
a consistent approach to all analyses. Sample handling, storage, and analytical methodology was
reviewed during the on-site and internal audits to verify that standard procedures were being
followed. The use of standard methodology, supported by proper quality control information and
audits, ensured that the analytical data was representative of the actual wastewater conditions.
4.6.5 Completeness
The VTP set a series of goal for completeness. During the startup and verification test, flow data
was collected for each day and the influent dosing pump flow rate was calibrated twice a week as
specified. The flow records are 100 percent complete. Electric meter records were maintained in
the field logbook. Electric meter readings were performed twice a week and summarized in a
spreadsheet. Only one electric meter reading was missed (the first reading at startup) during the
startup and verification test, and two readings were suspect. Out of 195 readings, three were
incomplete giving a completeness of 98 percent complete.
The goal set in the VTP for sample collection completeness for both the monthly samples and
stress test samples was 83 percent. All monthly samples were collected and all stress test samples
were collected in accordance with the VTP schedule. Therefore, sample collection was 100
percent complete.
A goal of 90 percent was set for the completeness of analytical results from the BCDHE
laboratory and GAL. All scheduled analyses for delivered samples were completed and found to
be acceptable, useable data. Completeness is 100 percent for the laboratory.
4-37
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
5.1 Cited References
(1) NSF International, Protocol for the Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment
Technologies for Nutrient Reduction, November 2000, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
(2) EPA, Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Trickling Filter Nitrification, September 2000,
Office of Water, Washington D.C., EPA 832-F-00-015
(3) EPA, Manual for Nitrogen Control, 1993, 625/R-93/010
(4) NSF International, Test Plan for The Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center
for Verification Testing of AWT Bioclere Nutrient Reduction Technology, January 2001
(5) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Methods and Guidance for Analysis of
Water, EPA 821-C-99-008, 1999. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
(6) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes, Revised March 1983, EPA 600/4-79-020
(7) APHA, AWWA, and WEF: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19th Edition, 1998. Washington, DC.
5.2 Additional Background References
(8) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Technology Verification
Program - Quality and Management Plan for the Pilot Period (1995 - 2000), EPA/600/R-
98/064, 1998. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(9) NSF International, Environmental Technology Verification - Source Water Protection
Technologies Pilot Quality Management Plan, 2000. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
(10) United States Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance
Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5, EPA/600/R-98-018, 1998. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC
(11) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives
Process, EPA QA/G-4, EPA/600/R-96-055, 1996. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
(12) ANSI/ASQC: Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data
Collection and Environmental Technology Programs (E4), 1994
5-1
------- |