August 2006
06/28/WQPC-SWP
EPA/600/R-06/130
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Evaluation of a Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Technology
International Wastewater Systems, Inc.
Model 6000 Sequencing Batch Reactor System
(With Coagulation, Sand Filtration, and Ultraviolet Disinfection)
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
EMAIL:
DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT - BIOLOGICAL,
SAND FILTRATION, AND ULTRAVIOLET TREATMENT
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
MODEL 6000 SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR SYSTEM
INTERNATIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
2020 Charlotte Street
BOZEMAN,MT 59718
1985iffivahoo.com
PHONE: (406)5821115
FAX: (406) 582 1116
NSF International (NSF) operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) under the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The
WQPC evaluated the performance of a sequencing batch reactor biological treatment system, with media filtration
and ultraviolet disinfection, for treatment of residential wastewater in a decentralized application. This verification
statement provides a summary of the test results for the International Wastewater Systems Model 6000 Sequencing
Batch Reactor (SBR) System. The Eagle Sewer District acted as the Testing Organization (TO) for the verification
testing, which was performed near Boise, Idaho.
EPA created the ETV Program to facilitate deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies
through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further
environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and cost-effective technologies. ETV
seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those
involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups consisting of
buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and the full participation of individual technology developers. The
program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the
needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and
preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance
protocols to ensure that data of known and verifiable quality are generated, and that the results are defensible.
06/28/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
August 2006
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description is provided by the vendor and does not represent verified information.
The International Wastewater Systems' (IWS) Model 6000 SBR includes a 6,000 gallon (gal) equalization tank, a
6,000 gal modified SBR, a 3,000 gal holding tank, a coagulation injection system, a gravity sand filtration system,
and an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. The IWS SBR is designed to provide treatment by optimizing the
treatment conditions using a computer controlled and monitored system of pumps, floats, and probes to measure,
monitor, and adjust the treatment parameters within the unit. The computer control system uses a programmable
logic controller (PLC) and a software program, written by IWS, for the master control of the SBR and for
communication outside the facility by modem and phone line installed with the unit.
Residential wastewater is discharged to an equalization tank and is pumped to the SBR for aerobic/anoxic
biological treatment. In the treatment process, the wastewater/biological solids mixture (mixed liquor) is
alternately mixed with, then deprived of, oxygen and is then periodically pumped to the clarification chamber,
where quiescent conditions allow the solids to settle. A pump transfers the settled solids back to the aeration
chamber and clarified effluent is pumped to the 3,000 gal holding tank. A portion of the mixed liquor is periodically
wasted to a sludge holding tank to maintain optimal operating conditions in the treatment process.
A high-level switch in the effluent holding tank starts the coagulation-filtration system by injecting a coagulant,
poly aluminum chloride (PAC) or aluminum sulfate (alum), ahead of a sand filter. The sand filter is a Centra-Flow
dynamic sand bed filter that provides for continuous sand cleaning by using an airlift pump to extract the sand and
solids from the filter, and lifting the mixture to a separation box. Cleaned sand is returned to the top of the filter
and waste solids are piped to the equalization tank. A turbidity meter, used with an electronically actuated valve,
monitors the effectiveness of the sand filter and reroutes the filtrate to the 3,000 gal holding tank for further
treatment if the turbidity exceeds 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit(s) (NTU). Filtered water flows by gravity to the
disinfection process.
The disinfection system consists of two UV disinfection units operating in parallel, with electronically actuated
solenoid valves for each unit to prevent untreated water from reaching the post equalization tank. Each unit is
designed to handle 20 gpm and achieve total coliform levels of <2.2 MPN/100 mL for water having suspended
solids <10 mg/L and turbidity of <5 NTU.
PvVS expects the system to require operator attention on a two to three visits per week basis, with additional time
needed if special maintenance activities are required.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
This verification was completed following the procedures described in the Verification Test Plan, which was
prepared in accordance with the Protocol for Verification of Wastewater Treatment Technologies, dated April 2001.
Test Site
The verification test was performed at the Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision, located a few miles west of Boise, Idaho,
which consists of 18 homes in an area not served by a centralized wastewater collection system. Each home has a
holding tank and grinder pump system that is connected to a force main that delivers wastewater to the PvVS Model
6000 SBR. The system, owned by the Moon Lake Ranch Homeowners Association, discharges treated effluent to a
lake on the subdivision property and is permitted by the State of Idaho for surface water discharge.
Methods and Procedures
The system startup evaluation was made by shutting down one SBR and keeping the second unit on line while the
out-of-service SBR was cleaned and prepared for startup. The startup time and conditions were documented. The
verification test included sixteen sampling and analysis events over the one-year test period, and included monthly
four-day sampling events, and one special four-day sampling event each season of the year. Sampling locations
included the untreated wastewater, treated effluent from the SBR, and final effluent from the system after filtration
06/28/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2006
vs-ii
-------
and UV disinfection. Flow-weighted composite and grab samples were collected during sampling events,
depending on the requirements and holding time for each analysis. Grab samples were collected each sample day
for pH, temperature, turbidity, and total coliform. The samples for total coliform were collected and placed directly
into sterile bottles provided by the laboratory. Flow-weighted, 24-hr composite samples were collected each
sampling day for total suspended solids (TSS), five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen
demand (COD), and alkalinity. Four-day composite samples were collected for total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),
ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), nitrite plus nitrate (NO2+NO3-N), and total and soluble phosphorus (TP and SP,
respectively) by taking an aliquot of each 24-hr composite sample and combining them to make the 96-hr
composite. All of the 96-hr composites were prepared in the laboratory to ensure proper preservation and cooling
was maintained.
When the sludge holding tank was nearly full, arrangements were made to have the sludge removed by a licensed
hauler. The volume of sludge pumped from the tank was recorded each time the tank was emptied and a sample of
the sludge was taken for analysis of percent solids and metals (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn).
All analyses were completed in accordance with EPA approved methods or Standard Methods for the Examination
of Waster and Wastewater, 20th Edition. An established quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program was
used to monitor sampling and laboratory procedures. Details on all analytical methods and QA/QC procedures are
provided in the full verification report.
PERFORMANCE VERIFICATION
Overview
Evaluation of the IWS Model 6000 SBR began in April 2004 when one SBR was taken offline and cleaned. The
verification testing started July 1, 2004 and proceeded without interruption through June 30, 2005. All sixteen four-
day sampling events were completed as scheduled, yielding 64 sets of analytical data for daily composite and grab
sample parameters, and 16 sets of data for the 96-hr composite parameters.
One major change was made to the test system approximately two and one half months after the start of the
verification test. The original system included two 6,000 gal SBR units, with no equalization or distribution tank
ahead of the SBR units. One of the SBR units was converted to an equalization tank, while the second SBR unit
continued to operate as an SBR. IWS made this same change to all of their systems to provide better flow control to
the SBR unit and to reduce the potential for upsets in the SBR during very high inlet flow rates.
Startup
The SBR startup proceeded without difficulty. Startup and acclimation procedures were easy to follow and the SBR
system established a viable biomass that would provide treatment of the wastewater within two to three weeks.
Verification Test Results
The average daily flow based on daily averages calculated for each month in the twelve-month verification period,
was 2,277 gal and ranged from 1,827 to 3,690 gal. The peak single day flow of 6,026 gal occurred in November
2004 and the lowest single day flow of 259 gal occurred in October 2004.
Table 1 presents the results for BOD5 and TSS. The SBReffluent achieved a mean reduction of 95% for BOD5. The
final treated effluent had a mean value of 4 mg/L giving a mean reduction of 98% for BOD5. Most of the BOD5
results in the final effluent were below the detection limit of either 3 or 4 mg/L.
The mean influent COD was 480 mg/L, with a range of 120 to 1,440 mg/L. The SBR effluent mean COD
concentration was 49 mg/L, ranging from <20 to 240 mg/L, and the COD concentration in the treated effluent had a
mean of 22 mg/L with a range of <20 to 45 mg/L. The mean value was very close to the detection limit for the
COD test (20 mg/L), as most of the test results were below the detection limit.
06/28/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2006
vs-iii
-------
Table 2 presents the results for TKN, NH3-N, NO2+NO3-N) and total nitrogen (TN). TN was determined by adding
the concentrations of the TKN (organic plus ammonia nitrogen), and NO2+NO3-N in the effluent. The SBR
demonstrated a mean reduction of 83% in TN for the verification test period. The final treated effluent nitrogen
concentrations were similar to the SBR effluent except for a somewhat lower mean concentration of TKN. The
overall system removal efficiency for TN was 88%.
Table 1. BOD5 and TSS Data Summary
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Influent
230
580
86
99
BOD5 (mg/L)
SBR Final
Effluent Effluent
12 4
39 8
<4 2
8.3 1.4
Influent
170
440
15
90
TSS (mg/L)
SBR
Effluent
26
160
3
28
Final
Effluent
6
23
3
4
Note: Data are based on 64 samples.
Table 2. Nitrogen Data Summary
TKN (mg/L)
Influent SBR Effluent Final Effluent Influent
NH3-N (mg/L)
SBR Effluent Final Effluent
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
37.6
50.2
17.9
9.95
3.23
6.40
1.17
1.86
1.23
3.54
0.40
0.90
29.8
40.0
11.9
8.65
0.44
2.99
<0.04
0.94
0.33
2.53
<0.04
0.76
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Influent
0.08
0.232
<0.02
0.06
NO2+NO3-N (mg/L)
SBR Effluent Final
3.1
9.9
0.50
2.4
Effluent
3.1
8.8
0.6
2.2
Influent
38
50
18
9.9
TN (mg/L)
SBR Effluent
6.3
15
2.0
3.3
Final Effluent
4.4
9.8
1.0
2.3
Table 3 presents data for TP and SP. The SBR demonstrated a mean reduction of 56% of the TP and 59% of the SP
present in the influent. The trends are very similar with SP representing approximately 65-75% of the TP
concentration in both the influent and SBR effluent for the verification test period. The final treated effluent
showed a small additional decrease in SP (mean of 1.1 mg/L versus 1.6 mg/L), while the TP concentration
decreased from a mean of 2.4 mg/L to 1.3 mg/L. Overall the full treatment system achieved a 76% reduction in TP
concentration and 72% reduction in SP concentration.
Table 3. Phosphorus Data
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Influent SBR Effluent Final Effluent
Soluble Phosphorus (mg/L)
Influent SBR Effluent Final Effluent
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
5.4
7.4
2.9
1.5
2.4
4.7
0.37
1.1
1.3
2.7
0.08
0.75
3.9
5.7
1.5
1.2
1.6
3.5
0.12
0.89
1.1
2.5
<0.05
0.76
Note: The data in Tables 2 and 3 are based on 16 samples.
06/28/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
vs-iv
August 2006
-------
Total coliform results are presented in Table 4. The UV system reduced total coliform levels to below the detection
limit on most sample days. Only one day exceeded 100 MPN/100 mL and two additional days exceeded 10
MPN/lOOmL.
Table 4. Total Coliform Data Summary
Geometric Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Influent
V.lxlO6
1.6xl09
2.3xl05
Total Coliform (MPN/ 100 mL)
SBR Effluent
1.2xl05
S.OxlO6
2.4xl03
Final Effluent
4
120
2
Note: Data are based on 63 samples of influent and SBR effluent, and 53 smaples of final effluent.
Verification Test Discussion
High influent volumes in November (several days above 4,000 gal and two days over 5,000 gal) resulted in high
water alarms in the system. During this time, the filter was not meeting turbidity requirements, resulting in reject
water from the filtration system going to the SBR in addition to the high influent volume. Five truckloads (15,500
gal) of raw wastewater from the equalization tank were hauled away to stabilize the system. In response, the
process cycle time was also changed from four hours to six hours and the aeration cycle was lengthened from two
45-minute periods to two 90-minute periods. Following this change, the maximum daily flow during the test (6,026
gal) occurred three days later, followed by continued high flows for several more days, but the high flows did not
significantly impact system performance.
SBR effluent BOD5 exceeded 20 mg/L on eight of the 64 monitoring days, and exceeded 30 mg/L on three of those
days. While there was no distinct pattern or cause identified for the days with higher BOD5, the higher BOD5
concentrations did tend to correspond with higher TSS concentrations. The highest BOD5 concentration of 39 mg/L
corresponded to the maximum TSS concentration of 160 mg/L. TSS varied considerably in the SBR effluent with
eight of the 63 monitoring days exceeding 50 mg/L. Clarification of the biomass was generally successful, but
poorer settling did at times challenge the coagulation/filtration system. The filtration system and the on-line
turbidity monitor worked as designed, rejecting filtrate with higher turbidity and TSS. On days when TSS was
elevated in the SBR effluent, the final effluent was typically 5 mg/L or less.
Operation and Maintenance Results
In December, a total of 10,500 gal of wastewater was removed from the equalization tank and trucked to the local
municipal wastewater treatment plant. The high water condition was most likely due to a faulty low level UV
intensity reading on the UV unit, based on system pumping records, UV readings, filter turbidity and effluent
coliform data collected when UV readings were properly acquired by the PLC. Once the problem was resolved, the
unit returned to normal operation and no additional high water alarms were encountered.
The Model 6000 SBR used an aluminum salt (alum or poly aluminum chloride) as a coagulant to treat the SBR
effluent prior to filtration and used methanol as a supplemental carbon source for the denitrification process. These
chemicals were added from 55 gal storage tanks by chemical metering pumps activated by the PLC during flow to
the filter (aluminum) and during the anoxic cycle in the SBR (methanol). The chemical dose for aluminum was
approximately 2.5 mg/L as Al. The average coagulant use, based on an average daily flow of 2,280 gal, was
approximately 0.5 Ibs/day as Al. This translates to approximately 1.1 pounds of PAC per 1,000 gal treated or 2.8
Ibs of alum per 1,000 gal treated. The average methanol solution feed rate was 1.7 gal (2.8 Ibs) per day, which
translates to approximately 50 mg/L as carbon or 1.2 Ibs of methanol per 1,000 gal treated.
The IWS Model 6000 SBR, while complex, is highly automated and PLC controlled so that operator intervention is
not required on a daily basis. The operator can access the PLC via the Internet and the PLC can send various alarms
to an operator when there is a potential problem. Based on the records maintained during the verification test, four
to five hr/week are needed to handle routine operation and maintenance activities, with additional time needed for
06/28/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2006
VS-V
-------
mechanical problems or upset conditions. There were no major operational upsets in the SBR during the
verification test, only adjustments in the SBR master cycle (aeration, anoxic, transfer, clarification). The most
significant change was the November adjustment mentioned in the previous section.
There were no major mechanical component failures or major downtime periods during the verification test. When
the process was changed in September to switch one SBR to an equalization tank, the switch was completed in two
days, with flow to the one SBR maintained throughout the period. There was one structural failure during the test,
when the baffle in the SBR between the aeration chamber and the clarifier chamber separated from the tank wall.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
During testing, NSF completed a QA/QC audit of the Moon Lake Ranch site and Analytical Laboratories Inc.
(ALI), the analytical laboratory. This audit included: (a) a technical systems audit to assure the testing was in
compliance with the test plan, (b) a performance evaluation audit to assure that the measurement systems employed
at the test site and by ALI were adequate to produce reliable data, and (c) a data quality audit of at least 10 percent
of the test data to assure that the reported data represented the data generated during the testing. The audit
determined that procedures being used in the field and the laboratory were in accordance with the established
QAPP. EPA QA personnel also conducted a quality systems audit of NSF's QA Management Program.
06/28/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2006
vs-vi
-------
Original Signed by
Clyde R. Dempseyfor Original Signed by
Sally Gutierrez September 27, 2006 Robert Ferguson October 2, 2006
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Programs
Office of Research and Development NSF International
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria
and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied warranties as to the
performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is
solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of
corporate names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report in no way constitutes an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of The Protocol for Verification of Wastewater Treatment Technologies, dated April 2001, the Verification Test
Plan, Verification Statement, and the Verification Report are available from the following sources:
1. ETV Water Quality Protection Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are available from NSF upon request.)
EPA's Office of Wastewater Management has published a number of documents to assist purchasers, community
planners and regulators in the proper selection, operation and management of onsite wastewater treatment systems.
Two relevant documents and their sources are:
1. Handbook for Management of Onsite and Clustered Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
http: //www. e pa. gov/ow m/o
2. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual Mt:p_;//www.cpa/goWown/mlb/dc^cnt/toojbox.htm
06/28/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2006
vs-vii
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology
International Wastewater Systems
Model 6000 Sequencing Batch Reactor System
(With Coagulation, Sand Filtration, and Ultraviolet Disinfection)
Prepared for
NSF International
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by
Scherger Associates
In cooperation with
Eagle Sewer District
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
ETV Water Quality Protection Center
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08837
August 2006
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a
Cooperative Agreement. The Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), operating under the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, supported this verification effort. This
document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public
release.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
11
-------
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization (VO) 2
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2
1.2.3 Testing Organization (TO) 3
1.2.4 Technology Vendor 4
1.2.5 ETV Test Site 5
1.2.6 Technology Panel 5
1.3 Background and Objectives 6
1.4 Test Site Description 6
Chapter 2 Technology Description and Operating Processes 9
2.1 Technology Overview 9
2.1.1 Modified Sequencing Batch Reactor 9
2.1.2 Coagulation Injection and Filtration System 10
2.1.3 Disinfection System 11
2.1.4 PLC Alarm Equipment 12
2.2 Test Unit Specifications and Test Setup Description 13
2.3 Systems Changes during the Verification Test 15
2.4 IWS Claims and Criteria 15
Chapters Methods and Test Procedures 17
3.1 Verification Test Plan and Procedures 17
3.2 Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision Test Site Description 17
3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures 17
3.4 Verification Testing 18
3.4.1 Objectives 19
3.4.2 Verification Test Period 19
3.4.3 Flow Monitoring 20
3.4.4 Sampling Locations and Procedures 20
3.4.5 Sampling Schedule 23
3.4.6 Sample Preservation and Storage 23
3.4.7 Chain of Custody 24
3.5 Analytical Methods 24
3.6 Operation and Maintenance 25
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 27
4.1 Startup Test Period 27
4.2 Verification Test 30
4.2.1 Verification Test - Flow Conditions 30
4.2.2 BOD5/COD and TSS Results and Discussion 32
4.2.3 Nitrogen Reduction Performance 42
4.2.4 Total Phosphorus Removal Performance 48
4.2.5 Total Coliform Results 51
4.2.6 Other Operating Parameters - pH, Alkalinity, Temperature 52
in
-------
4.2.7 Residuals Results 57
4.3 Operation and Maintenance 58
4.3.1 Chemical Use 59
4.3.2 Operation and Maintenance Observations 59
Chapters QA/QC Results and Summary 63
5.1 Audits 63
5.2 Precision 63
5.2.1 Laboratory Duplicates 63
5.2.2 Field Duplicates 64
5.3 Accuracy 67
5.4 Representativeness 69
5.5 Completeness 69
Appendices 71
Appendix A-IWS Operation and Maintenance Manual 71
Appendix B -Pictures of Test Site and Equipment 72
Appendix C - Verification Test Plan 73
Appendix D - IWS Startup Procedures Field Operations and Lab Logbooks 74
Appendix E - Spreadsheets with calculation and data summary 75
Appendix F - Lab Data and QA/QC Data 76
Appendix G-Field Logs and Records 77
Glossary of Terms 78
Figures
Figure 1-1. Verification test site location map 7
Figure 2-1. Sequencing batch reactor configuration 9
Figure 2-2. IWS Model 6000 process flow diagram 13
Figure 4-1. Model 6000 SBRSystem BOD5 results 35
Figure 4-2. Model 6000 SBR System COD results 36
Figure 4-3. Model 6000 SBR System TSS results 37
Figure 4-4. Model 6000 SBR System TKN results 43
Figure 4-5. Model 6000 SBRSy stem NH3-N results 44
Figure 4-6. Model 6000 SBR System NO2+NO3-N results 45
Figure 4-7. Model 6000 SBR System Total Nitrogen results 46
Figure 4-8. Model 6000 SBR System Total Phosphorus results 49
Figure 4-9. Model 6000 SBR System Soluble Phosphorus results 50
IV
-------
Tables
Table 4-1. Flow-Volume Data during the Startup Period 29
Table 4-2. Influent Wastewater Quality - Startup Period 29
Table 4-3. Model 6000 SBR Final Effluent Permit Monitoring - Startup Period 29
Table 4-4. Model 6000 SBR System Influent Volumes - Verification Test Period 31
Table 4-5. Model 6000 SBR System BOD5 and COD Results 38
Table 4-6. Model 6000 SBR System TSS and Alkalinity Results 40
Table 4-7. Model 6000 SBR System Influent and Effluent Nitrogen Data 47
Table 4-8. Model 6000 SBR System Total and Soluble Phosphorus Data 51
Table 4-9. Model 6000 SBR System Total Coliform Results 53
Table 4-10. Model 6000 SBR System pH and Temperature Results 55
Table 4-11. Model 6000 SBRSystem Residuals - Metals and Solids Results 58
Table 4-12. Summary of Minor Maintenance and Action Items 62
Table 5-1. Laboratory Precision Limits 64
Table 5-2. Duplicate Field Sample Summary -Nutrients 65
Table 5-3. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - BOD, COD, TSS, Alkalinity 66
Table 5-4. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - Total Coliform 67
Table 5-5. Laboratory Control Limits for Accuracy 68
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ALI
ASTM
BOD5
°C
COD
DQI
EPA
BSD
ETV
ft2
gal
gpm
GP
HP
hr
in.
IWS
Kg
L
Ibs
MDL
min
MPN
Model 6000 SBR
NH3-N
NO2+NO3-N
NRMRL
mg/L
mL
NSF
NIST
O&M
PAC
PLC
PM
ppb
QA
QC
RPD
scfh
SBR
SCFM
SP
Analytical Laboratory, Inc.
American Society for Testing and Materials
5-day biochemical oxygen demand
Celsius degrees
Chemical oxygen demand
Data Quality Indicators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eagle Sewer District
Environmental Technology Verification
Square foot (feet)
Gallons
Gallon(s) per minute
Generic Protocol
Horsepower
Hour(s)
Inch(es)
International Wastewater Systems, Inc.
Kilogram(s)
Liter
Pounds
Minimum Detection Level
Minute(s)
Most Probable Number method for coliform
Model 6000 Sequencing Batch Reactor System
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Microgram(s) per liter
Milligram(s) per liter
Milliliter(s)
NSF International
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Operation and maintenance
Poly aluminum chloride
Programmable Logic Controller
Project Manager for the Testing Organization (TO)
Parts per billion (ng/L)
Quality assurance
Quality control
Relative Percent Difference
Standard cubic feet per hour
Sequencing batch reactor
Standard cubic feet per minute
Soluble phosphorus
VI
-------
SOP Standard operating procedure
T Temperature
TKN Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TO Testing Organization
TP Total phosphorus
TSS Total suspended solids
VO Verification Organization (NSF)
VAC Volts - AC
VTP Verification Test Plan
WQPC Water Quality Protection Center
vn
-------
Acknowledgments
The Testing Organization (TO), Eagle Sewer District, was responsible for managing the testing
sequence on site at the Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision, including collection of samples, checking
that instruments were being monitored and maintained, collection of field data, and data
management. Mr. Lynn Moser was the Project Manager for the TO.
Eagle Sewer District
44 North Palmetto Avenue
Eagle, Idaho 83616
(208)938-3845
Contact: Mr. Lynn Moser, General Manager
Email: lynnmoj'igr^ciwest.net
The Verification Report was prepared by Scherger Associates.
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
(734)213-8150
Contact: Mr. Dale A. Scherger, P.E.
Email: Paleres@aol.com
The laboratory that conducted the analytical work for this study was:
Analytical Laboratory Inc.
1804 N 33rd Street
Boise, Idaho 83703
(208)342-5515
Contact: Ms. Kellie Hall and Mr. James Hibbs
Email: ali@rmet.net
The manufacturer of the equipment was:
International Wastewater Systems, Inc.
2020 Charlotte Street
Bozeman, Montana 59718
(406)582-1115
Contact: Mr. Claude Smith
Email: ciaudesl985_@yaho_acQm
The TO wishes to thank NSF International, especially Mr. Thomas Stevens, Project Manager,
and Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator, for providing guidance and program management.
Vlll
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. EPA 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 ETV Program's goal is to further
environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of innovative,
improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing
high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design,
distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations (TOs);
stakeholders groups that consist of buyers, vendor organizations, consulting engineers, and
regulators; and the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates
the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the
needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and
analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are 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.
In cooperation with EPA, NSF operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six
centers under ETV. The ETV program has developed verification testing protocols that serve as
templates for conducting verification tests for various technologies. The Protocol for the
Verification of Wastewater Treatment Technologies, April 20011 (GP) was published as the
guidance document for test plan development for verification testing of decentralized wastewater
treatment systems for residential and non-residential wastewater with flow rates greater than
1,500 gallons per day (gpd).
The WQPC evaluated the performance of the International Wastewater Systems (IWS) Model
6000 Sequencing Batch Reactor System (Model 6000 SBR) for the removal of total suspended
solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and nutrients, including phosphorus, Total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), and nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen
(NO2+NO3-N) present in residential wastewater. The performance for reduction of total coliform
bacteria was also determined. This report provides the verification test results for the Model
6000 SBR in a residential subdivision application, in accordance with the GP1, and the
technology specific test plan, Verification Test Plan for Water Quality Systems, Inc, August
20042 (VTP). International Wastewater Systems is the successor to Water Quality Systems Inc.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the Model 6000 SBR was a cooperative effort between the following
participants:
-------
• NSF
• Eagle Sewer District
• Analytical Laboratories Inc.
• Scherger Associates
• International Wastewater Systems
• EPA
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization (VO)
The WQPC of the ETV is administered through a cooperative agreement between EPA and NSF.
NSF is the verification partner organization for the WQPC and the SWP area within the center.
NSF administers the center and contracts with the Testing Organization (TO) to develop and
implement the VTP, conduct the verification test, and prepare the Verification Report.
NSF's responsibilities as the VO included:
• Review and comment on the site specific VTP;
• Coordinate with peer reviewers to review and comment on the VTP;
• Coordinate with the EPA Project Officer and the technology vendor to approve the VTP
prior to the initiation of verification testing;
• Review the quality systems of all parties involved with the TO and, subsequently, qualify
the companies making up the TO;
• Oversee the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing;
• Provide quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review and support for the TO;
• Carry out an on-site audit of test procedures;
• Oversee the development of a verification report and verification statement; and
• Coordinate with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement.
Key contacts at NSF for the Verification Organization are:
Mr. Thomas Stevens, Program Manager
(734) 769-5347 email: stevenst@nsf.org
Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator
(734) 827-6821 email: mroush@nsf.org
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(734) 769-8010
1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Management
Branch, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, NRMRL, provides administrative,
technical, and QA guidance and oversight on all ETV WQPC activities. EPA reviews and
-------
approves each phase of the verification project. EPA's responsibilities with respect to
verification testing include:
• Verification test plan review and approval;
• Verification report review and approval; and
• Verification statement review and approval.
The key EPA contact for this program is:
Mr. Ray Frederick, Project Officer, ETV Water Quality Protection Center
(732)-321-6627 email: frederick.ray@epa.gov
U.S. EPA,NRMRL
Urban Watershed Management Branch (MS-104)
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
1.2.3 Testing Organization (TO)
The TO for the verification testing was the Eagle Sewer District (ESD), with support from
Scherger Associates for test plan development and report preparation. The ESD is located near
the test site and operates a wastewater collection and treatment system in the county. The ESD
has experienced wastewater operators and managers who oversaw all operations at the test site,
collected all samples and delivered the samples to the laboratory. Scherger Associates,
experienced in test plan development, system audits, and verification report writing supported
the ESD in these areas. The laboratory performing the analytical work was Analytical
Laboratories, Inc. (ALI) of Boise, ID. The laboratory has many years of experience in water and
wastewater testing.
Mr. Lynn Moser was the Project Manager (PM) for the TO and was responsible for the
successful completion of the field portion of the verification project. The ESD staff monitored
the site operation and performed the sample collection. Scherger Associates prepared the
Verification Report. ALI provided the laboratory services for the testing program and was
responsible for laboratory quality assurance through its QA group. ALI was audited by NSF and
approved for this ETV project.
The responsibilities of the TO included:
• Preparation of the site specific VTP;
• Conducting verification testing, according to the VTP;
• Oversight of the startup, operation, and maintenance of the Model 6000 SBR;
• Maintaining safe conditions at the test site for the health and safety of all personnel
involved with verification testing;
• Scheduling and coordinating the activities of all verification testing participants,
including establishing a communication network and providing logistical and technical
support;
-------
• Resolving any quality concerns encountered and report all findings to the VO;
• Managing, evaluating, interpreting and reporting on data generated by verification
testing;
• Evaluating and reporting on the performance of the technology; and
• Document changes in plans for testing and analysis, and notify the VO of any and all
such changes before changes were executed.
The key personnel and contacts for the TO were:
Eagle Sewer District
Mr. Lynn Moser
General Manager
Eagle Sewer District
44 North Palmetto Avenue
Eagle, ID 83616
(208)938-3845 email: lynnmQsei@flweM.net
Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
Ms. Kellie Hall and Mr. James Hibbs
Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
1804 N. 33rd Street
Boise, ID 83703
(208)342-5515 email: ali@rmet.net
Scherger Associates
Mr.. Dale Scherger, Consultant
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-9723
(734)213-8150 email: daleres@aol.com
1.2.4 Technology Vendor
The Wastewater Treatment Technology evaluated was the International Wastewater Systems
Model 6000 SBR, assembled and distributed by International Wastewater Systems, Inc (IWS).
IWS was responsible for supplying the equipment needed for the test and supporting the TO to
ensure that the equipment was properly installed and operated during the verification test period.
IWS had an existing contract with Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision to provide operation and
maintenance for the system, and provided on going operation and maintenance of the system
throughout the verification test. Specific responsibilities of the vendor were:
• Initiate application for ETV testing;
• Provide input to the verification testing objectives to be incorporated into the VTP;
• Provide complete ready to operate equipment, and the operation and maintenance (O&M)
manual(s) typically provided with the technology (including instructions on installation,
start-up, operation and maintenance) for verification testing;
-------
• Provide additional equipment, piping, pumps, valves, flow meters, tanks, etc. needed to
setup the test;
• Provide logistical and technical support (IWS is under contract with the site to provide
operation and maintenance services);
• Provide assistance to the TO on the operation and monitoring of the technology during
the verification testing;
• Review and approve the VTP;
• Review and comment on the Verification Report; and
• Provide funding for verification testing.
The key contact for International Wastewater Systems, Inc. was:
Mr. Claude Smith
International Wastewater Systems, Inc.
2020 Charlotte Street
Bozeman, Montana 59718
406-582-1115 email: claujlgsl985@yatoacom
1.2.5 ETV Test Site
The verification test was performed at the Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision Wastewater Treatment
Facility, located in Ada County, Idaho. IWS operates and maintains the Model 6000 SBR system
installed at the site, under contract with the owner, the Moon Lake Ranch Home Owners
Association. The owner is responsible for maintaining the sewer collection system up to the
point the wastewater enters the collection box of the IWS system, which is the inlet to the
system. The test site owner also provided:
• Space and utilities for the verification test; and
• Access to the existing equipment, piping, pumps, valves, flow meters, tanks, etc. needed
to setup the test.
The owner contact was:
Mr. Ronald Sali
Moon Lake Ranch Home Owner's Association
100 N. 9th, Suite 200
Boise, Idaho 83702
1.2.6 Technology Panel
Representatives from the Technology Panel assisted the VO in reviewing and commenting on the
VTP.
-------
1.3 Background and Objectives
IWS assembles, installs, and operates decentralized wastewater treatment systems, including the
Model 6000 SBR, which are designed to treat wastewater to meet the regulatory requirements for
secondary treatment, surface water discharge criteria to lakes and streams, or standards for Class
A water for reclamation and reuse. Actual numerical standards for direct discharge or water
reclamation will vary by location. The SBR in the Model 6000 is designed to meet secondary
wastewater treatment standards [typically 30 mg/L total suspended solids (TSS) and 30 mg/L
biochemical oxygen demand (BODs)]. The entire Model 6000 system with coagulation,
filtration, and UV disinfection processes is designed to meet direct discharge standards, and
water reclamation and reuse standards, depending on the local requirements. The Model 6000
SBR tested in this verification is a full scale, commercially available unit. The discharge from
the system is to a lake within the housing development.
Verification testing of decentralized wastewater treatment systems under the ETV WQPC
protocol for Wastewater Treatment Technologies is designed to verify the contaminant removal
performance and operation and maintenance performance of commercial-ready systems,
following technically sound protocols and appropriate quality assurance and control. The
objective of this verification was to determine the performance of the IWS Model 6000 SBR
when used to treat domestic wastewater. Reductions in contaminant loads were evaluated to
determine the effectiveness of the system to remove suspended solids (TSS), BOD, nutrients
(phosphorus and nitrogen) and total coliform. The SBR was evaluated separately and in
combination with the additional treatment steps.
The treatment system was monitored over a one-year test period. Influent and effluent samples
from the SBR, and effluent samples after additional treatment by the sand filtration and UV
disinfection units, were collected and analyzed for various contaminants or contaminant
indicators including biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
total suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen compounds, phosphorus compounds, and total coliform.
These parameters and other operating parameters (flow, pH, alkalinity, turbidity, temperature)
were monitored to meet the ETV objective of providing an overall assessment of the technology.
The treatment system was also monitored for operation and maintenance characteristics,
including the performance and reliability of the equipment and the level of operator maintenance
required.
1.4 Test Site Description
The verification test was performed at the Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision, located a few miles
west of Boise, Idaho. The subdivision consists of 18 homes and is located in an area not served
by a central wastewater collection system. Each home has a holding tank and grinder pump
system that is connected to a force main that delivers wastewater to the central wastewater
treatment facility. The site and wastewater treatment system are owned by the Moon Lake Ranch
Homeowners Association. A location map is presented in Figure 1-1.
-------
"'vLittle Rock
:tha WahoBivd I
W Emmett
I -_@_^?h
? ^Eramwell i
/Gem
.^Black canyon ^Motitour
<* ^ Horse.shoe.eerid"^
Josephson
Micldloto
n LiBht Rd
«• •-*.,.,£&
A S
W.eitz_H;%a|dKi_an pyi ?___
-Ani.icrAvo
,Riijerside Swartz corner.
©2002 MapQuest.oom, Inc.; ©2002 GOT, Ino.
Hacks Creek,, ^fe,
S4*
f-Nloi*a KyUi Mora,,Hjd,, t
^Pleasant valley" ™"
Figure 1-1. Verification test site location map.
The treatment system installed at the Moon Lake Ranch subdivision included two 6000 gpd
modified sequencing batch reactors (SBR) operating in parallel, one sand filtration system, and
two parallel ultraviolet disinfection treatment units. The treatment system had been in place for
over three years prior to the start of the verification. Operating reports required under the State of
Idaho permit system showed that the effluent had achieved the required standards.
Table 1-1 shows the discharge permit limits for the facility. Treated effluent is discharged to a
lake on the subdivision property and thus permit limits are based on surface discharge
requirements.
Table 1-1. Discharge Permit Limits for Test Site
Parameter
Flow
BOD
TSS
Turbidity
Total coliform
Sample Frequency
Daily
1 /month
I/month
Continuous
1 /month
Sample Type
Meter
Composite
Composite
In line meter
Grab
Permit Limit
10,000 gpd
7.5 mg/L max; 5 mg/L monthly avg.
7.5 mg/L max; 5 mg/L monthly avg.
2NTU-24hravg.
5 NTU - instantaneous max.
23 MPN/100 mL
-------
IWS operates and maintains the wastewater treatment system under contract with the Moon Lake
Ranch Home Owners Association. Licensed wastewater operators visit the site on a regular basis
to monitor the system, maintain equipment, and collect samples. The system is also monitored
from the IWS office via a modem and telephone hookup between the site and the office in
Bozeman, Montana.
Flow rate data for the system had been collected as part of the normal PLC operating system and
for reporting to the State of Idaho. A summary of the average daily flow rates for the period
January 2000 through May 2001 and for the two months prior the start of the verification test,
May and June 2004, is shown in Table 1-2. The data for January 2000 to May 2001 is based on
monthly average flow records, while the data for May to June 2004 was obtained by a flow meter
installed in the influent line prior to testing.
Table 1-2. Summary Flow Rate Data for Test Site
Jan 2000 - May 2001 May - June 2004
Parameter (gpd) (gpd)
Average 1,627 2,311
Maximum 2,639 3,326
Minimum 863 1,187
Prior to the start of the verification test, influent wastewater characterization data were not
available, as incoming wastewater was not routinely monitored. All of the wastewater comes
from residential homes and it was expected to be typical domestic strength wastewater. Effluent
water quality data were available from the quarterly reports prepared for the State Of Idaho.
Influent and effluent data were collected throughout the verification test. These data are
presented in Section 4 - Results and Discussion of this report.
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description and Operating Processes
2.1 Technology Overview
The IWS Model 6000 SBR includes a 6,000 gallon (gal) modified sequencing batch reactor
(SBR), a coagulation injection system, a gravity sand filtration system, and an ultraviolet
disinfection system. A description of each system is provided below. The initial system installed
at the Moon Lake Ranch included two 6,000 gal SBRs and two UV systems that operate in
parallel to provide a total maximum design capacity of 12,000 gpd. This system was modified in
September 2004 to convert one of the SBRs to a 6,000 gal distribution/equalization tank. Thus,
the current system at Moon Lake Ranch is a single Model 6000 SBR system with a
stabilization/equalization tank. The vendor O&M manual (updated in January 2006) indicates the
system is most efficient at average daily flows of 3,000 gal, with a maximum flow of 6,000 gal.
The verification test included verification of the entire system to meet surface water discharge
standards. Data was also collected of the SBR effluent prior to filtration and disinfection to
provide information on the treatment efficiency of the SBR itself.
2.1.1 Modified Sequencing Batch Reactor
Each SBR is a 6,000 gal fiberglass tank constructed for IWS to established specifications. Each
SBR tank has three chambers: a comminuting chamber, an aeration chamber, and a clarification
chamber. Figure 2-1 illustrates a typical 6,000 gpd SBR. The IWS SBR is designed to provide
treatment by optimizing the treatment conditions using a computer controlled and monitored
system of pumps, floats, and probes to measure, monitor, and adjust the treatment parameters
within the unit. The computer control system uses a programmable logic controller (PLC),
associated equipment and a software program written by IWS. The PLC provides for the master
control of the SBR, and can communicate outside the facility by way of the modem and phone
line installed with the unit.
Typical
Chambers and Pumps
Inlet I 1 I "1 Outlet
Figure 2-1. Sequencing batch reactor configuration.
-------
The comminution chamber, the first chamber in the unit, receives wastewater pumped through
the force main from the homes. Large solids are reduced in size in this chamber to aid in
treatment through a process of aeration and circulating pumps (1) and (2) located in the aeration
chamber. The divider separating the comminution and aeration chambers is a fiberglass frame
supporting pipes and, in the lower half of the tank, a non-corrosive screen that prevents large
objects from continuing through the treatment process.
The aeration chamber is located in the second section of the tank. In this chamber, mixed liquor
is alternatively mixed with and then deprived of oxygen. This process accelerates the removal of
nitrogen from the sewage being treated. Four pumps are located in the aeration chamber. Pumps
1 and 2 provide the main aeration for the treatment process by drawing in outside air (using a
venturi system) and mixing it with the mixed liquor circulating against the retention screen
between the comminution chamber and the aeration chamber. These pumps also provide mixing
during the anoxic period when the pumps operate with the air intake valves closed. Pumps 3 and
4 transfer mixed liquor from the aeration chamber to the clarification chamber. This transfer
operation causes the contents of the clarification chamber to overflow back to the aeration
chamber through weirs located at the top of the baffle separating the two chambers, returning
scum that rises to the top of the clarifier chamber to the aeration chamber.
The clarifier chamber receives mixed liquor from the aeration chamber, providing a quiet settling
area for solid/liquid separation. A normal batch cycle consists of two settling periods. The first
occurs immediately after the mixed liquor has been received from the aeration chamber.
Subsequent to this settling period, pump (5), one of the three pumps in the clarifier chamber,
transfers settled solids from the lower section of the contact chamber back to the aeration
chamber. After another period of settling, the clarified effluent is transferred to the next
treatment phase by either pump 6 or 7. Pumps 6 and 7 provide an identical discharge but
alternate in use every other discharge cycle. Pumping time for the discharge pumps is controlled
by both level controllers in the clarifier and aeration chambers and by maximum time set in the
PLC. The level controllers assure that the discharge matched to the incoming wastewater flow
rate. The next phase of treatment in the Model 6000 is coagulation and filtration. In other
applications, the treated effluent can be discharged directly for use.
A detailed description of the entire SBR process and pumping cycles is provided in the O&M
manual in Appendix A.
2.1.2 Coagulation Injection and Filtration System
The SBR treated effluent is transferred by pumps 6 or 7 to a 3,000 gal holding tank. This water is
then pumped thorough a pipe network that contains the coagulation injection system. The
coagulation and filtration system is started and stopped by level sensors in the holding tank.
When the treated water in the SBR reaches the upper level switch (float switch), the coagulation-
filtration system pump is started and water is processed through the coagulation-filtration
process, and then flows by gravity through the UV disinfection unit. When the water level in the
holding tank reaches the low level switch (float switch), the pump is turned off, and flow through
coagulation-filtration-UV processes is stopped. The coagulation injection system consists of an
10
-------
electronic metering pump with a five-function valve, a static mixer, coagulant reservoir,
coagulant reservoir mixer, and the coagulant, typically either poly aluminum chloride (PAC) or
aluminum sulfate (alum). The system is designed to introduce a coagulating agent into the SBR
treated effluent, prior to sand filtration, to improve solids removal in the sand filter. An added
benefit of coagulant addition is phosphorus removal. The metering pump provides control over
the dose of coagulant that is used in the system. The coagulant solution (PAC or alum) is made
on site and stored in a mixed tank, a 55 gal polyethylene drum with a cover. The tank is mixed
with 1A HP stainless steel mixer.
The filtration system consists of a Centra-Flow dynamic bed sand filter designed to remove
suspended solids, coagulated materials, and finer solids that cause turbidity. Influent enters at the
center of the filter through a feed chamber and flows downward through the layers of
increasingly fine sand. Filtered water is collected through a screen around the periphery before
exiting the filter. Solids captured in the filter are drawn downward with the sand into the suction
of an airlift pump. The sand recirculation rate is typically set to turnover the sand bed every four
hours. The turbulent upward flow in the airlift provides a scrubbing action effectively separating
the sand and solids before discharge to the filter wash box. The wash box is a baffled chamber
that allows for counter current washing, using filtered water, and gravity separation of the
cleaned sand and the concentrated solids. Regenerated sand is returned to the top of the filter,
and waste solids are piped to the distribution tank. A turbidity meter is used in conjunction with
an electronically actuated valve to monitor the effectiveness of the sand filter and reroute the
feed stream to the 3,000 gal holding tank for further treatment if the effluent turbidity exceeds
allowable levels. The filter can handle flows up to 35 gpm, but normally operates at 10 - 15
gpm.
The Centra-Flow filter is continuously backwashed during normal operation. The "dirty" sand is
continuously being drawn out of the main filter unit and passed through the wash box by the air
lift system. Filtered effluent is used for backwash water. The backwash water flow rate to the
sand wash box is controlled by the water level differential between the elevation of the filtrate
overflow and the wash box. This differential is controlled by the weir on the filter unit. No
pumping of backwash water is required. Normal flow rate for the backwash water is
approximately 3.0-3.5 gpm. No storage for backwash water is needed.
2.1.3 Disinfection System
The disinfection system consists of two ultraviolet disinfection units operating in parallel, with
electronically actuated solenoid valves for each unit to prevent untreated water from reaching the
post equalization tank. The UV system is a standard UV design. Each unit is designed to handle
20 gpm and achieve total coliform levels of <2.2 MPN/100 mL. The inlet water specifications
are suspended solids <10 mg/L and turbidity of <5 NTU. The online turbidity meter monitoring
the sand filter effluent ensures that suspended solids are low before the water flows to the UV
units. If the turbidity level exceeds the set point (typically 5 NTU), the filtrate is routed back to
the filter feed-water holding tank for reprocessing to lower the turbidity (thereby the TSS) level
in the filtered water. The UV lamps are always on, whether or not there is flow through the
process. The filtered effluent flows by gravity from the filter. Flow is intermittent as controlled
11
-------
by the level controllers in the SBR effluent holding tank (coagulation-filtration system influent).
The final treated effluent is collected in a sump where it is pumped to the discharge location. At
Moon Lake Ranch, the water is discharged to the lake on site, but in other applications, the
discharge can be to a drain field or other suitable discharge location.
The UV system is designed to operate at a wave length of 254 nanometers wavelength using
standard UV lights, with the minimum dosage of 30 milliwatt-seconds per square centimeter at
peak flow. Overall, power consumption is estimated to be 54 watts per unit. Normal lamp
replacement occurs prior to the lamp reaching 10,000 hr. The UV units at Moon Lake Ranch do
have visual monitors. Cleaning of the quartz sleeves is not automatic but is part of the required
routine maintenance performed by the operator. Each operator visit (typically two to three times
per week) includes the manual cleaning by operating the cleaning device on each lamp. In
addition, every three months the UV unit is shut down and cleaned thoroughly. The UV
intensity is monitored, with the solenoid valves closing when lamp intensity reaches 25%. There
are both audible and PLC alarms available for the unit, however IWS only facilitates the PLC
alarm to contact an operator if a malfunction occurs.
2.1.4 PLC Alarm Equipment
The PLC controls and monitors a wide range of information on the IWS system. The PLC can
alert an operator away from the site that a problem has occurred. The system also tracks data on
the operating system. Typical alarm equipment and notification include:
Alarm equipment:
• Multi-zone dialer (battery backup)
• GE Programmed Logic Controller (battery backup)
• Level sensors
• I/O Failure alarms
• Dynamic filter alarms (head loss, air flow, liquid level)
• Turbidity meter alarms (lamp failure, high NTU)
• UV lamp failure
Alarm notification:
• Loss of power
• Abnormal noise level in control building
• Abnormal temperature in control building
• Biological treatment
o Exceed level parameters for system tanks
o Exceed level parameters for auxiliary tanks (sludge tank, dosing tank)
o Pump failure
o Outside of prescribed range of (turbidity)
o Filter head loss
o UV lamps
12
-------
2.2 Test Unit Specifications and Test Setup Description
The installed Model 6000 SBR system is fully described in the Operation and Maintenance
Manual presented in Appendix A. The vendor O&M manual indicates the system is most
efficient at average daily flows of 3,000 gal, with a maximum flow of 6,000 gal. The reader is
referred to the O&M Manual for additional detailed information on all of the individual
components of the system. A brief summary of the system is given below. Figure 2-2 is a simple
process flow diagram of the unit. Appendix B shows photographs of the system taken at the test
location.
national W W System s.
ox 4640 /16 N.9th A
(406) 582-1115
Process
D i a g r a m
Figure 2-2. IWS Model 6000 process flow diagram.
13
-------
Summary Specifications
Two Modified Sequencing Batch Reactors (See Figure 2-1 for chamber configuration) - 6,000
gpd capacity, with the most efficient operation at average daily flows of 3,000 gal.
Dimensions 16 ft long x 8 ft wide x 8 ft high
Fiberglass tank
Aeration volume- 3,090 gal
Clarifier volume-1,500 gal
Aerator efficiency - 0.809 Ibs O2 per HP-hr
Minimum design oxygen - 2.0 mg/L
One 3,000 gal Fiberglass Holding Tank - Receives SBR effluent
One Coagulation Injection System
Chemical metering pump
Liquid coagulant storage tank - 55 gal
Static mixer - in the feed line after coagulant injector
Feed line control system - to pace coagulant to wastewater flow
One Centra-Flow Dynamic Bed Sand Filter
Dimensions -36 in. diameter, 130 in. high
Sand weight - 4,000 Ibs
Peak flow rate- 35 gpm
Normal flow rate-15 gpm
Typical Surface flow rate -3-5 gpm/ft2
Sand size rangeO.6 - 2.36 mm
Airlift flow rate - 1-5 SCFM
Airlift pressure -35 psi
Design head loss- 48 in.
Two UV Disinfection Units (parallel operation)
Design flow rate - (each unit)20 gpm
Dimensions - 50 3/s in. long x 5 11/16 in. wide x 9 l/2 in. high
Gross weight-36 Ibs
Design TSS-<10 mg/L
Design Turbidity - <5 NTU
Minimum UV dosage @ peak flow30 milliwatt-seconds per square centimeter
Materials-Stainless steel
Voltage -120 VAC single phase
Power consumption - 54 watts
Output- 254 nanometers
Disinfection design - <2.2 per 100 mL of total coliform
Valving criteria - Stop flow in power failure or low UV intensity
14
-------
2.3 Systems Changes during the Verification Test
One major change was made to the Moon Lake Ranch system in September 2004, approximately
two and one half months after the verification test started in July 2004. The system, as described
earlier, included two 6,000 gal SBR units, and did not include an equalization or distribution tank
ahead of the SBR units. As part of new operating management at IWS, and based on experience
at several other locations, IWS changed the basic system approach for all of their systems to
include a distribution (equalization) tank ahead of the SBR units. This approach provided better
flow control to the SBR units and reduced the potential for upsets in the SBR(s) during very high
inlet flow rates.
The flow data collected from January through August 2004 indicated that typical daily flow rates
at Moon Lake Ranch were on the order of 2,000 to 3,000 gpd. IWS determined that a single
6,000 gpd SBR could handle the wastewater flows, and that the second SBR could be used as an
equalization/distribution tank. In September 2004, SBR 1 was converted to an equalization/
distribution tank that received the raw wastewater. At that time, all of the sludge in SBR 1 was
pumped to the waste sludge holding tank and the unit was cleaned. The inlet force main at the
treatment plant site was then set to send all wastewater to SBR 1. The pumping system in SBR 1
was used to maintain solids in suspension. The discharge pumps in SBR 1 were piped to the inlet
to SBR 2 and the PLC was changed to send raw wastewater from SBR 1 to SBR 2 on a steady
basis after the completion of each treatment cycle in SBR 2.
While changes of this type are not normally allowed after a verification test has started, the
change was approved in this situation because it was being incorporated in all new system
designs. It was determined that it was important that the verification test be performed on the
most current design approach, so the verification data would reflect this significant process
design change. In addition, flow rate data collected during the startup period and after the
installation of the new influent flow meter showed that daily flows were typically 2,000 to 3,000
gpd, which was well below the total maximum installed flow capacity of 12,000 gpd. It was
agreed at the time the change was made that if a significant difference in effluent quality
occurred after the modification, an additional two months of testing would be added to the
verification test.
In November 2004, in response to high flow conditions and to try to improve total nitrogen
removal, the operators changed the master cycle from a four-hr cycle to a six-hr cycle. The
aeration cycle was lengthened from two 45-minute periods to two 90-minute periods. As shown
in Section 4 - Results and Discussion, the effluent quality was not significantly different before
and after the system changes.
2.4 IWS Claims and Criteria
IWS claims that the Model 6000 SBR with filtration and disinfection will treat wastewater to
meet surface water discharge criteria or recharge criteria. Effluent criteria stated by IWS for the
system include:
15
-------
Table 2-1. IWS Wastewater Treatment Claims
„ , Raw Residential Wastewater Effluent Characteristics after
Parameter „, , . ,. ^.,, ,• • TT^™- • P .•
Characteristics Filtration and UV Disinfection
BOD5 200-290 mg/L <10mg/L
TSS 200-290 mg/L < 10 mg/L
TKN 18-29 mg/L < 10 mg/L
Total Phosphorus (TP) 6-9 mg/L 1-3 mg/L
Total Coliform 108-1010 MPN/100 mL <2.2 MPN/100 mL
16
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Test Procedures
3.1 Verification Test Plan and Procedures
The VTP, Verification Test Plan for Water Quality Systems, Inc, August 20042, is included in
Appendix C. The VTP details the procedures and analytical methods used to perform the
verification test, including the various tasks designed to verify the performance of the Model
6000 SBR and to obtain information on operation and maintenance requirements. The VTP
covered two distinct phases of fieldwork: startup of the unit and a one-year verification test that
included monthly sampling programs and four extra sampling periods. The verification test was
completed between July 2004 and June 2005.
This section summarizes each of the testing elements performed during technology verification,
including sample collection methods, analytical protocols, equipment installation, and equipment
operation. QA/QC procedures and data management approach are discussed in detail in the VTP.
3.2 Moon Lake Ranch Subdivision Test Site Description
A complete description of the test site and historical data for the site operation are presented in
Section 1.4. Likewise, a complete description of the IWS Model 6000 SBR installed at the Moon
Lake Ranch Subdivision, used for this verification, is provided in Chapter 2.
The historic flow data for the site showed that while there was a variation in the average daily
flow, there was no distinct pattern (weekend or seasonal) to the fluctuations in the flow rate. The
maximum and minimum flows tended to occur on weekend days. A new influent flow meter
installed in preparation for the verification test provided additional data for May and June 2004.
These more current data (Table 1-2) confirmed the earlier data obtained from the PLC. Flow
rates were somewhat higher as additional homes had been constructed between 2001 and 2004.
The maximum flow rate, however, was limited by the capacity of the force main to carry water
pumped by the homes through the system.
Given the nature of the residential community, it was not expected that any significant seasonal
variation would occur. Based on these data the four special sampling periods were spaced over
the year, with one test sequence occurring in each quarter near holiday periods. The special test
sequences were placed on or near some holiday to provide data on these special periods.
3.3 Installation and Startup Procedures
The IWS Model 6000 SBR with filtration and disinfection had been installed and operating at the
test site since the year 2000. Therefore, it was not possible to shut down the entire system, as
untreated wastewater would be discharged from the site in violation of the site's discharge
permit. The IWS Model 6000 SBR had two SBR units running in parallel at the site. Based on
the flow rates, it was determined that one SBR could carry the load for at least a short period
17
-------
time if needed (1-2 months). Therefore, a startup approach was developed based on shutting
down one SBR and keeping the second unit on line, while the out of service SBR was cleaned
and prepared for startup. The cleaned SBR was then re-started using the normal startup
procedures detailed in the IWS operating manual. This approach allowed for the observation of
how the system responded during startup. The startup time and conditions were documented.
For the startup, the valve system on the influent force main was used to divert all of the influent
flow to SBR 1. Once it was confirmed that the system was operating properly on one unit, SBR 2
was emptied of all sludge by pumping the sludge to the sludge holding tank. The unit was
cleaned and prepared for startup. The SBR was inspected by BSD staff to verify that it was clean
and in a "like new" condition. IWS then obtained 1,000 gal of activated sludge from a local
wastewater treatment plant (Meridian, Idaho), SBR 2 was "seeded" with this material and an
acclimation period started. The sludge holding tank was pumped down by a vacuum truck and
taken to a local treatment plant for disposal.
The IWS startup procedure (Appendix D) for acclimating and starting the SBR unit was used for
the clean unit. IWS determined through checks of pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, settleable
solids and visual observation when the initial startup was complete and the SBR was ready to
receive wastewater feed on a continuous basis. The filtration system and UV disinfections
systems were then thoroughly cleaned and placed in "like new" startup condition.
This cleaning procedure included a thorough backwash of the filtration system and cleaning of
the tanks, lines, or pumps. The UV unit was cleaned, new lamps installed, and quartz sleeves
were inspected to ensure the unit met "like new" manufacturer specifications. All cleaning and
operations during this period were performed by the IWS operation and maintenance staff. Once
the IWS personnel had finished the cleaning, BSD staff inspected the equipment and confirmed
that conditions met the typical initial startup specifications. IWS then resumed splitting the flow
between SBR 1 and SBR 2 and a full system startup for SBR 2 was underway.
IWS had indicated that startup typically takes about 2-4 weeks so there was no requirement in
the verification protocol1 for sampling and analysis during the startup period. At the request of
IWS, grab samples for the normal startup parameter list, shown in Table 3-1, were collected
during the startup. Data was also collected on the operating SBR and filtration/UV system for
compliance with the site discharge permit.
3.4 Verification Testing
The verification test was designed to determine the effluent quality achieved by the IWS Model
6000 SBR in typical domestic wastewater applications. There were two verification tests
performed under the single test plan. The IWS Model 6000 SBR was tested before the
coagulation/filtration and UV disinfection treatment steps to determine the effectiveness of the
SBR to meet secondary effluent quality. The entire IWS Model 6000 SBR system (SBR,
coagulation/filtration and UV disinfection) was tested by collecting and analyzing samples of the
final treated effluent.
18
-------
Table 3-1. Startup Monitoring - Typical IWS Recommended Schedule
Sample Schedule
Parameter
Flow rate (gpd)
pH
Temperature
Influent BOD5 (mg/L)
Effluent BOD5 (mg/L)
BOD5 removal (%)
Influent TSS (mg/L)
Effluent TSS (mg/L)
TSS removal (%)
TN (mg/L as N)
Total coliform
Settleable solids
Dissolved oxygen
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Daily
Once/month
Once/month
Once/month
Once/month
Once/month
Once/month
Periodic when on
site
Periodic when on
site
Sample
Type
Meter
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Calculation
Composite
Composite
Calculation
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Record Keeping
Recorded by time and date
Recorded by time and date
Recorded by time and date
Chain of custody and lab reports
Chain of custody and lab reports
Chain of custody and lab reports
Chain of custody and lab reports
Chain of custody and lab reports
Chain of custody and lab reports
Chain of custody and lab reports
Chain of custody and lab reports
Recorded daily during startup
Recorded daily during startup
3.4.1 Objectives
The objectives for the experimental design for this verification test were:
• Determine the treatment performance of the IWS Model 6000 SBR (stand alone SBR) to
remove the key target constituents, including TSS, BOD5, COD, TKN, NH3-N,
NO2+NO3-N, and total and soluble phosphorus (TP and SP, respectively);
• Determine the treatment performance of the PWS Model 6000 SBR system (SBR unit,
coagulation/filtration and UV disinfection units) to remove the key target constituents,
including TSS, BOD5, COD, total nitrogen (TN) (TKN, NH3-N and NO2+NO3-N), TP,
SP and total coliform;
• Determine the basic operation and maintenance requirements for the system;
• Determine solids residuals produced by the system; and
• Determine the labor time, chemical use and power consumption of the system
3.4.2 Verification Test Period
The test period began at the end of the startup period, and continued for 12 consecutive months.
No more than 36 days of upset conditions or downtime was allowed by the protocol during the
verification test period. The test included a full range of flow conditions and influent
characteristics. The test site flow data (described in Section 3.2) and general information
19
-------
available about the test site indicated that with reasonable spacing of sampling through the year
and on weekdays and weekends, all types of conditions would be monitored over the one-year
period.
3.4.3 Flow Monitoring
An ISCO magnetic flow meter was installed in the force main sewer ahead of the SBRs. The
flow meter monitored the flow rate and volume of untreated wastewater entering the SBR, and
the meter output was connected to the system PLC to record the flow data. This flow meter also
triggered the influent wastewater sampling equipment so that flow based composite samples
were collected.
The IWS Model 6000 SBR system operates in batch mode. Wastewater is received from the
force main into the SBR and a sequence of treatment steps occurs in the SBR (see Section 2).
The system tracks treatment flow through the SBR, filtration, and UV disinfection units by
monitoring the pump cycles on the SBR discharge and the pump cycles on the feed to the
filtration unit. The pumps are activated by level controllers in the SBR settling tank and
intermediate holding tank (influent to the filtration unit). The pumps are shutdown by level
controllers in these same tanks. The PLC monitors the run time of each pump(s), which can be
used to estimate the flow data for the SBRs and filtration system. Using the tank dimensions and
the distance between the level controllers in conjunction with the pump run times, the pump flow
rates can be calculated. The continuous flow of filter backwash water is discharged to the SBRs,
resulting in higher flow rates through the SBRs and filtration system than the raw wastewater
and final discharge wastewater flow rates (which are approximately equal). If the turbidity in the
filtered wastewater indicates that TSS is elevated, the filtrate is diverted back to the filter feed
water tank for reprocessing, protecting the UV system from elevated solids levels in the
wastewater. The UV system operates on gravity discharge from the filtration system and thus the
flow for this unit is the same as for the filtration system. PLC based flow data was collected and
was part of the operating record.
The influent flow meter was used as the basis for all raw wastewater and final treated water flow
rates presented in this report. An effluent flow meter was installed by IWS during the last two
months of the verification test to measure the final treated water discharged from the UV system.
Data from the effluent flow meter was similar to the influent flow data collected for the
verification test.
3.4.4 Sampling Locations and Procedures
The sampling program covered the entire 12-month test period (July 2004 through June 2005),
and included once per month, four-day sampling events, and four special four-day sampling
events, one per season of the year. This approach provided samples during 16 of the 52 weeks in
the verification test period. As described in Section 3.2, the preliminary site flow data did not
indicate any significant difference between weekday and weekend flow so the four-day sampling
periods were set to cover typical four-day periods (Monday to Thursday or Tuesday through
20
-------
Friday). The special sampling periods (four additional sequences) were set to cover holiday and
weekend periods, once each quarter during the verification test.
Sampling locations included the untreated wastewater influent, the treated effluent from the
SBR, and the treated effluent from the entire system after filtration and UV disinfection. The
untreated wastewater from the subdivision homes was collected from the force main before it
entered the SBR. The SBR treated effluent was sampled from the discharge pipe that carried the
treated wastewater to the intermediate holding tank (feed tank for the filtration unit). The final
treated effluent was sampled just downstream of the UV disinfection system and upstream of the
final discharge point to the wet well. This location was under gravity flow, with flow only
occurring when the pump was feeding water to the filtration unit from the holding tank.
Each sampling locations was setup so that flow weighted composite samples were collected
directly into composite sample containers. The site inlet flow meter was wired to the PLC and
used to activate the influent automatic sampler to collect a flow weighted composite sample for
each 24-hr period. The PLC controlled the flow of the SBR treated effluent and the final effluent
by controlling the pumps transferring these waters. The automatic sampling equipment was tied
to the PLC, which activated the samplers during periods of flow.
Both grab and composite samples were collected during sampling events, depending on the
requirements and holding time for each analysis, as summarized in Table 3-2. Grab samples were
collected each sample day for pH, temperature, turbidity, and total coliform. pH and temperature
were measured in the field by BSD staff. The samples for total coliform were collected and
placed directly into sterile bottles provided by the laboratory. Twenty-four hour flow weighted
composite samples were collected each sampling day for TSS, BOD5, COD, and alkalinity using
the automatic sampling equipment. Samples from the large composite container were poured into
sample bottles supplied by the laboratory. All of the sample containers used for the composite
samples were cooled during the sampling period by placing ice around the composite sample
container. Samples were transported to the laboratory in coolers with ice to maintain proper
sample temperature.
In addition to the 24-hr composite samples, there were composite samples collected representing
a 96-hr period (four-day composite.) These samples were collected by taking an aliquot of each
of the 24-hr composite samples and combining them to make a 96-hr composite. The procedure
for TKN, NH3-N, NO2+NO3-N, and TP was to take a one-liter aliquot of the 24-hr flow weighted
composite and preserve the sample with sulfuric acid. The sample bottle was then cooled until
the 96-hr period was complete. The four individual samples were then combined to make a
single 96-hr flow-weighted composite. In the case of soluble phosphorus (SP), the same
procedure was used except that a separate 250 mL aliquot of the 24-hr composite was filtered
through a 0.45-micron filter and the filtrate was preserved with acid and cooled. These individual
samples were combined on a relative flow-weighted basis from the four 24-hr periods. All of the
96-hr composites were prepared in the laboratory in order to ensure proper preservation and
cooling was maintained.
21
-------
The automatic sampling equipment was cleaned before each use and after each sampling event.
The samplers were inspected to determine that tubing was in good condition. Clean sample
containers were used each sampling day.
The general sludge settling characteristics in the SBRs were monitored by the operators
periodically using a 1,000 mL graduated cylinder as described in the SBR O&M manual. Sludge
levels were typically operated in the 25-55% range to provide good to excellent settling qualities.
Sludge was periodically pumped from the SBRs to the sludge holding tank. The removal
frequency was based on the operational needs of the system. When the holding tank is near full,
arrangements were made to have the sludge removed by a licensed hauler. Each time sludge was
pumped from the holding tank for disposal, the volume of sludge pumped to the tank truck was
recorded and a sample taken for analysis. Analysis included percent solids and metals (As, Ba,
Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn).
Table 3-2. Summary of Sampling Collection and Analysis
Parameter Sample Type
Frequency
Number Estimated Number
of Events of Samples(2)
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Total coliform
TSS
CBOD5
COD
Alkalinity
TKN
NH3-N
NO2+NO3-N
TP
SP
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
24-hr composite
24-hr composite
24-hr composite
24-hr composite
96-hr composite(1)
96-hr composite1-1"1
96-hr composite(1)
96-hr composite1-1"1
96-hr composite (1)
Daily - 4 days per event
Daily - 4 days per event
Daily - 4 days per event
Daily - 4 days per event
Daily - 4 days per event
Daily - 4 days per event
Daily - 4 days per event
Daily - 4 days per event
One per 4 day event
One per 4 day event
One per 4 day event
One per 4 day event
One per 4 day event
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
48
48
48
48
48
(1) A 96-hr composite was made by taking the 24-hr daily composite, preserving it, and then combining at the end
of the four-day event the four samples into one event composite. SP was handled by filtering an aliquot of
sample in the laboratory and preserving it each day. The filtered samples were combined for an event sample.
(2) Number of samples is based on three (3) sampling locations, untreated influent, SBR treated effluent, and the
final treated effluent after filtration and UV disinfection.
22
-------
3.4.5 Sampling Schedule
There were 16 four-day sampling events scheduled over the 12-month test period. Twelve of
these events were on a once per month basis, while four of the events were special events placed
throughout the year. The sampling schedule was:
July 20-23, 2004 (Tuesday to Friday)
August 9-12, 2004 (Monday - Thursday)
September 4-8, 2004 (Saturday- Wednesday; Labor Day weekend)
October 5-8, 2004 (Tuesday - Friday)
October 19-22, 2004 (Tuesday - Friday)
November 16-19 (Tuesday- Friday)
December 14-17 (Tuesday - Friday)
December 30-January 2, 2005 (Thursday - Sunday; New Year holiday)
January 25-28, 2005 (Tuesday - Friday)
February 8-11, 2005 (Tuesday- Friday)
March 1-4, 2005 (Tuesday-Friday)
March 18-19, 2005 (Friday - Monday; weekend)
April 19-22, 2005 (Tuesday-Friday)
May 10-13, 2005 (Tuesday- Friday)
May 27-30, 2005 (Friday -Monday; Memorial Day)
June 7-10, 2005 (Tuesday - Friday)
The sample dates listed represent the end of each 24-hr sample period. As an example, June 7 is
the sample collected from the morning of June 6 through morning of June 7.
3.4.6 Sample Preservation and Storage
The sample bottles required for the various analyses were provided by Analytical Laboratories
Inc., the outside subcontracted laboratory for this work. Table 3-3 shows the bottle types, sample
size, and preservation required for each parameter. The bottles came with preservative, as
needed, and labeled by analysis type. The samples were logged, placed in coolers with ice to
maintain temperature, and delivered to the laboratory the same day.
23
-------
Table 3-3. Preservation, Bottle Type, and Sample Size by Analysis
Sample Matrix Analyses
Wastewater pH
Temperature
Turbidity
TSS
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
TP
SP
TKN
NH3-N
NO2+NO3-N
Total coliform
Bottle type/size
Plastic 250 mL
Plastic 250 mL
Plastic 250 mL
Plastic, 100 mL
Plastic, 250 mL
Plastic, lOOOmL
Plastic, lOOmL
Plastic, 500 mL
Plastic, 250 mL
Plastic, 500 mL
Plastic, 500 mL
Plastic, 500 mL
Sterile glass
Preservation/Holding Time
None, analyze immediately
None, analyze immediately
Cool to 4° C, 48 hr
Cool to 4° C, 7 days
Cool to 4° C, 7 days
Cool to 4° C, 24 hours
Cool to 4° C,
pH < 2 H2SO4, 28 days
Cool to 4° C,
pH < 2 H2SO4, 28 days
Filter, Cool to 4° C,
pH < 2 H2SO4, 28 days
Cool to 4° C,
pH < 2 H2SO4, 28 days
Cool to 4° C,
pH < 2 H2SO4, 28 days
Cool to 4° C,
pH < 2 H2SO4, 28 days
Cool to 4° C, 24 hr
Solids
Metals
Percent solids
Plastic or glass,
250 mL or larger
Plastic or glass, 500 mL
Cool to 4° C, 6 months
Cool to 4° C, 7 days
3.4.7 Chain of Custody
Chain of Custody was maintained for all samples collected during the verification test. The TO
operators filled out a chain of custody form for each set of samples. The form was signed and
dated for each set of samples delivered to ALL The receiving technician acknowledged receipt of
the samples by signing the chain of custody form and provided a copy of the form to the sample
delivery person. All copies of the chain of custody records were maintained by the TO and by the
chemical laboratory for all samples. Copies of the completed chain of custody forms were
included with all laboratory reports transmitting final analytical results.
3.5 Analytical Methods
All analytical methods used during the verification test were EPA approved methods3'4 or
methods from Standard Methods for the Examination of Waster and Wastewater, 20th Edition5.
24
-------
Table 3-4 shows the analytical methods used for the verification test and the typical detection
limits that were achieved by these methods.
Table 3-4. Analytical Methods
Sample Matrix Analyses
Liquid pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Alkalinity
TSS
BOD5
COD
TP
SP
TKN
NH3-N
NO2+NO3-N
Total coliform
Solid Metal
Total solids
Reference Methods
EPA 150.1
SM2550B
EPA 180.1
EPA 3 10.1
EPA 160.2
EPA 405.1
EPA 4 10.4
EPA 365. 4
EPA 365.1
EPA 35 1.2
EPA 350.1
EPA 353.2
SM 9223
EPA 207.1
EPA 160.1
Reporting Detection Limit for
Matrix
(PQL or normal reporting limit)
N/A (range 1-13 S.U.)
N/A
0.5 NTU
lOmg/L
3mg/L
3mg/L
20 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
0.04 mg/L
0.02 mg/L
2 MPN/100 mL
Varies by metal and solids content
10 mg/kg
Two parameters were measured in the field, pH, and temperature. ALI conducted all other
analyses. All work was performed in accordance with QA7QC protocol as described in the
Quality Assurance Project Plan developed for the verification test.
3.6 Operation and Maintenance
The IWS Model 6000 SBR was started and operated in accordance with the Operation,
Maintenance Manual provided by IWS, presented in Appendix A. IWS provided regular
operation and maintenance services for the system at the test site and continued to perform this
service during the verification test. BSD staff monitored the system during the test period and
reviewed operating conditions, maintenance performed, and kept records of all site visits and site
conditions. BSD staff collected all samples for analysis and transported them to the laboratory.
IWS maintained a Maintenance Checklist that was filled out each time the site was checked and
25
-------
any work was performed by the licensed operators. The field log was part of the verification test
record.
In addition to the operating records kept at the site, the PLC monitored several critical
parameters for the operation of the SBR and filtration/UV systems. The PLC monitored pump
cycles, flow, turbidity to the filter, electrical components and the operation of floats and sensors
related to the operation of the SBR. Flow rates, volume of water processed, amount of coagulant
solution (alum or PAC) pumped from the feed tanks, UV lamp intensity, power consumption,
backwash flow rate, and related operational data were recorded by the licensed operators in the
operational log either at the site or obtained from the PLC records.
Periodically the coagulant solution needed to be replenished. If the feed tank (55 gal capacity)
was below the 10 gal level, additional PAC (alum at the beginning of the verification test) was
prepared following a detailed procedure provided in the O&M manual. A 5000 mL beaker of
PAC added to 50 gal of water and mixed in the holding tank. Each time PAC solution was made;
the amount of water and alum was recorded. IWS changed to a liquid PAC solution during the
test to make the addition and mixing of the coagulant solution easier to accomplish. The liquid
alum was added and the volume recorded by the operators in the operating log.
UV intensity was recorded from the meter on the UV unit on a weekly basis and monitored
continuously by the PLC. If intensity dropped below 25%, the inlet valve to the UV unit closed
and water was not discharged. The UV intensity meter was calibrated once during the first three
months of the test.
Other observations on the operating condition of the unit, or the test system as a whole, were
recorded for reference. Observations of changes in effluent quality based on visual observations,
such as color change, oil sheen, obvious sediment load, etc., were recorded if they occurred.
26
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
This chapter presents the verification test results for the Model 6000 SBR, including the
laboratory results for influent and effluent samples, a discussion of the results, and observations
on the operation and maintenance of the unit during startup and normal operation. Complete
copies of all spreadsheets with individual daily, weekly, or monthly results are presented in
Appendix E.
4.1 Startup Test Period
IWS indicated that it typically takes 2-3 weeks for the SBR to achieve full treatment capability
and complete the startup process. Once the SBR establishes a viable biomass, clarification
improves and the filtration and disinfection system typically stabilize within a few hours to a
couple of days. The filtration system and disinfection system typically perform better as the SBR
performance improves over the startup period.
The startup procedures followed the O&M manual for the system as supplied by IWS (Appendix
A and D) and as summarized in Section 3.3. On March 31, 2004, SBR 2 was taken offline and
the sludge from the system pumped to the sludge holding tank. The system was inspected by
BSD staff on April 1, 2004 and approval to add the new seed material was granted.
The master cycle for the units was set for a 4-hr period. Each cycle consisted of a 45-minute
aeration period, followed by a 70-minute anoxic period (no aeration), a second aeration period of
45-min, and then a second anoxic period of 80-min. By April 7, SBR 2 had filled and was
beginning to discharge treated effluent to the filter feed-water holding tank. The sludge in SBR 2
gave a settled solids reading of 75% after 30-min of settling, very similar to SBR 1 (which had
been in full operation), which had a settled solids reading of 60%. Visual observation indicated
that the sludge in SBR 2 was viable and in good condition. Both units had a pH of 7.2 and
alkalinity of 120 mg/L, in the normal range. On April 9, SBR 2 was checked again and sludge
levels were in the normal range as were pH and alkalinity. A repair was made to the second
discharge pump in SBR 2, one of the two pumps that discharge SBR treated water to the holding
tank prior to filtration. At this time, SBR 2 appeared to be fully acclimated and operating
normally.
On April 26, the filtration system was taken off line, the sand removed and the system cleaned
and determined to be in "like new" condition. The filter was then placed back on line to complete
the startup process. The UV system was also cleaned and placed back on line. The lamps in both
units had been replaced in October 2003 and so had only been in service for six months. The UV
intensity was good showing 57 on the top unit and 47 on the bottom unit. Based on the cleaning
of these units and the conditions in SBR 2, the startup was considered complete.
27
-------
The SBR responded during startup as expected and took very little time to establish a viable
biomass that could be managed and provide treatment of the wastewater. On April 26, twenty-six
days after seeding took place, and approximately 16 days after regular feed and discharge was
occurring in the unit, the biomass concentration had increased to the point that the operator
wasted sludge from the unit to the sludge holding tank. The 30-minute sludge settling test
showed that the sludge settled to 450 mL in a 1,000 mL cylinder (45%) on April 27, the day after
sludge was wasted. The pH was 7.2 and the alkalinity was 120 mg/L, both in the normal
operating range.
While the startup period was considered successful and the units ready for the verification test to
proceed, the actual verification test could not be started on May 1 as planned. The verification
test included the startup of the new influent flow monitoring and sampling system to obtain flow
weighted composite samples. In addition, samplers were to be installed on the SBR discharge
line and the final effluent discharge line, with tie-ins to the PLC for sample collection control.
This new systems were not complete at the end of April due to some problems communicating
between the new flow meter and the PLC, and between the PLC and the samplers.
During the first two weeks of May, the sampler and flow meter issues were worked on and the
equipment was operated to attempt to resolve problems and determine the best settings for
obtaining sufficient sample volume at each of the three sample locations. IWS also decided to
add a new methanol (carbon source) injection system to have the capability to add methanol
during the anoxic cycle to improve denitrification in the SBRs. The new methanol injection was
installed and operational by mid May. A successful influent sample was collected on May 21 and
flow meter readings were now being acquired. Some difficulties were still being encountered
with the other sampling locations.
It was decided that during the month of June the sampling equipment would be run on a regular
basis to test it under varying flow conditions. This was considered critical so that reliable
sampling could be achieved during the verification test. Also, IWS had experienced some minor
operating issues with the PLC program that led to the aeration cycle being in the "on" mode
during some of the clarification periods, thus causing solids to not settle and carryover to the
filter feed water holding tank. The entire system was monitored during June 2004 in preparation
for the start of the verification test. By the end of June, the new sampling systems were operating
properly. The SBR and filtration systems were operated in a normal manner during this period.
All systems were operating properly by the end of June and the approval was given to proceed
with the verification test. It should be noted that the need for the three-month startup period
rather the anticipated one-month period was primarily caused by sampling and monitoring issues
related to the verification test rather than operational issue with the Model 6000 SBR system.
The system itself was reasonably acclimated and producing treated effluent within the first 30
days after startup. Some operational issues did arise and adjustments were made during the first
90 days. It should be expected that with a system of this type some adjustments would be needed
in the first three months of operation. However, the startup experience simulated in this
verification indicates that the system is relatively easy to acclimate and can be expected to
28
-------
produce a treated effluent within the four-week startup period indicated by IWS in the O&M
Manual.
The system was monitored during May and June as the startup proceeded. Flow data on the
influent was collected from mid-May through June as shown in Table 4-1. Two sets of influent
samples were collected for basic water quality parameters, as summarized in Table 4-2. IWS was
also collecting samples for the final effluent as part of the normal requirements for the site
wastewater discharge permit. While these data were not part of the verification program and not
subject to the ETV QA review, they are provided in Table 4-3 for informational purposes.
Table 4-1. Flow-Volume Data during the Startup Period
Date
May 2004
June 2004
Average
2,311
2,537
Daily Volume (gal)
Maximum
3,330
5,570
Minimum
1,200
1,060
Peak
Flow Rate(1)
(gpm)
21
20
(1) Peak flow fixed based on force main size and pump capacity from each home
Table 4-2. Influent Wastewater Quality - Startup Period
Date
05/21/04
06/15/04
BOD5
(mg/L)
160
140
TSS
(mg/L)
410
150
NH3-N TKN Total Coliform
(mg/L as N) (mg/L as N) (MPN/100 mL)
2.70
19.3
Table 4-3. Model 6000 SBR Final Effluent Permit Monitoring -
Date
5/7/04
5/15/04
5/20/04
6/1/04
6/7/04
6/14/04
6/21/04
6/29/04
BOD5
(mg/L)
<4
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
TSS
(mg/L)
<3
<3
<3
4
<3
<3
<3
<3
jp Nitrogen (mg/L
(mg/L as P) TKN NO2+NO3-N
NA
NA
1.1
0.18
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
0.97
0.98
0.64
1.1
0.88
0.85
0.51
4.0
1.5
3.2
0.96
1.4
0.76
5.9
7.8
21.5
24.7
>2,400
>1,600
Startup Period
as N> Total Coliform
TN (MPN/100 mL)
5.0
2.5
4.2
1.6
2.5
1.6
6.8
8.3
2
NA
240
<2
<2
7
2
<2
NA - not analyzed
29
-------
4.2 Verification Test
The verification test officially started on July 1, 2004. All results for the remainder of the test
period were considered part of the verification test. The summary data presented for the
verification results do not include data from the startup period.
4.2.1 Verification Test - Flow Conditions
Table 4-4 shows the average daily volumes of raw wastewater received during the verification
period. The actual daily wastewater volume varied by as much as a factor of two when
comparing the average daily volumes to either the minimum or maximum daily volume. While
the variation on a given day was reasonably large, the monthly averages were similar during the
twelve-month test.
The influent volume reached the maximum hydraulic capacity of a single SBR in November.
This occurred after the system was switched to a single SBR with a flow equalization tank ahead
of the SBR (original SBR 1). During this high flow period there were several days with volumes
above 4,000 gal, and two days over 5,000 gal. These flow rates stressed the system and required
some changes to operating settings. A high water alarm occurred in both the SBR and the filter
feed-water holding tank. The filter was not meeting the turbidity requirements so the SBR was
receiving reject water from the filtration system in addition to the above normal influent
volumes. IWS contacted the homeowners association about the high flows and arranged to have
some wastewater trucked away to stabilize the system. A total of five truck loads (15,500 gal) of
raw wastewater from the equalization tank were removed over a four-day period. This ensured
that wastewater was not discharged from the system that did not meet the state permit
requirements. The wastewater was taken to a local wastewater treatment plant. The actual
maximum daily flow did not occur until three days after the removal was stopped and flows
continued high for several more days. By that time, IWS had adjusted the pumping rates from the
distribution tank and the SBR system.
During November in response to the high flow conditions, as part of adjusting the system to the
use of the distribution/equalization tank, and to try to improve total nitrogen removal, the
operators changed the master cycle from a 4-hr cycle to a 6-hr cycle. The aeration cycle was
lengthened from two 45-minute periods to two 90-minute periods. This change did not have a
significant impact on the organics or nutrient removal, as shown in the data presented in the
following sections. As will be discussed later, the monthly monitoring for the verification
occurred from November 16 to 19, which coincided with the peak volume of 6,026 gal that
occurred on November 16. While there was some impact on the SBR treated effluent, the final
effluent after filtration remained low in BODs and TSS concentrations (3-7 mg/L, and 3-5 mg/L
respectively over the four days of monitoring).
It should be noted that the system was able to handle peak wastewater flow rates of 4,094 and
4,798 gpd in May and June 2005 indicating that the changes made in November resolved
hydraulic capacity issues.
30
-------
There was one other period when wastewater was removed from the system and trucked to the
local municipal wastewater treatment plant. On December 13, 14, and 15, a total of 10,500 gal
(3,500 gal, 3,000 gal, 3,500 gal, respectively) was removed from the distribution tank. The high
water condition in the distribution tank and SBR does not appear to be caused by a high influent
wastewater flows, but rather due to a faulty low level UV intensity reading on the UV unit or a
faulty signal to the PLC, which stopped the discharge of final effluent from the system. The PLC
was set to close the inlet valve to the UV system if the UV intensity fell below 25%. In those
cases, no discharge was allowed from the system and the filtered wastewater was recycled to the
distribution tank. Distribution tank, SBR, and filter feed tank pumping records, UV readings
(noted as "bad readings" in the PLC dataset), and turbidity data (turbidity from the filter was
acceptable during this time) support that the faulty UV intensity readings were the cause of the
problem. Data collected on the discharge that occurred when the readings were being properly
acquired by the PLC show that coliform bacteria levels were very low. Thus, the lamps were on
and working, but apparently the intensity sensor or the signal to the PLC was faulty. The
problem was resolved and the unit returned to normal operation, with no additional high water
alarms during the remainder of the test.
Table 4-4. Model 6000 SBR System Influent Volumes - Verification Test Period
Month
Average
Daily Flow (gal)
Maximum
Minimum
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
Number
Average
Max
Min
Std Dev
2,135
2,102
2,124
2,069
3,690
2,536
2,206
2,399
2,236
1,992
2,011
1,827
12
2,277
3,690
1,827
482
3,521
3,895
4,149
3,785
6,026
4,036
3,197
3,716
3,002
3,258
4,094
4,798
12
3,956
6,026
3,002
815
918
449
1,060
259
2,036
1,613
1,369
1,668
1,244
1,043
1,050
1,452
12
1,180
2,036
259
502
-------
4.2.2 BODs/COD and TSS Results and Discussion
Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 show the influent, SBR treated effluent, and final effluent BOD5, COD,
and TSS concentrations during the verification test. Tables 4-5 and 4-6 present the same results
with a summary of the data (mean, median, maximum, minimum, standard deviation). Over the
course of the verification, the influent wastewater had a mean BOD5 of 230 mg/L with a range of
86 to 575 mg/L. The mean influent COD was 480 mg/L, with a range of 120 to 1,440 mg/L.
Influent TSS ranged from 15 to 440 mg/L with mean value of 170 mg/L. The concentrations
were in the typical range expected in residential wastewater that is not diluted with stormwater
and other non-residential wastewaters.
During the verification, the SBR effluent had a mean BOD5 of 12 mg/L, varying from <4 mg/L
to 39 mg/L. The SBR effluent mean COD concentration was 49 mg/L, ranging from <20 to 240
mg/L. The SBR effluent achieve a mean reduction of 95% for BOD5 and a mean reduction of
90% COD. BODs exceeded 20 mg/L on eight days out of 64 monitoring days, and exceeded 30
mg/L on three of those days. While there was no distinct pattern or cause identified for the days
with higher BOD5 in the SBR treated effluent, the higher BOD5 concentrations did tend to
correspond with higher TSS concentrations. The highest BOD5 concentration of 39 mg/L on
March 18, 2005 corresponded to the maximum TSS concentration of 160 mg/L. It should be
noted that not all days with higher TSS levels had higher BOD5 concentrations.
The mean TSS concentration in the SBR effluent was 26 mg/L with a range of <3 to 160 mg/L.
TSS varied considerably in the SBR effluent with eight of the 63 monitoring days exceeding 50
mg/L. Clarification of the biomass was generally successful, but poorer settling did at times
challenge the coagulation/filtration system. As will be discussed below, the filtration system and
the on-line turbidity monitor that rejected filtrate with higher turbidity (higher TSS) worked very
well. On days when TSS was elevated in the SBR effluent, the final effluent was typically 5
mg/L or less.
As shown in Table 4-5, the BODs concentration in the final treated effluent had mean value of 4
mg/L with a range of 2 to 8 mg/L. Most of the BODs results were below the detection limit of
either 3 or 4 mg/L. The mean value presented in Table 4-5 is based on using the detection limit
value as the actual value for calculations purposes. The COD concentration in the treated effluent
had a mean of 22 mg/L with a range of <20 to 45 mg/L. The mean value was very close to the
detection limit for the COD test as most of the test results were below the detection limit. As can
be seen by reviewing the daily data, the final effluent BOD5 results were not impacted on days
when the SBR effluent was at a higher concentration. These data indicate that on days when the
SBR effluent had been impacted by poor settling or other conditions that caused an increase in
BODs, the coagulation/filtration system was able to handle the SBR effluent and lower the BODs
to less than 8 mg/L and in most cases to less than 4 mg/L.
The treated effluent TSS mean concentration was 6 mg/L with a range of <3 to 23 mg/L. The
median concentration was 4 mg/L. The TSS concentration exceeded 10 mg/L on four of the 63
monitoring days, with two of those days occurring before the system was switched to a single
SBR with an equalization tank. The on-line turbidity monitor appeared effective at stopping
32
-------
discharges that may have had elevated TSS levels. During periods of higher TSS levels, filtrate
was recycled to the feed-water holding tank and the water was reprocessed through the filter. The
PLC recorded the turbidity levels and provided a record for the operator showing when high
turbidity occurred. This allowed the operator to make some adjustment in coagulant dose if
needed. However, in normal operation the recycling system worked automatically and the filter
would reduce TSS levels within one or two cycles. On occasion, the filter required cleaning
which was noted by increased head loss through the filter (recorded by the operators when on
site) or by extended periods with high turbidity readings.
33
-------
-------
600
500
400
Q
o
m
200
100
t
/i
' 1
Date
t
i\
\ i
11
i i
^
<&
\
Influent - - * - -SBR Effluent A Treated Effluent
Figure 4-1. Model 6000 SBR System BOD5 results.
35
-------
--.
Q
O
o
1 \JW
900 -
800 -
700 -
600 -
500 ,
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 -1
t
l\
I \
I I t-
I \ x
' \
i t
t \ \*x
' l T i! x
> \ ! » V
t"4 ] i"
wr 1 1 *
1 'f *
* l
T i
,• B
," , —* ^
-' • .'• *
i 1 1 p— — — — — ^ 1 1 1
t
/I
;f
-' !
( |
\ /
f^ 4
liV 4
1 V f
i ''
V
•
-•i fc-^i
, 1 W A
\ ! \ / » 4
\ / \ / 1 / ' XI
\ \\l\iY L
\ A t / « ,i W^^
j i ' »' i1 1
4 if ii i 4
n ii |i
k H f
i ; '
» '' •" •
• ?•
i i J-^* i ft
1
i
\
i
\
\
i
i
i
t
\ * \
\ L
\( \
\i
J \!
-4 \
* \ '
\
• j — fc--i
-^ ^ ^
*
V
"
Date
_ _^_ _ Influent .. -•-.. SBR Effluent
-Treated Effluent
Figure 4-2. Model 6000 SBR System COD results.
36
-------
^\S\J
400 -
350 -
300 -
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 -
t
I
I
I
I
II
||
II
II
t t !!
* ii /
u
U II /
11 * " /
\ i II /
t A \ f II /
1 ll V I » t II /
H1 " XN > * I1 A f '
} ! X '• \ ' ; * /* |! /
' '! i ^ ' \ * / \ /sv / *' /
$ 1 * 1 1 v- \ r v^ \' /•:/
M i ^t/ * > \ \ ! \ T / • '/
k ' ^-^ ii ' x \ •* x ' Jr •' i
| \ ^ U » \ / \ i •* -1 *
* \ j !! t > ^ \ ! / /
\" i" l ^i ^ •' ;
/i ( : i * .*/ :
--' i ! Ti ! * --VV * '
B^jL^^r^^j--^ ; %^»-"' / i ^LJi^^
•^ <$, ^ ^- ^ <§£ ?o ?o ^ Sj, Sp ^, -^ ^ ^ ^- & <£• ^, ^
^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Date
__ ^ ^Infliipnt - - -•- . . ^RR Fffliipnt * Trpptprl Fffli ipnt
"^ ^ -^ MIMUdIL *** B ODF\ ^IMUCIIL ^ 1 1 C d LC U ^ 1 M U C 1 1 1
^
A
ii
t 'l
/ t i »
ii i i
H ' \
U 4 \
I <
1 I
i I '
1 i !
\ ' i '
\ \4
1 'i
t \ i
i\ » i
i \ \ i
»\ \ A
* \ i
,. V i
•: -, .•
'
^y.. ^ ^y ^
~& Q- Q^ >&•
>• °& °& °& °&
Figure 4-3. Model 6000 SBR System TSS results.
37
-------
Table 4-5. Model 6000 SBR System BOD5 and COD Results
Date
07/20/04
07/21/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
08/11/04
08/12/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/30/04
12/31/04
01/01/05
01/02/05
01/25/05
01/26/05
01/27/05
01/28/05
Influent
490
530
640
880
440
310
570
380
430
200
450
760
590
420
490
620
540
380
340
510
350
200
120
340
220
NS
290
340
720
440
630
550
350
390
470
620
COD (mg/L)
SBR
Effluent
21
23
20
22
130
240
74
<20.0
<20.0
21
22
32
110
86
78
41
34
48
32
43
47
76
31
38
31
23
21
24
50
40
35
40
56
46
36
40
Treated
Effluent
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
28
24
25
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
23
24
25
30
22
22
25
23
<20.0
<20.0
28
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
32
31
25
23
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
Influent
160
190
340
410
220
140
250
160
250
230
240
250
150
140
240
280
270
200
170
260
170
86
<56
96
91
NS
110
200
440
280
270
240
160
170
150
210
BOD5 (mg/L)
SBR Effluent
5
6
6
<4
16
>23
13
<4
<4
<4
4
4
>18
>17
17
5
8
17
9
13
19
35
17
9
6
6
6
<4
18
11
6
10
20
15
9
15
Treated
Effluent
6
<4
<3
<4
<3
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<3
2
3
<3
<3
<3
4
<3
<3
<3
7
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
7
3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
38
-------
Table 4-5. Model 6000 SBR System BOD5 and COD Results (continued)
Date
02/08/05
02/09/05
02/10/05
02/11/05
03/01/05
03/02/05
03/03/05
03/04/05
03/18/05
03/19/05
03/20/05
03/21/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
04/21/05
04/22/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/27/05
05/28/05
05/29/05
05/30/05
06/07/05
06/08/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
Number
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev
Influent
400
170
270
340
570
400
220
400
550
480
250
430
570
470
360
400
370
410
360
670
270
460
610
1,440
440
560
570
490
63
460
1440
120
200
COD (mg/L)
SBR
Effluent
78
58
<20.0
49
150
29
28
26
170
58
42
39
46
51
42
91
28
28
26
39
45
26
34
37
27
36
37
37
64
49
236
20
38
Treated
Effluent
21
<20.0
29
45
26
<20.0
20
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
22
<20.0
21
22
25
26
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
NS
<20.0
<20.0
<20.0
63
22
45
20
4.3
Influent
170
130
100
140
290
160
100
160
280
250
270
230
350
260
350
580
220
170
150
500
160
270
370
390
310
300
320
220
62
230
580
86
99
BOD5 (mg/L)
SBR Effluent
10
25
<4
15
>39
<4
5
4
>39
13
13
10
14
18
13
23
6
<4
<4
15
23
8
10
9
8
24
18
11
64
12
39
<4
8.3
Treated
Effluent
6
<3
8
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
7
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NS
8
8
<3
63
4
8
2
1.4
NS - No sample
Values below the detection limit are set equal to the DL for calculating statistics
39
-------
Table 4-6. Model 6000 SBR System TSS and Alkalinity Results
Date
07/20/04
07/21/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
08/11/04
08/12/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/30/04
12/31/04
01/01/05
01/02/05
01/25/05
01/26/05
01/27/05
01/28/05
TSS (mg/L)
Influent SBR Effluent
220
100
260
140
65
31
320
120
150
15
170
250
200
150
170
320
100
50
49
190
100
83
64
220
93
NS
140
170
220
280
260
210
97
180
190
200
9
8
10
8
91
36
57
6
9
7
8
16
8
50
65
24
10
27
11
21
25
39
19
25
12
7
7
7
18
15
7
11
45
36
20
25
Treated
Effluent
7
5
5
8
5
9
6
7
5
9
16
23
12
8
9
4
<3
<3
5
<3
<3
5
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
10
4
8
5
5
10
4
<3
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
Treated
Influent SBR Effluent Effluent
220
240
360
260
250
260
220
110
180
87
230
350
200
160
210
210
210
170
200
180
170
130
120
170
160
NS
160
110
250
250
240
210
240
150
170
200
120
120
120
110
91
86
130
210
120
110
120
140
120
120
110
92
120
120
120
120
120
140
100
180
98
95
80
78
250
300
260
210
110
94
88
82
120
120
110
120
86
81
110
150
72
79
89
100
98
120
100
93
120
120
120
120
110
130
97
150
99
91
82
88
190
270
280
230
110
92
88
84
40
-------
Table 4-6. Model 6000 SBR System TSS and Alkalinity results (continued)
Date
02/08/05
02/09/05
02/10/05
02/11/05
03/01/05
03/02/05
03/03/05
03/04/05
03/18/05
03/19/05
03/20/05
03/21/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
04/21/05
04/22/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/27/05
05/28/05
05/29/05
05/30/05
06/07/05
06/08/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
Number
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev
TSS (mg/L)
Influent SBR Effluent
170
81
55
160
230
200
240
130
180
230
440
130
340
95
130
170
57
82
78
320
50
210
270
380
110
140
200
270
63
170
440
15
90
61
37
<3
38
120
10
41
16
160
43
26
17
23
31
9
56
10
6
12
18
33
13
16
21
7
12
12
12
64
26
160
3
28
Treated
Effluent
<3
3
20
4
7
<3
<3
<3
4
5
4
4
8
3
<3
3
<3
<3
<3
3
6
<3
<3
8
NS
7
3
3
63
6
23
3
4
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
Influent SBR Effluent 1^*^
Effluent
210
110
180
180
200
170
140
250
180
160
160
190
290
260
240
220
280
250
230
270
170
260
290
290
240
280
270
240
63
210
360
87
57
94
210
170
120
100
120
140
130
110
110
140
160
100
120
120
120
110
120
120
120
120
100
100
110
180
170
170
170
64
130
300
78
44
97
210
150
120
94
110
130
120
110
110
130
150
110
110
120
120
110
120
120
120
140
100
100
110
NS
170
170
170
63
120
280
72
41
NS - No sample
Values below the detection limit are set equal to the DL for calculating statistics.
41
-------
4.2.3 Nitrogen Reduction Performance
Figures 4-4 through 4-7 present the results for the TKN, NH3-N, NO2+NO3-N, and TN in the
influent, SBR effluent, and final treated effluent during the verification test. Table 4-7 presents
all of the nitrogen results with a summary of the data (mean, maximum, minimum, standard
deviation).
The influent wastewater had a mean TKN concentration of 38 mg/L and a mean NH3-N
concentration of 30 mg/L. Mean TN concentration in the influent was 38 mg/L. The NO2+NO3-
N concentration in the influent was negligible, as would be expected. The SBR effluent had a
mean TKN concentration of 3.2 mg/L, and a mean NH3-N concentration of 0.4 mg/L. The NC>2
+NO3-N mean concentration in the SBR effluent was 3.1 mg/L. TN was determined by adding
the concentrations of the TKN (organic plus ammonia nitrogen), and NO2+NO3-N in the
effluent. The mean TN in the SBR effluent was 6.3 mg/L for the twelve-month verification
period, with a median concentration of 5.4 mg/L. The SBR demonstrated a mean reduction of
83% in TN for the verification test period.
The final treated effluent nitrogen concentrations were similar to the SBR effluent except for a
somewhat lower mean concentration of TKN. The mean TKN concentration in the treated
effluent was 1.2 mg/L versus 3.2 mg/L in the SBR effluent. These data suggest that some of the
TKN in the SBR effluent was in a paniculate form, probably associated with biomass that was
present in the SBR effluent. The very soluble nitrogen forms, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate
showed virtually identical concentrations the SBR effluent and the final treated effluent. The
lower TKN concentration in the final treated effluent yielded a lower mean total nitrogen
concentration of 4.4 mg/L. Thus, the overall system removal efficiency for TN was 88%.
The data demonstrated that a well-acclimated nitrifying biomass was established in the SBR
from the beginning of the verification, and remained viable throughout the twelve-month period.
TKN removal averaged over 96% and ammonia nitrogen concentrations were less than 0.2 mg/L
except for two sampling periods. The one period that showed some increase in TKN and
ammonia, November 16-19 composite coincided with the maximum flow volumes discussed
previously. During this sampling period, influent flow volume was over 4,000 gpd and the
system had experienced the high flow rates for several days prior to the sampling period. Even
with the heavy flow demand, the TKN removal was 84%.
The denitrification process was also effective during the test in reducing the concentrations of
nitrite and nitrate. However, the denitrification process did appear to be somewhat more variable.
The NO2+NO3-N concentration accounted for about 75% of the TN remaining in the effluent.
While the process was somewhat less efficient than the nitrification step, the effluent
concentration averaged 3.1 mg/L of NO2+NO3-N over the twelve-month period, with a range of
0.6 to 8.8 mg/L. Without the denitrification process, the TKN/NH3 removed by the nitrification
process would have been converted to nitrite/nitrate. This could have resulted in effluent being
discharge to the lake with concentrations in excess of 30 mg/L. The highest concentration of
42
-------
60.0
50.0 -
40.0 -
S 30.0 -
20.0 -
10.0 -
f \
A
Date
— -» — Influent - - • - -SBR Effluent — A - Treated Effluent
Figure 4-4. Model 6000 SBR System TKN results.
43
-------
45
40
35 -
30 -
O)
£
ro
'E
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
t
;\
7, 7,
r
6-
*-70 *-70 ^7> ^7) ^7) ^7) ^7) ^7>
°y °y °Oy °Oy °Oy °Oy °Oy °Oy
Date
_ -t_ - Influent -,-•--, SBR Effluent
• Treated Effluent
Figure 4-5. Model 6000 SBR System NH3-N results.
44
-------
o 4
*
Date
• - Influent --,»,. SBR Effluent *— Treated Effluent
Figure 4-6. Model 6000 SBR System NO2+NO3-N results.
45
-------
60.0
50.0
40.0
c
Ol
O)
2
£ 30.0 J
20.0
10.0
•
r
V
\ ^
\ s
•__^
\ \ \ \ \ \
Date
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
_ ^_ _ Influent -,-•,-. SBR Effluent — A — Treated Effluent
Figure 4-7. Model 6000 SBR System Total Nitrogen results.
46
-------
Table 4-7. Model 6000 SBR System Influent and Effluent Nitrogen Data
TKN (mg/L as
Date SBR
Influent Effluent
7/23/04 44
8/12/04 43
9/8/04 39
10/8/04 38
10/22/04 32
11/19/04 20
12/17/04 18
1/2/05 50
1/28/05 34
2/11/05 25
3/4/05 32
3/21/05 45
4/22/05 45
5/13/05 42
5/30/05 44
6/10/05 50
Number 16
Average 37.6
Maximum 50
Minimum 18
Std. Dev. 9.95
1.2
5.7
1.8
5.5
1.5
6.4
1.4
5.1
2.7
4.1
2.1
5.7
3.1
1.7
1.7
2.2
16
3.23
6.4
1.2
1.86
N)
Treated
Effluent
0.80
1.0
1.6
0.97
0.74
3.3
0.40
3.5
1.2
1.1
0.94
1.2
0.72
0.60
0.53
1.1
16
1.23
3.5
0.40
0.90
NH
Influent
38
35
28
31
25
16
12
40
25
20
24
32
37
35
39
38
16
29.8
40
12
8.65
3-N (mg/L
SBR
Effluent
0.15
0.10
0.33
O.04
0.05
3.0
<0.04
2.7
O.04
0.18
0.08
0.10
O.04
0.04
0.04
0.13
16
0.44
3.0
0.04
0.94
asN)
Treated
Effluent
0.06
0.07
0.14
O.04
0.04
2.53
O.04
2.00
O.04
0.07
O.04
0.04
O.04
O.04
0.04
0.06
16
0.33
2.53
0.04
0.76
NO2+NO3-N (mg/L
SBR
Influent Effluent
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.23
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.13
0.03
0.12
16
0.08
0.23
0.02
0.06
3.6
3.2
4.5
9.9
2.7
0.50
0.62
1.8
6.1
1.0
0.83
4.9
2.7
2.3
2.9
1.9
16
3.1
9.9
0.50
2.4
asN)
Treated
Effluent
3.2
3.0
4.4
8.8
2.7
0.8
0.62
2.6
7.0
1.3
0.74
4.7
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
16
3.1
8.8
0.6
2.2
TN (mg/L as
SBR
Influent Effluent
45
43
39
38
32
20
18
50
34
25
32
45
46
42
44
50
16
38
50
18
9.9
4.8
8.9
6.3
15
4.2
6.9
2.0
6.8
8.8
5.1
2.9
11
5.8
4.0
4.6
4.1
16
6.3
15
2.0
3.3
N)
Treated
Effluent
4.0
4.1
6.0
9.8
3.4
4.1
1.0
6.1
8.2
2.4
1.7
5.9
3.7
3.1
3.0
3.6
16
4.4
9.8
1.0
2.3
NS - No sample
Values below the detection limit are set equal to the DL for calculating statistics
47
-------
NO2+NO3-N occurred in the first sampling period after the system was changed to a one SBR
process. It would appear that the change to the one SBR system and adjustments made to the
operation impacted the denitrifying process. However, the system recovered by the next
sampling period which also was the period of the highest flow to the system.
4.2.4 Total Phosphorus Removal Performance
Figures 4-8 and 4-9 present the results for TP and SP in the influent, SBR effluent, and final
treated effluent during the verification test. Table 4-8 presents the results with a summary of the
data (mean, median, maximum, minimum, standard deviation).
The influent wastewater had a mean TP concentration of 5.4 mg/L and a mean SP concentration
of 3.9 mg/L. The mean TP in the SBR effluent was 2.4 mg/L, while the mean SP concentration
was 1.6 mg/L. The SBR demonstrated a mean reduction of 56% of the TP and 59% of the SP
present in the influent. TP and SP concentrations mirrored each other as can been seen by
comparing the results presented in Figures 4-9 and 4-10. The trends are very similar with SP
approximately 65-75% of the TP concentration in both the influent and SBR effluent for the
verification test period. Data from some municipal wastewater treatment systems indicate that
phosphorus removal can be improved or optimized in biological systems, if the COD/TKN ratio
is less than 7.5. The ratio for this wastewater was approximately 12. While larger municipal
facilities may be able to adjust and control the COD/TKN ratio, control is not typically attempted
in small, decentralized systems with limited on site laboratory capability and operator
involvement. No attempt was made during this test to optimize or control the COD/TKN ratio.
The final treated effluent showed a small additional decrease in SP (mean of 1.1 mg/L versus
1.6 mg/L), while the TP concentration decreased from a mean of 2.4 mg/L to 1.3 mg/L. Overall
the full treatment system achieved a 76% reduction in TP concentration and 72% reduction in SP
concentration. These data show that the SBR biological treatment system actually removed more
phosphorus from the wastewater than the coagulation/filtration system. There was no attempt
made during this verification to optimize or improve the TP removal in the coagulation/filtration
process as there was no permit limit for TP at the this site. Additional adjustment in the
aluminum feed rates might incrementally improve the TP reduction.
48
-------
•
Date
—g Influent -,-••-, SBR Effluent
• Treated Effluent
Figure 4-8. Model 6000 SBR System Total Phosphorus results.
49
-------
Date
• - Influent .-.•-.- SBR Effluent A— Treated Effluent
Figure 4-9. Model 6000 SBR System Soluble Phosphorus results.
50
-------
Table 4-8. Model 6000 SBR System Total and Soluble Phosphorus Data
Date
07/23/04
08/12/04
09/08/04
10/08/04
10/22/04
11/19/04
12/17/04
01/02/05
01/28/05
02/11/05
03/04/05
03/21/05
04/22/05
05/13/05
05/30/05
06/10/05
Number
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Influent
6.9
6.2
4.9
5.5
5.4
3.1
2.9
7.4
4.3
3.5
4.2
5.7
6.7
6.2
7.4
6.6
16
5.4
7.4
2.9
1.5
TP (mg/L as P)
SBR Effluent
1.7
3.8
1.2
4.7
3.0
1.5
0.37
1.4
1.9
2.2
1.4
3.2
3.2
2.1
2.7
3.3
16
2.4
4.7
0.37
1.1
Treated
Effluent
1.0
0.70
0.50
2.7
2.2
0.85
0.08
0.81
0.99
0.85
0.89
1.2
2.3
1.3
1.7
2.4
16
1.3
2.7
0.08
0.75
Influent
4.7
4.7
3.8
4.0
4.0
2.4
1.5
5.6
2.8
2.4
3.0
4.2
4.2
4.7
5.7
5.1
16
3.9
5.7
1.5
1.2
SP (mg/L as P)
SBR Effluent
1.6
1.4
0.70
3.5
2.4
0.92
0.12
1.0
1.2
0.75
0.89
1.3
2.4
1.2
1.7
2.8
16
1.6
3.5
0.12
0.89
Treated
Effluent
0.89
0.44
<0.05
2.5
2.0
0.71
<0.05
0.62
0.83
0.67
0.77
1.2
2.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
16
1.1
2.5
<0.05
0.76
Values below the detection limit are set equal to the DL for calculating statistics
4.2.5 Total Coliform Results
Total coliform results for the influent, SBR effluent, and final treated effluent after UV treatment
are presented in Table 4-9. The raw wastewater varied from 2x 105 to 2x 109 MPN/100 mL. The
SBR treated effluent reduced the total coliform concentrations to a range of 2^103 to 5><106
MPN/100 mL. The influent wastewater had geometric mean of 7.1><106 MPN/100 mL and the
51
-------
SBR effluent had a geometric mean of 1.2><105 MPN/100 mL over the one-year verification
period. The final treated effluent concentrations of total coliform were generally less than
5 MPN/100 mL, and ranged from <2 to 120 MPN/100 mL.
As can be seen, the UV system was effective in reducing total coliform concentrations to low
levels or below the detection limit, typically 2 to 4 MPN/100 mL) on most days of operation.
The total coliform concentration exceeded 8 MPN/100 mL on only three days during the year
and exceeded 100 MPN/100 mL (actual concentration 120 MPN/100 mL) on only sample. This
one higher concentration occurred in November 2005 in the period when the very high flow rates
were being experienced and adjustments to the system were being made to handle the increased
daily volume.
4.2.6 Other Operating Parameters-pH, Alkalinity, Temperature
Several operating parameters including pH and temperature were measured on regular basis by
the IWS operating staff. This data is extensive and is recorded in the operating logs. In addition,
the BSD staff measured pH and temperature on grab samples when samples were collected for
the verification test. Samples for total alkalinity were analyzed on the 24-hour composites
collected during the verification test. The data obtained on verification sample collection days for
pH and temperature is presented in Table 4-10. The alkalinity results are shown in Table 4-6.
The pH of the influent ranged from 6.2 to 9.2 with a median value of 7.2. The SBR effluent and
final treated effluent showed a similar range with a median pH of 7.2 at both sampling locations.
The influent had mean alkalinity concentration of 210 mg/L as CaCO3, and the median
concentration was 210 mg/L. The SBR effluent and treated effluent had lower mean alkalinity
concentrations of 130 and 120 mg/L CaCOs respectively. The decrease in alkalinity is expected
as alkalinity is consumed in the nitrification process and generated in the denitrification process.
Overall, a net decrease of approximately 3.5 mg/L in alkalinity can be expected for each 1 mg/L
reduction in TN concentration.
Temperature can also impact both the organic removal and nitrification/denitrification processes.
There was little or no impact on the system from temperature variation as the SBR temperature
remained at or above 10 °C throughout the year. The influent temperature did drop as low as 6 °C
in the winter months (December through February).
52
-------
Table 4-9. Model 6000 SBR System Total Coliform Results
Date
07/20/04
07/21/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
08/11/04
08/12/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/30/04
12/31/04
01/01/05
01/02/05
01/25/05
01/26/05
01/27/05
01/28/05
Influent
>2.4xl05
>2.4xl05
>2.4xl07
4.6xl07
9.3 xlO6
2.0xl06
4.3 xlO6
2.4xl07
9.3 xlO5
2.3 xlO5
>2.4xl06
2.4xl06
>2.4xl07
>2.4xl07
>2.4xl07
>2.4xl07
9.3 xlO6
>2.4xl08
2.1xl07
4.3 xlO6
9.3 xlO6
2.4xl06
1.5xl06
2.6xl06
<3.0xl05
NS
2.4xl06
<3.0xl05
>2.4xl07
2.6xl06
2.3 xlO6
7.5xl06
2.4xl06
l.lxlO7
l.lxlO7
1.5xl07
Total Coliform (MPN/100 mL)
SBR Effluent
>2.4xl05
>2.4xl05
4.3 xlO5
2.3 xlO5
1.6xl06
1.5xl05
2.4xl05
4.0xl03
4.6xl05
4.6xl05
2.4xl04
2.4xl04
>2.4xl06
2.4xxl05
l.lxlO6
<3.0xl03
4.0xl04
2.3 xlO4
9.0xl03
9.0xl03
>2.4xl06
9.3 xlO5
7.5xl05
2.3 xlO5
9.0xl04
2.0xl04
<3.0xl04
9.0xl05
9.0xl04
2.3 xlO6
4.0xl05
1.5xl05
<3.0xl03
9.0xl04
2.4xl03
4.3 xlO3
Treated Effluent
<3
<3
<3
4
4
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
<3
NS
<3
4
<3
<3
<3
<3
4
120
9
<3
4
4
<3
<3
<3
<3
23
4
NS
4
4
4
4
53
-------
Table 4-9. Model 6000 SBR System Total Coliform Results (continued)
Date
02/08/05
02/09/05
02/10/05
02/11/05
03/01/05
03/02/05
03/03/05
03/04/05
03/18/05
03/19/05
03/20/05
03/21/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
04/21/05
04/22/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/27/05
05/28/05
05/29/05
05/30/05
06/07/05
06/08/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
Maximum
Minimum
Geometric Mean
Influent
1.6xl07
9.0xl08
2.8xl08
>1.6xl09
l.lxio7
1.7xl06
5.0xl06
2.2xl06
3.0xl07
9.0xl07
>1.6xl08
>1.6xl08
>1.6xl08
2.4xl08
5.0xl07
3.0xl07
5.0xl07
1.6xl09
1.0 xlO8
1.6xl08
5.0xl07
1.7xl08
9.0xl08
5.0xl07
9.0xl07
3.0xl08
5.0xl08
S.OxlO7
1.6xl09
2.3 xlO5
7.1xl06
Total Coliform (MPN/100 mL)
SBR Effluent
7.0xl04
S.OxlO3
S.OxlO3
l.lxlO4
l.lxlO4
S.OxlO3
<2.0xl03
NS
S.OxlO5
1.3xl05
l.lxlO6
1.7xl05
>1.6xl06
S.OxlO4
4.0xl03
S.OxlO4
2.4xl05
1.7xl05
S.OxlO5
S.OxlO5
S.OxlO6
S.OxlO5
S.OxlO6
l.SxlO6
1.7xl06
1.4xl06
2.4xl06
S.OxlO5
S.OxlO6
2.4xl03
1.2xl05
Treated Effluent
<2
<2
2
2
2
8
7
NS
NS
NS
2
30
<2
<2
NS
2
<2
2
8
<2
<2
2
NS
NS
NS
NS
<2
NS
120
2
4
NS - No sample collected
54
-------
Table 4-10. Model 6000 SBR System pH and Temperature Results
Date
07/20/04
07/21/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
08/11/04
08/12/04
09/04/04
09/05/04
09/07/04
09/08/04
10/05/04
10/06/04
10/07/04
10/08/04
10/19/04
10/20/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
11/16/04
11/17/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
12/14/04
12/15/04
12/16/04
12/17/04
12/30/04
12/31/04
01/01/05
01/02/05
01/25/05
01/26/05
01/27/05
01/28/05
Influent
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.5
7.2
NS
7.0
7.2
7.5
6.5
7.2
7.2
6.5
6.4
6.7
7.4
7.6
6.5
NS
6.5
7.0
6.9
NS
6.2
6.4
6.4
6.6
7.3
6.3
7.5
8.2
7.7
7.5
pH (S.U.) Temperature (°C)
SBR Effluent Treated Effluent Influent SBR Effluent Treated Effluent
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.1
6.9
7.4
7.1
NS
7.3
7.3
7.3
6.9
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.4
6.6
7.4
7.2
NS
7.0
7.4
7.0
6.6
6.7
6.6
7.1
7.5
7.0
6.4
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.2
NS
7.0
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.6
6.9
NS
7.2
6.8
7.2
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.1
6.8
20
NS
NS
NS
19.5
22.5
21
20
NS
15.5
15.5
16.5
17
17.5
17.5
18
13
16
12.5
11.5
13
NS
10.5
10.5
9
NS
12
10
8.5
8
8
8
6.5
7
6
7.5
27
NS
28
29
21
21.5
24.5
24
NS
19
19
20
23
23
22.5
23
20.5
19
19
18
16
NS
15
14.5
15
11.5
13.5
13
15
15
12
13
11.5
12.4
15.5
15
27.5
27.5
NS
29
27.5
27.5
29
30
NS
26
25.5
24.5
23.5
25
27
25
18.5
21.5
19.5
20.5
16
NS
16.5
15
16
14.5
15
15
16.5
15.5
15.5
16.5
14
14
15.5
15
NS - No Sample Collected
55
-------
Table 4-10. Model 6000 SBR System pH and Temperature Results (continued)
Date
02/08/05
02/09/05
02/10/05
02/11/05
03/01/05
03/02/05
03/03/05
03/04/05
03/18/05
03/19/05
03/20/05
03/21/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
04/21/05
04/22/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/27/05
05/28/05
05/29/05
05/30/05
06/07/05
06/08/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
Maximum
Minimum
Median
pH (S.U.) Temperature
Influent SBR Effluent Treated Effluent Influent SBR Effluent
7.7
7.4
8.2
6.9
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.6
7.6
6.9
7.8
7.7
9.1
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.5
NS
7.1
NS
9.1
6.2
7.2
6.9
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.4
8.0
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.3
7.3
8.0
6.4
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.5
7.4
6.9
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.3
7.6
NS
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
NS
7.2
7.4
7.6
8.0
6.8
7.2
6.5
8
7
6
11
11
12.5
11
10
11
13
10
14.5
9.5
16
16.5
14
16
25.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
21.5
19.5
20.5
18.5
22.5
23
25.5
6.0
13.0
12.5
11.5
12
11.5
15.5
14.5
14.5
10.5
14.5
15
16
16
16.5
17
16.5
19.5
18
20
20.5
20
21.5
22
22.5
20
22
23.5
24
22.5
29.0
10.5
18.0
(°C)
Treated Effluent
13.5
12.5
13.5
13
14.5
15.5
14
17.5
18.5
18.5
17.5
16.5
17
18
NS
16.5
19.5
20
20.5
21.5
21.5
22.5
23
25
NS
23
23
24.5
30.0
12.5
18.5
NS - No Sample Collected
NC-Not Calculated
56
-------
4.2.7 Residuals Results
The SBR unit was monitored for solids level in the aeration compartment on a regular basis by
the IWS operators. A sample was collected and allowed to settle for 30-min. As the quantity of
biomass increased, operators would waste sludge from the SBR to the sludge holding tank.
Based on the twelve-month operating record, sludge was wasted from the system approximately
three to five times per month during the first six months of the verification test and one to three
times per month during the last six months of the test.
Once the sludge had been transferred to the sludge holding tank, it was allowed to settle until the
next visit to the site. The clear liquid on the top of the tank was transferred back to the
equalization tank (directly to the SBRs prior to the September change in process flow) to make
room in the tank for additional sludge transfers as needed.
The SBR system did not make large quantities of sludge and the sludge holding tank was only
pumped out twice during the verification test. The first sludge removal occurred in November,
seven months after the initial cleanout of the holding tank as part of the startup procedure in
April 2004. The November 2004 cleanout occurred in conjunction with the high flow volumes
that occurred at that time. Three thousand gal of sludge was removed from the tank and taken to
a local wastewater treatment plant. The material removed had a solids content of 0.93%.
The sludge holding tank was pumped again at the end of the verification test on June 30, 2005.
This was seven months after the November cleanout. Again, 3,000 gal of sludge was removed
form the sludge holding tank by vacuum truck and transported to a local wastewater treatment
plant. The solids content of this sludge material was 0.67%.
Based on the twelve-month verification test and the conditions found at this site, cleanout of the
sludge holding tank can be expected every 6 to 12 months.
Samples of the sludge from the holding tank were collected and analyzed for solids content and
metals. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 4-11. The metals content of the sludge
removed from the system were generally low and were acceptable for disposal at the local
wastewater treatment facility.
57
-------
Table 4-11. Model 6000 SBR System Residuals - Metals and Solids Results
Analyte
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Density
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
%
%
g/mL
11/12/04
<0.5
2.9
<0.05
0.6
<0.5
<0.02
0.3
<1.0
0.12
6.9
0.93
63.9
1.001
06/30/05
<0.2
1.7
<0.05
0.9
<0.5
<0.02
0.4
<1.0
<0.05
5
0.67
NA
NA
NA - Not analyzed
4.3 Operation and Maintenance
Operation and maintenance performance of the Model 6000 SBR was monitored throughout the
verification test by the TO during weekly visits to the site. IWS operators were responsible for
routine operation and maintenance of the system under contract with the Moon Lake Ranch
Homeowners Association. Various data and observations were recorded by the IWS operators
as part of their normal work practices. In addition to recording data in the field logs, observations
on the condition of the system, any changes in setup or operation, or any problems that required
resolution were recorded by the operators. A set of field logs maintained by the IWS operators
and the weekly log sheet and sampling log sheets maintained by the TO are included in
Appendix G.
There were no major mechanical component failures during the verification test. There were also
no major downtime periods during the test. When the process was changed in September to
include an equalization tank and a one SBR operation, the switch was completed in two days
with flow to the one SBR maintained throughout the period. There was one structural failure
during the test. The baffle in the SBR between the aeration chamber and the clarifier chamber
separated from the tank wall. This failure is described later in this section.
58
-------
4.3.1 Chemical Use
The Model 6000 SBR system uses aluminum salts as a coagulant to treat the SBR effluent prior
to filtration and methanol as a supplemental carbon source for the denitrification process. These
chemicals are added from 55 gal storage tanks by chemical metering pumps activated by the
PLC during flow to the filter (aluminum) and during the anoxic cycle in the SBR (methanol).
The chemical feed pump rates were set at the beginning of the verifications test and did not vary
more than 10-15% over the course of the verification test.
Initially, aluminum sulfate (alum) was used as the coagulant. The feed solution was made by
adding dry aluminum sulfate to the coagulant feed tank and mixing it with water to achieve a
concentration of approximately 5,000 mg/L as Al. The coagulant was changed in August 2004,
the second month of the test, to aluminum chloride, which could be purchased as a liquid, to
simplify the handling and mixing of the coagulant solution. The aluminum chloride feed solution
was also targeted to contain approximately 5,000 mg/L of Al in solution. The chemical metering
pump was set to feed at a rate of 0.3 gal per hr with a filter water flow rate of 10 gpm, yielding a
coagulant dose of approximately 2.5 mg/L as Al. The chemical metering pumps were tied to the
filter feed pumps through the PLC so that coagulant was only added when the filters were in
operation. The average daily coagulant use over the twelve-month verification test, based on an
average daily influent volume of 2,280 gal, was approximately 0.5 Ib per day as aluminum [2.5
Ib per day as aluminum chloride or 6.3 Ibs per day as aluminum sulfate (alum)].
Methanol was added during the denitrification step as a supplemental carbon source. The
methanol feed solution was stored in a 55 gal feed tank. The feed solution was made by diluting
methanol with water at a ratio of 1 gal of methanol to 3 gal of water, yielding a feed solution
with 1.65 Ib of methanol per gal. The chemical feed records show that the average feed rate of
solution was 1.7 gpd (2.8 Ibs of methanol per day). Using the average influent volume of 2,280
gpd, the supplemental carbon added was approximately 50 mg/L as carbon.
At the chemical rates used during the verification test, the chemical feed tanks required
replenishment approximately once per month.
4.3.2 Operation and Maintenance Observations
The Model 6000 SBR system is a moderately complicated biological and filtration/UV
disinfection system that requires regular operator checks and routine maintenance. A system of
this type typically requires a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator, with the actual license
requirement depending on state requirements.
The Model 6000 SBR system, while complex, is highly automated and PLC controlled so that
operator intervention is not required on a daily basis. The operator can access the PLC via the
Internet and the PLC can send various alarms to an operator when there is a potential problem.
Typically, IWS expects the system to require operator attention on a two to three visits per week
basis. During the verification test, more frequent site visits occurred in the first six months of the
test (20 plus site visits per month) and less frequently in the last six months of the test (10 to 15
59
-------
site visits per month). The more frequent site visits at the beginning of the verification were due
to some operational issues with the units as the transition was made from a two SBR to a one
SBR system. There were more frequent visits at the start of the test associated with the
verification test and supporting data collection programs. At least four site visits each month
were to support the verification sampling program.
During each site visit, the operator uses a checklist to record various operating conditions (listed
below), and routine maintenance checklist that includes cleaning the screens, floats, filter, and
UV system as required. Other activities are based on observation of the unit operating conditions,
including pumping sludge to the sludge holding tank, making new coagulant and methanol
solutions, etc. Based on the routine operation and maintenance activities observed and recorded
during the twelve-month verification test, it is estimated that each site visit requires
approximately 1 hr for routine work. Additional time is needed if special maintenance activities
are required. While the actual operator time will vary by site, it is estimated that approximately 4
to 5 hr per week is needed to handle routine operation and maintenance activities, with additional
time needed for mechanical problems or an upset condition.
The Operator Routine Check List includes:
• Coagulant tank level and pump rate
• Methanol tank level and pump rate
• Distribution tank level, pH, alkalinity
• Clean screen in distribution tank
• SBR pH, alkalinity, nitrate, ammonia, dissolved oxygen
• SBR sludge settling level
• Record if sludge wasted sludge holding tank
• Filter feed tank level
• Filter feed tank nitrate and ammonia concentration
• Filter pressure, air flow, head loss
• Turbidity meter reading
• UV units (2) intensity reading
• Record if UV lamps cleaned
• Sludge tank level
There were no major operational upsets in the SBR during the verification test as shown by the
data presented in previous sections. The operators made only minor adjustments in the master
cycle (aeration, anoxic, transfer, clarification) of the SBR. The most significant change required
was a master cycle adjustment from a 4-hr cycle to a 6-hr cycle in November. This was after the
system was changed to a one SBR system and higher flow rates were encountered. The aeration
cycle was lengthened from two 45-minute periods to two 90-minute periods.
The filter and UV system also had no major operational problems over the one-year test period.
The filter system maintained a very steady set of operating conditions. The head loss across the
filter did vary over time and occasionally the filter required cleaning with an air pressure
60
-------
backwash to decrease head loss. However, this was required less than once per month and each
time the cleaning was performed the filter head loss returned to low levels. Air flow rate on the
filter (90-110 scfh) and head loss are parameters that are checked by the operator on each site
visit. Air flow remained very steady throughout the test.
The PLC system monitored the UV intensity on both units and programmed to shut down the
discharge, if intensity fell below 25%. As discussed in section 4.3.1, a faulty sensor(s) or signal
to the PLC apparently caused the system to close the valves to the UV and recycling filtered
wastewater in December. This caused a high water alarm in the distribution tank and wastewater
was removed from the system and trucked to a local wastewater plant over three days (10,500
gal total). The lamps were operating properly based on data collected on the discharges that
occurred when the PLC was getting a signal with an intensity of greater than 25%.
The UV intensity did vary and the lamps required cleaning using the manual cleaning wipers on
a regular basis. Cleaning normally was required two or three times per month. The manufacturer
of the UV lamps recommends changing the lamps after 10,000 hr of use (416 days of continuous
use in this application). However, it has been IWS experience that the lamps will last much
longer than 10,000 hr. The lamps had been operating for over 14,000 hr at the end of the
verification test and were still providing effective disinfection based on the data collected in the
last month of the test. As mentioned, the intensity of the lamps is monitored by IWS operators
and if intensity falls and cannot be increased after cleaning, the lamps are replaced.
Given the large number of floats, switches, pumps and automated valves that are part of the
Model 6000 system, it can be expected that some maintenance beyond routine cleaning and
servicing will be required for this system. The typical maintenance items include cleaning or
repair of floats/switches, repair of pumps and motors, etc. A summary list of some of the typical
minor repairs and action items outside the normal routine maintenance that were required during
the verification test are listed in Table 4-12.
There was one major equipment failure during the test. In November, the baffle between the
aeration chamber and the clarification chamber broke away from the tank. It was determined that
since the SBR was in true batch mode the baffle was not needed and it was removed from the
tank. The cause of this failure is not known but may be related to the joints holding the baffle to
the tank being faulty or weak. If the baffle had needed to be repaired, it would have resulted in
down time to empty the tank and make the repair. Since the sludge holding tank can be used to
hold acclimated material, the biomass could have been saved and then reintroduced for a quick
restart. The equalization tank has sufficient capacity to hold two days of flow so the influent raw
water would not have needed to be interrupted assuming the repair could be done in one to two
days.
IWS updated the O&M manual at the end of the verification period. This updated manual is well
written and is easy to follow. Detailed information on the SBR, filtration, and UV processes is
provided with a good explanation of the PLC settings needed to operate the system. High and
low level controls and switches are described both by location and function. The manual
included several troubleshooting tables in an easy to follow format. In addition, several support
61
-------
documents provide information on the equipment as supplied by the equipment manufacturers.
This previous manual contained all of the needed information for the system, but the new manual
is better organized and easier to understand.
The verification test (startup and testing) ran for a period of 15 months, which provided
sufficient time to evaluate the overall performance of the unit, which had been in operation for
almost four years at the start of the testing. Based on observations during this test period, the
equipment appeared to be properly constructed of appropriate materials for wastewater treatment
applications. The verification did not run long enough to truly evaluate length of equipment life,
but the basic components of the system appear durable and the overall system design indicate
that the system should have a reasonable life expectancy.
Table 4-12. Summary of Minor Maintenance and Action Items
Date Maintenance or Action Item
07-16-04 Reset PLC clock due to power outage at site.
07 1 8 04 Clean filter feed tank - high sludge blanket in both SBRs causing high solids
carry over to feed tank.
08-02-04 Wasted two batches of sludge from SBR and cleaned feed tank.
08-04-04 Feed tank float hanging; cleaned and repositioned float.
08-19-04 Belt off of compressor pulley - repaired belt.
09-30-04 Filter reject line plugged with sand - line cleaned.
09 05 04 Coagulant feed pump not running in auto mode - float in feed tank problem;
floats will be repaired.
in 19 04 Turbidity meter required calibration; routine cleaning did not resolve issue;
recalibration done.
11 1 1\14 04 V&Ty high influent volumes causing high level alarms. Timing of pump cycles
adjusted to handle higher flow; homeowners contacted about very high flows.
12-6-04 Compressor has tripped breaker; breaker reset.
12-7-04 PLC fault shown on 110 wire; replaced one wire with terminator I/O.
Filter effluent valve not closing completely; cleaned the valve so that it shuts
properly.
1-2 1-05 Compressor tripped breaker; breaker reset.
01-31 -05 High filter head loss; Filter cleaned with air.
03-15-05 Discharge pump malfunction; replace impeller and repair pump.
04-13-05 Compressor tripped breaker; repair motor.
05-15-05 High filter head loss; back flushed and cleaned filter; head loss normal.
05-24-05 Turbidity meter reading high; clean cuvettes inside meter and reset.
62
-------
Chapter 5
QA/QC Results and Summary
The VTP included a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that identified critical
measurements and established Data Quality Objectives (DQO). The verification test procedures
and data collection followed the QAPP, and summary results are reported in this section. The
laboratory reported QA/QC data with each set of sample results as part of the laboratory reports.
Each report included the results of blanks, laboratory duplicates, spikes, and other lab control
sample results for the various analyses. These QA data are incorporated with the laboratory
reports presented in Appendix F. Field duplicates were also collected by the TO and submitted
for analysis. The results for field duplicates are summarized in section 5.2.2 and field duplicate
data are included in the spreadsheets in Appendix E.
5.1 Audits
NSF conducted audits of test site and ALI (laboratory) prior to and during the verification test.
The pretest audit found that the field and laboratory procedures were in place to collect data to
meet the QA objectives of the VTP. The laboratory audit found that ALI followed approved
analytical methods and documented the methods and QA/QC in an acceptable manner. The
pretest audit also provided the opportunity to explain the ETV program and the requirements for
a successful verification test to the participants.
The audit performed during the verification test found that the procedures being used in the field
and the laboratory were in accordance with the established QAPP. Legible field logs were being
maintained. The laboratory had a firmly established QA/QC program, and observation of the
analyses and a records review found that appropriate QC data was being performed with the
analyses. All members of the testing team were reminded that ETV requires that copies of all
logs and raw data records be delivered to NSF at the end of the project.
5.2 Precision
5.2.1 Laboratory Duplicates
The analytical laboratory performed sample duplicates for all parameters at a frequency of at
least one duplicate for every ten samples analyzed or one per batch if less than ten samples in a
batch. The results of laboratory duplicates were reported with all data reports received from the
laboratory. Table 5-1 shows the acceptance limits used by the laboratory.
The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) was calculated using the standard formula:
63
-------
RPD = [(Ci- C2) •*• ((Ci + C2)/2)] x 100% (5-1)
Where:
Ci = Concentration of the compound or element in the sample
C2 = Concentration of the compound or element in the duplicate
Table 5-1. Laboratory Precision Limits
„ , Acceptance Limits
Parameter (RPD)
TSS 20
Alkalinity 15
BOD5 20
COD 20
TKN 25
NH3-N 20
NO2+NO3-N 20
Total P 20
Soluble P 15
The laboratory precision for all parameters, as measured by the laboratory duplicates, was found
to meet the QA objectives for the verification test.
5.2.2 Field Duplicates
Field duplicates were collected for influent and effluent samples to monitor the overall precision
of the sample collection and laboratory analyses. Summaries of the data are presented in Tables
5-2, 5-3 and 5-4. As can be seen, precision was good for all parameters for most samples. There
was some variability for samples that were near the detection limit, as would be expected. As an
example, the nitrite plus nitrate concentrations in the influent were at or below the detection
limit. Small differences in the field duplicate results at low concentrations can cause large RPD
values to be calculated. One influent raw wastewater sample showed a large difference for TSS,
which probably was caused by the inherent difficulty in splitting samples with high TSS
concentrations. One sample set with a low concentration of TSS showed a large difference,
which can be expected at very low concentrations of TSS. The overall dataset showed good
precision with no indication of any systemic sampling or analysis problems.
64
-------
Table 5-2. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - Nutrients
Sample
Influent
SBR Effluent
Final Effluent
Sample
Influent
SBR Effluent
Final Effluent
Repl
(mg/L as N)
44.5
37.8
50.2
32.3
43.6
1.50
1.38
4.07
3.07
2.20
1.60
3.26
1.16
1.20
0.60
Repl
(mg/L as N)
0.03
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.03
2.7
0.62
1.03
2.68
1.9
4.4
0.8
7.0
4.72
2.51
TKN
Rep 2
(mg/L as N)
45.3
40.5
48.3
33.6
42.2
1.50
1.20
3.73
2.71
2.00
1.26
3.35
0.73
1.12
0.80
NO2+NO3-N
Rep 2
(mg/L as N)
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.04
0.04
2.7
0.62
1.10
2.75
1.6
4.3
0.9
6.9
4.81
2.85
RPD
(%)
1.8
6.9
3.9
3.9
3.3
0
14
8.7
12
9.5
24
2.7
46
6.9
29
RPD
(%)
29
22
0
29
29
0
0
6.6
2.6
17
2.3
12
1.4
1.9
13
Repl
(mg/L as P)
37.9
31.2
40.0
24.0
39.2
0.05
<0.04
0.18
<0.04
0.13
0.14
2.53
<0.04
<0.04
<0.04
Repl
(mg/L as P)
6.9
5.5
7.4
4.2
7.4
3.0
0.37
2.17
3.22
3.29
0.50
0.85
0.99
1.23
1.34
NH3-N
Rep 2
(mg/L as P)
37.9
30.3
38.9
24.0
39.8
<0.04
<0.04
0.18
<0.04
0.07
0.17
2.64
<0.04
<0.04
0.04
TP
Rep 2
(mg/L as P)
7.2
6.3
7.7
4.4
6.8
3.0
0.30
2.02
3.05
3.25
0.48
0.91
0.91
1.27
1.41
RPD
(%)
0
2.9
2.8
0
1.5
22
0
0
0
60
19
4.3
0
0
0
RPD
(%)
4.3
14
4.0
4.7
8.5
0
21
7.2
5.4
1.2
4.1
6.8
8.4
3.2
2.3
65
-------
Table 5-3. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - BOD, COD, TSS, Alkalinity
Sample
Influent
SBR Effluent
Final Effluent
Sample
Influent
SBR Effluent
Final effluent
Repl
(mg/L)
410
140
280
240
200
390
13
13
<4
15
23
11
<3
<3
<3
<3
Repl
(mg/L)
140
150
320
210
130
380
57
21
7
38
56
12
<3
<3
6
5
BODS
Rep 2
(mg/L)
350
140
270
250
160
390
13
13
<4
15
24
11
<3
<3
4
<3
TSS
Rep 2
(mg/L)
270
180
330
180
150
360
56
23
3
38
55
12
6
<3
4
o
J
RPD
(%)
16
4.9
3.7
0.8
17
0
0
0
0
0
4.3
0
0
0
NC
0
RPD
(%)
68
16
2.5
12
16
5.9
1.8
9.1
80
0
1.8
0
NC
0
40
50
Repl
(mg/L)
880
420
620
550
400
1440
73.6
43.1
24.2
48.7
90.8
37.4
<20
<20
<20
<20
Rep 1
(mg/L)
260
160
210
210
250
290
90.7
120
78.0
120
120
170
150
83.6
150
120
COD
Rep 2
(mg/L)
780
450
970
540
380
1140
72.6
38.9
22.6
39.5
88.0
38.9
<20
<20
21.1
<20
Alkalinity
Rep 2
(mg/L)
260
160
210
220
250
290
81.4
120
78.6
120
120
170
150
84.6
150
120
RPD
(%)
13
6.2
44
2.8
2.6
23
1.4
10
6.0
21
3.1
3.9
0
0
NC
0
RPD
(%)
0.4
0.6
1.9
0.9
0.4
0.3
11
1.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.2
2.0
1.2
0
0
NC-Not calculated
66
-------
Table 5-4. Duplicate Field Sample Summary - Total Coliform
Sample
Influent
SBR Effluent
Final Effluent
Total
Repl
MPN/100 mL
>2.4xl07
>2.4xl07
7.5xl06
2.2xl06
S.OxlO7
1.6xl06
2.4xl05
9.0xl03
9.0xl05
l.lxlQ4
S.OxlO4
S.OxlO5
4
4
30
<2
Coliform
Rep 2
MPN/100 mL
4.6xxlQ6
>2.4xl07
1.4xl06
1.4xl06
l.lxlO8
1.6xl06
9.3xl04
l.SxlO4
<3.0xl05
1.4xl04
3.0xl04
8.0xl05
23
4
22
2
5.3 Accuracy
Method accuracy was determined and monitored using a combination of matrix spikes,
laboratory control samples (known concentration in blank water), and proper equipment
calibration and traceability depending on the analytical method. Recovery of the spiked analytes
was calculated and monitored during the verification test. The laboratory used the control
samples and recovery limits as shown in Table 5-5 and reported the data with each set of
analytical results.
The equations used to calculate the recoveries for spiked samples and laboratory control samples
are as follows:
67
-------
Matrix Spike Samples:
Percent Recovery = (Cr- C0)/Cf x 100% (5-2)
Where:
Cr = Total amount detected in spiked sample
C0 = Amount detected in un-spiked sample
Cf = Spike amount added to sample.
Lab Control Sample:
Percent Recovery = (Cm/ Cknown) x 100% (5-3)
Where:
Cm = measured concentration in the spike control sample
wn = known concentration
Table 5-5. Laboratory Control Limits for Accuracy
Parameter
TSS
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
TKN
NH3-N
NO2+NO3-N
TP
SP
Method
Blank
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Calibration
Curve Check
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lab Control
Sample
X
X
X(D
X
X
X
X
X
X
Matrix Spike
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recovery Limits
(%)
N/A
80-120
N/A
75-125
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
80-120
(1) - Seed control sample.
X - Denotes sample collected.
N/A - Not applicable.
All of the specific requirements to document method accuracy are detailed in the QAPP in the
VTP in Appendix C. The laboratory supporting data is included with the laboratory reports in
Appendix F. Review of the laboratory data shows that the accuracy data met the quality
objectives.
The balance used for TSS analysis was calibrated routinely with weights that were National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable. Calibration records were maintained by
68
-------
the laboratory and inspected during the on-site audit. The temperature of the drying oven was
also monitored using a thermometer that was calibrated with a NIST-traceable thermometer. The
pH meter was calibrated using a three-point calibration curve with purchased buffer solutions of
known pH. Field temperature measurements were performed using a NIST-traceable
thermometer. All of these traceable calibrations were performed to ensure the accuracy of
measurements.
5.4 Representativeness
The field procedures were designed to ensure that representative samples were collected of both
influent and effluent wastewater. The composite sampling equipment was checked on a routine
basis to ensure that proper sample volumes were collected to provide flow-weighted sample
composites. Field duplicate samples and supervisor oversight provided assurance that
procedures were being followed. The field duplicates showed that there was some variability in
the field duplicate samples. However, review of the overall data set for influent and effluent
samples did not show specific sampling bias for any of the parameters. These data indicated that
while individual sample variability may occur, the data were representative of the concentrations
in the wastewater.
The laboratory used standard analytical methods and written SOPs for each method to provide a
consistent approach to all analyses. Sample handling, storage, and analytical methodology were
reviewed during the on-site audit to verify that standard procedures were being followed. The
use of standard methodology, supported by proper QC information and audits, ensured that the
analytical data were representative of the actual wastewater conditions.
5.5 Completeness
The QAPP set a goal of 80% completeness for sample collection in the field, and for reporting
acceptable analytical results by the laboratory.
All sixteen sets of 96-hr composite samples were collected and samples analyzed by the
laboratory for scheduled parameters, yielding 100% completeness for this group of samples.
There were 64 days of scheduled sampling for the 24-hr composite samples at each of the three
sampling locations, which would generate 192 composite samples. On two occasions, there was
insufficient final treated effluent sample volume so a grab sample was collected. On one
occasion, there was a sampler failure for the final treated effluent sample and a sample was not
collected due to lack of flow. Completeness for the 24-hr composite samples was 98% (189 out
of 192 samples, two of the missed samples were collected as grab samples). Grab samples for
total coliform, pH, and temperature were scheduled for 64 days at three locations yielding a
projected 192 samples for each parameter. A few grab samples were missed or could not be
collected due to lack of flow. Twelve samples for total coliform were missed out 192 scheduled
for a completeness of 94%. Nine samples were missed for pH and 12 samples were missed for
temperature giving a completeness of 95% for pH and 94% for temperature.
69
-------
All scheduled analyses for samples delivered to the laboratory were completed. A few analytical
results appeared to be outliers or anomalies. However, after careful review of the laboratory
bench sheets, there was no apparent basis to justify excluding these data. Therefore, all
laboratory data were reported in this report, and the laboratory analyses were considered 100%
complete.
70
-------
Appendices
Appendix A -IWS Operation and Maintenance Manual
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
71
-------
Appendix B - Pictures of Test Site and Equipment
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
72
-------
Appendix C - Verification Test Plan
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
73
-------
Appendix D - IWS Startup Procedures Field Operations and Lab Logbooks
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
74
-------
Appendix E - Spreadsheets with calculation and data summary
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
75
-------
Appendix F - Lab Data and QA/QC Data
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
76
-------
Appendix G - Field Logs and Records
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
77
-------
Glossary of Terms
Accuracy - a measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a number
of measurements to the true value and includes random error and systematic error.
Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in one
direction.
Commissioning - the installation of the nutrient reduction technology and startup of the
technology using test site wastewater.
Comparability - a qualitative term that expresses confidence that two data sets can contribute to
a common analysis and interpolation.
Completeness - a qualitative and quantitative term that expresses confidence that all necessary
data have been included.
Precision - a measure of the agreement between replicate measurements of the same property
made under similar conditions.
Protocol - a written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, scope, and procedures for
the study. A protocol shall be used for reference during Vendor participation in the verification
testing program.
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)- a written document that describes the
implementation of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) activities during the life cycle
of the project.
Residuals - the waste streams, excluding final effluent, which are retained by or discharged
from the technology.
Representativeness - a measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or
environmental condition.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) - a written document containing specific procedures and
protocols to ensure that quality assurance requirements are maintained.
Technology Panel - a group of individuals established by the Verification Organization with
expertise and knowledge in nutrient removal technologies.
78
-------
Testing Organization (TO) - an independent organization qualified by the Verification
Organization (VO) to conduct studies and testing of nutrient removal technologies in accordance
with protocols and test plans.
Vendor - a business that assembles or sells nutrient reduction equipment.
Verification - to establish evidence on the performance of nutrient reduction technologies under
specific conditions, following a predetermined study protocol(s) and test plan(s).
Verification Organization - an organization qualified by EPA to verify environmental
technologies and to issue Verification Statements and Verification Reports.
Verification Report - a written document containing all raw and analyzed data, all QA/QC data
sheets, descriptions of all collected data, a detailed description of all procedures and methods
used in the verification testing, and all QA/QC results. The Verification Test Plan(s) shall be
included as part of this document.
Verification Statement - a document that summarizes the Verification Report and is reviewed
and approved by EPA.
Verification Test Plan (VTP) - A written document prepared to describe the procedures for
conducting a test or study according to the verification protocol requirements for the application
of nutrient reduction technology at a particular test site. At a minimum, the VTP includes
detailed instructions for sample and data collection, sample handling and preservation, and
QA/QC requirements relevant to the particular test site.
79
-------
References
(1) NSF International, Protocol for the Verification of Wastewater Treatment Technologies.,
Ann Arbor, MI, April 2001.
(2) NSF International, Verification Test Plan for Water Quality Systems, Inc., August 2004.
(3) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Methods and Guidance for Analysis of
Water, EPA 821-C-99-008, Office of Water, Washington, DC, 1999.
(4) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes, EPA 600/4-79-020, revised March 1983.
(5) APHA, AWWA, and WEF, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19th Edition, Washington, DC, 1998.
Bibliography
American National Standards Institute/ASQC, Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems
for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs (E4), 1994.
NSF International, Environmental Technology Verification - Source Water Protection
Technologies Pilot Quality Management Plan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Trickling
Filter Nitrification, Office of Water, EPA 832-F-00-015, Washington DC, September
2000.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project
Plans, EPA QA/G-5, EPA/600/R-98-018, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, 1998.
United States Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Technology Verification
Program - Quality and Management Plan for the Pilot Period (1995 - 2000), EPA/600/R-
98/064, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH, 1998.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives
Process, EPA QA/G-4, EPA/600/R-96-055, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, 1996.
80
------- |