September 2001
NSF 01/23/EPADW395
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic in Drinking
Water
Kinetico Incorporated
Macrolite® Coagulation and Filtratior
System, Model CPS100CPT
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
SERA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
&EPA
I'KUliK VM ^
ETV
U.S. Emironmental Protection Agency NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
CHEMICAL COAGULATION/FILTRATION SYSTEM USED
IN PACKAGED DRINKING WATER TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
APPLICATION:
REMOVAL OF ARSENIC
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
MACROLITE® COAGULATION AND FILTRATION
SYSTEM, MODEL CPS100CPT
COMPANY:
KINETICO, INC.
ADDRESS:
10845 KINSMAN ROAD PHONE: (440)564-9111
NEWBURY, OHIO 44065 FAX: (440)564-9541
EMAIL:
glatimerf5ikinetico.com
WEB:
www.kinetico.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high
quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution,
permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders groups which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Drinking Water Treatment Systems
(DWTS) pilot, one of 12 technology areas under ETV. The DWTS pilot recently evaluated the
performance of a Chemical Coagulation/Filtration system used in package drinking water treatment
system applications. This verification statement provides a summary of the test results for the Kinetico,
Inc. Macrolite® Coagulant and Filtration System (KIMCFS), Model CPS100CPT, Cartwright, Olsen &
Associates, anNSF-qualified field testing organization (FTO), performed the verification testing.
01/23/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2001
VS-i
-------
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the KIMCFS, Model CPS100CPT, was conducted at the Park City, Utah, Spiro
Tunnel Water Filtration Plant from April 7 to April 22, 2000. The source water was groundwater from an
abandoned silver mine, representing one of the sources of drinking water for the City of Park City, Utah.
Verification testing was conducted at the operating conditions specified by the manufacturer. Starting on
April 8, 2000, ferric chloride (FeCl3) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) were metered into the feedwater
supply at a rate of 0.074 gallons per hour (gph) of 3.5% FeCl3 and 0.82 gph of 578 mg/L NaOCl to effect
coagulation. When operated under the designed conditions at this site, the KIMCFS removed each
arsenic (As) species [total As, dissolved As and As (V)], from the feedwater supply to an average
concentration of less than 3.0 |Jg/L.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The KIMCFS utilizes NaOCl and FeCl3 to convert the arsenate to an insoluble precipitate that is removed
by the media filter. The KIMCFS consists of metering pumps to feed FeCl3 and NaOCl into the
feedwater stream, two retention tanks to facilitate coagulation, and a repressurization pump to feed
coagulated water to a Macrolite® media filter to continuously remove the precipitated As. The Macrolite®
media is a proprietary ceramic material specifically designed for filtration of water supplies. The system
initiates backwashing based on filter headloss or turbidity breakthrough.
The KIMCFS is designed for small system applications; this sized unit would serve 15-20 people. The
test unit is self-contained, skid-mounted and easily transportable by truck. The only connections required
are an inlet line for pressurized feedwater, outlet line for filtrate, drain line for backwash water, and an
electrical connection. The footprint of the unit is approximately 23 ft2 (2.1 m2), including retention tanks.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The verification testing site was the Park City Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant in Park City, Utah. The
source water was the Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead water, which is considered a groundwater source under the
State of Utah source water protection program. Water is developed from water bearing fissures in
abandoned silver mine tunnel. A five-foot high bulkhead built approximately two miles into the tunnel
holds back the water and creates a reservoir. Water is piped from this reservoir to the treatment plant
through a 12-inch diameter pipe. The water is considered stable with respect to quality and quantity, and
is known to contain arsenic.
Methods and Procedures
Temperature, pH, turbidity (both on-line and bench-top), and dissolved oxygen analyses were conducted
on both the feedwater and filtrate streams at least once per day at the test site in accordance to Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition (APHA, et. al., 1992). The State of
Utah, Department of Health, and Division of Laboratory Services performed analyses daily for alkalinity,
antimony and speciated As [total, dissolved, As (III) and As (V)] on both the feedwater and filtrate
streams. The As speciation procedure (see Appendix D of the Final Report) involved filling containers as
follows: bottle A - as collected; bottle B - filtered through a 0.45|a, filter; and bottle C - a portion of the
solution from bottle B run through an ion exchange resin for As (V) removal.
The Division of Laboratory Services also analyzed hardness, total organic carbon (TOC), UV254
absorbance, aluminum, total iron (Fe), manganese, sulfate, and algae (chlorophyll A) on a weekly basis.
These parameters were also measured on a more frequent basis during the verification performance period
where eleven sets of samples were collected over a 48-hour period.
01/23/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2001
VS-ii
-------
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
System Operation
Verification testing was conducted under manufacturer's specified operating conditions. The flow rate of
the system ranged between 3.4 and 5.0 gpm with a total backwash volume of 84 gallons produced after
processing approximately 1,600 gallons of water (approximately 95% recovery).
The system initially operated for 24 hours without coagulation chemicals (FeCl3 and NaOCl). At the end
of this initial operation period, the metering pumps were activated and the coagulant chemicals of FeCl3
and NaOCl were fed into the system. This coagulant addition continued, with only one brief interruption,
for another 342.5 hours.
Evaluation of the required concentration of FeCl3 necessary for optimum As removal was carried out by
means of a simple series of jar tests conducted at the end of March prior to the initiation of the ETV
testing period. Water from the Park City Bulkhead supply source was tested with increasing amounts of
FeCl3 added. The samples were then analyzed during the incremental addition of FeCl3. The results were
used to determine the optimum FeCl3 injection concentration for the ETV testing period at approximately
1.4 mg/L (as Fe).
The KIMCFS was set to automatically backwash based on a terminal headloss (pressure drop) of 20 psig
or a turbidity breakthrough of 0.15 NTU, whichever came first. These settings were maintained
throughout the duration of the test.
Arsenic Removal
During initial operations, without coagulation chemicals, the media filter removed approximately 50% of
the total As in the feedwater stream and approximately 11% of dissolved As was removed. Because Fe is
present in the tunnel water, and this supply is exposed to the air, it is suspected that the resulting
[Fe(OH)3] reacted with a portion of the total As in the feedwater stream forming the insoluble [Fe(OH)3] /
As complex, which was removed by the media filter.
During the test period, while coagulant chemicals were being fed to the feedwater stream, the total As
concentration in the feedwater stream was removed to an average of 2.9 |jg/L in the filtrate. The
dissolved As in the feedwater stream was removed to an average level of 1.5 |jg/L in the filtrate. The As
(V) species constituted 93% of the dissolved As concentration in the feedwater stream, and was removed
to an average of 0.8 |jg/L in the filtrate. The As (III) species was detected near the detection limit
(quantitative at 2|a,g/L) in the feed water and at an average concentration of 0.7 |a,g/L in the filtrate. A
summary of the concentrations of As species in both the feedwater and filtrate stream is presented in the
following table.
01/23/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2001
VS-iii
-------
Arsenic Data Summary (April 8 - April 22,2000) based on 23 samples
Feedwater (|xg/L)
Filtrate (|xg/L)
Total Arsenic
Average
71.4
2.9
Minimum
59.9
0.9
Maximum
75.8
11.6
Standard Deviation
4.43
2.4
95% Confidence Interval
69.3, 73.4
1.9, 3.9
Dissolved Arsenic
Average
41.1
1.5
Minimum
37.6
1
Maximum
42.7
2.6
Standard Deviation
1.16
0.35
95% Confidence Interval
40.6, 41.7
1.3, 1.6
Arsenic (TIB
Average
2.7
0.7
Minimum
1.4
<0.5
Maximum
3.4
1.1
Standard Deviation
0.46
0.2
Confidence Interval
2.5, 2.9
0.6, 0.8
Arsenic (V)
Average
38.4
0.8
Minimum
35.1
<0.5
Maximum
40.4
1.5
Standard Deviation
1.22
0.3
95% Confidence Interval
37.8, 39.0
0.7, 0.9
*A11 readings at the MDL for Arsenic III (<0.5 |xg/L) were used as that number in calculations.
Note: the reliability of the low-level data (MDL of 0.1 |xg/L to approximately 2 |xg/L) should be considered only qualitative (not
quantitative).
Iron Removal
Total iron in the feedwater stream was at an average concentration of 0.299 mg/L and an average of 0.063
mg/L in the filtrate.
Turbidity
Turbidity measurements made both with on-line turbidimeters and the bench-top instrument showed
significant turbidity reduction by the KIMCFS. On-line feedwater turbidity readings during the testing
period averaged 1.75 NTU, compared to the bench-top turbidity average of 1.54 NTU. The on-line
filtrate turbidity readings for the testing period averaged 0.097 NTU, compared to the bench-top average
of 0.25 NTU. Although there was a lack of complete agreement between the instruments in the
measurement of filtrate turbidity, the trend was consistent.
Operation and Maintenance Results
Testing was initiated at 1400 hours on April 7, 2000, and the system ran continuously until 2045 hours on
April 22, 2000. It is estimated that 51 backwashing episodes occurred during the test period.
The coagulant chemical metering pumps required no adjustments during the test. The concentration of
ferric chloride in the feedwater stream was approximately 8.6 mg/L; the concentration of hypochlorite
was approximately 1.6 mg/L in the feedwater.
01/23/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2001
VS-iv
-------
The electrical power used was 110VAC, single phase, 20A service. The power was recorded on an
Amprobe Kilowatt/Hour (kWh) Meter (non-demand). The total power consumed was 516 kWh. The
total quantity of filtrate produced was 82,200 gallons. Total quantity of NaOCl consumed was 280.9
gallons of 5.25% bleach. Total quantity of FeCl3 consumed was 25.3 gallons of a 32.5% FeCl3 solution
The backwash water was collected (while the test system was staffed) with an average quantity of 84
gallons per backwash episode. Samples were analyzed for TSS. This revealed an average concentration
of 333 mg/L.
Original Signed by
E. Timothy Oppelt
9/26/01
Original Signed by
Gordon Bellen
10/02/01
E. Timothy Oppelt Date
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Gordon Bellen
Vice President
Federal Programs
NSF International
Date
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report is not a NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of he ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic Removal
dated March 30, 2000, the Verification Statement, and the Verification Report (NSF
Report #01/23/EPADW395) are available from the following sources:
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
1. Drinking Water Systems ETV Pilot Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
01/23/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2001
VS-v
-------
September 2001
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic
from Drinking Water
Kinetico Incorporated
Macrolite® Coagulation and Filtration
System, Model CPS100CPT
Prepared for
NSF International
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by
Cartwright, 01 sen and Associates, LLC
Cedar, Minnesota 55011
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development has
financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under Cooperative Agreement
No. CR 824815. This verification effort was supported by the Drinking Water Treatment Systems Pilot
operating under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. This document has been
peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public release.
11
-------
Foreword
The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test performed for
NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Cartwright,
Olsen & Associates, LLC (COA) in cooperation with Kinetico, Inc. The test was conducted during
March and April of 2000 at the Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant, Park City, Utah.
Throughout its history, the EPA has evaluated the effectiveness of innovative technologies to protect
human health and the environment. A new EPA program, the Environmental Technology Verification
Program (ETV) 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 is made available to regulators, developers,
consulting engineers, and those in the public health and environmental protection industries. This
encourages more rapid availability of approaches to better protect the environment.
The EPA has partnered with NSF, an independent, not-for-profit testing and certification organization
dedicated to public health, safety and protection of the environment, to verify performance of small
drinking water systems that serve small communities under the Drinking Water Treatment Systems
(DWTS) ETV Pilot. A goal of verification testing is to enhance and facilitate the acceptance of small
drinking water treatment equipment by state drinking water regulatory officials and consulting engineers
while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each location where the equipment's use is
contemplated. NSF will meet this goal by working with manufacturers and NSF-qualified Field Testing
Organizations (FTO) to conduct verification testing under the approved protocols. Cartwright, Olsen &
Associates is one such FTO.
The ETV DWTS is being conducted by NSF with participation of manufacturers, under the sponsorship
of the EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Water Supply and Water Resources Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. It is important to note that verification
of the equipment does not mean that the equipment is "certified" by NSF or "accepted" by EPA.
Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by these
organizations for those conditions tested by the FTO.
iii
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Verification Statement VS-i
Title Page i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms x
Acknowledgments xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 NSF International 2
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization 2
1.2.3 Manufacturer 3
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratory 3
1.2.5 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 3
1.2.6 Park City Municipal Corporation, Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant 4
1.3 Verification Testing Site 4
1.3.1 Arsenic Chemistry 5
1.3.2 Health Concerns 7
1.3.3 Regulatory 7
1.3.4 Water Source 7
Chapter 2 Equipment Description and Operating Processes 9
2.1 Historical Background 9
2.2 Equipment Description 10
2.3 Operating Process 18
Chapter 3 Methods and Procedures 20
3.1 Experimental Design 20
3.1.1 Objectives 20
3.1.1.1 Evaluation of Stated Equipment Capabilities 20
3.1.1.2 Evaluation of Equipment Performance Relative To Water Quality Regulations 20
3.1.1.3 Evaluation of Operational and Maintenance Requirements 20
3.1.1.4 Evaluation of Equipment Characteristics 20
3.2 Verification Testing Schedule 21
3.3 Initial Operations 21
3.3.1. Water Quality Characteristics 21
3.3.1.1 Feed Water Characteristics 21
3.3.1.2 Water Quality Data Collection and Analysis 22
iv
-------
Table of Contents, continued
Section Page
3.3.2 Initial Test Runs 22
3.3.2.1 Coagulant Chemistry 23
3.3.2.2 Filter Loading Rate 23
3.4 Verification Task Procedures 23
3.4.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs And Routine Equipment Operation 24
3.4.2 Task 2 - Feed and Finished Water Quality Characterization 24
3.4.3 Task 3 - Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance 26
3.4.4 Task 4 - Arsenic Removal 27
3.5 Recording Data 27
3.5.1 Objectives 28
3.5.2 Procedures 28
3.5.2.1 Log Books 28
3.5.2.2 Photographs 28
3.5.2.3 Chain of Custody 28
3.6 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators 29
3.6.1 Representativeness 29
3.6.2 Statistical Uncertainty 29
3.6.3 Accuracy 29
3.6.4 Precision 29
3.7 Equipment 30
3.7.1 Equipment Operations 30
3.7.2 Analytical Equipment 30
3.8 QA/QC Procedures 31
3.8.1 QA/QC Verifications 31
3.8.2 On-Site Analytical Method 31
3.8.2.1 pH 31
3.8.2.2 Temperature 32
3.8.2.3 Turbidity 32
3.8.2.4 True Color 32
3.8.2.5 Total Chlorine 32
3.8.2.6 Particle Free Water (PFW) 32
3.8.2.7 Pressure Gauges 33
3.8.3 Off- Site Analysis for Chemical and Biological Samples 33
3.8.3.1 Organic Parameters, Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance 33
3.8.3.2 Algae (Chlorophyll A) Samples 33
3.8.3.3 Inorganic Samples 33
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 34
4.1 Introduction 34
v
-------
Table of Contents, continued
Section Page
4.2 Initial Operations Results 34
4.2.1 Characterization of Influent Water 34
4.2.2 Initial Test Runs 34
4.2.2.1 Coagulant Chemistry 38
4.2.2.2 Coagulant Dosage 38
4.2.3 Filter Run Times 38
4.2.4 Backwashing Frequency 38
4.3 Verification Testing Results 39
4.3.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs And Routine Equipment Operation 39
4.3.2 Task 2 - Feed and Finished Water Quality Characterization 47
4.3.3 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance 58
4.3.4 Task 4: Arsenic Removal Results 64
4.4 Results of Equipment Characterization 70
4.4.1 Qualitative F actors 70
4.4.1.1 Susceptibility to Changes in Environmental Conditions 70
4.4.1.2 Operational Reliability 70
4.4.1.3 Equipment Safety 70
4.4.2 Quantitative F actors 71
4.4.2.1 Electrical Power 71
4.4.2.2 Consumables 71
4.4.2.3 Waste Disposal 71
4.4.2.4 Length of Operating Cycle 72
4.5 QA/QC Results 72
4.5.1 Arsenic Speciation and Analysis 72
4.5.2 Data Correctness 73
4.5.2.1 Representativeness 73
4.5.2.2 Statistical Uncertainty 73
4.5.2.3 Accuracy 73
4.5.2.4 Precision 73
4.5.3 Daily QA/QC Results 74
4.5.4 Results Of QA/QC Verifications At The Start Of Each Testing Period 74
4.5.4.1 Tubing 74
4.5.4.2 Thermometer 74
4.5.4.3 Turbidimeters 75
4.5.4.4 True Color 76
4.5.4.5 Total Chlorine 76
4.5.4.6 Pressure Gauges 77
4.5.4.7 Metering Pump 77
4.5.4.8 Flow Rates 77
vi
-------
Table of Contents, continued
Section Page
4.5.5 OIF- Site Analysis for Chemical and Biological Samples 77
4.5.5.1 Organic Parameters, Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance 77
4.5.5.2 Algae (Chlorophyll A) Samples 77
4.5.5.3 Inorganic Samples 77
Chapter 5 References 78
Table Page
Table 1-1. Historical Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead Water Quality Parameters 5
Table 1-2. Selected Inorganic Arsenic Compounds 7
Table 2-1. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Medium (AWWA Standard B100-96) 17
Table 2-2. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Medium (Micromeritics Autopore) 17
Table 2-3. Kinetico CPS100CPT System Maximum and Maximum Operating Characteristics 18
Table 3-1. Analytical Data Collection Schedule 25
Table 3-2. Operational Data Collection Schedule 26
Table 3-3. Filtration Performance Capability Objectives 27
Table 4-1. Initial Testing without Coagulant Chemicals (April 7 & 8, 2000) 35
Table 4-2. Arsenic Data Summaries (no coagulation chemicals) (April 7-8, 2000) 35
Table 4-3. Sources, Strengths, Dilution And Flow Rates Of The Coagulant Chemicals 38
Table 4-4. Daily Temperature Data (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 40
Table 4-5. Temperature Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 41
Table 4-6. Daily pH Data (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 42
Table 4-7. Daily pH Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 43
Table 4-8. Daily Bench-Top Turbidity Data (NTU) (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 44
Table 4-9. Bench-Top Turbidity Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 44
Table 4-10. Daily Dissolved Oxygen Data (mg/L) (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 46
Table 4-11. Daily Dissolved Oxygen Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 46
Table 4-12. Continuous Turbidity Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 48
Table 4-13. Iron Concentrations (April 7 - April 22, 2000) 49
Table 4-14. Iron Data Summary (April 7 - April 22, 2000) 49
Table 4-15. Alkalinity Daily Measurements (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 50
Table 4-16. Alkalinity Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 50
Table 4-17. Antimony Daily Measurements (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 52
Table 4-18. Antimony Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 52
Table 4-19. Arsenic Data Measurements (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 54
Table 4-20. Arsenic Data Summary (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 55
Table 4-21. Feed Flow Rate Data Summary (April 7 - April 22, 2000) 60
Table 4-22. Filter System Runs Times & Water Volume Processed (April 10 - April 22, 2000) 61
Table 4-23. Filter Backwash Water Characteristics (April 10 - April 22, 2000) 62
Table 4-24. Task 4 Arsenic Data (April 20 - April 22, 2000) 64
vii
-------
Table of Contents, continued
Table Page
Table 4-25. Task 4 Arsenic Data Summary (April 24 - April 26, 2000) 64
Table 4-26. Task 4 Analytical Data For Antimony, Alkalinity and Total Iron (April 20 - April 22,
2000) and Chlorophyll A (April 12 - April 22) 67
Table 4-27. Task 4 Analytical Data Summary for Antimony, Alkalinity and Total Iron (April 20 - April
22, 2000) and Chlorophyll A (April 12 - April 22) 67
Table 4-28. Task 4 Analytical Data Summary for Temperature, pH and Dissolved Oxygen (April 20-
April 22, 2000) 68
Table 4-29. Task 4 Total Chlorine Data (April 20 - April 22, 2000) 68
Table 4-30. Task 4 Analytical Data Summary for Continuous Turbidity and Bench-Top Turbidity (April
20 - April 22, 2000) 69
Table 4-31. Task 4 Analytical Data - Miscellaneous Parameters (April 20 - April 22, 2000) 69
Table 4-32. Bench-Top Turbidimeter Calibration Verification Data (using 0.4 NTU standard) 76
Table 4-33. Bench-Top Turbidimeter Calibration Verification Data Summary 76
Figure Page
Figure 1-1. Schematic of Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant 6
Figure 2-1. Schematic ofKinetico CSPlOOCPTCoagulation/Filtration System 12
Figure 2-2. Illustration ofKinetico CPS100CPT Filter Vessel 13
Figure 4-1. Total Arsenic Concentrations For Initial Testing Period (no coagulation chemicals) (April 7
& 8, 2000) 36
Figure 4-2. Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations For Initial Testing Period (no coagulation chemicals)
(April 7- 8, 2000 36
Figure 4-3. Insoluble Arsenic Concentrations For Initial Testing Period (no coagulation chemicals)
(April 7-8, 2000) 37
Figure 4-4. Antimony Concentration vs. Time (no coagulant chemicals) (April 7-8, 2000) 37
Figure 4-5. Daily Temperature Data vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 41
Figure 4-6. Daily pH Data vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 43
Figure 4-7. Daily Bench-Top Turbidity Data vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 45
Figure 4-8. Daily Dissolved Oxygen Data vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 47
Figure 4-9. Continuous Turbidity vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 48
Figure 4-10. Alkalinity vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 51
Figure 4-11. Antimony vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 53
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 56
Figure 4-13. Dissolved Arsenic vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 57
Figure 4-14. Arsenic (HI) vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 57
Figure 4-15. Arsenic (V) vs. Time (April 8 - April 22, 2000) 68
Figure 4-16. Flow Rate Over Time (April 7 - April 22, 2000) 60
' Figure 4-17. Pressure Drop Across System Over Time (April 7 - April 22, 2000) 63
Figure 4-18. Task 4 Total Arsenic vs. Time (April 20 - April 22, 2000) 65
Figure 4-19. Task 4 Dissolved Arsenic vs. Time (April 20 - April 22, 2000) 65
viii
-------
Table of Contents, continued
Table Page
Figure 4-20. Task 4 Arsenic (HI) vs. Time (April 20 - April 22, 2000) 66
Figure 4-21. Task 4 Arsenic (V) vs. Time (April 20 - April 22, 2000) 66
Photographs Page
Photograph 1 - Front view of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System 14
Photograph 2 - View of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System (view from feed
end) 15
Photograph 3 - View of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System (showing
backwash collection tank) 16
Appendices
A. State of Utah Division Epidemiology and Laboratory Services QA/QC Manual
B. Historical Water Quality Data For Park City, Utah
C. Coagulant Chemistry Initial Testing, Macrolite® Filter Media MSDS, and Operations &
Maintenance Manual For CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System
D. Arsenic Speciation Procedure
E. Analytical Reports, Flow Rate Data, Pressure Drop Data, On-Line Continuous Turbidity Data,
and Chain-of-Custody Sheets
F. On- Site Logbook
G. Certification of Calibration for Pressure Gauge and Certificate of Conformance for Bench-Top
Turbidimeter
H. QA/QC Procedures, Data, and Discussion
IX
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
APHA American Public Health Association
AWWA American Water Works Association
°C Degrees Celsius
CO A Cartwright, Olsen and Associates, LLC
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
F OD Field Operations Document
FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
ft2 Square foot (feet)
FTO Field Testing Organization
gpm Gallon(s) per minute
ICR Information Collection Rule
KIMCFS Kinetico, Inc. Macrolite® Coagulation Filtration System
L Liters
\x Micron(s)
|_ig/L Microgram(s) per liter (ppb)
m2 Square meter(s)
m3/d Cubic meter(s) per day
MCFS Macrolite® Coagulation Filtration System
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDL Minimum Detection Limit
mg/L Milligram(s) per liter
mL Milliliteits)
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NSF NSF International, formerly known as the National Sanitation Foundation
NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit(s)
ORP Oxidization-Reduction Potential
PFW Particle Free Water
ppb Parts per billion (|_ig/L)
psi Pound(s) per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
SM Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TDS Total dissolved solids
TOC Total Organic Carbon
Ten State's Standards Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and
Environmental Managers, Recommended Standards for Water Works.
UV254 Ultraviolet light absorbance at 254 nanometers
WEF Water Environment Federation
WHO World Health Organization
-------
Acknowledgments
The Field Testing Organization, Cartwright, Olsen & Associates (COA), was responsible for all
elements in the testing sequence, including collection of samples, calibration and verification of
instruments, data collection and analysis, data management, data interpretation and the preparation of
this report.
Cartwright, Olsen & Associates, LLC
19406 East Bethel Blvd.
Cedar, Minnesota 55011
Phone: (952) 854-4911
Fax(952)854-6964
E-mail: cartwrightconsul@cs.com
Contact: Peter Cartwright, PE.
The laboratory that conducted the analytical work of this study was:
State of Utah
Department of Health
Division of Laboratory Services
46 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113-1105
Phone: (801) 536-4204
Fax (801) 615-5311
Contact: Larry P. Scanlan, Environmental Scientist HI
The Manufacturer of the Equipment was:
Kinetico Incorporated
10845 Kinsman Road
Newbury, Ohio 44065
(440) 564-9111 or (800) 432-1166
Fax (440) 564-9541
e-mail: glatimer@kinetico.com
Contact Person: Glen Latimer, Operations Manager
COA wishes to thank NSF International, especially Mr. Bruce Bartley, Project Manger, and Ms. Carol
Becker and Ms. Kristie Wilhelm, Environmental Engineers, for providing guidance and program
management.
COA is especially indebted to the following individuals at the Spiro Tunnel Water Treatment Plant: John
A. Lind, Assistant Public Works Director, Richard W. Hilbert, Assistant Public Superintendent, Leo
-------
Williams for his invaluable assistance in monitoring and sample collection speciation, and Jay Glazier and
Scott Clayburn for their assistance to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Larry Scanlan, Environmental Scientist, State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Drinking Water, deserves special recognition for obtaining and regenerating the anion resin
used for arsenic speciation.
Dr. Zenon Pawlak, Chief of the Radiochem and Metals Lab, Division of Laboratory Services, was
invaluable in his coordination of all laboratory analyses and processing of the resulting data. Wayne
Pierce, Drector of the Bureau of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, Division of Laboratory
Services, is thanked for his able supervision of all analytical activities.
Xll
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high
quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution,
permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders groups
which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by
developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Drinking Water Treatment Systems
(DWTS) pilot, one of 12 technology areas under ETV. The DWTS program evaluated the
performance of the Kinetico, Inc. Macrolite® Coagulation Filtration System (KIMCFS), which is a
backwashable depth filtration system used in package drinking water treatment system applications.
This document provides the verification test results for the KIMCFS.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the Kinetico, Inc. CPS100CPT Macrolite® Coagulation Filtration System was a
cooperative effort between the following participants:
NSF International
Cartwright, 01 sen & Associates, LLC
Kinetico, Incorporated
State of Utah Division of Drinking Water Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Park City Municipal Corporation, Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant
The following is a brief description of each ETV participant and their roles and responsibilities.
1
-------
1.2.1 NSF International
NSF is a not-for-profit standards and certification organization dedicated to public health safety and the
protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, NSF has been
instrumental in the development of consensus standards for the protection of public health and the
environment. NSF also provides testing and certification services to ensure that products bearing the
NSF Name, Logo and/or Mark meet those standards. The EPA partnered with NSF to verify the
performance of drinking water treatment systems through the EPA's ETV Program.
NSF provided technical and primary quality oversight of the verification testing. NSF arranged an
inspection of the field analytical and data gathering and recording procedures on April 17 and 18, 2000.
NSF reviewed the Field Operations Document (FOD) to assure its conformance with the pertinent
ETV generic protocol and test plan. NSF also conducted a review or this report and coordinated the
EPA and technical reviews of this report.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734-769-8010
Fax: 734-769-0109
Contact: Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
E-mail: bartley@nsf.org
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization
Cartwright, Olsen & Associates, (COA), a Limited Liability Company, conducted the verification
testing of the KIMCFS. COA is a NSF-qualified Field Testing Organization (FTO) for the Drinking
Water Treatment System ETV Pilot.
COA was responsible for conducting the verification testing. COA provided all needed logistical
support, established a communications network, and scheduled and coordinated activities of all
participants. COA determined that the testing location and feed water conditions were such that the
verification testing could meet its stated objectives. COA prepared the FOD, oversaw the package
plant testing, managed, evaluated, interpreted and reported on the data generated by the testing, as well
as evaluated and reported on the performance of the technology.
COA conducted the onsite analyses and data recording during the testing. Oversight of the daily tests
was provided by Peter Cartwright, of COA.
Contact Information:
Cartwright, Olsen & Associates, LLC
19406 East Bethel Blvd.
2
-------
Cedar, MN 55011
Contact: Peter Cartwright, P.E., Project Manager
Phone: (952) 854-4911
Fax(952)854-6964
E-mail: cartwrightconsul@cs.com
1.2.3 Manufacturer
The treatment system is manufactured by Kinetico, that considers itself a pioneer in non-electric,
demand operated water processing systems. Headquartered in Newbury, Ohio, Kinetico is one of the
most sophisticated manufacturing and development facilities of its kind.
Kinetico was responsible for supplying a field-ready CPS100CPT KIMCFS equipped with all
necessary components including treatment equipment, instrumentation and controls and an operations
and maintenance manual. Kinetico was responsible for providing logistical and technical support as
needed as well as providing technical assistance to the FTO during operation and monitoring of the
equipment undergoing field verification testing.
Contact Information:
Kinetico Incorporated
10845 Kinsman Road
Newbury, Ohio 44065
Contact: Glen Latimer
Phone: (440) 564-9111: Fax (440) 564-9541
e-mail: glatimer@kinetico.com
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratory
All chemical analyses were performed by the State of Utah Division of Drinking Water Laboratory.
These analyses were made under the direct supervision of Larry P. Scanlan, Environmental Scientist m.
Contact Information:
State of Utah Division of Drinking Water Laboratory
Phone: (801) 536-4204: Fax (801) 615-5311
Contact: Larry P. Scanlan, Environmental Scientist m
E-mail: lscanlan@dep.state.ut.us
The QA/QC manual for this laboratory is located in Appendix A.
1.2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA through its Office of Research and Development has financially supported and collaborated
with NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. CR 824815. This verification effort was supported by
3
-------
the Drinking Water Treatment Systems Pilot operating under the ETV Program. This document was
peer reviewed for technical and quality control content by the EPA.
1.2.6 Park City Municipal Corporation, Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant
Park City Municipal Corporation personnel performed non-supervisory labor associated with the
operation and monitoring of equipment under direct supervision of Peter Cartwright. These activities
included collecting operating data and collection of analytical samples and speciation of arsenic samples.
Contact Information:
Park City Municipal Corporation
445 Marsac Avenue
P.O. Box 1480
Park City, Utah 84060
Contact: Jerry Gibbs, Public Works Director
Phone: (435) 615-5310: Fax (435) 615-4904
The address of the testing site is:
Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant
1884 Three Kings Drive
Park City, Utah 84060
Contact: Rich Hilbert
Phone: (435) 615-5321: Fax (435) 658-9022
1.3 Verification Testing Site
The site selected for challenge testing of the KIMCFS was the Park City Spiro Tunnel Water Treatment
Plant, 1884 Three Kings Drive, Park City, Utah 84060.
The Park City Municipal Corporation has direct access to Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead water. This water
source was used for verification testing. Historical (non-ETV verified) water data at the intake location
are summarized in Table 1-1. A schematic of the Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant is attached as
Figure 1-1.
4
-------
Table 1-1. Historical Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead Water Quality Parameters
Parameter Minimum Maximum
pH
7.3
8.2
Total dissolved solids (TDS) (mg/L)
520
660
Arsenic (Total As) (pg/L)
4
225
Turbidity (NTU)
1
4
Total alkalinity (mg/L asHC03")
140
152
Total hardness (mg/L)
420
680
Iron (mg/L)
0.07
2.7
Calcium (mg/L as Ca)
106
160
Chloride (mg/L)
1
10
Sulfate (mg/L)
260
450
Manganese (mg/L)
5
30
Antimony (pg/L)
6
<100
Beryllium (pg/L)
<1
5
Cadmium (jag/L)
<1
<24
Cyanide (jag/L)
<2
5
Nitrite (N02") (|ug/L)
<0.01
<0.02
Nitrate (N03") (jag/L)
<0.02
8.15
Selenium (jag/L)
<1
<5
Thallium (pg/L)
<2
<500
Mercury (pg/L)
<0.02
<1.1
Influent water quality to the KIMCFS was verified and documented as a function of the Initial
Operations tasks and are detailed in Chapter 4, Results and Discussions.
Backwash water generated during the verification testing was quantified, sampled and discharged to the
Snyderville Sewer Improvement District. A discharge permit was not required.
1.3.1 Arsenic Chemistry
Arsenic is the 20th most abundant element in the earth's crust and is a component of over 245 minerals.
Because the physical appearance of arsenic resembles that of a metal, it is classified as a metalloid and
is located in group V of the Periodic Table. It readily forms both oxide and sulfide compounds in the
environment.
Arsenic also enters the environment as the result of both manufacturing and natural processes. Arsenic
trioxide (As203) is formed during smelting operations and has created significant air and land pollution
problems. Arsenic also is released through the burning of certain fossil fuels and volcanic eruptions.
In natural waters, soluble arsenic is virtually always present in the oxidation states of either of +3(m) or
+5(V) valence. An organic species (methylated) has been detected; however, concentrations of this
organic compound rarely exceed 1 |ag/L and it is considered of little or no significance as a drinking
water contaminant.
5
-------
ocoo
It** WAH*
F1M5H »*t™
&ACXMSH **tes
FUKC «*TCT
j BC»«3fT KfltFlON W® HE*™ ENGVCEimS
PARK CTTY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
SHRO TUNNEL WATER FILTRATION! PLANT
FACILITIES SCHEMATIC
Figure 1-1. Schematic of Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant
-------
In oxygenated waters, the As (V) valence is dominant, existing in the anionic forms of H2As04~,
HAs04= and As04 3. In waters containing little or no oxygen (anoxic), As (HI) exists in the nonionic
form, H3As03 below a pH of 9.22, and the anionic form, H2ASO3" at a pH above 9.22.
1.3.2 Health Concerns
Arsenic has significant notoriety as a poison, even featured in a stage play, "Arsenic and Old Lace".
Recent studies have indicated that arsenic in drinking water is more dangerous than previously thought,
with risks to exposure comparable to that of radon and second hand tobacco smoke (Edwards, 1994).
In humans, ingested arsenic can cause liver, lung, kidney, bladder and skin cancers. Arsenite [As (HI)]
is significantly more toxic than arsenate [As (V)].
1.3.3 Regulatory
The proposed USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water is 10 ig/L,
with a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of 0. The World Health Organization (WHO) has
established a provisional arsenic limit of 10 ppb.
The Table 1-2 lists the properties of selected inorganic arsenic compounds.
Table 1-2. Selected Inorganic Arsenic Compounds
Property Arsenic Arsenic Trioxide Sodium Trioxide Sodium Arsenate
Arsenic black,
Arsenic oxide, arsenious
Disodium arsenate, sodium
Arsenious acid
Synonyms
colloidal arsenic,
acid, arsenious oxide,
biarsenate, arsenic acid
sodium salt, sodium
gray arsenic
white arsenic
disodium salt
metaarsenite
Chemical formula
As
A.S2O3 (As406)
Na2HAs04
NaAs04
Molecular weight
74.92
197.84
185.91
129.91
Valence state
0
3
5
3
Water Solubility
Insoluble
Soluble 37 g/L at 20°C.
Soluble
Very Soluble
101 g/L at 100°C
1.3.4 Water Source
The Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead source is considered a groundwater source under the State of Utah source
protection program. It is located atN40° 41' 20.8" and Will0 31' 25.0". Water is developed from
water bearing fissures in an abandoned silver mine tunnel at approximately 13,600 feet into the tunnel, a
five-foot high bulkhead has been constructed to hold back a quantity of water. This water exits the
tunnel through a 12" diameter pipe at a flow rate of 1,150 gpm, and enters the treatment plant, which is
located about 300 yards away. The tunnel is located 1,000 feet or more under remote uioccupied
forest in a mountainous region, and the tunnel entrance is approximately 50 feet below the bulkhead.
There is no use of manmade chemicals on the ground above this source.
7
-------
The water source used for this test is known as the Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead source, is stable with respect
to quality and quantity. Because this water source contains arsenic, for the municipal supply, it is
currently diluted with the treatment plant finished water to form a blend that meets the present arsenic
standard. For this test, only the untreated, unblended Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead supply was used.
The filtration plant was built in February, 1993, has nominal capacity of 1,000 gpm, and is designed to
remove iron, manganese, and arsenic from the raw water. This source is cne of five active sources
serving the municipality: 2 tunnels, 2 deep wells, and a spring. The water system serves 6,500 residents,
and as much as 20,000 people per day during the winter season.
Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead water quality before treatment is listed in Table 1-1. These data are historical
and not ETV verified. This table is a summary of water quality data contained in Appendix B.
8
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description and Operating Processes
2.1 Historical Background
The highly respected filtration scientist, Appiah Amirtharajah, once wrote, "It is ironic that filtration fails
when pretreatment fails, and theory also fails when pretreatment fails." At the same time he commented,
"Chemical pretreatment with particle destabilization is the single most important factor for the production
of the best quality filtered water" (Amirtharajah, 1988).
Particles in colloidal suspensions, where electrostatic forces keep the particles dispersed, have proven
to be a challenge to depth filtration. In many cases, chemical pretreatment, by agglomerating the
particles into larger floe, will allow solids separation of water matrices that otherwise resist filtration.
Large water treatment systems have long employed coagulation, flocculation, settling and filtration for
the production of quality water. Small systems have been more reluctant to build treatment plants that
use coagulation because of the higher level of operator training required and the need for continuous
monitoring. With the soon to be implemented Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules
(IESWTR), and revised arsenic MCL, coagulation may be a suitable technology for smaller systems
allowing them to meet tough new standards with a modest increase in cost.
Only in recent times have we been able to quantify the collection of material within the filter bed,
especially the particulate matter that lies below our visual capabilities. We now know that particles that
we cannot see can also be removed by filtration. Still under investigation, however, are the mechanisms
through which particulate matter is accumulated within the filter media.
It has been assumed that along with simple straining, which is the physical capture of a mass too large to
move through the pores between the media granules, small particles are captured through other
attachment mechanisms. Most of those mechanisms involve a surface charge attraction of the particle to
granulated media and as a result, many experiments have been performed to both better understand the
process and to seek methods to improve it. Some particles are also assumed to be collected by impact
on the surface of the filter media granules; while the actual mechanisms are not clearly understood,
straining is certainly among them.
The most common filtration system used in municipal treatment is the gravity filter, which uses the weight
or head of the water to force it through the filter at very low flow rates. Normal gravity filters, often
called "rapid" sand filters, have a normal flow rate of 3 gpm per square foot of surface, or less. Other
filters, such as slow sand filters, have even slower service flow rates.
Also included among rapid sand filters are pressure filters, where the water is forced through a media
bed by high head pressures and where the media are contained in a pressure vessel. They have long
been used for iron and manganese removal, but have not been as readily accepted for surface water
treatment (Ten State's Standards, 1992). The advantages—especially to small systems—of rapid sand
9
-------
pressure filters are many. They are relatively passive treatment systems, involve minimal operator
attention, are low in cost and long lived. Of concern, however, is whether pressure filters can capture
and contain particles that are small, and more importantly, contaminants that may pose a threat to public
health, such as arsenic.
Of the several treatment regimens that incorporate coagulation are those that include a settling basin,
where the floe is allowed to settle by gravity and the supernatant decanted and filtered. This is a scheme
common to municipal gravity filter systems. The KIMCFS is a direct filtration system, where the
coagulant is added to the raw water in a constant stream, mixed in a mixing chamber, and then the solids
separated through backwashable granulated media filtration. Because the process stream is slow (5
gpm), filtration can be accomplished with an off-the-shelf pressure vessel. The process rate of 5 gpm
allows for a daily total of 7,200 gallons; thus it is well suited to small system requirements where waters
must be treated to reduce arsenic levels.
Kinetico, Inc. has successfully piloted many filtration systems that employ coagulation as pretreatment.
The primary issue here was whether the KIMCFS could effectively reduce the total concentration of
arsenic to meet the anticipated arsenic MCL of 10 |j,g/L.
The operation of this equipment is more technically sophisticated than a filter alone, and required more
extensive training in the proper dosing of coagulating chemistry; therefore, the state and municipal health
authorities may have requirements for operation beyond those of a filter. Kinetico, Inc., requires no
special licensing, and will offer operator training upon equipment installation and start-up.
The wastewater produced by the Park City Municipal Corporation is directed to the raw water wet
well.
2.2 Equipment Description
This environmental technology verification (ETV) test is designed to challenge the KIMCFS to convert
soluble arsenic into an insoluble precipitate and to remove the precipitate at flow rates of 5 gpm (9.2
gpm/ft2). Kinetico, Inc. expected that the filter system would achieve a total arsenic concentration of
less that 5 ng/L, from an influent stream containing up to 80 |j,g/L of arsenic. The performance claim
evaluated during field testing of the system was that the system is capable of producing a filtrate stream
containing less than 5 |j,g/L total arsenic at a flow rate of 8-9 gpm/ft2 filter bed surface area from an
influent stream containing a maximum concentration of 76 |j,g/L total arsenic.
The KIMCFS utilizes chlorine and ferric chloride (FeCK) to convert the arsenate to an insoluble
precipitate which is removed by the media filter. In the Park City Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead Municipal
Water Supply, almost all of the arsenic is in the soluble arsenate (V) form (see ChemTech-Ford letter in
Appendix B).
10
-------
The KIMCFS included the following components, described in order of process water flow: Ferric
chloride injection into feedwater supply via metering pump^ Sodium hypochlorite injection via metering
pump —> In-line static mixer-^ Flow control-^ Retention tank (165 gallon capacity, 33 minute detention
time)^ Retention tank (84 gallon capacity, 17 minute detention time)^ Repressurization pump^
Filtration [10" diameter x 54" FRP (Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic) filters vessels (2) each containing 1.1
ft3 of Macrolite® filter media]^ Flow control.
The coagulant chemicals are sodium hypochlorite plus ferric chloride, injected separately into the
feedwater stream by LMI metering pumps and blended with the water by means of an in-line static
mixer. The two retention tanks (total capacity of 249 gallons) provide holding time for the oxidation and
coagulation reactions to take place. From the tanks, the water is pumped into one of two filter vessels
(10" diameter x 54" high) each containing 1.1 ft3 of Macrolite® medium to effect the removal of the
coagulated arsenic. This medium is described below.
Figure 2-1 is a schematic of the package treatment plant and Figure 2-2 illustrates the Kinetico pressure
filter vessel. Photograph 1 illustrates the placement of the KIMCFS in the Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration
Plant. Photograph #2 illustrates the chemical feed portion of the KI Test System along with the first
retention tank. Photograph #3 is of the skid mounted portion of the Test System showing the on-line
turbidimeters and the two filter vessels, as well as the backwash collection tank.
Appendix C includes the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual.
11
-------
Raw Water
Raw Feedwater
NaOCl
Sample Tap
Feed Pump
IX
FeCl3
%
Feed Pump
f
1
Retention
Tank
Repressurization
Pump
Figure 2-1. Schematic of Kinetico CSPlOOCPTCoagulation/Filtration System
12
-------
KINETICO CONTROL MODULE
FIBERGLASS TANK
RAW WATER-
E
III
(((
•t •
\W
«{
f***
!(
MACROLITE CERAMIC MEDIA
DISTRIBUTOR
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE
FILTERED WATER
MODEL 1CO 10 X 54 FIBERGLASS TANK
Figure 2-2. Illustration of Kinetico CPS100CPT Filter Vessel
13
-------
Photograph 1- Front view of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System
-------
Photograph 2- View of the Kinetieo CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System (view from feed end)
-------
Photograph #3 View of the Kinetico CPS100CPT Coagulation and Filtration System (showing backwash collection tank)
-------
The filter medium is Macrolite®, a synthetic ceramic, filter medium and is not covered under American
Water Works Association (AWWA) standards for filter media (B100-89). Standard B100-89 is a
purchase guide for filter media and is not intended as a design standard; however, many of the testing
parameters will be of interest to public health administrators, especially those physical characteristics
that may impact on the longevity of the material. Thus, hardness, specific gravity, acid solubility,
uniformity coefficients, particle sieve size distributions (within manufacturing lots and from lot to lot) and
other similar physical data have been furnished by the manufacturer and are noted below.
Scanning Electron Microscope Photos of Macrolite® media are in Appendix C. Macrolite® of the
70/80 mesh size has a bulk density of 0.96 grams/cc. The specific gravity (as measured by ASTM
D2840) is 2.23 g/cc. The collapse strength for the media of this size has not been measured, however,
for a larger sphere (30/50 mesh) the collapse strength (as measured by ASTM D 3102) is a nominal
7,000-psi for 10% and nominal 8,000 psi for 20% collapse.
The uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 mesh media was analyzed in accordance with AWWA
Standard B100-96 by Bowser-Morner, Inc in December, 1997. The results of this analysis are
summarized below in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Medium (AWWA Standard B100-96)
Sieve Size, USA Std. Nominal, mm Effective, mm Percent passing
#45
0.355
0.360
100.0
#50
0.300
0.307
99.9
#60
0.250
0.249
79.8
#70
0.212
0.212
28.9
#80
0.180
0.180
7.2
#100
0.150
0.150
0.4
Effective Size: 0.19 mm
Uniformity Coefficient: 1.2
In addition, a Kinetico Inc. internal laboratory analysis in June of 1998 of 70 mesh media (lot #: 352)
employing a mercury/penetrometer Micromeritics Autopore II 9220 instrument produced the following
results as shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Uniformity of the Macrolite® 70/80 Mesh Medium (Micromeritics Autopore)
Total intrusion volume 0.2098 mL/g
Total pore area 0.18 sq-m/g
Median pore diameter volume 53.7990 (im
Median pore diameter area 52.5351 (im
Median pore diameter 4V/A 46.5685 (im
The pore diameters are those measured by an instrument, AutoPore n, performing an intrusion study of
the media. A measured volume of the media was placed in a glass penetrometer which was then
degassed by vacuum. A known volume of mercury was introduced into the penetrometer which was
then placed under pressure. As the mercury penetrates the interstitial spaces, the volume is
electronically measured. The \olumes and pore sizes are then calculated from the data by use of the
Washburn Equation. The total intrusion volume is the maximum volume of mercury at the highest
17
-------
pressure; the total pore area is the area of the pore wall as calculated on the pore shape as a right
cylinder. The Median Pore Diameter (volume) is the pore diameter at the 50th percentile point on the
volume distribution curve; the Median Pore Diameter (area) is the pore diameter at the 50th percentile
point on the area distribution curve and the Average Pore Diameter (4V/A) is based on the total pore
diameter wall area of a right cylinder.
A Material Safety Data Sheet for Macrolite® is included as a part of Appendix C. Macrolite® medium
meets the requirements of ANSI/NSF Standard 61 and is NSF listed. The manufacturer claims the
filter medium is long lasting and estimates that less than 2% per year is lost to attrition.
The KIMCFS is designed for small system applications. The tanks can be made of fiberglass or of
steel. The piping is Schedule 80 PVC. Polyethylene or PVC tanks are used for the reaction tanks and
to hold the coagulant chemicals.
2.3 Operating Process
The KIMCFS is an automated, 100% redundant system with electronic monitoring and electronic
controls for placing each filter vessel on-line, backwash and rinse (filter to waste) cycles. The automatic
operation is performed by a programmable industrial computer.
Table 2-3 summarizes the operating characteristics of this system.
Table 2-3. Kinetico CPS100CPT System Maximum and Minimum Operating Characteristics
Parameter Unit
Inlet flow rate - maximum
5 gpm
Inlet flow rate - minimum
0 gpm
Maximum static pressure
100 psi
Minimum inlet dynamic pressure
35 psi
Expected pressure drop
15/30 psi
Minimum outlet pressure
10 psi
High pH
pH 8
Low pH
pH 3
Maximum temperature
100 F
Minimum Temperature
35°F
Maximum inlet turbidity
8NTU
Normal outlet turbidity
0.1 NTU
Maximum allowable outlet turbidity
0.5 NTU
The KIMCFS is designed to automatically backwash under any of the following conditions:
Effluent Turbidity 0.5 or greater (adjustable)
Differential Pressure 20 psid or greater
Run Time 24 hours
By Manual Initiation
Built-in are several controls to allow repeated backwash if the initial sequence is insufficient.
18
-------
The KIMCFS automatic backwash sequence is:
a. The standby tank is rinsed with feedwater (3-5 minutes).
b. The service tank is drained for one minute.
c. The service tank is air sparged for 0.5 minutes with air approximately 1 l^efm per
square foot.
d. The media is allowed to settle (1 minute).
e. The service tank is backwashed with water from the standby tank at an approximate
flow rate of 3-'/gpm for 20 minutes.
f The service tank then becomes the standby tank.
19
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
3.1 Experimental Design
This verification study was designed to provide accurate information regarding the performance of the
KIMCFS treatment system. Due to the unpredictability of environmental conditions and mechanical
equipment performance, this document should not be viewed in the same light as scientific research
conducted in a controlled laboratory setting.
3.1.1 Objectives
The verification testing was undertaken to evaluate the performance of the KIMCFS for arsenic
reduction. Specifically evaluated were Kinetico's stated equipment capabilities and equipment
performance relative to the removal of arsenic to help communities meet the new MCL.
3.1.1.1 Evaluation of Stated Equipment Capabilities
This ETV study was undertaken to demonstrate the manufacturer's claim that the KIMCFS is capable
of producing a filtrate stream containing a maximum of 5 |ig/L total arsenic at a flow rate of 8-9 gpm/ft2
filter bed surface area from an influent stream containing a maximum of 80 |ig/L total arsenic.
3.1.1.2 Evaluation of Equipment Performance Relative To Water Quality Regulations
With the revised arsenic MCL established at 10 |_ig/L, with an MCLG of 0 |_ig/L, it is expected that the
search for alternative arsenic removal technologies will grow significantly.
3.1.1.3 Evaluation of Operational and Maintenance Requirements
An overall evaluation of the operational requirements for the treatment system was undertaken as part of
this verification. This evaluation was qualitative in nature. The manufacturer's O&M manual,
experiences, and events that occurred during the verification period were used to develop a subjective
judgment of the operational requirements of this system. The O&M manual is attached to this report as
Appendix C.
Verification testing also evaluated the maintenance requirements of the treatment system. Not all of the
system's maintenance requirements were necessary due to the short duration of the testing cycle. The
O&M manual details various maintenance activities and their frequencies.
3.1.1.4 Evaluation of Equipment Characteristics
The qualitative, quantitative and cost factors of the tested equipment were identified, in so far as
possible, during the verification testing. The relatively short duration of the testing cycle creates difficulty
20
-------
in reliably identifying some of the qualitative, quantitative operational and cost factors. The quantitative
factors examined during the verification were operational aspects of the KIMCFS, for example, the
measurement of head loss, as well as other factors that might impact performance. The qualitative
factors examined during the verification testing process included the dosing requirement of the coagulant
chemical. Power consumption, waste disposal, and operations and maintenance issues, and the effect
of each on the length of the operating cycle are also addressed. The operating conditions were
recorded to allow reasonable prediction of performance under other, similar conditions.
3.2 Verification Testing Schedule
The KIMCFS drinking water treatment was operated continuously for a minimum of 320 hours (the
equivalent of 13 full days plus one 8-hour work shift) from April 7, 2000 until April 22, 2000. During
this time, the coagulation and filtration package treatment equipment operated continuously from start-
up until turbidity breakthrough or terminal head loss was attained. Interruptions in filtration occurred
only as needed for backwashing of the filter.
The duration of each filter run and the number of gallons of water produced per square foot of filter area
were recorded in the operational results.
During routine equipment operation, the package water treatment equipment was operated to meet the
system demands and water quality requirements.
3.3 Initial Operations
The objective of the Initial Operations was to establish operational data including coagulant dosage,
filter run times and backwashing schedules, and to qualify the equipment for performance with the
selected source water.
Initial operations allowed Kinetico, Inc. to refine the unit's operating procedures and to make
operational adjustments as needed to successfully treat the source water. Coagulant chemistry and
optimum dosages were determined as well as the relationship between filtrate turbidity and total arsenic
concentration in the filtrate.
The major operating parameters examined during initial operations were coagulant chemistry, filter
loading rate, pressures and flow rates.
3.3.1. Water Quality Characteristics
3.3.1.1 Feed Water Characteristics
Specifically, the water quality characteristics that were recorded and analyzed were:
Turbidity
21
-------
Temperature
• pH
• Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Total Organic Carbon
Ultraviolet light absorbance at 254 nanometers (UV254)
True Color
Arsenic (concentration by species)
Algae (chlorophyll A)
• Iron
Manganese
• Aluminum
Sulfate
• Antimony
Dissolved Oxygen
3.3.1.2 Water Quality Data Collection and Analysis
Although not required by the Test Plan and not stated in the FOD, analytical samples were collected
daily from the influent (feed) and effluent (filtrate) streams and speciated in order for the State
Laboratory to measure total arsenic, dissolved arsenic, As m and As V, as well as antimony. The
arsenic speciation procedure is detailed in Appendix D; and involved filling containers as follows: bottle
A - as collected (for total arsenic); bottle B - filtered through a 0.45 |j, filter (for dissolved arsenic);
bottle C - [for arsenic (m)] part of the filtered sample processed though an ion exchange resin to
remove ionic arsenic, which is assumed to be all As (V). Arsenic (V) concentration was calculated as
dissolved arsenic minus the arsenic (HI).
Daily samples were taken beginning on April 7, during Initial Operations and into April 20. On April
20, Task 4 activities commenced, wherein 11 analytical samples were collected during a 48-hour
period. The entire test was completed on April 22, 2000.
The parameters, which were analyzed as part of this testing and the sampling frequency, are presented
in Table 3-1, Section 3.4. Daily on-site analyses were recorded in the Operations Logbook; semi-
weekly analyses were recorded in the Operations Logbook and also recorded on separate laboratory
report sheets. These data are summarized in Chapter 4, Results and Discussions, and the data
spreadsheets are attached to this report as Appendix E, and on-site Logbook Appendix F.
Both the feedwater and filtrate streams were sampled for each parameter.
3.3.2 Initial Test Runs
Before runs were made in which coagulant was used, the package plant equipment was operated with
uncoagulated feed water for one 24-hour run. The samples were collected from the feed water and the
22
-------
filter effluent at 0, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours of operation to determine if arsenic losses occur through the
system.
3.3.2.1 Coagulant Chemistry
Optimization of coagulant chemistry is dependent on chemical composition and temperature of the
source water. Accordingly, it was of critical importance that coagulant chemistry be studied and tested
prior to performance verification. This was first accomplished with testing to identify suitable coagulant
chemicals, dosage and contact time. Once this testing was complete, initial test runs were performed to
both terminal head loss and turbidity breakthrough. The manufacturer utilized ferric chloride as the
coagulant and used their test unit to optimize the FeCK dosage. They selected sodium hypochlorite as
the oxidant and optimized the dosage of that chemical at the same time. Information on these Initial
Operations activities is detailed in Appendix C.
3.3.2.2 Filter Loading Rate
Initial filter runs were performed to both terminal headloss and turbidity breakthrough. Total filtered
water volume was measured and the character of finished water was evaluated throughout each filter
run. Terminal head loss was established at 20 psi delta P across the filter. Turbidity breakthrough was
considered reached when the turbidity in the effluent water was 0.15 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
(NTU). Backwashing was initiated automatically, when either a terminal headloss was reached or when
turbidity breakthrough occurred. Filters were backwashed until the waste stream ran clear, as
determined by turbidity of 5 NTU or less. Filters were run in a rinse-to-waste cycle for a minimum of
two bed volumes before a filter was returned to service. Filter service flow rate was established at 8-9
gpm/ft2 Backwash flow rate was established at 6-7 gpm/ft2, all within original manufacturer operating
specifications for the equipment under test. Upon return to service, the filter ripening period was
monitored and timed. These data were used to better understand time requirements for backwash,
rinse and especially the expected duration of service run cycles during the testing and verification period.
3.4 Verification Task Procedures
The procedures for each task of verification testing were developed in accordance with the
requirements of the EPA/NSF Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing For Arsenic Removal
(EPA/NSF, 2000) and approved in the FOD (dated April, 2000). The Verification Tasks were as
follows:
Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs and Routine Equipment Operation
Task 2 - Feed and Finished Water Quality Characterization
Task 3 - Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance
Task 4 - Arsenic Contaminant Removal Testing
Detailed descriptions of each task are provided in the following sections.
23
-------
3.4.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs And Routine Equipment Operation
The objective of this task was to operate the equipment provided by Kinetico, Inc. for the 13.33 day
period and assess its ability to meet water quality goals and other performance characteristics specified
by the Manufacturer.
Verification testing consisted of continuous evaluation of the treatment system, using the most successful
treatment parameters defined in Initial Operations. The total verification testing was conducted over a
period of slightly more than the required 13.33 days (320 hours). During this period, the feed water
quality was consistent with the Manufacturer's statement of performance capability of the equipment.
Feed water quality (turbidity and temperature) during this period ranged from 1.10 to 4.04 NTU (based
on on-line turbidimeter readings), and 8.8 to 9.8 °C.
Temperature, turbidity, other feed water quality parameters such as algae, natural organic matter, pH,
alkalinity and hardness can influence coagulant chemistry and filtration. In order to offer a "worst case"
challenge to the equipment under test, no attempt was made to lower the turbidity or raise the
temperature of the incoming feed water.
The ETV protocol required the equipment to be run continuously with coagulant chemistry for 13.33
days. In actuality, the testing period with coagulant feed was a total of 342.5 hours, beginning on April
8, 2000 at 14:15 and the testing was completed on April 22, 2000 at 20:45. During the 24 hour period
immediately prior to this run, the system was operated without coagulant chemistry and analytical
samples collected at time 0, 6 hours, 12 hours, 18 hours and 24 hours of operation to determine arsenic
and antimony losses (if any) within the system. On-line coagulation chemistry was monitored by
comparing turbidity levels measured at three sample ports: feedwater, filter influent (after coagulation),
and filter effluent (filtrate). The KIMCFS control functions allowed for differing conditions to initiate
backwash. These conditions included turbidity breakthrough and filter headloss.
Standard operating parameters for filtration, backwash, and coagulant feed were established through the
use of the manufacturer's O&M Manual and during initial operations of the treatment system. The unit
was then operated under those conditions and operational data were collected according to the
schedule presented in Table 3-1.
3.4.2 Task 2 - Feed and Finished Water Quality Characterization
This task identified the water quality matrices of the influent water and effluent water and the
composition of the removed particulate material, with the relationships to the terminal headloss and/or
turbidity breakthrough point. This information was used to evaluate performance of the water treatment
equipment relative to stated performance goals. Feedwater and finished water parameters were
analyzed and recorded during the verification period according to the schedule in Table 3-1.
24
-------
Table 3-1. Analytical Data Collection Schedule
Parameter
F acility
Standard Methods' Number or other
EPA
Minimum
method reference
Method2
Frequency
Temperature (°C)
On-site
2550 B
Daily
pH
On-site
4500-lf B
150.1 /150.2
3
Total Alkalinity (mg/L)
Lab
2320 B
Daily
Total Hardness (mg/L)
Lab
200.74
Weekly
Total Organic Carbon (mg/L)
Lab
5310B
Weekly
UV254 Absorbance (cm"1)
Lab
5910 B
Weekly
Turbidity (NTU)
On-site
2130 B/Method 2
180.1
Daily
Aluminum (mg/L)
Lab
200.7
Weekly
Iron (mg/L)
Lab
200.7
Weekly
Manganese (mg/L)
Lab
200.7
Weekly
Suspended Solids in Backwash
Lab
160.2
Task 4
Water (mg/L)
Algae (ng/1)
Lab
10200H
Weekly5
Sulfate (mg/L)
Lab
375.2
Weekly
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
On-site
4500
2120 B (Hach Company modification
Daily
True Color (TCU)
On-site
of SM 2120 measured in
spectrophotometer at 455 nm)
Weekly
Arsenic Concentration and
Lab
200.8
Task 4
Species (|_im)
Antimony (|_im)
Lab
200.8
Task 4
Notes:
'Standard Methods source: 18th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992
American Water Works Association.
2 EPA Methods source: EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. EPA Methods are available from the
National Technical Information Services (NTIS).
3Once per 8 hours during runs with (when test system was staffed) no arsenic sampling. Each time arsenic samples
were taken, coagulant water pH was measured.
Calculated by adding together calcium and magnesium
5Weekly or once during each set of treatment conditions for which arsenic sampling was done.
All data collecting and analytical testing was performed in accordance with the procedures and
protocols established in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th
Edition (SM) or EPA approved methods. Water sampling ports were located on the feedwater supply
between the retention tank and filter and on the filter effluent.
Turbidity monitors were both continuous and bench. The continuous (on-line) turbidity meter was
checked daily against a bench turbidimeter that was checked against turbidity standards. The bench
turbidimeter was checked against secondary standards with each use. The turbidity instruments for this
study included a Great Lakes Model 95T/SS4 (on-line) and a HACH P2100 (bench).
Evaluation of water quality in this task was related to manufacturer's claims of performance for the
KIMCFS, as stated in Section 3.1.1.1, Evaluation of Stated Equipment Capabilities.
25
-------
3.4.3 Task 3 - Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance
During each day of verification testing while the equipment was staffed, operating conditions were
documented. This documentation included description of pretreatment chemistry for coagulation and
such treatment equipment operating data, as flow rate, pressure drop (filter head loss) and backwash
frequency and volume.
Treatment equipment operating parameters for both pretreatment and filtration were monitored and
recorded on a routine basis. Data on filter head loss and backwashing were also collected, as well as
electrical energy consumed by the treatment equipment. Operational data were read and recorded for
each day of the testing cycle. The operational parameters and frequency of the readings are listed in
Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2. Operational Data Collection Schedule
Operating Data Action
Chemicals Used
Chemical Type, Feed
Volume and Dosage
Flow
Filter Head Loss
Record on a daily basis.
Type: supplier, commercial and dilution for stock solution to be fed.
Check every two hours. Refill as needed, note volumes and time of refill. Maintain all
calculations on coagulant chemical solution preparation and all data on coagulant
chemicals as purchased from supplier or chemical manufacturer. Calculate the chemical
dosage for each filter fun in which arsenic challenge testing was carried out.
Feedwater Flow and Filter Check and record every two hours. Adjust when flow >10% above or below goal.
Record flows before and after adjustment.
Record initial clean bed total head loss at start of filter run. Record total head loss every
two hours. Record terminal head loss at end of filtration.
Filtered Water Production Record gallons of water produced per square foot of filter bed area for each filter run.
(This figure is the product of filtration rate (gpm/ft2) and length of filter run in minutes
performed at a constant rate).
Record time and durations of each filter backwashing.
Record water volume used to wash filter.
Determine suspended solids in backwash water for each set of arsenic removal testing
conditions.
Record meter reading once per day.
Record in logbook at end of day or at beginning of first shift on each following workday.
Filter Backwash
Suspended Solids in
Washwater
Electrical Power
Hours Operated Per Day
Note: All Parameters were checked only during times when package plant was staffed.
Manufacturer operating performance criteria to which collected data were compared are presented in
Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 below summarizes the operational objectives of this ETV test.
Table 3-3. Filtration Performance Capability Objectives
Characteristic Definition
Criteria
Initial turbidity
Filtrate turbidity at 15 minutes into run
0.15 NTU or less
Operating turbidity
Turbidity from matured filter
0.10NTU or less
Maximum allowable
0.5 NTU
filtrate turbidity
Water production
Volume of water during a filter run
2,750 gallons per sq. ft. (1,500 gallons)
26
-------
3.4.4 Task 4 - Arsenic Removal
The objective of this task was to evaluate arsenic removal during verification testing by measuring
arsenic concentration naturally present in the feedwater as well as arsenic concentration in the filtrate.
This portion of the study was of central importance, as it measured the effectiveness of the KIMCFS for
arsenic removal.
A task involving a total of 48 hours of operation with collection of 11 arsenic and antimony samples was
conducted to provide statistically verifiable arsenic removal data. This task was initiated immediately at
the conclusion of the Task 1 activity, which lasted for 282.75 hours.
Water quality samples were collected from the plant feedwater supply and the filter effluent water
sampling ports. Samples were collected after the treatment plant had been in operation for a total of
three (3) theoretical detention times (the theoretical detention time is the volume of water held in the
treatment equipment divided by the rate of flow) as measured through the pretreatment process up to
the filter. The theoretical detention time ranged from 50 to 70 minutes. Arsenic samples were collected
at time zero and at 1, 3 and 6 hours past time zero. Thereafter arsenic samples were collected once
every 6 hours thereafter until the filter run had lasted 48 hours from time zero. This resulted in collection
of 11 sets of arsenic samples in a 48-hour filter run. During the sampling event, one 250-mL sample
was collected at each sampling location and speciated on-site to allow Laboratory determination of total
arsenic, dissolved arsenic, As (m) and As (V). Total chlorine concentration of the treated water was
also measured at the same time each sample was collected.
3.5 Recording Data
The water quality parameters and operating data were maintained in the Operations Logbook. All
readings were manually logged.
Also recorded were the following:
Type of chemical added and concentration.
Water type (feedwater, filtrate)
Documentation of study events was facilitated through the use of logbooks, notebooks, photographs,
data sheets and chain of custody forms. Data handling is a critical component of any equipment
evaluation testing. Care in handling data assures that the results are accurate and verifiable. Accurate
sample analysis is meaningless without verifying that the numbers are being entered into spreadsheets
and reports accurately and that the results are statistically valid.
The data management system used in the verification-testing program involved the use of computer
spreadsheet software and manual recording methods for recording operational parameters. The
following describes how data were managed for each parameter.
27
-------
3.5.1 Objectives
The objective was to tabulate the collected data for completeness and accuracy, and to permit ready
retrieval for analysis and reporting. In addition, the use of computer spreadsheets allowed manipulation
of the data for arrangement into forms, useful for evaluation. A second objective was the statistical
analysis of the data as described in the "NSF/EPA ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for
Arsenic Removal" (EPA/NSF 2000).
3.5.2 Procedures
The above data handling procedures were used for all aspects of the verification test. Procedures
existed for the ise of the log books used for recording the operational data, the documentation of
photographs taken during the study, the use of chain of custody forms, the gathering of on-line
measurements, and the method for performing statistical analyses.
3.5.2.1 Log Books
Data were collected by COA in bound logbooks, a laboratory notebook and on computer generated
charts from the appropriate testing instruments. There was a single field logbook containing all on-site
operating data, which remained on site and contained instrument readings, on-site analyses and any
comments concerning the test run with respect to either the nature of the feedwater or the operation of
the equipment.
Each page of the notebook was sequentially numbered and identified as Kinetico ETV Test. Each
completed page was signed by the on-duty FTO staff. Errors were crossed out with a single line and
initialed. Deviations from the FOD whether by error or by a change in the conditions of either the test
equipment or the water conditions were noted in the notebook. The notebook included a carbon copy
of each page. The original notebook was stored on-site, and the carbon copy sheets retained by the
FTO. This not only eased referencing of the original data, but offered protection of the original record
of results.
3.5.2.2 Photographs
Photographs were taken with a camera and were utilized by COA to select the most appropriate
photographs for this report.
3.5.2.3 Chain of Custody
Original chain of custody forms traveled with the samples (copies of which are attached as Appendix
E).
28
-------
3.6 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators
3.6.1 Representativeness
Water quality parameter samples were collected as indicated in Table 3-1. Off-site samples were
collected in accordance with SM 1060B, held and preserved according to SM 5010, and delivered to
the laboratory for analysis. On-site samples were collected utilizing SM 1060B sampling techniques.
3.6.2 Statistical Uncertainty
Statistical 95% confidence calculations were performed for arsenic data, and confidence intervals
determined by taking three discrete samples of arsenic at one operating set during the testing period.
Sampling requirements are noted below in the work plan below. The formula used for confidence
calculations follows:
Statistical 95% confidence calculations were also performed for critical water quality data. The above
confidence calculations were used for these water quality data, and results are presented in Chapter 4,
Task 2, Feed and Finished Water Quality Characterization.
3.6.3 Accuracy
For water quality parameters, the accuracy referred to the difference between the sample result and the
true or reference value. Care in sampling, calibration and standardization of instrumentation and
consistency in analytical technique increased accuracy.
The pressure gauges used were NIST-traceable standard gauges. Performance evaluation was
established by calibration of instruments used on-site and by conformance to SM and EPA protocols.
3.6.4 Precision
Precision was the measure of the degree of consistency from test to test, and was assured by
replication. In the case of on-site testing for water quality, precision was increased by multiple tests and
confidence interval
2
S = standard deviation
n = number of measurements in data set
t = distribution value with n-1 degrees of freedom
a = the significance level defined for 95% confidence as: 1- 0.95 = 0.05.
95% confidence interval =X ± tn-\ o 975 (S / -Jfi)
29
-------
averaging; for single reading parameters, such as pressure and flow rates, precision was increased by
redundant readings from operator to operator. Travel blanks were not required for this testing.
3.7 Equipment
In order to assure data validity, the non-chemical processes used by the EPA/NSF Verification Testing
Plan procedures were followed. This ensured the accurate documentation cf both water quality and
equipment performance. Strict adherence to these procedures resulted in verifiable performance of
equipment. A summary of how the Kinetico system testing and analytical equipment was operated
during the verification testing is presented in this section.
3.7.1 Equipment Operations
The operating process for the KIMCFS is described in the Operations Manual (Appendix C), which
was maintained on site.
In summary, the system works by the injection of sodium hypochlorite into the water stream followed by
the injection of ferric chloride. The ferric chloride is oxidized by the sodium hypochlorite to ferric
hydroxide. Based on studies by Clifford, et al, the arsenic removal mechanism can be modeled as an
adsorption phenomenon. A ligand exchange process dominates, and in the presence of ionic arsenic, an
arsenate ion replaces an hydroxide ion in the structure of the ferric hydroxide and this arsenic compound
precipitates with the insoluble ferric hydroxide.
The insoluble ferric hydroxide is filtered out of the water stream by the media filter, which is
automatically backwashed, initiated by either turbidity breakthrough or terminal headloss.
Residence time to ensure a complete chemical reaction between the ferric chloride, sodium hypochlorite
and arsenic ion was accomplished by the retention tanks located between the chemical injection pumps
and the filter unit.
3.7.2 Analytical Equipment
The following analytical equipment was used on-site during the verification testing:
A Hach 21 OOP portable turbidimeter (serial number 000100024023) was used for bench-top
turbidity analyses. A Certificate of Conformance for this meter is located in Appendix G.
The pressure gauges for this study were glycerin-filled and calibrated against a glycerin-filled
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable Precision WGG 66/60 gauge,
0-60 psig.
RadioShack Model No: 63-1009A indoor-outdoor thermometer was used for the measurement
of temperature. This RadioShack thermometer was calibrated against a NIST-traceable
Thermometer (Tel-Tru model 0054-5).
30
-------
A rotometer [(Blue and White model F40750-LN16 (0 to 10 gpm)] was used to measure flow
rates.
On-line turbidity measurements were taken with a Great Lakes Model 95T/SS4 turbidimeter.
Chlorine measurements were taken with a HACH 2010 spectrophotometer.
Dissolved oxygen measurements were taken with a Hach "Sension 8" dissolved oxygen meter,
serial no. 990900000112.
pH measurements were taken with an Oakton pH/mV/° C meter, part no.35615-00.
3.8 QA/QC Procedures
The objective of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) was to control the methods and
instrumentation procedures such that the data were not subject to corruption. Adherence to analytical
methods as published in SM and EPA Methods was assured. Moreover, instrumentation and standard
reagents were referenced to NIST. Instruments used to gather data were standardized and calibrated in
accordance with the schedules noted below.
3.8.1 QA/QC Verifications
Daily QA/QC Verifications included:
On-line turbidimeter readings standardized against a calibrated bench turbidimeter, which was
calibrated against secondary standards with each use.
pH meter calibration was verified at pH 4, 7 and 10 with NIST-traceable pH buffers
QA/QC Verifications at the beginning of each testing period included:
Cleaning and re-calibration of on-line turbidimeters;
Pressure gauges with NIST-traceable gauge;
Inspection of turbidimeter tubing for unimpeded flow and integrity.
Calibration of test unit flow meter using "bucket and stopwatch" method. This activity was
performed on April 22, 2000, and was recorded in the Laboratory Notebook.
Further descriptions of these verification procedures are provided below.
3.8.2 On-Site Analytical Method
Specific Instrumentation methods for on-site QA/QC accuracy were as follows:
3.8.2.1 pH
Analyses were made by SM 4500-H+, A three-point calibration with NIST-traceable pH buffers was
performed daily. Between tests, the pH probe was kept wet in KC1 solution. For on-site determination
of pH, field procedures were used to limit absorbance of carbon dioxide to avoid skewing results by
poorly buffered water.
31
-------
pH measurements do not lend themselves to "blank" analyses. Duplicates were run once a day.
Performance evaluation samples were analyzed during the testing period. Results of the duplicates and
performance evaluation were recorded. The unit was also calibrated against a standardized pH
instrument in the State of Utah Laboratory and found to be within 5% accuracy.
3.8.2.2 Temperature
Temperatures were measured in accordance with SM 2550, at least once per day. The thermometer
read in 0.1° C increments and calibrated by the State of Utah Laboratory as well as against a NIST-
traceable thermometer.
3.8.2.3 Turbidity
The turbidimeters remained on during the duration of the testing period. On-line and bench top
turbidimeters were used, and the bench top turbidimeter was the calibration standard for the test.
Manufacturer's procedures for maintenance were followed and the schedules for maintenance and
cleaning noted in the logbook. All glassware was dedicated and cleaned with lint free tissues to prevent
scouring or deposits on the cells. The calibration of the bench-top turbidimeter (Hach 21 OOP) was
verified on March 15, 2000, using Hach StablCal® Standards (Stabilized Formizin Turbidity
Standards) of 800, 100, 20 and <0.1 NTU. On a weekly basis, the instrument calibration was verified
using secondary standards of Hach Gelex measuring 526, 52.2 and 4.87 NTU. Another secondary
standard, measuring 0.4 NTU was used to verily calibration before every use. SM2130 was employed
for measurement of turbidity.
3.8.2.4 True Color
True color was measured in accordance with SM 2120 at 455nm wavelength with a Hach DR2010
spectrophotometer.
3.8.2.5 Total Chlorine
Total chlorine measurements were made in accordance with SM 4500 on a Hach DR2000
spectrophotometer which was standardized with each set of measurements in accordance with the
method.
3.8.2.6 Particle Free Water (PFW)
The State of Utah, Department of Health, Division of Laboratory Services, provided water for our use
at the site. The ultra-pure water was brought from the Laboratory in new, transparent, polyethylene
one-gallon bottles marked and dedicated for this purpose.
This water was prepared by treating with reverse osmosis, followed by exchange deionization resins.
32
-------
3.8.2.7 Pressure Gauges
The pressure gauges for this study were a glycerin-filled and calibrated against a glycerin-filled NIST-
traceable Precision WGG 66/60 Gauge (0- 60 psig).
3.8.3 Off-Site Analysis for Chemical and Biological Samples
3.8.3.1 Organic Parameters, Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance
Samples for these analyses were collected in glass bottles supplied by the State of Utah Laboratory and
delivered to the Laboratory by COA at least twice a week. Metals samples were collected in acidified
bottles and all samples held for no more than three days at 4°C prior to delivery to the Laboratory in
accordance with SM 501 OB and SM 1060. This processing procedure is reflected in the chain of
custody forms located in Appendix E. Table 3-1 lists the SM number used for these tests.
3.8.3.2 Algae (Chlorophyll A) Samples
Samples were collected in opaque containers supplied by the State Laboratory and kept at 0°C in the
on-site refrigerator prior to delivery to the laboratory. Table 3-1 lists the sampling frequency and SM
number used.
3.8.3.3 Inorganic Samples
Inorganic samples were collected, held in the refrigerator at 4°C, and shipped in accordance with SM
3010B and C and 1060 and EPA §136.3, 40 CFR Ch.l. Proper bottles and preservatives, where
required (iron and manganese for example) were used. Although the travel time was brief, samples
were shipped h coolers at 4° C. The appropriate SM and EPA test methods and minimum testing
frequencies are listed in Table 3-1.
33
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
Verification testing of the KIMCFS, which occurred at the Park City Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration
Plant, commenced on April 7, 2000, and concluded on April 22, 2000. A summary of the dates and
times required for each activity follows:
This section of the verification report presents the results of the Initial Operations period as well as the
Verification Testing period and a discussion of the results. Results and discussions of the following are
included: initial operations, verification tasks, and QA/QC.
4.2 Initial Operations Results
An Initial Operations period allowed COA and Kinetico, Inc. to refine the unit's operating procedures
and to make operational adjustments as needed to successfully treat the source water. The primary
goals of the Initial Operations period were to establish an optimum process of coagulant chemistry,
coagulant dosage, filter run times and backwashing frequency.
4.2.1 Characterization of Influent Water
Historical untreated surface water quality data that were obtained from Park City Municipal
Corporation showed that the Spiro Tunnel Bulkhead water exhibited the following characteristics as
shown in Table 1-1. Review of these historical data indicated that the technology should be suitable for
this site.
4.2.2 Initial Test Run
The Test Plan required that an initial test run be performed with uncoagulated feed water, and that
samples be collected after 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours of operation. This activity was intended to determine
if arsenic is removed from the system in the absence of coagulant chemicals. Table 4-1 and Figures 4-1
through 4-3 provide the analytical results of this Initial Operations activity for a number of parameters.
Table 4-2 summarizes the arsenic species from Table 4-1.
Activity
Dates
Total Hours
Initial Test Run
Tasks 1-3
Task 4
Total Testing
April 7 - April 8, 2000
April 8 - April 20, 2000
April 20 - April 22, 2000
April 7 - April 22, 2000
24.25
282.75
59.75
366.75
34
-------
Table 4-1. Initial Testing without Coagulant Chemicals (April 7 & 8,2000)
Parameter
HourO
Hour 6
Hour 12
Hour 18
Hour 24
As (total) (ug/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
As (dissolved) (ng/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
As (insoluble) (ng/L)
1 Feedwater
2 Filtrate
As (III) (ng/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
As (V) (ng/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
Antimony (ng/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
In-Line Continuous Turbidity (NTU)
Feedwater
Filtrate
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
Temperature (°C)
Feedwater
Filtrate
pH
Feedwater
Filtrate
80.3
38.4
38.6
34.3
41.7
4.1
2.5
2.4
36.1
31.9
8.6
8.6
1.75
0.007
143
151
9.5
9.5
7.40
7.31
68.9
38.1
39
35.3
29.9
2.8
1.8
2.1
37.2
33.2
8.6
8.6
2.66
0.008
147
143
9.5
9.5
7.38
7.29
79.8
38.2
38.9
35
40.9
3.2
2.2
2
36.7
33
8.7
2.04
0.002
9.5
9.5
7.34
7.33
67.4
38.2
38.72
35.1
28.68
3.1
2.3
2.3
36.42
32.8
8.7
8.6
2.03
0.005
9.7
9.7
7.39
7.34
77.1
35.3
38.2
32.8
38.9
2.5
2.3
2.2
35.9
30.6
8.7
8.7
3.79
0.085
146
146
9.7
9.8
7.11
7.10
All readings at the MDL were used as that number in calculations.
1 Feedwater Insoluble As = Total Feedwater As - Dissolved Feedwater As
2 Filtrate Insoluble As = Total Filtrate As - Dissolved Filtrate As
Table 4-2. Arsenic Data Summaries (no coagulation chemicals) (April 7-8, 2000)
As (total) (ng/L) As (dissolved) As (insoluble) (ng/L) As III (pg/L) As V (pg/L)
(H-g/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater Filtrate
Average
74.7
37.6
38.7
34.5
36.0
3.1
2.2
2.2
36.5
32.3
Min.
67.4
35.3
38.2
32.8
28.68
2.5
1.8
2
35.9
30.6
Max.
80.3
38.4
39
35.3
41.7
4.1
2.5
2.4
37.2
33.2
Std. Dev
6.12
1.31
0.312
1.02
6.24
0.60
0.26
0.16
0.512
1.07
95% CI
69.3,80.1
36.5, 38.8
38.4, 39.0
33.6, 35.4
30.5,41.5
2.6, 3.7
2.0,2.4
2.1,2.3
36.0, 36.9
31.4, 33.2
All readings at the Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) for Arsenic III of (<0.5 jag/L) were used as that number in
calculations.
Note: The reliability of the low level (MDL of 0.1 pg/L to approximately 2 pg/L) should be considered as only
qualitative (not quantitative).
35
-------
Figure 4-1 demonstrates reduction in total arsenic concentrations during the 24-hour Initial Operations
period of approximately 50%.
S> 40
<
5 20
o
-A
-1 1 1—
6 12 18
Hour of Initial Test Run
24
-As Total Feedwater •
¦As Total Filtrate
Figure 4-1. Total Arsenic Concentrations For Initial Testing Period (no coagulation chemicals) (April 7 & 8,2000)
Figure 4-2 illustrates the dissolved arsenic concentrations during he Initial Operations period. As
shown in this figure, the data suggest that there is very little removal of dissolved arsenic by the filter
alone without the addition of coagulation chemicals, the percent removal ranged from 9 to 14%.
"5i 40
3-
¦| 30
0)
£
<
¦o
0)
>
o
Q
20
10
-r-
6
—i—
12
—i—
18
24
Hour of Initial Test Run
H—As (dissolved) Feedwater 1
-As (dissolved) Filtrate
Figure 4-2. Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations For Initial Testing Period (no coagulation chemicals) (April 7-8,
2000)
The average dissolved As concentration in the filtrate stream is 10.9% lower than that in the feedwater
stream. While this reduction is minimal, it is greater than expected.
36
-------
Figure 4-3 illustrates the insoluble arsenic concentrations during the Initial Operations period. As shown
in this figure, the data suggest significant removal of insoluble arsenic by the filter alone without the
addition of coagulation chemicals, in the range of 89 to 94%.
It is postulated that the iron present in the feedwater supply oxidizes in the presence of air and forms an
insoluble complex with a portion of the arsenic in the feedwater supply. This accounts for the average
reduction in insoluble arsenic from an average of 36.0 |jg/L in the feedwater to an average of 3.1 |_ig/L
in the filtrate, a 91% reduction.
Hour of Initial Test Run
—A—As (insoluble) Feedwater —X —As (insoluble) Filtrate
Figure 4-3. Insoluble Arsenic Concentrations For Initial Testing Period (no coagulation chemicals) (April 7-8,
2000)
Figure 4-4 illustrates the antimony concentrations in both feedwater and filtrate streams during the initial
run when no coagulant chemicals were added. Review of this Figure suggests very little removal of
antimony by the KIMCFS.
Hour of Initial Run
H— Feedwater —o— Filtrate
Figure 4-1. Antimony Concentration vs. Time (no coagulant chemicals) (April 7-8, 2000)
37
-------
4.2.2.1 Coagulant Chemistry
Evaluation of the required concentration of FeCK necessary for optimum arsenic removal was carried
out by means of a simple series of jar tests conducted at the end of March prior to the initiation of the
ETV testing period. Water from the Park city Bulkhead supply source was introduced into the
KIMCFS with increasing amounts of ferric chloride added. The samples were then analyzed and the
results were used to fix the ferric chloride injection concentration for the ETV testing period at
approximately 3 mg/L (as Fe). The description of this initial testing is documented in Appendix C. The
dosage in the verification testing was higher than that determined in the jar tests to compensate for
varying feedwater flow rates and concentrations of the chemical reagent.
It had already been determined that the major component necessary for arsenic reduction in the
Bulkhead water supply was iron, and that little additional oxidation enhancement was required.
However, the Park City water sources had experienced historical fluctuations in the concentration of
arsenic as well as other elements; it was therefore decided by the manufacturer to maintain a residual
chlorine concentration of approximately 1.6 mg/L (as Q2) as an insurance measure against the need for
unforeseen oxidation requirements.
4.2.2.2 Coagulant Dosage
The sources, strengths, dilution and flow rates of the coagulant chemicals were established as follows
and are listed in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Sources, Strengths, Dilution And Flow Rates Of The Coagulant Chemicals
Parameter Sodium Hypochlorite
Ferric Chloride
Source
Whirl Brand (Grocery Store)
AquaMark AQ126
Strength (as supplied)
5.25%
50%
Dilution* (as fed)
578 mg/L (as Hypochlorite)
3 Wo
Metering Rate
0.82 gph
0.074 gph
Feedwater Concentration (at 5 gpm)
1.58 mg/L (as Hypochlorite)
8.63 mg/L (as FeCl2)
*Plant Tap Water
The above parameters were maintained throughout the duration of the test.
4.2.3 Filter Run Times
The KIMCFS was set to automatically backwash based on either headloss or turbidity breakthrough.
The on-line turbidimeter was set to initiate backwash when the filtrate turbidity reached 0.15 NTU.
4.2.4 Backwashing Frequency
Backwash cycles were automatically initiated and controlled with a timer/controller, based on a
maximum filtrate turbidity of 0.15 NTU or a maximum pressure drop of 20 psig. These settings were
maintained throughout the duration of the test.
38
-------
The KIMCFS is designed to run fully automatic with 100% redundancy. As the system produces
filtrate, the differential pressure and turbidity are monitored. When a preset value for either of these
parameters is reached, a backwash sequence is automatically initiated.
When this backwash is initiated, the standby filter begins to produce water for the backwash of the
exhausted tank only. As a result, there is no filtrate produced during the backwash, and none available
for sampling with the on-line turbidimeter or for bench-top analysis. When the backwash sequence has
been initiated, the data from the turbidimeter are no longer recorded in the data logging device; this
continues until the unit has completed the backwash cycle and is again in the service mode producing
filtrate. Therefore, all samples taken from the filtrate sample tap during a backwash cycle may contain
raw water and/or backwash water.
In an attempt to confirm the exact cause of each backwash event (filtrate turbidity or filter head loss)
during this test, the filtrate turbidity data were often recorded in the Laboratory Notebook when the
pneumatic actuator indicated the initiation of a backwash event. It was later determined that once the
event was initiated (because the effluent turbidimeter receive no water flow), the readings were not
accurate, so all of these particular data are meaningless. As a result, these data were not entered into
the On-site Logbook, from which the data for this report were taken.
During this test, care was taken to record readings and take samples only while the system was in
normal operation and not during backwash episodes. During the Task 4 activities, however, readings
and samples were required to be taken at specific times, and one of these times (0900 on 4/21/00) was
in the middle of a backwash episode. Because the filtrate samples collected at this time were not
representative of the actual stream, the data collected were included in the appropriate lists of data, but
not in the data summaries and graphs presented later in this report.
4.3 Verification Testing Results
4.3.1 Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs And Routine Equipment Operation
Oxidant and coagulant feeding was initiated at 1415 on April 8, 2000, immediately at the conclusion of
the 24-hour Initial Test Run period.
At least once per day, the following parameters were measured on-site on both the feedwater and
filtrate streams:
• Temperature
• pH
• Bench-Top Turbidity
• Dissolved Oxygen
39
-------
From April 8 until April 11, readings intended to be taken from the feedwater sample tap were
mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12 through the end of the test
period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap. All coagulated feedwater data,
collected on April 13 through April 18 are listed in Appendix E.
Daily temperature readings for the verification testing period are listed in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Daily Temperature Data (April 8- April 22,2000)
Date
Time
Temperature (°C)
Feedwater
Filtrate
4/8/00
1715
9.7
9.8
4/9/00
1035
9.8
10.0
4/9/00
1635
9.7
9.9
4/9/00
1730
9.7
9.9
4/10/00
0730
9.8
10.0
4/10/00
1540
9.9
9.9
4/11/00
1130
9.8
10.0
4/12/00
1710
OO
OO
10.0
4/13/00
1830
OO
OO
10.0
4/14/00
0930
OO
OO
10.1
4/14/00
1420
OO
OO
10.0
4/15/00
1630
OO
OO
10.0
4/16/00
0830
OO
OO
10.0
4/17/00
0845
OO
OO
10.1
4/18/00
1330
9.4
10.1
4/19/00
1245
9.0
10.2
4/20/00
0900
9.0
9.9
4/20/00
1200
9.0
10.0
4/20/00
1500
9.0
10.0
4/20/00
2100
9.0
10.2
4/21/00
0300
9.0
9.9
4/21/00
0900
8.9
10.1
4/21/00
1500
9.0
10.2
4/21/00
2100
9.0
10.1
4/22/00
0300
9.0
10.0
4/22/00
0900
9.0
10.0
4/22/00
1830
8.9
10.1
These data are summarized and plotted in the following tables and figures. Note that the multiple
readings for temperature as required for Task 4 for the period of April 20 through 22 are included in the
graphs as additional data points.
40
-------
The 4/21/00, 0900, temperature data reading are not included in the Table 4-5 data summary and
Figure 4-5 due to the measurement being taken in error during the backwash cycle.
Table 4-5. Temperature Data Summary (April 8 ¦
- April 22,2000)
Feed (°C)
Filtrate (°C)
Average
9.2
10.0
Minimum
8.8
9.8
Maximum
9.9
10.2
Standard Deviation
0.40
0.10
95% Confidence Interval
9.0, 9.3
10.0, 10.1
Note that there is approximately a 1°C increase in temperature from the feed to the filtrate stream as
shown in Figure 4-5. This increase is likely due to the residence time in the reaction tanks, which were
installed in an area where the ambient temperature was maintained by the facility at approximately 70°F
(21° C).
12
10
O
o
0)
8
k.
3
cu
6
i_
0)
Q.
E
4
0)
H
2
0
& & / / / / / / / / / / / /
Date
H— Feedwater
• Filtrate
Figure 4-5. Daily Temperature Data vs. Time (April 8- April 22,2000)
41
-------
Daily pH measurements taken during the verification testing period are shown in Table 4-6. As noted in
Section 4.3.1, from April 8 until April 11, pH readings intended to be taken from the raw feedwater
sample tap were mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12 through
the end of the test period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap (See Figure 2-1).
Table 4-6. Daily pH Data (April 8 - April 22, 2000)
Date
Time
Feedwater
Filtrate
4/8/00
1715
-
7.10
4/9/00
1035
-
7.14
4/9/00
1635
-
7.06
4/9/00
1730
-
7.06
4/10/00
0730
-
7.01
4/10/00
1540
-
7.10
4/11/00
1130
-
7.11
4/11/00
1220
-
7.15
4/11/00
1530
-
7.14
4/12/00
1710
7.30
7.14
4/13/00
1830
7.26
7.10
4/14/00
0930
7.25
7.16
4/14/00
1420
7.36
7.24
4/15/00
1320
7.22
7.15
4/15/00
1630
7.21
7.14
4/15/00
1900
7.18
7.12
4/16/00
0800
7.24
7.14
4/16/00
1630
7.25
7.18
4/17/00
0815
7.15
7.11
4/18/00
1035
7.21
7.20
4/18/00
2000
7.21
7.08
4/19/00
1700
7.19
7.12
4/20/00
0900
7.23
7.18
4/20/00
1200
7.33
7.24
4/20/00
1500
7.29
7.20
4/20/00
2100
7.26
7.22
4/21/00
0300
7.29
7.19
4/21/00
0900
7.28
7.22
4/21/00
1500
7.23
7.15
4/21/00
2100
7.23
7.19
4/22/00
0300
7.22
7.17
4/22/00
0900
7.26
7.20
4/22/00
1830
7.24
7.18
- No measurement taken
The filtrate pH readings are virtually always lower than the feedwater pH. This is likely due to the
addition of acidic ferric chloride to effect coagulation. The 4/21/00, 0900 pH data reading are not
included in the Table 4-7 data summary and Figure 4-6 due to the measurement being taken in error
during the backwash cycle.
42
-------
Table 4-7. Daily pH Data Summary (April 8- April 22,2000)
F eedwater F iltrate
Average
7.24
7.15
Minimum
7.15
7.01
Maximum
7.36
7.24
Standard Deviation
0.0477
0.0533
95% Confidence Interval
7.22,7.26
7.13,7.16
The multiple readings for pH as required for Task 4 for the period of April 20 through 22 are included
in Figure 4-6 as additional data points.
Date
H— Feedwater —X — Filtrate
Figure 4-6. Daily pH Data vs. Time (April 8- April 22,2000)
43
-------
Table 4-8 lists the bench-top turbidity readings for the testing period. As noted in Section 4.3.1,
bench-top turbidity readings intended to be taken from the raw feedwater sample tap from April 8 until
April 11 were mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12 through the
end of the test period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap (See Figure 2-1).
Table 4-8. Daily Bench-Top Turbidity Data (NTU) (April 8 - April 22,2000)
Date
Time
Feedwater (NTU)
Filtrate (NTU)
4/8/00
-
-
-
4/9/00
1035
-
0.04
4/9/00
1635
-
0.11
4/10/00
0730
-
0.30
4/10/00
1540
-
0.15
4/11/00
1130
-
0.30
4/11/00
1220
-
0.86
4/11/00
1530
-
0.27
4/12/00
1710
1.95
0.17
4/13/00
1830
1.82
0.18
4/14/00
0930
1.58
0.30
4/14/00
1420
1.52
0.15
4/15/00
1630
1.45
0.40
4/16/00
0830
1.60
0.31
4/17/00
0845
1.53
0.97
4/18/00
1330
1.4
-
4/19/00
1245
1.47
0.17
4/20/00
0900
1.84
0.09
4/20/00
2100
1.49
0.17
4/21/00
0300
1.51
0.10
4/21/00
0900
1.47
0.012
4/21/00
1500
1.59
0.18
4/21/00
2100
1.49
0.10
4/22/00
0300
1.38
0.090
4/22/00
0900
1.30
0.19
4/22/00
1830
1.34
0.15
- No measurement taken
From the Table 4-8 data, it is obvious that particulate material in the feedwater was substantially
reduced by the multimedia filter in the test unit. The 4/21/00, 0900 bench-top turbidity reading was not
included in the Table 4-9 data summary and Figure 4-7 due to the measurement being taken in error
during the backwash cycle
Table 4-9. Bench-Top Turbidity Data Summary (April 8- April 22, 2000)
Feedwater (NTU) Filtrate (NTU)
Average 1.54 0.25
Minimum 1.30 0.04
Maximum 1.95 0.97
Standard Deviation 0.18 0.23
95% Confidence Interval 1.45. 1.63 0.15. 0.35
44
-------
Note that multiple readings for the bench-top turbidity data as required for Task 4 for the period of
April 20 through 22 are included in the graphs as additional data points
5.00
4.00
3.00
£
1 2.00
1.00
X
I
v v.
x --x —*
/
-X—X—x-
X—X X—X
0.00
^ V# # ^ ^ ^ ^
Date
H— Feedwater (NTU)
¦Coagulated Feedwater (NTU) —X —Filtrate (NTU)
Figure 4-7. Daily Bench-Top Turbidity Data vs. Time (April 8- April 22,2000)
Turbidity as shown in Figure 4-7 was substantially reduced by the media filters in the KIMCFS.
45
-------
Table 4-10 shows the daily measurements for dissolved oxygen. As noted in Section 4.3.1, dissolved
oxygen readings intended to be taken from the raw feedwater sample tap from April 8 until April 11
were mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12 through the end of the
test period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap.
Table 4-10. Daily Dissolved Oxygen Data (mg/L) (April 8- April 22,2000)
Date Time Feedwater (mg/L) Filtrate (mg/L)
4/8/00
-
-
-
4/9/00
-
-
-
4/10/00
1540
-
7.26
4/11/00
1130
-
5.96
4/11/00
1220
-
6.03
4/11/00
1530
-
5.96
4/12/00
1710
5.71
5.58
4/13/00
1830
5.77
5.74
4/14/00
0930
5.94
6.21
4/14/00
1420
5.53
5.53
4/15/00
1630
5.77
5.26
4/16/00
0830
5.26
5.36
4/17/00
0845
5.29
5.69
4/18/00
1330
5.07
5.33
4/19/00
1245
5.56
5.12
4/20/00
0900
5.17
5.80
4/20/00
2100
6.23
5.98
4/21/00
0300
6.21
5.65
4/21/00
0900
6.47
5.65
4/21/00
1500
5.50
5.75
4/21/00
2100
5.81
5.83
4/22/00
0300
5.59
5.96
4/22/00
0900
5.82
5.46
5/22/00
1830
5.40
5.52
The 4/21/00, 0900 dissolved oxygen data are not included in the Table 4-11 data summary and Figure
4-8 due to the measurement being taken in error during the backwash cycle
Table 4-11. Daily Dissolved Oxygen Data Summary (April 8- April 22,2000)
Feedwater (mg/L) Filtrate (mg/L)
Average
5.63
5.76
Minimum
5.07
5.12
Maximum
6.23
7.26
Standard Deviation
0.333
0.445
95% Confidence Interval
5.47, 5.78
5.57, 5.95
46
-------
Note that multiple readings for the dissolved oxygen data as required for Task 4 for the period of April
20 through 22 are included in the graphs as additional data points.
H— Feedwater (mg/L) —6— Filtrate (mg/L)
Figure 4-8. Daily Dissolved Oxygen Data vs. Time (April 8- April 22, 2000)
There do not appear to be substantial differences in dissolved oxygen concentration between feedwater
and filtrate streams.
4.3.2 Task 2 - Feed and Finished Water Quality Characterization
Continuous turbidity data from the wall-mounted plant turbidimeter on the feedwater stream, and from
the Kinetico turbidimeter on the filtrate stream (Appendix E) summarized are in Table 4-13 and plotted
in Figure 4-9. In-line feedwater turbidity readings during the testing period averaged 1.75 NTU,
compared to the bench-top turbidity average of 1.54 NTU. The in-line filtrate turbidity readings for the
testing period averaged 0.096 NTU, compared to the bench-top average of 0.23 NTU. The Kinetico
filtrate turbidity data varied considerably over the test period. This was expected as the filtration
process involves a build-up of suspended solids in the media filter which eventually began to break
through raising the filtrate turbidity. The system was set to start backwashing when the turbidimeter
reading reached 0.15 NTU.
As noted h Section 4.3.1, readings intended to be taken from the feedwater sample tap from April 8
until April 11 were mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12 through
the end of the test period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap.
47
-------
The 4/21/00, 0900 continuous turbidity data are not included in the Table 4-12 data summary and
Figure 4-9 due to the measurement being taken in error during a backwash cycle.
Table 4-12. Continuous Turbidity Data Summary (April 8 - April 22,2000)
Feedwater (NTU)
Filtrate (NTU)
Average
1.75
0.097
Minimum
1.10
0.008
Maximum
3.77
0.920
Standard Deviation
0.644
0.145
95% Confidence Interval
1.62,1.89
0.069,0.125
-a
s
o
o
O
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
\
1
•
L
—1—i—
L.—i—i— i—i _i—,—
# / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Date
¦ Feedwater (NTU)
• Filtrate (NTU)
Figure 4-9. Continuous Turbidity vs. Time (April 8- April 22, 2000)
Based on the average continuous turbidity data from Table 4-12, feedwater turbidity was reduced by
92% by the KIMCFS. The differences in filtrate readings between bench-top and on-line instruments
are addressed in Section 4.5.3.3.
48
-------
Table 4-13 lists the iron measurements for the testing period, and these data are summarized in Table 4-
14. As noted in Section 4.3.1, readings intended to be taken from the feedwater sample tap from April
8 until April 11 were mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12
through the end of the test period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap.
Table 4-13. Iron Concentrations (April 7 -
April 22,2000)
Date
Time
Feedwater Iron (mg/L)
Filtrate Iron (mg/L)
4/7/00
1630
0.699
0.03
4/20/00
0900
0.236
-
4/20/00
0900
0.253
<0.02
4/20/00
1000
0.247
0.0318
4/20/00
1200
0.441
0.062
4/20/00
1500
0.257
0.0984
4/20/00
2100
0.253
0.103
4/21/00
0300
0.265
0.0226
4/21/00
0900
0.244
0.7371
4/21/00
1500
0.249
0.0984
4/21/00
2100
0.249
0.0284
4/22/00
0300
0.252
<0.02
4/22/00
0900
0.238
0.138
4/22/00
1830
0.247
0.0989
- not tested
1 This data point does not represent the actual filtrate iron concentration because the unit was in the backwash mode
when the sample was collected. See Section 4.2.4 for explanation.
The 4/21/00, 0900 iron data are not included in the Table 4-14 data summary due to the measurement
being taken in error
during a backwash cycle
Table 4-14. Iron Data Summary (April 7 -
April 22,2000)
Feedwater (mg/L)
Filtrate (mg/L)
Average
0.299
0.063
Minimum
0.236
<0.02
Maximum
0.699
0.138
Standard Deviation
0.132
0.042
95% Confidence Interval
0.227,0.370
0.039,0.087
*A11 readings at the MDL (0.02 mg/L) were used as that number in calculations.
Tables 4-13 and 4-14 indicate that with the exception of data at 0900 on 4/21/00, the majority of the
iron in the feedwater was removed by the KIMCFS, even through FeCK was injected as a coagulant.
49
-------
On a daily basis, samples were taken and the laboratory measured the concentrations of alkalinity.
Table 4-15 lists the alkalinity data and Table 4-16 provides a summary of the data. Figure 4-10 is a
plot of alkalinity data over the test period.
As noted in Section 4.3.1, readings intended to be taken from the feedwater sample tap from April 8
until April 11 were mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12 through
the end of the test period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap.
Table 4-15. Alkalinity Daily Measurements (April 8 - April 22,2000)
Date Time Feedwater (mg/L) Filtrate (mg/L)
4/8/00
-
-
-
4/9/00
-
-
-
4/10/00
1030
-
136
4/11/00
1530
-
136
4/12/00
1710
144
134
4/13/00
1015
146
135
4/14/00
1420
144
138
4/15/00
1320
142
138
4/16/00
1000
145
138
4/17/00
1400
143
138
4/18/00
1035
136
144
4/19/00
1000
147
139
4/20/00
0900
142
137
4/20/00
0900
147
138
4/20/00
1000
143
137
4/20/00
1200
142
138
4/20/00
1500
142
140
4/20/00
2100
143
139
4/21/00
0300
138
146
4/21/00
0900
145
152
4/21/00
1500
144
138
4/21/00
2100
146
140
4/22/00
0300
145
141
4/22/00
0900
144
142
4/22/00
1830
137
136
- not tested
The 4/21/00, 0900 alkalinity data are not included in the Table 4-16 data summary and Figure 4-10
due to the measurement being taken in error during a backwash cycle.
Table 4-16. Alkalinity Data Summary (April 8- April 22,2000)
Feedwater (mg/L) Filtrate (mg/L)
Average
143
139
Minimum
136
134
Maximum
147
146
Standard Deviation
3.04
2.82
95% Confidence Interval
142,144
137,140
50
-------
The multiple readings for the alkalinity data as required for Task 4 for the period of April 20 through 22
are included in the graphs as additional data points.
Date
—i— Feedwater —x - Filtrate
Figure 4-10. Alkalinity vs. Time (April 8- April 22, 2000)
Although the average alkalinity measurement of the filtrate stream is approximately 3% less than the
feedwater stream, it is apparent that alkalinity is not effectively removed by this technology.
51
-------
Antimony data generated during the testing are listed in the following tables and graph. Table 4-17 lists
the daily measurements for antimony for the verification testing period. As noted in Section 4.3.1,
readings intended to be taken from the feedwater sample tap from April 8 until April 11 were
mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From April 12 through the end of the test
period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap.
Table 4-17. Antimony Daily Measurements (April 8- April 22,2000)
Date Time Feedwater (|ig/L) Filtrate (ng/L)
4/8/00
-
-
-
4/9/00
1635
-
8.0
4/10/00
1030
-
8.3
4/11/00
1220
-
8.4
4/12/00
1710
9.0
8.3
4/13/00
1015
9.1
8.5
4/14/00
1420
8.9
8.4
4/15/00
1320
8.8
8.4
4/16/00
1000
8.8
9.2
4/17/00
1400
9.3
8.9
4/18/00
1035
8.3
9.5
4/19/00
1000
9.2
8.9
4/20/00
0900
9.3
8.7
4/20/00
1000
9.1
8.9
4/20/00
1200
8.9
8.5
4/20/00
1500
9.2
8.4
4/20/00
2100
8.9
8.5
4/21/00
0300
8.8
8.6
4/21/00
0900
8.7
8.8
4/21/00
1500
9.1
8.6
4/21/00
2100
9.2
8.7
4/22/00
0300
9.3
8.6
4/22/00
0900
9.1
8.6
4/22/00
1830
9.6
8.4
- not tested
The 4/21/00, 0900 antimony data are not included in the Table 4-18 data summary and Figure 4-11
due to the measurement being taken in error during a backwash cycle.
Table 4-18. Antimony Data Summary (April 8-
April 22,2000)
Feedwater (|ig/L)
Filtrate (ng/L)
Average
Minimum
9.0
8.3
8.6
8.0
Maximum
9.6
9.5
Standard Deviation
0.28
0.33
95% Confidence Interval
8.9, 9.2
8.5, 8.7
52
-------
The multiple readings for the antimony data as required for Task 4 for the period of April 20 through 22
are included in the graphs as the additional data points.
Date
H— Feedwater (mg/L) —X — Filtrate (mg/L)
Figure 4-11. Antimony vs. Time (April 8- April 22,2000)
From the above data, it is evident that, although there is a slight reduction, antimony is not effectively
removed by this process.
Sample measurements for Arsenic (Total, Dissolved, m, and V) for the testing period are listed below
in Table 4-19. As noted in Section 4.3.1, readings intended to be taken from the feedwater sample tap
from April 8 until April 11 were mistakenly taken from the coagulated feedwater sample tap. From
April 12 through the end of the test period, feedwater readings were taken from the correct sample tap.
53
-------
Table 4-19. Arsenic Data Measurements (April 8- April 22,2000)
Total As (ng/L) Dissolved As (ng/L) As (III) (|ug/L) As (V) (ng/L)
Date Time Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate
4/8/00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4/9/00
1635
-
3.4
-
1.1
-
0.52
-
0.58
4/10/00
1030
-
0.9
-
1.2
-
<0.5*
-
0.7
4/11/00
1220
-
11.6
-
1.1
-
<0.5*
-
0.6
4/12/00
1710
74.6
1.8
41.8
1.1
2.6
<0.5*
39.2
0.6
4/13/00
1015
75.3
1.3
40.5
1
2.3
<0.5*
38.2
0.5
4/14/00
1420
59.9
1.4
37.6
1.3
2.5
<0.5*
35.1
0.8
4/15/00
1320
64.1
0.9
40.7
1.4
2.4
<0.5*
38.3
0.9
4/16/00
1000
67.2
1.2
42.7
1.5
2.3
<0.5*
40.4
1
4/17/00
1400
74.2
4.1
42.1
1.5
2.5
<0.5*
39.6
1
4/18/001
1035
1.2
68
1.4
38.5
<0.5*
2.4
0.9
36.1
4/19/00
0930
67.4
1.4
40.9
1.4
1.4
<0.5*
39.5
0.9
4/20/00
0900
72.7
1.2
41.5
1.4
2.8
1
38.7
<0.5*
4/20/00
1000
72.9
2
41.3
1.6
3
0.9
38.3
0.7
4/20/00
1200
71.8
2.7
41.5
1.5
3
1
38.5
0.5
4/20/00
1500
75.1
4
40.6
1.4
3.4
1
37.2
<0.5*
4/20/00
2100
70.5
4.3
41.2
1.6
2.8
0.9
38.4
0.7
4/21/00
0300
74.1
2.8
42.6
2.6
3
1.1
39.6
1.5
4/21/002
0900
72
26.1
40.6
1.7
3.4
0.8
37.2
0.9
4/21/00
1500
74.7
3.8
41.5
1.7
3.1
0.9
38.4
0.8
4/21/00
2100
73.3
1.9
39.9
1.5
3.1
0.9
36.8
0.6
4/22/00
0300
73.6
1.5
41.8
1.7
2.9
1
38.9
0.7
4/22/00
0900
67.3
5
40.4
1.6
3
0.9
37.4
0.7
4/22/00
1830
75.8
3.9
41.9
2.2
3.1
1
38.8
1.2
- Measurement not taken
* MDL for Arsenic III (<0.5 |ig/L).
Note: the reliability of the low-level data (MDL of 0.1 jxg/L to approximately 2 jag/L) should be considered only qualitative (not quantitative).
1 April 18 data for all arsenic species tested in the raw feedwater and filtrate streams appear to have been reversed in the Laboratory reports. Because this is
believed to have been a sampling bottle labeling error, these data are not included in the summary table.
2
The filtrate Total As reading for 0900 on 4/21/00 is unusually high. Since the unit was in backwash mode at the time (0849 to 0909) with no filtrate flowing
through the system, it is suspected that backwash water was in the filtrate manifold containing a high concentration of insoluble arsenic. This would also account
for the more reasonable levels of dissolved arsenic, As(III) and As(V) in the filtrate stream during that sampling event.
-------
Samples tested for arsenic (Total, Dissolved, HI, and V) in the coagulated feedwater are not graphed in
corresponding arsenic Figures 4-12 through 4-15, but are shown in Appendix E. Data were collected
as an indicator of the process operations and are in addition to the ETV Protocol. The 4/21/00, 0900
arsenic data are not included in the Table 4-20 data summary or graphed in Figures 4-12 through 4-15
due to the measurement being taken in error during a backwash cycle.
Table 4-20. Arsenic Data Summary (April 8-
April 22,2000)
Feedwater (|ig/L)
Filtrate (|ig/L)
Total Arsenic
Average
71.4
2.9
Minimum
59.9
0.9
Maximum
75.8
11.6
Standard Deviation
4.43
2.4
95% Confidence Interval
69.3,73.4
1.9,3.9
Dissolved Arsenic
Average
41.1
1.5
Minimum
37.6
1
Maximum
42.7
2.6
Standard Deviation
1.16
0.35
95% Confidence Interval
40.6,41.7
1.3, 1.6
Arsenic (TID
Average
2.7
0.7
Minimum
1.4
<0.5
Maximum
3.4
1.1
Standard Deviation
0.46
0.2
Confidence Interval
2.5,2.9
0.6, 0.8
Arsenic (V)
Average
38.4
0.8
Minimum
35.1
<0.5
Maximum
40.4
1.5
Standard Deviation
1.22
0.3
95% Confidence Interval
37.8, 39.0
0.7, 0.9
All readings at the MDL for Arsenic III (<0.5 jag/L) were used as that number in calculations.
Note: the reliability of the low-level data (MDL of 0.1 |ig/L to approximately 2|ig/L) should be considered only
qualitative (not quantitative).
A closer inspection of the dissolved arsenic data in Table 4-20 shows that there is an inconsistency
between the dissolved arsenic results and the total arsenic results shown for the filtrate in Table 4-19.
Some of the total arsenic results are less than the dissolved arsenic concentrations. This obviously
cannot be an accurate result. The feedwater and concentrate data show in all cases that the total
arsenic is higher than the dissolved arsenic. The concentration in these streams is much higher
suggesting that the problem only occurs at concentrations near the detection limit. This data would
suggest that the problem is related to interference in the analysis at very low concentrations.
Given this inconsistency, the State of Utah laboratory was asked to review the data and attempt to
explain the possible cause of the discrepancy. Their findings are presented in their entirety in Appendix
H. The basic cause of the problem, in their opinion, appears to be that the use of sulfuric acid in the
preservation process for the dissolved arsenic samples causes a positive interference in the ICP-MS
55
-------
analysis. This positive interference is relatively small (a few tenths of a ng/1; typically 0.4-0.6 |_ig/l), but
at the low concentrations being measured in the filtrate stream, this positive interference is significant.
Therefore, the dissolved arsenic results appear to be biased high. This positive bias results in an
understating of the removal percentage for the dissolved arsenic in the feed water.
The NSF quality control review of the data suggested that a higher quantitation limit maybe more
appropriate for the arsenic analysis. For more information, see Section 4.5.1 of this report.
Total arsenic readings as required for Task 4 for the period of April 24 through 26 are included in
Figure 4-12 as additional data points.
80
70
O)
60
=L
'—'
50
O
"E
a>
40
(A
<
30
re
-4-i
o
20
H
10
0
x
^ ^ ^ / / / / / / / / /
Date
—X — Feedwater •
¦ Filtrate
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic vs. Time (April 8- April 22,2000)
Based on average total arsenic data in Table 4-20, 95.9% of this contaminant was removed. In
addition, with the exception of 3 readings, all filtrate concentrations of total arsenic were at 5 |j,g/L or
below.
The multiple readings for the dissolved arsenic data as required for Task 4 for the period of April 20
through 22 are included in Figure 4-13 as additional data points.
56
-------
in lu
in
Q 5
Date
—X — Feedwater —^ Filtrate
Figure 4-13. Dissolved Arsenic vs. Time (April 8- April 22,2000)
Based on average dissolved arsenic values in Table 4-20, over 96.4% of this species was removed by
the KIMCFS. With the exception of 2 data points, all of the filtrate readings are at or below 2 \x.oJL.
Sample collections for Arsenic m as required for Task 4 during the period of April 20 through 22 are
included in Figure 4-14 as additional data points.
Date
—X —Feedwater Filtrate
Figure 4-14. Arsenic (HI) vs. Time (April 8- April 22,2000)
57
-------
Although calculations indicate that 72.8% removal of As m occurred in this test, the uncertainty
associated with the analytical measurements of concentrations at or below the quantitative detection limit
calls into question the accuracy of this removal percentage.
Sample collection and measurement of Arsenic V as required for Task 4 during the period of April 20
through 22 are included in Figure 4-15.
O)
ji
>
o
"E
a>
(A
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 ¦
10 ¦
5 ¦
0
X
X'
$ .C$ .<£
£r £r nCt nCt £r £r £
& & / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Date
—X — Feedwater ¦
¦ Filtrate
Figure 4-15. Arsenic (V) vs. Time (April 8- April 22, 2000)
With the exception of 2 data points and based on the average data from Table 4-20, the filtrate
concentration of As V exhibited substantial removal (98%). Although it is evident that removal as As V
occurred in this test, the uncertainly associated with the analytical measurements of concentration at or
below the quantification detection limit precludes calculation of accurate removal percentages.
When total arsenic is compared to dissolved arsenic in Table 4-20, an average of 57% of the total
arsenic in the feedwater was dissolved. Additionally, from the same table it can be calculated than an
average of 93% of the dissolved arsenic in the feedwater was in the arsenic (V) form. Because of the
relative ease of oxidation of arsenic (IE) to arsenic (V) and the presence of chlorine (an oxidizer) in the
coagulation process, it is expected that most of the arsenic (in) was oxidized to arsenic (V) prior to the
filtration step.
4.3.3 Task 3: Documentation of Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment
Performance
The KIMCFS is designed to automatically backwash based on either a 20 psig filter headloss or a
filtrate turbidity reading of 0.15 NTU. The KIMCFS automatic backwash sequence is as follows:
58
-------
1. The standby tank is rinsed with feedwater (3-5 minutes).
2. The service tank is drained for 1 minute.
3. This tank is air spared for 0.5 minutes with air at 1 MCFM per square foot of bed surface area.
4. The media is allowed to settle (1 minute).
5. This tank is backwashed with water from the standby tank at a flow rate of 3- '/;gpm for 20
minutes.
6. This tank then becomes the standby tank.
During the entire testing period (April 7 - April 22, 2000), the following observations were made
regarding the operation of the test equipment:
• Flow control through the test unit required manipulation of a plastic ball valve. This valve was
difficult to adjust accurately in order to maintain a steady flow rate.
• When the service flow rate caused the level in the 2ld reaction tank (closest to the filters) to
drop below the tank outlet, air entered the pump and filter housing, causing cavitation.
• On April 13, 2000 at 0715, the level of solution in the chlorine feed tank dropped below the
suction opening, thus introducing air into the metering pump. This required shutting the system
down for approximately 45 minutes to bleed air from the lines.
• On April 15, 2000, at 1800 while bleeding air from both chlorine and ferric chloride chemical
delivery systems, the electrical power strip got wet and tripped the ground fault interrupter
switch, shutting off the inlet solenoid, and allowing the level in the 2nd reaction tank to drop too
low, resulting in cavitation again. This resulted in a 20-minute system shutdown.
From Table 4-19, the April 11 and 18 data for total arsenic in the filtrate stream indicate unusually high
concentrations. The filtrate concentrations of dissolved arsenic, As (HI) and As (V) on April 11 are not
unusually high. In view of the fact that the feedwater concentrations of all of the arsenic species on these
dates are not unusually high, the reason for these high filtrate readings for total arsenic is not clearly
understood.
April 18 data for all arsenic species tested in the raw feedwater and filtrate streams appear to have been
reversed in the Laboratory Notebook. Upon review of all related arsenic readings during the testing
period, COA has concluded that these data were likely transposed, but this cannot be substantiated.
Table 4-20 (Summary Data) does not include these two readings in the calculations.
From April 9 through April 11, samples thought to be from the raw feedwater stream were actually
collected from the coagulated feedwater tap located between the 2nd reaction tank and the media filters.
From April 12 through the end of the test, all feedwater samples were collected upstream of the
metering pumps, except where noted. The effect of the coagulation chemistry is underscored by the
dissolved As concentrations in the feedwater stream on April 9, 10, 11 and 18. In all cases, this figure
is less than 2 |j,g/L as compared to the samples collected upstream of the coagulation chemistry, where
the average dissolved arsenic concentration exceeds 40 |j,g/L.
59
-------
As stated earlier, a uniform flow rate through the system was very difficult to maintain. The control
device was a 1" plastic ball valve, which was not only difficult to accurately adjust, but also difficult to
reach for adjustment. As a result, the flow rate varied from 3.5 to 5.0 gpm over the duration of the test.
The raw data are tabulated in Appendix E. Table 4-21 summarizes these data and Figure 4-16
illustrates flow rate as a function of time.
Table 4-21. Feed Flow Rate Data Summary (April 7- April 22,2000)
Flow Rate (gpm)
Average 4.0
Minimum 3.4
Maximum 5.0
Standard Deviation 0.36
95% Confidence Interval 3.9,4.1
—Flow Rate (gpm)
Figure 4-16. Flow Rate Over Time (April 7- April 22,2000)
60
-------
Although either a filter head loss exceeding 20 psig or a filtrate turbidity exceeding 0.15 NTU would
initiate a backwash episode, the fact that both the filter pressure gauges and the filtrate turbidimeter
registered instantaneous readings meant that it was almost impossible to determine the specific cause of
the backwash. Table 4-22 lists runs times and volumes of water processed during the testing period.
Table 4-22. Filter System Runs Times & Water Volume Processed (April 10- April 22,2000)
Date Time Backwash Initiated Run Time (Minutes)* Gallons Processed (gpm/ft2) min
4/10/00
1520
352
1,373
2,519
4/11/00
1826
346
1,384
2,539
4/12/00
1529
318
1,304
2,393
4/13/00
1347
349
1,361
2,497
4/14/00
1949
503
1,962
3,600
4/15/00
1830
387
1,509
2,769
4/16/00
1709
409
1,595
2,927
4/16/00
2200
271
1,057
1,939
4/18/00
1530
469
1,829
3,356
4/19/00
1400
408
1,591
2,919
4/19/00
2228
487
1,899
3,484
4/22/00
1911
503
1,962
3,600
* Run time between termination of one backwashing episode and initiation of the next one.
Because such data as backwash episode start and stop times and flow rates could only be recorded
while the system was staffed, Table 4-22 does not include data from all backwash episodes. The
variability of flow rates through the system means that the "Gallons Processed" figures are estimated
based on the calculation of average flow rate data.
61
-------
Table 4-23 tabulates that the volume of backwash water collected and TSS values for a number of
backwash episodes during the test period.
Table 4-23. Filter Backwash Water Characteristics (April 10- April 22,2000)
Date
Time*
Gallons Collected
TSS (mg/L)
4/10/00
0928
86
121.0
4/10/00
1540
85
908.0
4/11/00
0925
-
920.0
4/11/00
1240
85
952.0
4/11/00
1849
80
884.0
4/12/00
0350
85
876.0
4/12/00
1011
85
928.0
4/12/00
1549
83
138.0
4/13/00
0818
86
126.0
4/13/00
1407
83
164.0
4/14/00
1126
80
164.0
4/15/00
1203
83
140.0
4/16/00
1020
84
108.0
4/16/00
1729
-
120.0
4/17/00
0854
-
128.0
4/17/00
1420
84
124.0
4/18/00
0741
88
104.0
4/18/00
1550
-
116.0
4/18/00
2200
-
108.0
4/19/00
1421
82
-
4/19/00
2251
87
-
4/20/00
2344
88
-
4/21/00
0909
80
156.0
4/21/00
1725
-
140.0
4/22/00
1048
87
124.0
4/22/00
1933
84
116.0
* Termination of backwash episode
- Not tested
Each backwash episode lasted for 20-25 minutes, during which both filters were off line. When the
system was staffed, all the backwash water was collected and TSS samples collected. Of the 20 TSS
data points listed, all but 4 are in the range of 104.0 to 164.0 mg/L. The other 4 range from 876.0 to
920.0 mg/L and are from backwash water collected between April 10 and April 12, 2000. The reason
for these unusually high TSS readings is not clear.
62
-------
Pressure drop (filter head loss) data are listed in Appendix E. These data range from 2 to 21 psig, and
are indicators of the necessity for backwashing. Figure 4-17 illustrates this pressure drop data.
25
^ 20
"55
Q.
o
3.
Q
£
3
(/)
(/)
d>
15
10
i
i i
i
<
<
~
\
>
i
i i
i <
\
N
i
A
1 1
t\A
:
N
N
<
i i
t
y
i \
• \ <
i y
i Nj
>
~
> I
1 J
V •
t
i
i
i
i
1
t
<
s
i
i
i i
~
1
\
K
>
1
—i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
i 1 1 1-
o
isP isP iSP iSP iSP iSP iSP iSP .IS? iSP -K? iSP iSP -K?
^ ^ / / / / / / / / / /
Date
-Pressure Drop (psi)
Figure 4-17. Pressure Drop Across System Over Time (April 7- April 22,2000)
63
-------
4.3.4 Task 4: Arsenic Removal Results
The Test Plan required that samples be collected from both the feedwater and filtrate streams for
analyses of speciated arsenic in particular. Samples were collected at time zero and at 1, 3, 6 hours and
every six hours thereafter for a total of 48 hours. In addition to arsenic, the samples were analyzed by
the Laboratory for the following parameters: antimony; alkalinity and iron. Results of arsenic data are
presented in Tables 4-24 and 4-25.
Table 4-24. Task 4 Arsenic Data (April 20- April 22,2000)
Total As (ng/L)
Dissolved As (jag/L)
As (III)*
: (Mg/L)
As (V) (ng/L)
Date
Time
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
F eedwater
Filtrate
4/20/00
0900
72.7
1.2
41.5
1.4
2.8
1
38.7
<0.5
4/20/00
1000
72.9
2
41.3
1.6
3
0.9
38.3
0.7
4/20/00
1200
71.8
2.7
41.5
1.5
3
1
38.5
0.5
4/20/00
1500
75.1
4
40.6
1.4
3.4
1
37.2
<0.5
4/20/00
2100
70.5
4.3
41.2
1.6
2.8
0.9
38.4
0.7
4/21/00
0300
74.1
2.8
42.6
2.6
3
1.1
39.6
1.5
4/21/00
0900
72
26.1
40.6
1.7
3.4
0.8
37.2
0.9
4/21/00
1500
74.7
3.8
41.5
1.7
3.1
0.9
38.4
0.8
4/21/00
2100
73.3
1.9
39.9
1.5
3.1
0.9
36.8
0.6
4/22/00
0300
73.6
1.5
41.8
1.7
2.9
1
38.9
0.7
4/22/00
0900
67.3
5
40.4
1.6
3
0.9
37.4
0.7
4/22/00
1830
75.8
3.9
41.9
2.2
3.1
1
38.8
1.2
*A11 readings at the MDL for Arsenic III (<0.5 jag/L) were used as that number in calculations.
Note: the reliability of the low-level data (MDL of 0.1 jxg/L to approximately 2 jag/L) should be considered only
qualitative (not quantitative).
The 4/21/00, 0900 arsenic data are not included in the Table 4-25 data summary or graphed in Figures
4-18 through 4-21 due to the measurement being taken in error during a backwash cycle.
Table 4-25. Task 4 Arsenic Data Summary (April 20- April 22,2000)
Total As (|ig/L)
Dissolved As (jag/L)
As (III) (ng/L)
As (V)*
(H-g/L)
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Average
72.9
3.0
41.3
1.7
3.0
1
38.3
0.8
Minimum
67.3
1.2
39.9
1.4
2.8
0.9
36.8
<0.5
Maximum
75.8
5
42.6
2.6
3.4
1.1
39.6
1.5
Std. Dev.
2.39
1.3
0.754
0.37
0.17
0.07
0.824
0.3
95%
71.5,74.3
2.3,3.8
40.8,41.7
1.5,1.9
2.9,3.1
0.9, 1.0
37.8, 38.8
0.6, 0.9
Confidence
Interval
*A11 readings at the MDL for Arsenic V (<0.5 jag/L) were used as that number in calculations.
Note: the reliability of the low-level data (MDL of 0.1 (ig/L to approximately 2 jag/L) should be considered only
qualitative (not quantitative).
This task indicates that about 60% of the arsenic in the feedwater stream was dissolved and 92% of that
was in the arsenic (V) form. It is also evident most of the arsenic (HI) was oxidized to arsenic (V) by
the chlorine fed during the coagulation step. At the pH of this water supply, virtually all As (HI) is non-
ionic, and in that form, will not coagulate with ferric hydroxide.
64
-------
Figures 4-18 through 4-21 are plots of each arsenic species for Task 4 activities.
80
60
O)
o
§ 40
(/)
re
O 20
900 1000 1 200 1 500 21 00 300 900 1 500 2100 300 900 1830
4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/21/00 4/21/00 4/21/00 4/21/00 4/22/00 4/22/00 4/22/00
Date & Time
• Feedwater •
• Filtrate
Figure 4-18. Task 4 Total Arsenic vs. Time (April 20- April 22,2000)
50
O)
ji
o
"E
a>
(A
40
30
¦a 20
a>
>
o
w 10
(A
a
900 1000 1200 1500 2100 300 900 1500 2100 300 900 1830
4/20/004/20/004/20/004/20/004/20/004/21/004/21/004/21/004/21/004/22/004/22/004/22/00
Date & Time
Feedwater
Filtrate
Figure 4-19. Task 4 Dissolved Arsenic vs. Time (April 20- April 22,2000)
65
-------
d 3
O)
=L
o
"E
a>
12
< 1
900 1000 1200 1500 2100 300 900 1500 2100 300 900 1830
4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/21100 4/21100 4/21100 4/21100 4/22/00 4/22/00 4/22/00
Date & Time
Feedwater
Filtrate
Figure 4-20. Task 4 Arsenic (HI) vs. Time (April 20- April 22,2000)
50
—, 40
J
O)
— 30
>
o
c 20
a>
(A
< ,o
_Q=
=Q=
=Q=
900 1000 1200 1500 2100 300 900 1500 2100 300 900 1830
4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/20/00 4/21/004/21100 4/21100 4/21100 4/22/00 4/22/00 4/22/00
Date & Time
Feedwater
Filtrate
Figure 4-21. Task 4 Arsenic (V) vs. Time (April 20- April 22, 2000)
66
-------
Results for samples analyzed by the Laboratory for the Alkalinity, Algae (Chlorophyll A); Iron and
Antimony are shown in Tables 4-26 with a summary shown in Table 4-27.
Table 4-26. Task 4 Analytical Data For Antimony, Alkalinity and Total Iron (April 20- April 22,2000) and
Chlorophyll A (April 12- April 22)
Antimony (ng/L) Alkalinity (mg/L) Chlorophyll A (ng/L) Total Iron (mg/L)
Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate
(prior to FeCl3
Date
Time
addition)
4/12/00
1715
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
-
4/13/00
1015
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
-
4/14/00
1830
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
4/15/00
1300
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
-
4/20/00
0900
9.3
8.7
142
137
0.3
0.3
0.236
-
4/20/00
0900
-
-
147
138
-
-
0.253
<0.02
4/20/00
1000
9.1
8.9
143
137
-
-
0.247
0.0318
4/20/00
1200
8.9
8.5
142
138
-
-
0.441
0.062
4/20/00
1500
9.2
8.4
142
140
-
-
0.257
0.0984
4/20/00
2100
8.9
8.5
143
139
-
-
0.253
0.103
4/21/00
0300
00
00
8.6
138
146
-
-
0.265
0.0226
4/21/001
0900
8.7
00
00
145
152
-
-
0.244
0.737
4/21/00
1500
9.1
8.6
144
138
-
-
0.249
0.0984
4/21/00
2100
9.2
8.7
146
140
-
-
0.249
0.0284
4/22/00
0300
9.3
8.6
145
141
-
-
0.252
<0.02
4/22/00
0900
9.1
8.6
144
142
-
-
0.238
0.138
4/22/00
1830
9.6
8.4
137
136
0.3
0.3
0.247
0.0989
- not tested
1 See Discussion under 4.2.4
Table 4-27. Task 4 Analytical Data Summary for Antimony, Alkalinity and Total Iron (April 20- April 22,2000)
and Chlorophyll A (April 12- April 22)
Antimony (jag/L) Alkalinity (mg/L) Chlorophyll A (pg/L) Total Iron (mg/L)*
Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate
(prior to FeCl3
addition)
Average
9.1
8.6
143
139
0.3
0.3
0.266
0.066
Minimum
8.8
8.4
137
136
0.3
0.3
0.236
<0.02
Maximum
9.6
8.9
147
146
0.3
0.3
0.441
0.138
Std. Dev.
0.22
0.14
2.93
2.74
0.0
0.0
0.0558
0.0430
95% Conf. Int.
9.0, 9.3
8.5, 8.7
141, 144
138,141
NA
NA
0.234,0.297
0.0402,0.0910
*A11 readings for Total Iron at the MDL (0.02 mg/L) were used at that number in calculations.
NA because Standard Deviation = 0
The test indicated that antimony is not removed by the KIMCFS.
Alkalinity was slightly removed (2% reduction from feedwater to filtrate on average), which may be
attributed to the slight reduction in pH from feedwater to filtrate, as well as the addition of sodium
hypochlorite to the feedwater.
Chlorophyll A concentrations were expected to be minimal in the feedwater because it is groundwater.
Chlorophyll concentrations in the feedwater and filtrate streams were identical over the entire test.
67
-------
Total iron concentrations in the feedwater streams were removed to the MDL in the filtrate stream.
Table 4-28 provides a summary of Task 4 testing results for temperature and pH measured on-site, and
dissolved oxygen as measured by the Laboratory. The 4/21/00, 0900 data are not included in the
Table 4-28 data summary due to the measurement being taken in error during a backwash cycle.
Table 4-28. Task 4 Analytical Data Summary for Temperature, pH and Dissolve d Oxygen (April 20- April 22,
2000)
Temperature (°C)
PH
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
F eedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Feedwater
Filtrate
Average
9.0
10.0
7.26
7.19
5.76
5.78
Minimum
8.9
9.9
7.22
7.15
5.17
5.46
Maximum
9.0
10.2
7.33
7.24
6.23
5.98
Std. Dev.
0.032
0.11
0.0355
0.0253
0.382
0.180
95% Confidence Interval
9.0, 9.0
10.0,10.1
7.24,7.28
7.18, 7.21
5.48,6.04
5.64, 5.91
The pH of the filtrate stream averaged 0.06 unit less than that of the feedwater stream. This slight
reduction is probably due to the addition of ferric chloride coagulant, which is acidic.
The dissolved oxygen data indicate that this system had no effect on this chemical parameter in this test
Table 4-29 lists the total chlorine data from the Task 4 activity. The feedwater source was
unchlorinated and the residual chlorine in the filtrate stream was the unreacted portion of the sodium
hypochlorite injected into the feedwater stream to oxidize As (m) to As (V). The low reading in the
filtrate stream at 0300 on 4/21/00 is the result of the tank running out of sodium hypochlorite solution.
That the arsenic removal performance of the system was unaffected is proof that the tank must have run
out just prior to having been discovered.
Table 4-29. Task 4 Total Chlorine Data (April 20 - April 22,2000)
Date
Time
Total Chlorine (mg/L) Feedwater
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/L) Filtrate
4/20/00
0900
0.00
1.24
4/20/00
1500
0.00
1.26
4/20/00
2100
0.0
1.29
4/21/00
0300
0.0
0.01*
4/21/00
0900
0.0
1.58
4/21/00
1500
0
1.57
4/21/00
2100
0
1.55
4/22/00
0300
0
1.57
4/22/00
0900
0
1.58
4/22/00
1830
0
1.49
* Cl2 tank ran dry
68
-------
Table 4-30 summarizes all of the Task 4 turbidity readings for the feedwater and filtrate streams. The
4/21/00, 0900 data are not included in the Table 4-29 data summary due to the measurement being
taken in error during a backwash cycle.
Table 4-30. Task 4 Analytical Data Summary for Continuous Turbidity and Bench-Top Turbidity (April 20- April
22,2000)
Continuous Turbidity (NTU) Bench-Top Turbidity (NTU)
Feedwater Filtrate Feedwater Filtrate
Average
1.61
0.059
1.49
0.13
Minimum
1.29
0.008
1.30
0.09
Maximum
2.19
0.124
1.84
0.19
Std. Dev.
0.278
0.0407
0.171
0.043
95% Confidence Interval
1.50, 1.72
0.0433,0.0751
1.37,1.61
0.10, 0.16
Turbidity readings were made with both continuous turbidimeters and a manual bench-top turbidimeter.
There was fairly close agreement between the on-line and bench-top instruments on the feedwater
turbidity data; however, a substantial difference between the two on the filtrate stream data. An
explanation for this is offered in QA/QC Results, Section 4.5.3.3. Table 4-30 does illustrate that
turbidity is significantly reduced by this system.
Table 4-31 shows the miscellaneous parameters that were measured by the State of Utah Laboratory
as part of Task 4 activities.
Table 4-31. Task 4 Analytical Data - Miscellaneous Parameters (April 20 - April 22,2000)
Date
Time
Parameter
Units
Feedwater
Filtrate
4/20/00
0900
TOC
mg/L
<0.5*
<0.5*
4/22/00
1830
TOC
mg/L
<0.5*
<0.5*
4/20/00
0900
UV254 Absorbance
cm"1
0.005
0.005
4/22/00
1830
UV254 Absorbance
cm"1
0.024
0.008
4/20/00
0900
Aluminum
M-g/L
<30*
<30*
4/20/00
0900
Manganese
mg/L
0.0142
0.0059
4/20/00
0900
Sulfate
mg/L
307.0
301.0
4/22/00
1830
Sulfate
mg/L
33.4
30.0
4/20/00
0900
Hardness
mg/L
443**
436**
* Sample reported below the MDL.
** Hardness calculated from laboratory readings of calcium and magnesium using SM for the Analysis of Water and
Wastewater (18th Ed, Method 2340B)
As an indication of the extremely low organic content of this water, total organic carbon (TOC)
measurements were below the detection limit and UV254 absorbance data were very low.
Aluminum levels were below the detection limit in both the feedwater and filtrate streams, and hardness
and sulfate parameters appeared to have been unaffected by the coagulation/filtration process.
Since the concentration of manganese in the feedwater was less than 10% of the iron concentration,
manganese probably had little or no effect on arsenic removal; and appears to have been removed,
probably as manganese hydroxide. The iron present in the feedwater was of sufficient concentration to
69
-------
react with the arsenic, particularly in the presence of chlorine, which oxidized the iron to the ferric form.
The addition of ferric chloride ensured that there would be an excess of iron to complete the coagulation
process.
4.4 Results of Equipment Characterization
During the verification testing, the factors associated with the qualitative, quantitative and cost
characteristics of the KIMCFS were identified, within the limits of the short duration of the test.
4.4.1 Qualitative Factors
The qualitative factors examined were the susceptibility of the equipment to environmental condition
changes, operational reliability and equipment safety.
4.4.1.1 Susceptibility to Changes in Environmental Conditions
Changes in environmental conditions that cause changes in feedwater quality can affect the performance
of coagulation and filtration systems.
The optimum performance of any coagulant chemistry is a function of many chemical and environmental
variables such as pH, temperature, Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) level and any chemical
constituents which might interfere with the formation of the ferric hydroxide/arsenic complex. This has
resulted in the requirement for the Initial Operations period of the verification testing program wherein
the coagulant chemistries and dosages were optimized.
Since the source was groundwater, even though ambient conditions were changing, the feedwater
temperature remained relatively unchanged throughout the test. Also, the equipment was located
indoors, so it was unaffected by weather changes.
4.4.1.2 Operational Reliability
The equipment ran continuously throughout the duration of the test, with only 20-25 minute interruptions
for automatic backwashing.
Once flows, pressures and backwash conditions were established during the Initial Operations period,
no changes were made throughout the duration of the test.
4.4.1.3 Equipment Safety
Evaluation of the safety of the treatment system was done by examination of the components of the
system and identification of hazards associated with these components. A judgment as to the safety of
the treatment system was made from these evaluations.
70
-------
There are safety hazards associated with electrical service and pressurized water. The electrical service
was connected by a qualified electrical contractor according to local code requirements and did not
present an unusual safety risk. Based on the pressure data recorded during the test, the water pressure
inside the treatment system was relatively low (<40 psi) and did not present an unusual safety risk. (See
Appendix G).
The coagulation chemicals, sodium hypochlorite and ferric chloride, are considered hazardous;
however, safe handling procedures [as outlined in the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)] were
followed when replenishing the feed tanks and no problems were encountered.
No injuries or accidents occurred during the testing.
4.4.2 Quantitative Factors
Quantitative Factors examined during the verification testing were power, consumables, waste disposal
and length of operating cycle.
4.4.2.1 Electrical Power
The electrical power used was 110VAC, single phase, 20A service. The power was recorded on an
Amprobe Kilowatt/Hour Meter (non-demand). The total power consumed was 516 kWh.
4.4.2.2 Consumables
• Total quantity of filtrate produced (during coagulant feed):
Average flow rate = 4.0 gpm
4.0 gpm x 60 min/hr x 342.5 hr = 82,200 gallons.
• Total quantity of sodium hypochlorite consumed:
0.82 gph x 342.5 hr = 280.9 gallons of 5.25% bleach.
280.9 x 0.0525 = 14.8 gallons (100% NaOCl basis) 82,200 gallons of filtrate = 2 x
10"6 gallons of 100% sodium hypochlorite per gallon of filtrate produced.
• Total quantity of ferric chloride consumed:
0.074 gph x 342.5 = 25.3 gallons of 32.5% FeCfe.
25.3 x .325 = 8.2 gallons (100% FeClj basis) 82,200gallons of filtrate = 1 x 10"5
gallons of 100%) FeCK per gallon of filtrate produced.
4.4.2.3 Waste Disposal
The waste generated during the verification testing period was the backwash stream at approximately
84 gallons per episode.
The average run time, based on the data gathered while the system was staffed, was 400 minutes.
Using this figure to calculate the total number of backwash episodes: 342.5 hrs x 60 min/hr = 20,550
71
-------
minutes 400 = 51 backwash episodes. Assuming 4 gallons/episode, 51 x 84 = 4,284 gallons of
wastewater produced during this test.
Based on a total filtrate volume of 82,200 gallons produced, the water recovery for the KIMCFS for
this test was [1.0 - 4,284 (82,200 + 4,284)] 100 = 95%.
4.4.2.4 Length of Operating Cycle
The average run time between backwash episodes, calculated from raw data in Appendix E was 400
minutes (6.67 hours).
4.5 QA/QC Results
The objective of this task is to assure the high quality and integrity of all measurements of operational
and water quality parameters during the ETV project. QA/QC verifications were recorded in the
laboratory logbooks. The results of QA/QC verification performed on on-line instrumentation, hand-
held instruments and the analytical Laboratory are presented below, and a detailed discussion of the
QA/QC procedures and apparent discrepancies is in Appendix H.
4.5.1 Arsenic Speciation and Analysis
On a daily basis, feed, concentrate and permeate samples were collected and speciated on-site. All
samples were then delivered to the State Laboratory for analysis. The laboratory analyzed for total
arsenic, dissolved arsenic and As (in). As (V) data were obtained by subtracting As (HI) readings
from the dissolved arsenic figure.
In many filtrate samples, the dissolved arsenic figures were higher than the total arsenic figures. The
State Laboratory investigated this anomaly in detail and postulates that the presence of the LJ>S04
preservative in bottle B (bottles A and C had HN03 preservative) affected the accuracy of the ICP-MS
analytical equipment. This explanation, arsenic speciation protocol and Laboratory QA/QC procedures
are detailed in Appendix H.
The Quality Control review by NSF raised the question of whether or not the laboratory could actually
document a reporting limit of 0.5 |j,g/L for total arsenic, dissolved arsenic and the arsenic species. The
reviewer indicated in the review comments that sulfate interference had not been proven in his opinion.
It was also stated that a reporting limit (actual quantitation limit) is typically 10-30 times the MDL.
Therefore, a reporting of limit of 3 - 5 |j,g/L maybe more appropriate. At this level, all of the data would
be reported as "less than values" for the filtrate and the difference between the total and dissolved
arsenic would be eliminated.
72
-------
4.5.2 Data Correctness
Data correctness refers to data quality, for which there are four indicators:
• Representativeness
• Statistical Uncertainty
• Accuracy
• Precision
Calculation of all of the above data quality indicators was outlined in the Chapter 3, Methods &
Procedures. All water quality samples were collected according to the sampling procedures specified
by the EPA/NSF ETV protocols, which provided the representativeness of the samples.
4.5.2.1 Representativeness
Operational parameters graphs and discussions are included under Task 3 - Documentation of
Operations Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance. Testing equipment verification is
presented below in discussions in Daily QA/QC Results and Results of QA/QC Verification At The
Start Of Each Testing Period.
4.5.2.2 Statistical Uncertainty
Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated for the water quality parameters of the
KIMCFS as presented in the water sample summary tables in the discussion of Task 2 - Feed and
Finished Water Quality Characterization.
4.5.2.3 Accuracy
For this ETV study, accuracy refers to the difference between the sample result and the true or
reference value. Calculations of data accuracy were made to determine the accuracy of the testing
equipment in this study. Accuracy of testing equipment verification is presented below in discussions on
Daily QA/QC Results and Results of QA/QC Verification At The Start Of Each Testing Period.
4.5.2.4 Precision
Precision is a measure of the degree of consistency from test to test, and can be measured by
replication. For single reading parameters, such as pressure and flow rates, precision was determined
by redundant readings from operator to operator. Calibration procedures for those on-site parameters
consequential to the testing (bench-top turbidity and pH) are presented in discussions on Daily QA/QC
Results and Results of QA/QC Verification At The Start Of Each Testing Period.
73
-------
4.5.3 Daily QA/QC Results
The April 18, 2000 data for all arsenic species in the raw feedwater and filtrate streams appear to have
been reversed in the Laboratory reports. While this is believed to have been a labeling error, it cannot
be substantiated. Because of this suspected sampling error, these data were not included in the Arsenic
Data Summary, Table 4-19.
The on-line feedwater turbidity readings were checked daily against the bench-top turbidimeter. The
readout from the HF Scientific, Inc., Micro 200 on-line feedwater turbidimeter averaged 1.55 NTU
during the -verification period of April 9 through April 22, 2000; the average from the Hach 21 OOP
benchtop turbidimeter was 1.75 NTU. The discrepancy between the two turbidimeters (on-line and
benchtop) of 1.55 NTU and 1.75 NTU is acceptable and within limits (further discussions in Section
4.5.4.3).
The on-line filtrate turbidity readings were checked daily against the bench-top turbidimeter. The
readout from the Great Lakes Model 95T/SS4 on-line filtrate turbidimeter averaged 0.24 NTU during
the verification period of April 9 through April 22, 2000; the average from the Hach 21 OOP benchtop
turbidimeter was 0.097 NTU. This discrepancy is further explained in Section 4.5.4.3.
The pH meter was calibrated daily against NIST-traceable pH buffers at 7.00 and 10.00. The pH
meter was a Cole Palmer Oaktron® WD-35615 Series. The pH calibration buffers were Oakton pH
Singles 7.00 (model #35653-02), and pH Singles 10.00 (model #35653-03). pH was measured from
the feedwater, coagulated feedwater and filtrate sample taps.
4.5.4 Results Of QA/QC Verifications At The Start Of Each Testing Period
4.5.4.1 Tubing
The tubing and all water lines used on the treatment system were inspected before verification testing
began. The tubing and lines were in good condition and replacements were not necessary.
Documentation of this activity was inadvertently omitted from the Laboratory Notebook. The tubing
associated with the in-line plant turbidimeters was inspected with every calibration by the personnel of
the water treatment plant.
4.5.4.2 Thermometer
Temperatures were measured in accordance with SM 2550 on the feed and filtrate streams with a
Radio Shack model No. 63- 1009A digital indoor-outdoor thermometer. This instrument read in 0.1°C
increments and was calibrated by the State of Utah Laboratory as well as in an ice bath and against a
NIST-traceable Thermometer (Tel-Tru model 0054-5).
74
-------
4.5.4.3 Turbidimeters
Both on-line and bench top turbidimeters were used during the KIMCFS ETV test.
Two on-line turbidimeters were utilized:
1) A wall mounted HF Scientific, Inc., Micro 200 turbidimeter was used to continuously measure
turbidity of the feedwater. This instrument was cleaned and calibrated at the beginning of the
verification testing period by Spiro Water Tunnel Filtration Plant personnel with standards of 0.01,
0.10, 10.0 and 100.0 NTU, and then cleaned and calibrated weekly, or after a significant turbidity
spike.
2) A Great Lakes Model 95T/SS4 turbidimeter, mounted on the filtrate stream, was calibrated initially
and weekly with standard solutions of 0.04, 0.40 and 4.0 NTU.
A new Hach 21 OOP bench-top turbidimeter was utilized to measure grab samples of both feedwater
and filtrate at least once per day. The instrument calibration was verified on March 15, 2000, with
primary standards of 800, 100, 20 and <0.1 NTU, weekly with secondary standards measuring 526,
52.2, 4.87 NTU, and with another secondary standard of 0.4 NTU with every use.
Discrepancies between the on-line and bench-top instruments were noted, particularly in the filtrate
samples, as indicated in Table 4-29. Several explanations for these are offered which include:
1) Difference in the analytical techniques between the on-line and bench-top turbidimeters:
The bench-top turbidimeter uses a glass cuvette to hold the sample; this cuvette can present some
optical difficulties for this instrument. The on-line turbidimeter has no cuvette to present a possible
interference with the optics of the instrument. The low level of turbidity can create analytical
difficulties, particularly for the bench-top instrument. Manufacturer's specifications state that stray
light interference is less than 0.02 NTU. Stray light interference approaching this level at the low
turbidity levels tested could account for the differences in the readings.
2) Geologic activity in the Spiro Tunnel caused short-term turbidity spikes in the feedwater, which may
have affected the accuracy of the on-line plant turbidimeter between routine cleanings. For
example, a turbidity spike occurred at 0300 on April 2, 2000, which shut the filtration plant down
(the alarm/shutdown turbidity level was set at 5.0 NTU). The turbidimeter was cleaned and
returned to service.
3) Although attempts were made to collect bench-top turbidity samples at the same time that on-line
turbidimeter readings were made, the logistics of the sampling locations resulting in small time
differences may have resulted in slight changes in water quality between these events.
4) After completion of the testing, a quantity of bench-top turbidimeter calibration verification data
were recorded with bench-top turbidimeter readings. In addition, some calibration verification
readings were taken by filling the same cuvette twice and comparing the two readings of the same
standard solution (0.4 NTU). These data are listed in Table 4-32 and summarized in Table 4-33.
75
-------
Table 4-32. Bench-Top Turbidimeter Calibration Verification Data (using 0.4 NTU standard)
Date Time Reading (NTU)
4/24/00
0900
0.37
1000
0.36
1200
0.36
1500
0.34
2100
0.35
4/25/00
0300
0.35
0900
0.34
1500
0.30, 0.36 (same cuvette)
2100
0.34, 0.33 (same cuvette)
4/26/00
0300
0.33, 0.30 (same cuvette)
0900
0.31, 0.30 (same cuvette)
Table 4-33. Bench-Top Turbidimeter Calibration Verification Data Summary
Reading (NTU)
Average 0.34
Minimum 0.30
Maximum 0.37
Standard Deviation 0.02
95% Confidence Interval 0.32,0.35
4.5.4.4 True Color
True color was measured in accordance with SM 2120 at 455nm wavelength with a Hach DR2010
spectrophotometer. Altogether 10 samples were measured; the reading varied from -4 to -1 PtCo
color units. The Hach standard solution (500 PtCo color units) was diluted with ultrapure water to
produce a solution that should read 1.0 PtCo color units; however, readings on this aliquot varied from
-2 to 1.0. The same results were obtained when both ultrapure water and distilled water were tested
alone. The conclusions drawn from the above were:
1) The Hach DR2010 unit cannot accurately measure color below a level of 2 PtCo color
units.
2) Since the water source is groundwater and low in organics, the true color is expected to be
very low, and in this case, is below the accuracy of the instrument.
Further evidence of the low organics concentration is supplied by the fact that TOC concentrations
were below the minimum detection limit of 0.5 mg/L and UV254 absorbance readings were at or below
0.024 cm"1.
4.5.4.5 Total Chlorine
Total chlorine measurements were made in accordance with SM 4500 on a Hach DR2000
spectrophotometer which was standardized with each set of measurements in accordance with the
Method. The Test Plan required that the total chlorine be measured during Task 4 activities when
samples were collected and other parameters measured.
76
-------
4.5.4.6 Pressure Gauges
The pressure gauge for this study was glycerin-filled and calibrated against a glycerin-filled NIST-
traceable Precision WGG 66/60 gauge, 0-60 psig.
4.5.4.7 Metering Pump
On April 24, 2000, at the completion of the testing, the chemical feed pumps flow and stroke settings
were verified and documented in the Laboratory Notebook. Flow rates were verified volumetrically
with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch. A 1,000 mL graduated cylinder was used for the pump
injecting coagulant (ferric chloride) and the sodium hypochlorite metering pump.
4.5.4.8 Flow Rates
The "bucket and stopwatch" method for calibrating the flow meter was utilized on April 22, 2000.
4.5.5 Off-Site Analysis for Chemical and Biological Samples
QA/QC procedures for laboratory analysis were based on SM, 18th Ed., (APHA, 1992) and EPA
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, (EPA, 1995).
4.5.5.1 Organic Parameters, Total Organic Carbon and UV254 Absorbance
Samples for these analyses were collected in glass bottles supplied by the State of Utah Laboratory and
delivered to the Laboratory by COA. Although the Test Plan required only one analysis of these
parameters, two analyses were made of each during the Task 4 activities and are listed in Table 4-26.
4.5.5.2 Algae (Chlorophyll A) Samples
Samples were collected in opaque containers supplied by the State Laboratory and kept at 0°C in the
on-site refrigerator prior to delivery to the laboratory.
4.5.5.3 Inorganic Samples
Inorganic samples were collected, held in the refrigerator at 4°C, and shipped in accordance with SM
3010B and C and 1060 and EPA §136.3, 40 CFR Chapter 1. Proper bottles and preservatives,
where required (iron and manganese for example) were used. Although the travel time was brief,
samples were shipped in coolers at 4°C.
77
-------
Chapter 5
References
Adin, A. and Rebhum, M. A model to predict concentration and headloss profiles in filtration. Journal
AWWA, 444-453 (1977).
Amirtharajah, A. "Some theoretical and conceptual views of filtration", American Water Works
Association Seminar Proceedings, American Water Works Association, Denver CO, 21-26 1988.
Amirtharajah, A. and O' Melia, C.R., Coagulation Processes: Destabilization, Mixing and Flocculation,
in Water Quality and Treatment, AWWA, Denver CO. pp. 269-365.
ANSI/AWWA B100-89, AWWA Standard for Filtering Material, American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO, 1989.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environmental
Federation, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition,
APHA, AWWA, WEF, Washington D C., 1992.
American Water Works Association, Operational Control of Coagulation and Filtration
Processes, Manual of Water Supply Practices M37, American Water Works Association, Denver,
CO, 1992.
Badger, T.J., Bergemamann, E.P., Smith, P.K., Datta, R. Chromatography Aids in Arsenic Removal,
Water Technology, 66-71 (1999).
Cheng, R.C., Liang, S, Want, H.C., Beuhler, M.D. Enhanced Coagulation For Arsenic Removal
Journal AWWA, 79-90 (1994).
Cleasby, John L. Filtration in Water Quality and Treatment Journal AWWA, 455-560 (1990).
Cleasby, J. L. Williamson, M.M., & Bauman, E.R. Effect of filtration rate changes on quality,
American Water Works Association, 869-880 1963.
Cleasby, J.L. Approaches to a filterability index for granular filters American Water Works
Association, 372-381, Aug. 1969.
Clifford, D., Ghurye, G., Tripp, A., Tong, J., Field Studies on Arsenic Removal In Albuquerque,
New Mexico Using The University Of Houston/EPA Mobile Drinking Water Treatment Research
Facility Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, TX, 1998.
Edwards, M., Chemistry of Arsenic Removal During Coagulation and Fe-MN Oxidation Journal
AWWA, 64-78 (1994).
78
-------
Gibbs, J.W., Scanlan, L.P. "Arsenic Removal In The 1990's: Full Scale Experience From Park City,
Utah", Presentation at the American Water Works Association, Water Quality Technology
Conference, November 1994.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers,
Recommended Standards for Water Works, (Commonly referred to as the Ten State's Standards,
TSS) Health Education Services, Albany NY, 1992.
Kiminski, J.C. Correspondence in New England Journal, of Medicine 331 (22): 1529-1530 (1994).
O' Melia, C.R., Gray, K.A., and Tao, C. Polymeric Inorganic Coagulants, AWWARF, Denver, CO,
1989.
Pontius, F.W., Brown, K.G., Chen, C.J. Health Implications of Arsenic in Drinking Water Journal
AWWA, 52-63 (1994).
Russo, R. POU/POE Technologies Available For Arsenic Removal Water Technology 72-77 (1998)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/NSF International. ETV Protocol of Equipment Verification
Testing For Arsenic Removal, EPA/NSF, January 18, 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/NSF International. EPA Test Plan: NSF Equipment
Verification Testing Plan Coagulation and Filtration for Removal of Arsenic, EPA/NSF, January
18, 2000.
79
------- |