September 2004
NSF 04/09/EPADWCTR
EPA/600/R-04/188
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water
Delta Industrial Services, Inc.
CampWater Porta-5 System
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
ET
>O
v
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: OZONATION-FILTRATION USED IN DRINKING WATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
APPLICATION: REMOVAL OF ARSENIC VIA OZONATION-FILTRATION
FROM DRINKING WATER
TECHNOLOGY NAME: CAMPWATER PORTA-5 SYSTEM
COMPANY: DELTA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.
ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1109 PHONE: (907)895-5053
DELTA JUNCTION, AK 99737 FAX: (907) 895-6205
WEB SITE: http://www.deltaindustrial.com
EMAIL: jwd@deltaindustrial.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies
through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to
further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-
effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on
technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of
environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups
(consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters), and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Drinking Water Systems (DWS)
Center, one of seven technology areas under the ETV Program. The DWS Center recently evaluated the
performance of a Delta Industrial Services, Inc. (DISI) Camp Water Porta-5 (Camp Water) system for the
reduction of arsenic in drinking water. This verification statement provides a summary of the test results
for the Camp Water system. University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) Small Public Water System Training
and Technical Assistance Center (ATTAC), an NSF-qualified field testing organization (FTO), performed
the verification testing.
04/09/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-i
-------
ABSTRACT
The CampWater system uses ozonation followed by cartridge filtration to remove arsenic via co-
precipitation. The system utilizes ozone to oxidize iron and arsenic (III) to arsenic (V). The arsenic
bound to the iron precipitates is then removed by cartridge filtration. No additional flocculation, solids
separation or clarification is required. The CampWater system was tested on a ground water source with
27 ug/L arsenic and 0.62 mg/L iron. Operating the system at 550 mV oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP) and the natural water pH of 7.9 reduced the arsenic by 33%. Subsequent tests at 550 mV ORP
showed that decreasing pH to 7.5 improved arsenic removal.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description was provided by the manufacturer and has not been verified.
The CampWater system uses ozone to oxidize the naturally occurring iron in the feed water to form a
ferric hydroxide solid and convert any arsenic (III) to arsenic (V). The CampWater system relies on the
reduction of arsenic by filtration of the ferric hydroxide solid suspended in water upon which arsenic (V)
is adsorbed. The CampWater system directly filters the ferric hydroxide solid without any additional
flocculation, solid separation or clarification. The system consists of a raw water pump, an ozone
generator and contact chamber, and a series of 20 urn, 5 urn, and 1 urn-absolute cartridge filters. The
system is easily transportable and is designed to fit into a standard pickup truck or small aircraft.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
Verification testing occurred at Southwood Manor, a residential community located at 9499 Brayton
Road, Anchorage, Alaska. The source water for the verification testing was ground water. The well is
considered a back-up water source and was not used by local residents during the verification test. The
test site was equipped with a 200-gpm submersible well pump. Because the existing well pump capacity
exceeded the rated capacity of the CampWater system, two 300-gallon storage tanks were installed to
feed the test unit. These tanks were periodically filled by the well pump resulting in a storage period of
up to 3 hours when the CampWater system was continuously operating and significantly longer storage
periods (up to several days) under start/stop operations. During the storage period, iron present in the
well water could have been oxidized more readily than reduced arsenic. The unknown extent of oxidation
during storage prior to treatment could have affected the feed water quality to the treatment system.
Methods and Procedures
ETV testing on the CampWater system occurred in three phases:
Phase A
Phase A was initiated on August 28, 2003. Start/stop operations were performed on the CampWater
system for the first 48 hours and then the system was run continuously, except for filter change-outs, until
September 13, 2003 for a total of 327 hours over the 17-day period. The system was operated at the
natural pH of the feed water (approximately 7.9) and an ORP set point of 550mV. The average flow rate
during this phase of testing was 3.85 gpm. During Phase A, 72 feed water samples and 73 treated water
samples were collected for total arsenic analysis. During the 48 hours of start/stop operation in Phase A,
feed and treated water samples for arsenic, iron, manganese, turbidity, ORP and pH analysis were
collected within the first 15 minutes of operation and after 1 hour, 5 hours, and 9 hours of operation after
each start-up. Water quality parameters including alkalinity and hardness were measured daily. Weekly
samples for sulfate, arsenic speciation, total organic carbon, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids,
04/09/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-ii
-------
and ultraviolet light absorbance analysis were collected. Similar collection procedures and frequencies
were used for Phases B and C. Ozone production, off-gas ozone concentration, and the dissolved ozone
in the water were measured once per day during Phase A.
Phase B
Phase B was a series of five tests conducted between October 11, 2003 and December 12, 2003 to
understand the influence of pH and ORP on system performance. Six pairs of pH and ORP operating
conditions were tested: pH 7.9/ORP 550 mV, pH 7.5/ORP 550 mV, pH 7.0/ORP 550 mV, pH 7.9/ORP
650 mV, pH 7.5/ORP 650 mV, and pH 7.0/ORP 650 mV. Since the system ran at pH 7.9 (natural pH)
and ORP 550 mV during Phase A, the data from Phase A was used for that pair of conditions. A
chemical metering pump with an integrated pH controller was used to dose muriatic acid (HC1) to the raw
water prior to entry to the Camp Water system. The controller was calibrated and used to maintain the
desired pH within an error of ±0.1. Tests were conducted using a pH range of 7.0-7.9. The ORP
controller was adjusted to set the target ORP point, either 550mV or 650mV. On-site measurements of
pH, ORP, and turbidity were taken concurrently with water samples. Flow rate was monitored to
maintain constant flow. Instrument calibration, sample handling and storage, and system monitoring
procedures outlined in the verification test plan were followed. A total of 31 feed and treated water
sample pairs were analyzed for arsenic, iron and manganese concentrations. All samples were sent to
NSF for laboratory analysis. No measurements of ozone were performed during Phase B.
Phase C
The intent of Phase C was to verify the improved removal efficiency at a lower feed water pH shown in
Phase B under start/stop operating conditions. Phase C was a 48-hour verification test of the Camp Water
system, operated with an adjusted pH of 7.5 and an ORP set point of 550mV. This phase was conducted
over eight days, between February 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004. Phase C followed the same testing
procedures, sampling times, and quality control/quality assurance requirements followed during Phase A.
The average flow rate during this phase of testing was 3.93 gpm. A total of 29 feed water and 29 treated
water samples were collected to test arsenic, iron and manganese concentrations over the course of Phase
C. Two sets of arsenic speciation and other weekly water analyses were collected. All samples were sent
to NSF for laboratory analysis. Site conditions only allowed for three to nine hours of operation at one
time. Ozone production and ozone off-gas concentration were measured once per day during Phase C.
Complete descriptions of the verification testing procedures, results and quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) procedures are included in the verification report.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
System Operation
The Camp Water system is designed to use ozone to oxidize the naturally occurring iron in the feed water
to form a ferric hydroxide solid and convert any arsenic III to arsenic V. The CampWater system uses
filtration of the ferric hydroxide solid suspended in water upon which arsenic V is adsorbed, to reduce
arsenic in the treated water.
Raw water is first passed through an Amiad 1 1A>" y-strainer and then through a 20 mm FlowMax pleated
cartridge filter in a stainless steel Shelco Model 4FOS4 filter housing. Ozone is injected into the pre-
filtered water by a Mazzei Model 584K venturi-type injector. Ozone is supplied to the injector by a
Clearwater Tech Model CD2000 ozone generator. Contact time is provided in a 54-gallon
(approximately) cylindrical stainless steel reaction chamber equipped with an air release valve and a 1"
vent that was piped outside the building during the verification test. After the contact chamber, ozonated
04/09/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-iii
-------
water passes through 5mm and 1mm absolute FlowMax pleated cartridge filters in Shelco Model 4FOS4
filter housings.
Water Quality Results
Phase A
The average feed water total and soluble arsenic concentrations during Phase A were 27 |jg/L and 18
|jg/L, respectively. Speciation of feed water soluble arsenic samples resulted in an average of 4 |jg/L
arsenic (III) and 14 |j,g/L arsenic (V). The feed water contained approximately 0.62 mg/L of iron which
corresponds to iron-to-arsenic weight ratio of 23:1, and a molar iron-to-arsenic ratio of 31:1.
The treated water during Phase A had an average concentration of 18 |jg/L total arsenic and an average
concentration of soluble arsenic of 15 ug/L, with an average removal efficiency of arsenic of 33%.
Treated water turbidity averaged 1.3 NTU. However, a noticeable improvement in the treated water
turbidity occurred in the last third of the testing period. During the first two-thirds of the test, the nut used
to seal the plate against the filter elements was inadequately tightened thus allowing untreated water to
occasionally bypass the filter elements. When additional force was systematically applied to the nut to
properly seat the top filter plate, the average turbidity of the treated water was 0.25 NTU, compared to an
average turbidity of 1.5 NTU in the treated water before the vessel was properly tightened. The iron
concentration of the treated water also showed improved removal after the vessel was properly tightened.
The iron concentration prior to this procedure was 0.20 mg/L, whereas the concentration after was 0.03
mg/L. No significant improvement in arsenic removal was recorded as a result of the change in operating
procedure.
Phase B
The arsenic concentrations in the feed and treated water during Phase B are presented in Table VS-1.
Reducing the pH to 7.5 improved the arsenic removal efficiency in all operation conditions. Maintaining
the ORP at 550mV and reducing the pH of the feed water stream to pH 7.5 produced the best removal
efficiency of 77%. These conditions were selected as the conditions for the 48-hour start/stop verification
test in Phase C.
04/09/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-iv
-------
Table VS-1. Phase B Test Series Results
Number
_c TT • * T, „• • T, , • Removal
of Units Average Minimum Maximum _-„ .
„ , biiiciency
Samples J
pH 7.9/ORP 550mV (Phase A data)
Feed Arsenic 72 (p.g/1) 27 19 33
Treated Arsenic 73 (mg/1) 18 8 27 33%
pH 7.5/ORP 550mV
Feed Arsenic 5 (|_ig/l) 26 22 29
Treated Arsenic 5 (mg/1) 649 77%
pH 7.0/ORP 550mV
Feed Arsenic 5 (p.g/1) 24 23 27
Treated Arsenic 5 (p.g/1) 11 8 16 54%
pH 7.9/ORP 650mV
Feed Arsenic 6 (p.g/1) 23 21 24
Treated Arsenic 6 (|_ig/l) 768 70%
pH 7.5/ORP 650mV
Feed Arsenic 5 (|_ig/l) 22 14 35
Treated Arsenic 5 (p.g/1) 9 6 11 59%
pH 7.0/ORP 650mV
Feed Arsenic 6 (p.g/1) 23 17 28
Treated Arsenic 6 (|_ig/l) 9 7 13 61%
Phase C
Phase C was operated with an adjusted feed water pH of 7.5 and an ORP set point of 550 mV.
Laboratory analyses of the feed water samples summarized in Table VS-2 show average total and soluble
arsenic concentrations of 18 |jg/L and 10 |Jg/L, respectively. No detectable (<2 |J,g/L) arsenic (III) and 8
|jg/L arsenic (V) were present, on average, in the feed water samples. The feed water contained 0.51
mg/L iron and 540 |jg/L manganese during Phase C. The treated water contained an average of 9 |jg/L
arsenic, which corresponds to a 50% reduction in feed water arsenic concentration. Improvements in iron
and turbidity removal were also observed.
04/09/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-v
-------
Table VS-2 Phase C Water Quality
Number
of Units
Samples
Average Minimum Maximum
Standard
Deviation
95% Confidence
Interval
Feed Water
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)1
As(V)2
Iron
Manganese
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
TDS
TSS
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH3
Treated Water
29
3
O
6
o
6
29
29
2
2
2
2
o
6
36
29
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(cnf1)
(mg/L)
(MTU)
18
10
<2
8
0.51
540
180
244
300
4
1.7
0.0619
13
7.7
7.44
13
9
<2
7
0.04
260
155
228
270
3
1.6
0.0510
13
4.9
7.21
25
10
<2
8
1.0
780
240
280
320
4
1.7
0.0728
14
15.5
7.62
3.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.25
147
29.1
17.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2
N/A
17-20
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.40-0.62
480 - 600
151 - 209
227 - 262
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.8-8.6
N/A
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III) 1
As(V)1
Iron1
Manganese
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
TDS
TSS1
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
ORP
Turbidity
PH3
29
3
3
3
29
29
8
8
2
2
3
2
3
42
36
29
(Hg/L)
(|jg/L)
(p.g/L)
(|ig/L)
(mg/L)
(M-g^L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(cnf1)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(MTU)
--
9
9
<2
7
0.04
51
174
229
280
<2
1.6
0.0261
15
559
0.60
7.41
5
6
<2
4
<0.02
2
145
213
260
<2
1.5
0.0225
13
399
0.15
7.20
15
12
<2
10
0.19
130
190
248
300
<2
1.7
0.0296
20
782
1.8
7.59
3.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
36
15.1
11.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
83.9
0.45
N/A
8- 10
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.03-0.06
35-67
158- 189
218-240
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
529-590
0.40-0.80
N/A
N/A = Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Interval calculated on data sets of eight value or more.
1 The value of lab analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
No direct measurement. Calculated by subtracting arsenic (III) values from soluble values.
3 The median is reported for the pH data, not the mean.
Operation and Maintenance Results
During the verification test, there were no operational problems with the system operation, system
equipment, or monitoring equipment. Several operating conditions and equipment performance factors
were monitored during the verification test, including power usage, volume of treated flow, flow rates,
head loss across filters, ozone generation, and ambient parameters such as temperature, dew point, and
atmospheric pressures.
04/09/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-vi
September 2004
-------
Operators were needed to monitor treated water turbidity, flow rate and pressure loss to determine when a
filter change was needed. During 1he ETV test, filters were changed at least once per day. The ORP
probe needed to be cleaned regularly and the ORP controller needed to be monitored to make sure the
system operates at the set ORP point. The system was small and easily installed to provide easy access to
all components for routine maintenance. The level of skill required for efficient operation was low, and
the system had a low-flow switch that would shut the pump down under unfavorable operating
conditions.
Consumables and Waste Generation
The only waste the CampWater system generated was spent filter cartridges. A total of 144 filter
cartridges were used during Phase A. TCLP analyses of spent filters of each size were performed and
satisfactorily passed the regulatory limits. California WET procedures on each filter size failed for
arsenic. Waste disposal procedures would be dependent on the standards required by each state.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF provided technical and quality assurance oversight of the verification testing as described in the
verification report, including an audit of nearly 100% of the data. NSF personnel also conducted a
technical systems audit during testing to ensure the testing was in compliance with the test plan. A
complete description of the QA/QC procedures is provided in the verification report.
Original Signed by
Sally Gutierrez for
Lawrence W. Reiter
09/30/04
Original Signed by
Gordon Bellen
09/30/04
Lawrence W. Reiter Date
Acting Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Gordon Bellen
Vice President
Research
NSF International
Date
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end-user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report is not an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned
herein.
04/09/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-vii
-------
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic Removal
dated September 2003, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report
#04/09/EPADWCTR) are available from the following sources:
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the verification report. Appendices are available
from NSF upon request.)
1. ETV Drinking Water Systems Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf org/etv (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: http://www. epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
04/09/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2004
VS-viii
-------
September 2004
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water
Delta Industrial Services, Inc.
CampWater Porta-5 System
Prepared for:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Prepared by:
University of Alaska Small Public Water System Training and Technical Assistance Center
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, has financially supported and collaborated withNSF International (NSF) under
Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort was supported by the Drinking
Water Systems (DWS) Center, operating under the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program. This document has been peer reviewed, reviewed by NSF and EPA, and
recommended for public release.
-------
Foreword
The 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.
Lawrence W. Reiter, Acting Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Verification Statement VS-i
Title Page i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms vii
Acknowledgements viii
Chapter 1 -Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 NSF International 2
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization 2
1.2.3 Manufacturer 3
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratory 3
1.2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4
1.3 Verification Testing Site 4
1.3.1 Source Water 4
1.3.2 Pilot Effluent Discharge 5
Chapter 2 - Equipment Description and Operating Processes 6
2.1 Equipment Description 6
2.2 Operating Process 10
2.2.1 Startup Procedure 10
2.2.2 Installing or Changing Filters 10
Chapter 3 - Methods and Procedures 12
3.1 Task A: Characterization of Feed Water 12
3.2 TaskB: Initial Test Runs 13
3.3 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs 13
3.4 Task 2: Feed Water and Finished Water Quality 14
3.5 Task 3: Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance 15
3.6 Task 4: Arsenic Removal 16
3.7 Task 5: Data Management 16
3.8 Task6: Quality Assurance and Quality Control 17
3.8.1 QA/QC Verification Prior to Testing Period 17
3.8.2 Daily QA/QC Verification 17
3.8.3 On-Site Analytical Methods 17
3.8.3.IpH 17
3.8.3.2 Turbidity 17
3.8.3.3 Temperature 18
3.8.3.4ORP 18
3.8.3.5 Ozone 18
3.8.3.6 TCLP and California WET 19
iv
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
3.8.4 Chemical Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analyses 19
3.9 Corrective Action Plan 20
3.10 Operations and Maintenance 20
3.11 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 21
3.11.1 Data Representativeness 21
3.11.2 Data Accuracy 22
3.11.3 Data Precision 22
3.11.4 Statistical Uncertainty 22
3.11.5 Completeness 23
3.12 Health and Safety 23
Chapter 4 - Results and Discussion 25
4.1 Introduction 25
4.2 Task 1 - Verification Testing Phases 25
4.3 Task 2 -Feed Water and Finished Water Quality 27
4.4 Task 3 - Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance 33
4.4.1 Power usage 33
4.4.2 Total Treated Flow 34
4.4.3 System Flow Rates 34
4.4.4 Head Loss 34
4.4.5 Ozone 34
4.4.6 Ambient Parameters 35
4.4.7 Qualitative Factors Evaluating System Reliability and Ease of Operation 35
4.5 Task 4 - Arsenic Removal 36
4.6 Task 5 - Data Management 39
4.7 Task 6 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control 39
4.7.1 pH meter Verification 39
4.7.2 Turbidity Calibration 40
4.7.3 Thermometer 40
4.7.4 ORP Probe 40
4.7.5 Ozone Monitor 40
4.7.6 TCLP and California WET 40
4.7.7 Operations and Maintenance 43
4.7.8 Data Precision 43
4.7.9 Completeness 45
4.7.10 Additional Data Qualifiers and Notes 45
Chapter 5 - References 47
Chapter 6-Vendor Comments 48
Tables
Table 1-1 Source Water Quality (Phase A) 5
Table 2-1 CampWater System Specifications 8
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Table 3-1 Water Quality Parameters for Feed Water Characterization 13
Table 3-2 Summary Analytical Testing Schedule for CampWater ETV Testing 15
Table 3-3 Methods Used to Analyze Laboratory Samples 19
Table 3-4 Corrective Action Plan 20
Table 4-1 Phase A Feed Water Quality 27
Table 4-2 Phase A Treated Water Quality 28
Table 4-3 Phase B Test Series Results 30
Table 4-4 Phase C Feed Water Quality 31
Table 4-5 Phase C Treated Water Quality 32
Table 4-6 Ozone Measurements (Phase A) 35
Table 4-7 TCLP and California WET Test Results 1 micron filter 41
Table 4-8 TCLP and California WET Test Results 5 micron filter 42
Table 4-9 TCLP and California WET Test Results 20 micron filter 43
Table 4-10 Statistical Analysis of Phase A Feed Water Triplicate Samples 44
Table 4-11 Statistical Analysis of Phase A Treated Water Triplicate Samples 45
Figures
Figure 2-1 Schematic of the CampWater System 7
Figure 2-2 Photo of CampWater System 9
Figure 2-3 Close-up Photo of CampWater System 9
Figure 4-1 Phase A Turbidity of Feed and Treated Water 29
Figure 4-2 Phase C Turbidity of Feed and Treated Water 33
Figure 4-3 Phase A Total Arsenic Removal (%) 36
Figure 4-4 Phase A Total Arsenic Concentrations in Feed and Treated Waters 37
Figure 4-5 Phase C Total Arsenic Removal (%) 38
Figure 4-6 Phase C Total Arsenic Concentrations in Feed and Treated Waters 39
Appendices
Appendix A
Append ixB
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
CampWater System Operations & Maintenance Manual
Daily Log Sheets
Calibration Records
Battelle Arsenic Speciation Procedure
Laboratory Analytical Test Reports, Laboratory QA/QC Documentation, and
Chain of Custody Forms
VI
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
API Advanced Pollution Instrumentation Inc.
ASET Applied Science, Engineering and Technology Laboratory
ATT AC University of Alaska Small Public Water System Training and Technical
Assistance Center
cm Centimeter
DISI Delta Industrial Services, Inc.
DQO Date Quality Objectives
DWS Drinking Water Systems Center
°C Degrees Centigrade
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
FTO Field Testing Organization
GPM Gallons per Minute
LOD Limit of Detection
|ig/L Microgram per liter (10~6g/L)
mg/L Milligram per liter (10~3g/L)
mV Millivolts
ND Non Detectable at Reporting Limit
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International (formerly known as the National Sanitation Foundation)
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
O&M Operations and Maintenance Manual
ORP Oxidation - Reduction Potential
PE Performance Evaluation
PSI Pounds per Square Inch
PSTP Product Specific Test Plan
QA Quality Assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
SCFH Standard Cubic Feet per Hour
SWM South wood Manor
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UAA University of Alaska Anchorage
UVA Ultraviolet Absorbance
WET California Waste Extraction Test
vn
-------
Acknowledgements
The Field Testing Organization (FTO), University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), was responsible
for all elements in the testing sequence, including collection of samples, calibration and
verification of instruments, data collection and analysis, data management, data interpretation,
and the preparation of this report.
University of Alaska Anchorage
School of Engineering
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
Contact Person: Craig Woolard, Ph.D., P.E.
The laboratory selected for the majority of off-site analytical work for this study was:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Contact People: Kristie Wilhelm, P.E. and Angela Beach
The laboratory that conducted the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and California
Waste Extraction Test was:
TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc.
5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49588
Phone: (616) 975-4500
Fax: (616)942-7463
E-mail: mmtrimatrix@comcast.net
Contact Person: Michael W. Movinski, Vice President, Sales and Marketing
The manufacturer of the equipment was:
Delta Industrial Services, Inc.
P.O.Box 1109
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Contact Person: Jon Dufendach
UAA wishes to thank Southwood Manor and Water System Services of Anchorage, Alaska for
their assistance and use of their site for testing.
Vlll
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The goal of the ETV Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the
acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this
goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved
in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; with stakeholder
groups consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation
of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative
technologies by developing test plans responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field
demonstrations, 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.
The EPA has partnered with NSF International (NSF) under the ETV Drinking Water Systems
(DWS) Center to verify the performance of small drinking water systems that serve small
communities. A goal of verification testing is to enhance and facilitate the acceptance of small
drinking water treatment equipment by state drinking water regulatory officials and consulting
engineers, while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each location where the
equipment's use is contemplated. NSF meets this goal by working with manufacturers and NSF-
qualified Field Testing Organizations (FTOs) to conduct verification testing under the approved
protocols. It is important to note that verification of the equipment does not mean the equipment
is "certified" by NSF or "accepted" by EPA. Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the
equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations for those conditions tested by
the FTO.
The DWS Center evaluated the performance of the Delta Industrial Services, Inc. (DISI)
CampWater Porta-5 (CampWater) system, which is an oxidation/filtration system used in
drinking water treatment system applications to remove arsenic. The performance capabilities
stated by the manufacturer were used to shape the data quality objectives (DQOs) and testing
plan used for this ETV test. This document provides the verification test results for the
CampWater system.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the CampWater system was a cooperative effort among the following
participants:
NSF International
-------
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), a member of the Alaska Training and Technical
Assistance Center (ATTAC)
DISI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The following is a brief description of all of the ETV participants and their roles and
responsibilities.
1.2.1 NSF International
NSF is an independent, not-for-profit testing and certification organization dedicated to public
health and safety and to the protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, NSF has been instrumental in the development of consensus standards for the
protection of public health and the environment. NSF also provides testing and certification
services to ensure products bearing the NSF Name, Logo and/or Mark meet those standards. The
EPA partnered with NSF to verify the performance of drinking water treatment systems through
the EPA's ETV Program.
NSF provided technical oversight of the verification testing and conducted an audit of the field
analytical and data gathering and recording procedures. NSF also provided review of the
Product Specific Test Plan (PSTP) as well as this report.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: (734) 769-8010
Fax: (734)769-0109
Contact: Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
Email: bartley@nsf.org
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization
UAA, a member of the ATTAC, is a non-profit institution of higher education. UAA conducted
the verification testing of the CampWater system. UAA is an NSF-qualified FTO for the ETV
DWS Center.
The FTO was responsible for conducting the verification test. The FTO provided all needed
logistical support, established a communications network, and scheduled and coordinated
activities of all participants. The FTO was responsible for ensuring the testing location and feed
water conditions were such that the verification testing could meet its stated objectives. The
FTO prepared the PSTP; oversaw the demonstration testing; managed, evaluated, interpreted,
and reported on the data generated by the testing; and evaluated and reported on the performance
of the technology. FTO employees conducted the on-site analyses and data recording during the
testing. The FTO's Project Manager provided oversight of the daily test process, schedule, and
logs.
-------
Contact Information:
University of Alaska Anchorage, School of Engineering
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508
Phone: (907)786-1863
Fax: (907)786-1079
Contact Person: Craig Woolard, PhD, P.E.
Email: afcrw@uaa. al aska. edu
1.2.3 Manufacturer
The treatment system is manufactured by DISI. DISI was responsible for supplying a field-ready
treatment system equipped with all necessary components, including treatment equipment,
instrumentation and controls, and an operations and maintenance (O&M) manual (Appendix A).
DISI was responsible for providing logistical and technical support, as needed, as well as
technical assistance to the FTO during operation and monitoring of the equipment undergoing
field verification testing.
Contact Information:
Delta Industrial Services, Inc.
P.O.Box 1109
Delta Junction, AK 99737
Phone: (907) 895-5053
Fax: (907) 895-6205
Contact Person: Jon Dufendach, President
Email: jwd@deltaindustrial.com
1.2.4 A nalytical Laboratory
All metals analysis and water quality laboratory analyses were performed by NSF's certified
laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The FTO was responsible for appropriate collection,
labeling, storage, and shipping of all samples sent to NSF. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) and California Waste Extraction Test (WET) laboratory analyses were
performed by TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc., coordinated by NSF.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: (734) 769-8010
Fax: (734)769-0109
Contact People: Kristie Wilhelm, P.E. and Angela Beach
TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc.
5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway, SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49588
-------
Phone: (616) 975-4500
Fax: (616)942-7463
E-mail: tntntritnatrix@cotncast.net
Contact Person: Michael W. Movinski, Vice President, Sales and Marketing
1.2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA, through its Office of Research and Development, has financially supported and
collaborated with NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort
was supported by the DWS Center operating under the ETV Program. This document has been
peer reviewed, reviewed by NSF and EPA, and recommended for public release.
1.3 Verification Testing Site
Verification Testing occurred at Southwood Manor (SWM), a residential community located at
9499 Brayton Road, Anchorage, Alaska.
1.3.1 Source Water
The source water for the verification testing was ground water. The SWM well is considered a
back-up water source and was not used by local residents during verification testing. During
testing, the ground water was pumped into two 300-gallon storage tanks equipped with float
switches to control the well pump. Water from the storage tanks was used to supply the
CampWater system.
The SWM test site was equipped with a 200-gallon per minute (gpm) submersible well pump.
Because the existing well pump capacity exceeded the rated capacity of the CampWater system,
two 300-gallon storage tanks were installed to feed the test unit. These tanks were periodically
filled by the well pump resulting in a storage period of up to three hours when the CampWater
system was continuously operating and significantly longer storage periods (up to several days)
under start/stop operations. During the storage period, iron present in the well water may have
been oxidized more readily than reduced arsenic. The unknown extent of oxidation during
storage prior to treatment could have affected the feed water quality to the treatment system.
The verification test consisted of three phases. Phase A included a 327 hour test, which included
start/stop events in the first 48 hours of operation. Water was supplied to the CampWater system
at the naturally occurring pH of 7.9 and an oxidation reduction potential (ORP) set point of 550
millivolts (mV). Phase A was the only time during the verification test when water was treated
without pH adjustment. Phase B included a series of five test runs with varying pH and ORP
values to optimize system performance. Phase C consisted of a 48-hour start/stop test using the
optimum pH (7.5) and ORP (550 mV) values established in Phase B. The ground water quality
was characterized by the collection of samples in Phase A, which occurred between August 28
and September 13, 2003. Seventy-two feed water samples were taken over the course of Phase
A. The average arsenic concentration in the feed water during Phase A was 27 micrograms per
liter (|ig/L). The average feed water iron and manganese concentrations were 0.62 mg/L and 670
Hg/L, respectively. A summary of the feed water quality collected during Phase A is presented
in Table 1-1.
-------
Table 1-1. Source Water Quality (Phase A)
Number , . .
r> + e Analysis TT .
Parameter of T . Units
„ , Location
Samples
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)1
As (V)2
Iron
Manganese
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS)
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
Ultraviolet
Absorbance (UVA)
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH4
72
2
2
-
72
72
17
16
2
2
3
2
2
68
59
NSF
NSF
NSF
--
NSF
NSF
On -site
On -site
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-Site
On-Site
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(cm-1)
(mg/L)
(MTU)
Average
27
18
4
14
0.62
670
205
248
3003
4
2.2
0.085
16
3.6
7.88
Minimum
19
16
<2
14
0.37
270
195
232
290
3
2.0
0.066
14
1.6
7.15
Maximum
33
19
5
14
1.2
860
225
265
300
4
2.4
0.104
17
13
8.16
Standard
Deviation
2.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.15
110
7.35
9.38
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.7
N/A
95%
Confidence
Interval
26-28
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.58-0.66
640 - 700
201 - 209
242-254
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.1-4.0
N/A
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
N/A = Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Interval calculated on data sets of eight or more.
:The value of analysis' Limit of Detection (LOD) was used to calculate statistical information when a value was
non-detect.
No direct measurement. Calculated by subtracting arsenic (III) values from soluble arsenic values.
3 Average value reflects 2 significant figures.
4 The median is reported for the pH data, not the mean.
1.3.2 Pilot Effluent Discharge
The effluent of the pilot treatment unit was discharged into the local storm drain system.
discharge permits were required.
No
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description and Operating Processes
2.1 Equipment Description
The CampWater system uses ozone to oxidize the naturally occurring iron in the feed water to
form a ferric hydroxide solid and convert any arsenic (III) to arsenic (V). The CampWater
system relies on the reduction of arsenic by filtration of the ferric hydroxide solid suspended in
water upon which arsenic (V) is adsorbed. The CampWater system directly filters the ferric
hydroxide solid without any additional flocculation, solid separation, or clarification. The
system is easily transportable and is contained in square plastic shipping containers that fit into a
standard pickup truck or small aircraft. The CampWater system weighs approximately 550
pounds and is composed of three modules (two shipping containers and the ozone contact
chamber). Each module can be moved by one-two individuals. The system, shown
schematically in Figure 2-1, consists of a raw water pump, an ozone generator and contact
chamber, and a series of cartridge filters.
Raw water is first passed through an Amiad 1.5" y-strainer and then through a 20 |j,m FlowMax
pleated cartridge filter in a stainless steel Shelco Model 4FOS4 filter housing. Ozone is injected
into the pre-filtered water by a Mazzei Model 584K venturi-type injector. Ozone is supplied to
the injector by a Clearwater Tech Model CD2000 ozone generator. Contact time is provided in a
54-gallon (approximately) cylindrical stainless steel reaction chamber equipped with an air
release valve and a 1" vent that was piped outside the building during the verification test. The
ozone generator has a rated capacity of 9 grams per hour at approximately 20 standard cubic feet
per hour (SCFH) when ambient air is drawn in and fed to the generator via the built-in air drier.
When fed either with bottled oxygen or from an oxygen concentrator, the production rises to 20
grams per hour at approximately 14 SCFH.
Ozone is drawn into the system by means of a venturi-type injector which creates a negative
pressure that draws ozone gas into the water stream. Ozone flow rate is controlled by adjustment
of bypass valve V-4, which controls the vacuum produced by the venturi. System design allows
regulated recirculation of ozonated (by adjusting valve V-3) water from the outlet of the ozone
tank back through the first two filter housings. Flow rate is controlled by adjustment of valve V-
3 and V-5 (see Figure 2-1). (During the ETV test, measurement of flow rate occurred at the
system outlet.)
After the contact chamber, ozonated water passes through 5|j,m and l|j,m absolute FlowMax
pleated cartridge filters in Shelco Model 4FOS4 filter housings. Filter porosity and type can be
adapted to meet the water-quality conditions at a particular source. The test system
specifications are summarized in Table 2-1. Photos of the test system are provided in Figure 2-2
and Figure 2-3.
-------
GRUNDFOS DME PUMP
FLOWMETER
CH*T-H»H
Figure 2-1. Schematic of the CampWater System.
-------
Table 2-1. CampWater System Specifications
Model: FOA10-01
Serial Number: 100500-01
Electrical Requirements: 220 V single phase, 50 or 60 Hz. Power is supplied to a main
junction box. Power is provided to the ozone generator and raw water pump from the
junction box.
Raw Water Pump: Goulds Model NPE, Number 1ST1F1B4, 5.75" impeller
Construction: Construction is primarily welded and threaded stainless steel piping that
connects stainless steel pressure vessels and an ozone contactor. Ozone contact
chamber (manufactured by Swift Company) has diameter of 15" and a height of 72"
with a total volume of 54 gallons. The approximate weight of this unit is 100 Ibs. Base
unit (which contains the pump, filter housings, and piping is 4' square and weighs
approximately 300 Ibs.). A second 4' square container nouses the main power switch,
the ozone generator, and storage space for spare filters and parts.
Ozone Generator: Cleanwater Tech Inc. Model CD2000 Ozone Generator, with a Clearwater
AD40 Air Dryer that removed moisture in the air prior to feeding it into the ozone
generator.
Filter Vessels: All cartridge filter vessels are Shelco Model 4FOS4. Y-strainer is an Amiad
1.5" unit.
Cartridge Filters: Flow-Max Pleated Cartridge Filter (series of four identical individual 20|j,m
cartridge filters act as pre-filters and are installed upstream of the ozone injection
venture; 5|j,m and l|j,m absolute cartridge filters are installed in series after the ozone
contact chamber). All pleated cartridge filters are 9.75" length, 2.5" outer diameter, and
either 20|j,m, 5|j,m or l|j,m pore size. The filters are manufactured by Flowmatic
Systems, Inc., Dunnellon, FL, (352) 465-2000 and can be ordered using part numbers
FM-20-975 (20|im), FM-5-975 (5\im), and FM-1A-975 (l|im absolute).
Process Flow Rates: The system is designed to produce treated water at a rate of up to
approximately 10 gpm. Actual production rate is a function of the amount of recycled
flow used during operation. A flow rate of 4 gpm was targeted for the ETV test.
Flow Meter: ABB Water Meter Model C700
Flow Switch: ITT McDonnell and Miller Model Number FS4-3
Expected Operating Pressure: Inlet operating pressure (after the raw water pump) was a
maximum of 50 pounds per square inch (psi). Typical head loss across the system is 10-
40 psi. Pressure gauges are installed to indicate pre- and post-filtration pressures.
Waste Water Volumes: No wastewater is generated from the system. Spent cartridge filters
are the only waste product.
On-Skid Instrumentation: Cole Farmer ORP probe is installed after the contact tank and
relays data to a Hanna 982411 ORP controller.
-------
Figure 2-2. Photo of CampWater System.
Figure 2-3: Close-up Photo of CampWater System.
-------
2.2 Operating Process
2.2.1 Startup Procedure
Operation of the CampWater system was initiated by first filling the system with water to purge
air from the vessels. Each time the system was started during start/stop operations, the following
procedure was used:
1. The master and pump switches were turned on, and it was confirmed that the indicator
light for the ozone generator and air drier were on. At least 30 minutes was allowed for
the air drier to warm up if it had been off prior to the startup event.
2. Valve positions were then set as follows:
- Filter housing vent valves: open;
- Valves V-l, V-2, and V-4: open;
- Valve V-3: not adjusted;
- Valve V-5: closed;
- Filter drains: closed;
- Strainer drain: closed; and
- Contact chamber drain: closed.
3. The bypass switch was activated, allowing the pump to operate. The CampWater system
has a low-flow switch that normally stops the pump under low flow (<2 gpm) conditions.
The bypass switch overrides this function until sufficient flow is achieved.
4. Filter housing valves were closed sequentially as the system filled.
5. After the final filter housing was filled and pressure gauges G4 though G6 showed
positive pressure readings, the effluent valve (V-5) was opened.
6. The system was then allowed to run for a few minutes to ensure the contact chamber tank
and all housings were filled.
The system was checked for air build-up by occasionally opening each filter housing vent to
release any trapped air.
2.2.2 Installing or Changing Filters
Filters were replaced at least once per day during operation. Filters were always changed when
flow rate dropped below 2.5 gpm. All 12 filters were replaced (four each of 20|im, 5|im, and
1 |im absolute filter cartridges) during each filter change.
Filters were changed according to the following procedure:
1. The unit was shut down by switching the main pump off.
10
-------
2. The filter housings were drained using the filter drain valves
3. The ring clamp securing the top of the filter housing to the filter base was loosened and
removed.
4. The spent filters were removed and the housing was cleaned of debris, if necessary.
5. Four new flter cartridges were inserted into the housing by sliding them over posts
located at the base of the filter housing.
6. The top plate was replaced and screwed tightly into place to obtain a firm seal between
the top plate and the filter cartridge.
7. The filter housing top was replaced and secured with the ring clamp. Tapping the ring
clamp with a small hammer while tightening helped to assure a good seal.
8. The system was started again, following the steps listed in Section 2.2.1, Startup
Procedure.
11
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
The verification test of the CampWater system consisted of three phases. Phase A was a 327-
hour test with start/stop operation conducted during the first 48 hours of operation. SWM
ground water was supplied at the naturally occurring pH of 7.9 and the ORP set point of 550 mV.
Phase B included a series of five test runs with varying pH and ORP values to identify the
conditions giving optimum system performance. Phase C consisted of 48 hours of start/stop
operation using the optimum pH and ORP values established in Phase B (pH 7.5 and ORP set
point of 550 mV).
Prior to the start of the verification test phases, the following two tasks were performed: Task A
- Characterization of the Feed Water and Task B - Initial Test Runs. Details of these two tasks
are provided in this chapter.
During Phases A, B and C of the verification test, the following tasks were performed:
• Task 1 - Verification Testing Runs
• Task 2 - Feed Water and Finished Water Quality
• Task 3 - Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance
• Task 4 - Arsenic Removal
• Task 5 - Data Management
• Task 6 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
The methods and procedures for each of the above tasks are described in this chapter.
3.1 Task A: Characterization of Feed Water
SWM source water was initially characterized by collecting two sets of samples to determine the
water quality parameters summarized in Table 3-1. Two separate sampling events were
performed before ETV testing began, providing sufficient data to adequately characterize the
untreated water source. The performance objective evaluated was the capability of the system to
reduce total arsenic levels in ground water when sufficient iron was present and ozone was
applied to attain an ORP after the ozone contact chamber of between 500 mV and 900 mV.
All analyses performed during the feed water characterization were conducted at the Applied
Science, Engineering and Technology (ASET) laboratory at UAA or in the field using field test
kits. To reduce the time and expense of the ETV testing effort, these data were not subjected to
rigorous QA and were thus not included in the final verification report.
12
-------
Table 3-1. Water Quality Parameters for Feed Water Characterization
Feed Water Parameter
Temperature
PH
Total Alkalinity
Hardness
TOC
UVA
Turbidity
Sulfate
Iron
Manganese
Arsenic (total and speciation)
TDS
3.2 Task B: Initial Test Runs
Based on the raw water quality, initial test runs were conducted to assure that the selected ozone
dose and cartridge filters were appropriate to obtain arsenic removal via co-precipitation and
filtration. The testing performed during this task provided a basis to determine the proper
frequency of filter changes and sampling schedule for monitoring arsenic removal and whether
an iron coagulant must be added to the raw water to facilitate arsenic co-precipitation.
All arsenic and iron analyses performed during the initial test runs were conducted at the ASET
laboratory at UAA or in the field using field test kits. To reduce the time and expense of the
ETV testing effort, these data were not subjected to rigorous QA and were thus not included in
the final verification report.
During the initial testing, total arsenic concentration, turbidity, pH, iron, ORP, manganese, and
alkalinity were monitored at a sufficient frequency to evaluate system performance and select the
appropriate ozone dose for testing. DISI evaluated the data from the initial testing phase to
select the appropriate ozone dose, cartridge filter specifications, and whether an iron coagulant
dose was needed to meet the criteria specified in their performance objectives. It was determined
during the initial test runs that sufficient iron concentrations were present in the ground water
and an iron coagulant was not warranted during the verification test.
3.3 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs
The CampWater system was tested to evaluate the system's capability to reduce total arsenic
levels in the groundwater when sufficient iron was present and ozone was applied to attain an
ORP of between 500 mV and 900 mV after the ozone contact chamber. The CampWater system
was operated at a target flow rate of 4 gpm. The performance capabilities stated by the
manufacturer were used to shape the DQOs and testing plan used for this ETV test.
The verification testing of the CampWater system consisted of three phases. Phase A was
designed as a test run of a minimum duration of 320 hours and a maximum of 30 days. Treated
13
-------
water samples were collected at regular intervals throughout each day and sent to NSF for
analysis. A series of short runs in Phase B tested arsenic removal capabilities under different pH
and ORP operating conditions. Phase C was a 48-hour start/stop verification test under one
selected pH/ORP condition.
In Phase A, the CampWater system was operated for 327 hours over 17 days. Because start/stop
periods are common in small systems that are candidates for this treatment technology, the first
48 hours of run time was accumulated from a 12-hour-on/12-hour-off schedule for a total of 48
hours of operation. The system was then operated continuously (except during filter changes)
for the remaining 279 hours.
During the 48 hours of start/stop operation, feed and treated water samples were collected after
15 minutes, one hour, four hours, and eight hours of operation in Phases A and C. Sample
collection was initiated after a total of three theoretical detention times (defined as the volume of
water held in the treatment equipment, divided by the rate of flow) had passed after the start of
system operation during all phases. The remainder of the sampling frequency is described in
Task 2.
The system was operated from startup until head loss decreased to 12 psi across the system or the
flow rate dropped below 2.5 gpm. Samples were collected at time of terminal head loss or filter
change.
Sampling procedures for Phases B and C were the same as those under start/stop operations.
3.4 Task 2: Feed Water and Finished Water Quality
Water quality data were collected on the feed and system effluent using a combination of on-site
measurements and off-site analytical laboratory tests. All samples were analyzed using EPA
approved methods or Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA,
1998). All samples for off-site analysis were collected in appropriate sample containers and
shipped to comply with specified holding times.
Table 3-2 summarizes the analytical schedule for the CampWater verification study. Samples
for iron, manganese, pH, ozone, and ORP were collected at the same time arsenic samples were
collected and at any time terminal head loss was recorded.
14
-------
Table 3-2. Summary Analytical Testing Schedule for CampWater ETV Testing
Parameter (facility) Minimum Frequency
Temperature (on-site) Daily
ORP (on-site) Once every four hours during staffed operation1
pH (on-site) Once every four hours during staffed operation
Total Alkalinity (on-site) Daily
Hardness (on-site) Daily
TOC (NSF) Weekly
UVA (NSF) Weekly
Turbidity (on-site) Every two hours during staffed operation with
calibrated bench-top turbidimeter.
Sulfate (NSF) Weekly
Iron (NSF) Once every four hours during staffed operation
Manganese (NSF) Once every four hours during staffed operation
Dissolved Ozone (on-site) Once each day at a sampling point located
immediately after the contact chamber
Total Arsenic (NSF) Once every four hours during staffed operation
Arsenic Speciation (on-site, NSF) Once per week (Battelle method used on-site,
samples sent to NSF for analysis)
TSS (NSF) Weekly
TDS (NSF) Weekly
The system was staffed a minimum of 12 hours per day during the first 48 hours of operation for frequent sample
collection and 8-12 hours per day during the remainder of ETV testing.
3.5 Task 3: Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance
Operating conditions during treatment and equipment performance were documented to develop
operation and maintenance cost factors, such as power used and number of cartridge filters used.
Operating conditions and treatment equipment performance were evaluated using a combination
of quantitative and qualitative parameters. Quantitative parameters that were measured included:
• Feed and treated water quality - see Task 2;
• Power usage - estimated by measuring daily the current drawn by the entire system at the
breaker with a portable ammeter;
• System flow rates - measured each day during staffed operation using both the flow meter
and a stopwatch and volumetric container;
• Head loss across each filter unit - recorded every four hours during staffed operation and
before each filter replacement;
• Total treated flow (gallons of water processed) - recorded using a totalizing meter located
at the system discharge location;
• Filter replacement frequency - recorded occurrences in logbook;
• Air flow rate to ozone generator and dissolved ozone concentration after the contact
chamber - monitored once each day;
• Ozone production rate for the generator - verified daily;
• Ozone off-gas concentration - measured daily; and
15
-------
• Ozone temperature, ozone gas pressure, atmospheric pressure, and dew point - measured
and recorded daily.
The qualitative factors used to evaluate the system's reliability and ease of operation included:
• The frequency that operating parameters must be adjusted to achieve efficient operation;
• The ease of making adjustments to the operating parameters;
• The overall quality of the constructed units;
• The ability to access system components that require routine maintenance;
• The level of skill required for efficient operation; and
• Frequency of equipment failure and redundancy of system components.
Daily log sheets were completed by UAA to quantify the amount of time required to operate the
system.
3.6 Task 4: Arsenic Removal
Arsenic removal during verification testing was evaluated by measuring the arsenic naturally
present in the feed water and the amount of arsenic remaining after treatment. Intensive arsenic
sampling conducted during the start/stop schedule was detailed in Task 1. Based on historical
data and sample results obtained from Tasks A and B, the SWM well contained approximately
25-30 |j,g/L of total arsenic. Samples to evaluate arsenic removal were collected every four
hours during staffed operation during Phases A, B and C. Sample frequency increased during
the start/stop operation. Nineteen pairs of feed water and treated water samples were collected
during the 48-hour start/stop period at the following frequencies: 15 minutes after start-up, after
one hour of operation, after four hours of operation, and after eight hours of operation. This
same sample frequency was performed during Phases B and C, or sampling was more frequent
depending on run duration.
3.7 Task 5: Data Management
UAA established a structure for collecting, verifying, reducing, and reporting data collected
during the verification test. These objectives were accomplished using checklists, schedules, site
visits, and interim reports. To facilitate data collection, a daily log sheet (as shown in Appendix
B) was developed for evaluating the CampWater system. The log sheet listed the required
samples and sample frequency as well as an operations checklist. Each day the log sheet was
copied. Originals were stored in a project notebook in the project manager's office and the
copies were kept on-site.
Once completed, the daily log sheets were reviewed by a member of UAA and checked for
completeness. Any questions about the data were resolved with the individual who collected the
data. The verified data were then entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet designed for this
project. The entered data were spot-checked for accuracy by a second member of the UAA staff.
Laboratory data reports were checked by UAA staff for completeness and for any violations of
the laboratory's written QA/QC parameters. Each chain of custody was also evaluated for
16
-------
completeness. If for some reason samples were present that did not meet the QA/QC criteria, a
second set of samples was immediately collected by the UAA staff. All verified laboratory data
were entered into the Excel database. The entered data were spot-checked for accuracy against
the original laboratory reports by a second member of the UAA staff.
3.8 Task 6: Quality Assurance and Quality Control
UAA maintained strict QA/QC standards to facilitate accurate data interpretation for each
parameter specified in the PSTP.
3.8.1 QA/QC Verification Prior to Testing Period
Before starting the verification test, the skid instruments were cleaned and calibrated and their
accuracy verified. Pressure gauge readings were verified by comparing the readings with a
certified, factory-calibrated pressure gauge. Calibration records can be found in Appendix C.
The pumps and valves were tested to verify that they were in good working order before
initiating the verification test. In addition, all on-skid and off-skid piping were inspected and any
defects immediately repaired.
3.8.2 Daily QA/QC Verification
Daily QA/QC procedures were conducted by UAA to ensure that the equipment being verified
remained in good working order throughout the test period. Each day, the operators visually
verified that all piping and connections were in good condition. All pumps, pressure gauges, and
skid instrumentation were checked for integrity. The condition of each element was noted on the
daily logs. Any problems identified were immediately relayed to DISI for corrective action or
repaired by UAA staff.
Daily verifications of the flow rate instrumentation using a stopwatch and volumetric container
confirmed the inline flow meter performance throughout the duration of the tests.
3.8.3 On-Site Analytical Methods
All on-site parameters were analyzed using the procedures specified in Standard Methods or by
an accepted EPA method.
3.8.3.1 pH. The pH was monitored using Standard Method 4500-tT^ B. The Myron L
Ultrameter 6P pH meter was calibrated and verified daily using pH=4, pH=7, and pH=10
certified buffer solutions. When not in use, the meter's probe was stored in the manner
outlined by the manufacturer.
3.8.3.2 Turbidity. All turbidity measurements were analyzed using a bench-top HACK
21 OOP portable turbidimeter. The turbidimeter was calibrated to the expected turbidity
range of 0-10 NTU. The meter was calibrated according to the manufacturer's
instruction using <1, 20, 100, and 800 NTU standards at the beginning of the verification
test and on a weekly basis. After calibration, the values of three secondary standards
(ranges 0-10, 0-100, 0-1000) were initially recorded. The recorded values were then used
17
-------
to check the meter calibration daily. A StabilCal standard of 1.0 NTU was used to check
calibration of the meter at the lower turbidity range. All glassware was properly cleaned
using a lint-free cloth supplied by the manufacturer.
Grab samples were analyzed daily for turbidity using Standard Method 2130. Samples
were collected from a designated sampling site on the feed and effluent lines. Prior to
sample collection, each sample tap was allowed to run slowly and the beaker was rinsed
three times with the sample water. Samples for analysis were collected carefully to
minimize air entrainment. Each turbidity sample was allowed to warm to a temperature
that eliminated fogging of the sample cell. If feed water samples showed a difference of
5 NTU from prior sampling event, the cell was cleaned and the test repeated. If treated
water samples showed a gain of 1 NTU above prior sample results, the cell was cleaned
and retested. If the second test showed the same result, another grab sample was taken
and tested.
3.8.3.3 Temperature. Water temperature was measured daily using an on-line
thermometer positioned just prior to the first filter housing. The thermometer was
graduated in 1 degrees centigrade (°C), and ranged from 0° to + 50°C. It was not
discovered until after the test was completed that the thermometer was not the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-precision thermometer described in the
PSTP.
3.8.3.4 ORP. The response of the ORP probe was checked against Ricca Chemical
Company's Zobell's Solution for APHA-Redox Standard Solution for Oxidation
Reduction Potential once each week. The test plan had specified calibration twice per
week; however the probe was only tested once per week during Phase A. Probe readings
were recorded on the data sheets. If the probe had not provided an acceptable output, it
would have been replaced. This was not necessary during Phase A. A new probe was
installed prior to Phase C. At this time, the calibration solution was replaced with Cole
Farmer Company's ORP Solution.
The Hanna 982411 ORP controller failed midway through conducting the Phase B series
of pH and ORP tests. The controller was replaced by a newer Hanna model, HI 8720 for
the remainder of Phase B and Phase C.
3.8.3.5 Ozone. Dissolved ozone in the effluent from the ozone contact chamber was
measured on-site daily. HACK Indigo Accu-Vac method was used to take the dissolved
ozone measurements using a HACK DR/2400 Spectrophotometer.
An Advanced Pollution Instrumentation Inc (API) 450M NEMA UV ozone monitor
measured the generator ozone production rate and the rate of ozone off-gas from the
contact chamber. Once each day, flow from the ozone generator was directed through the
monitor and the ozone production rate recorded. Once each day, gas flow from the off-
gas line of the ozone contact chamber was directed through the monitor and ozone off-
gas rate recorded. Gas pressure and temperature were also recorded. Prior to the ETV
18
-------
test, API verified the monitor reading and provided a calibration certificate documenting
monitor performance (see Appendix C).
3.8.3.6 TCLP and California WET. The waste filters with arsenic-iron precipitate that
were generated during Phase A testing were analyzed according to EPA TCLP Method
1311 and the California WET procedure. Three (20 |j,m, 5|j,m, and l|j,m) filter cartridges
were shipped directly to TriMatrix Laboratories, a certified laboratory selected by NSF.
TriMatrix used Method SW 846 6010 for Ag, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Se, Zn and
Method SW 846 7470a for Hg to test the waste filter cartridges.
3.8.4 Chemical Samples Shipped Off-Site for Analyses
All samples were collected for laboratory analysis according to the procedures specified in the
appropriate Standard Methods or EPA methods. Samples were collected and stored on ice
during staffed operation. At the end of staffed operation, the samples were transferred to a UAA
laboratory refrigerator, where the refrigerator temperature was monitored and maintained at 2-
4°C. Temperatures were monitored whenever new samples were added to the storage. The
temperature log is found in Appendix B. Once a week, samples were shipped on ice to NSF
using priority overnight shipping services. Chain of custody sheets were stored with samples at
all times. The methods used to analyze the samples are summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Methods Used to Analyze Laboratory Samples
Parameter Method Number
Standard Method EPA Method
Total Alkalinity
Total Hardness
UVA
TOC
Iron
Manganese
Ozone1
TDS
TSS
Arsenic2
TCLP/California WET
Sulfate
2320 B
2340 C
5910B
5310C
2540 C
2540 D
SW846-6010, SW846-7470a
200.7
200.8
200.8
300.0
Ozone was analyzed in the field using the HACK Indigo Accu-Vac method.
Arsenic speciation was conducted as per the Battelle field ion exchange method included as Appendix D. Note that
each lot of the arsenic speciation columns was checked against a standard sample with known concentrations of
arsenic (III) and arsenic (V). A certified laboratory under contract with NSF prepared the standards. This laboratory
shipped standard samples directly to UAA for resin column testing. NSF subsequently approved the use of UAA
resin columns for the ETV test.
19
-------
3.9 Corrective Action Plan
Table 3-4 summarizes the corrective actions that were performed during verification testing.
Table 3-4. Corrective Action Plan
Parameter Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Any duplicate analysis
Any method blank
Any performance evaluation
(PE) sample
Turbidity
Temperature
Alkalinity, hardness, TOC,
UVA, Iron, Manganese,
TDS, TSS
<10% difference
Criteria set in EPA or
Standard Method used for
analysis (see Table 3-3).
Criteria set in EPA or
Standard Method used for
analysis (see Table 3-3).
<10% difference
< 5 NTU difference
recorded from previous
measurement for feed water
< 1 NTU gain from
previous measurement for
treated water sample
> 20% change from
previous reading
Criteria set in EPA or
Standard Method used for
analysis (see Table 3-3).
Resample duplicates, check
instrument calibration, and
recalibrate, if necessary.
Perform procedures specific to
each analysis as per EPA or
Standard Method shown in
Table 3-3.
Perform procedures specific to
each analysis as per EPA or
Standard Method shown in
Table 3-3.
Check for feed water supply
source change, resample
duplicates, check instrument
calibration, and recalibrate, if
necessary.
Verify turbidity meter
performance and status of
sampling tap, verify fogging of
sample cell had not occurred,
recalibrate, and resample.
Check for change in feed water
source.
Perform procedures specific to
each analysis as per EPA or
Standard Method shown in
Table 3-3.
3.10 Operations and Maintenance
UAA reviewed the O&M manual provided by DISI (Appendix A) and evaluated its applicability
during the verification test. This review included an assessment of the appropriateness of the
material for the pumps, filters, ozone generator, and instrumentation on the treatment system, as
well as the tanks, piping, and filter vessels. UAA also evaluated the manual to determine if the
instructions for proper operation of the CampWater system are appropriate. The elements
evaluated included:
20
-------
• Starting and shutting down the system;
• Settings and adjustment on the ozone generator;
• Control of filtration rate;
• Control of recycle;
• Changing filters and returning the unit to service; and
• Filter selection.
3.11 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the verification project specified procedures that
were used to ensure data quality and integrity. The data quality parameters that were established
for the verification test included:
• Representativeness: degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent the
conditions being evaluated;
• Accuracy: difference between the experimentally determined sample result and the
accepted reference (or standard) value;
• Precision: measure of the random error associated with individual measurements;
• Statistical uncertainty: amount of variation around the mean; and
• Completeness: amount of data collected from a measurement process compared to the
amount that was expected to be obtained.
The policies and procedures that were used to ensure that these data quality parameters were
evaluated appropriately are presented in the following sections.
3.11.1 Data Representativeness
The following procedures ensured representativeness of the data collected during the verification
project.
• A single location for sampling the feed water and one for sampling the effluent were
identified after setup, and all water quality samples were drawn from these locations
throughout the project. Sample collection times were noted on the daily log sheets.
• NSF supplied all of the containers for water quality samples analyzed at their laboratory.
These sample containers were transported to SWM in a cooler complete with ice pack
and chain of custody forms.
• The operators noted the time of sampling for any on-site analysis on the daily data sheets
as well as on the chain of custody forms that accompanied the samples for off-site
analysis.
• The sampling schedule in Table 3-2 was strictly adhered to so that sufficient data for
evaluating process performance were collected.
• The operators checked the operating condition of the test skid daily and recorded their
observations on the daily checklist.
21
-------
3.11.2 Data Accuracy
Data accuracy was ensured by adopting the following combination of verification and calibration
procedures.
• Instrumentation used in daily water quality analyses was calibrated at least once every
week. Before analyzing a sample on-site, a check standard was analyzed to determine if
the instrument was calibrated (i.e., if the standard value was within +/- 10% of the
calibrated value). If not, the instrument was recalibrated before analyzing the water
quality sample. The results of all check standards and calibrations were recorded by the
UAA staff and included in Appendices B and C.
• Flow rates indicated by the system instrumentation were verified once every day using a
stopwatch and a volumetric container.
• The pressure gauges used on the test skid were verified prior to initiation of verification
testing by comparing gauge readings with factory-calibrated pressure gauges.
• The NSF laboratory prepared, labeled, and shipped all required sample bottles in a sealed
cooler to UAA for each sampling event. Chain of custody forms were completed for
each set of samples and included in Appendix E.
• Accuracy for spiked samples and recovery for laboratory control analyses were
performed by the NSF laboratory as part of their own QA/QC protocol. All samples
performed within a satisfactory range.
3.11.3 Data Precision
Data precision was evaluated by calculating the standard deviation and percent relative standard
deviation for replicate samples. All of the off-site water quality analyses had one set of samples
collected in triplicate during Phase A (see analytical schedule in Table 3-2). No duplicates or
triplicates were collected during Phase C. The results of these triplicate samples were used to
calculate a mean, a standard deviation, and a percent relative standard deviation.
% Relative Standard Deviation = S(100)/XaVg
Where: S is the standard deviation;
n is the number of samples;
X is the recovery value;
XaVgis the arithmetic mean of the recovery values; and
Standard deviation is defined as:
S=[(X1-X)2/(n-l)f5
3.11.4 Statistical Uncertainty
The statistical uncertainty of the water quality analyses was evaluated by calculating the 95%
confidence interval for samples collected eight or more times during the verification test period.
22
-------
This included the following parameters: alkalinity, temperature, iron, manganese, hardness, total
arsenic, ozone, ORP, and turbidity.
Confidence Interval = XIV 1,1-0/2 (S/Vn)
Where: X is the sample mean;
S is the sample standard deviation;
n is the number of independent measurements included in the data set;
t is the Student's t distribution value with n-1 degrees of freedom; and
a is the significance level, defined for 95% confidence as: 1-0.95 = 0.05.
For a 95% confidence level, the equation becomes:
95% Confidence Interval = Xi In-1,0.975 (SA/n)
3.11.5 Completeness
Completeness refers to the amount of valid, acceptable data collected from a measurement
process compared to the amount expected to be obtained. The completeness objective for data
generated during this verification test was based on the number of samples collected and
analyzed for each parameter and/or method.
Completeness was defined as follows for all measurements:
%C = (V/T) X 100
Where:%C = percent completeness;
V = number of measurements judged valid; and
T = total number of measurements.
3.12 Health and Safety
The following health and safety procedures adhered to during the verification study ensured the
safety of the operators and consumers served by SWM.
• The test skid was isolated from SWM's normal water treatment process. As such, the
performance of the verification study did not affect the treated water quality provided to
the residents.
• Power to the CampWater system was provided by installing a dedicated breaker in the
existing panel in accordance with current electrical codes.
• Excess ozone was vented to the atmosphere through a 1" vent hose that penetrated the
building wall. This vent hose was checked each day to verify that it was free of ice or
obstructions. In the event that the vent hose were to clog during unstaffed operation,
backpressure would be created in the ozone contact chamber that would eventually stop
flow through the system. Under no-flow conditions, the flow switch shown in Figure 2-1
would shut down the system.
23
-------
The cartridge filters were stored on-site until the waste disposal requirements were
determined. The TCLP results, as presented in Table 4-6, showed that the spent cartridge
filters could be disposed legally in the local landfill. Had the TCLP results shown
differently, the spent cartridges would have been disposed through the ASET Laboratory
process for hazardous waste.
24
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
ETV testing on the CampWater system occurred in three phases:
• Phase A was initiated on August 28, 2003. Start/stop operations were performed on the
CampWater system for the first four days, and then the system was run continuously
except for filter change-outs until September 13, 2003. The 48-hour start/stop period
consisted of a 12-hour-on/12-hour-off schedule. The system was run for a total of 327
hours over the 17-day period. The system was operated using the natural feed water pH
value of 7.9 and an ORP set point of 550mV.
• Phase B represents a series of runs conducted between October 11, 2003 and December
12, 2003 to understand the influence of pH and ORP on system performance. Six pairs of
pH and ORP operating conditions were tested: pH 7.9/ORP 550 mV, pH 7.5/ORP 550
mV, pH 7.0/ORP 550 mV, pH 7.9/ORP 650 mV, pH 7.5/ORP 650 mV, and pH 7.0/ORP
650 mV. Since the system ran at pH 7.9 (natural pH) and ORP 550 mV during Phase A,
the data from Phase A were used for that pair of conditions.
• Phase C was a 48-hour verification test of the CampWater system operated with an
adjusted pH of 7.5 and an ORP set point of 550mV, which was the optimum pair of
operating conditions established in Phase B. This phase was conducted over eight days,
between February 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004.
The results of all three phases are summarized in this chapter according to the tasks developed
for the verification test. Each task reports the relevant information from Phases A, B, and C:
• Task 1 - Verification Testing Phases
• Task 2 - Feed Water and Finished Water Quality
• Task 3 - Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance
• Task 4 - Arsenic Removal
• Task 5 - Data Management
• Task 6 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Copies of the data collected during the verifications test and supporting documentation are
provided in the appendices. On-site daily log sheets and logbook pages are found in Appendix
B. Laboratory analytical test reports, laboratory QA/QC documentation, and chain of custody
forms are found in Appendix E.
4.2 Task 1 - Verification Testing Phases
Phase A
During the verification test Phase A, 72 feed water samples and 73 treated water samples were
collected for total arsenic analysis. Six pairs of samples comprised of four triplicate analyses
25
-------
(two for feed, two for treated), of which the first data point of each triplicate was included in the
summary statistical analysis. All samples were sent to NSF for analyses. System conditions
during the tests were the following:
• Ozone was injected to maintain an ORP after the ozone contact chamber of 550mV;
• Target flow rate of treated water was 5gpm; and
• The pH of the water was not adjusted.
Phase B
Of the six possible pH/ORP pairs, five sets of pH/ORP conditions were each evaluated using a 6-
hour test run in Phase B (the sixth set of conditions [pH 7.9/ORP 550 mV] is represented by data
from Phase A). Because the original ORP controller had to be replaced in November, the results
for the initial test under 650mV/pH 7.5 operating conditions were discarded and the test
procedure was repeated.
A total of 31 sample pairs of feed and treated water were collected and analyzed for arsenic, iron,
and manganese at all five operating conditions. Each of the five tests lasted approximately six
hours. New filters were installed prior to the start of each test, and a minimum of five sample
pairs were collected at each operating condition. On-site measurements of pH, ORP, and
turbidity were taken concurrently with water samples. Flow rate was monitored to maintain
constant flow. Instrument calibration, sample handling and storage, and system monitoring
procedures outlined in the verification test plan were followed. All off-site analyses were
conducted by NSF.
A ProMinent Dulcometer PFID pH controller was used to add muriatic acid (HC1) prior to the
influent entry to the CampWater system. The controller was calibrated according to
manufacturer's specifications and used to maintain the desired pH within an error of ±0.1. Tests
were conducted using a pH range of 7.0-8 (natural feed water pH was assumed to be pH = 7.9).
The ORP controller was adjusted to set the target ORP point, either 550mV or 650mV.
Phase C
A 48-hour -verification run was conducted using the same testing procedures, sampling times,
and QA/QC requirements used in Phase A. The intent was to conduct four, 12-hour start/stop
cycles to verify the improved removal efficiency resulting from lower feed water pH (7.5) paired
with an ORP set point of 550mV, which were the optimum conditions established in Phase B
testing. However, due to the cold temperatures and the inability to discharge the treated water
into the local storm sewer, UAA was forced to use a floor drain located within the well house.
The capacity of the floor drain varied over the course of the test, accommodating anywhere from
thee to nine hours of effluent disposal. A total of 29 feed water and 29 treated water samples
were collected and analyzed for arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations during Phase C.
Two sets of arsenic speciation and other weekly water analyses were collected. All off-site
analyses were conducted by NSF.
26
-------
4.3 Task 2 - Feed Water and Finished Water Quality
Phase A
Table 4-1 contains the statistical summaries of measured feed water quality parameters for Phase
A. Laboratory analyses of the feed water samples show an average concentration of 27 |j,g/L
total arsenic and a soluble arsenic concentration of 18 ng/L. Speciation of soluble arsenic feed
water samples resulted in an average of 4 (ig/L arsenic (III) and 14 |j,g/L arsenic (V). The feed
water contained an average of 0.62 mg/L iron and 670 [ig/L manganese. Based on the data
collected in Phase A, the source water contained an iron-to-arsenic weight ratio of 23:1 and a
molar iron-to-arsenic ratio of 31:1.
Table 4-1. Phase A
Number
Parameter of
Samples
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)1
As (V)2
Iron
Manganese
Total
Alkalinity
Total
Hardness
TDS
TSS
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
Turbidity
Turbidity
Days 1-12
Turbidity
Days 13 -17
PH4
72
2
2
2
72
72
17
16
2
2
o
5
2
2
68
53
15
59
Feed Water Quality
Analysis TT . .
T ,. Units Average
Location &
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-site
On-site
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(cnf1)
(mg/L)
(NTU)
(NTU)
(NTU)
-
27
18
4
14
0.62
670
205
248
3003
4
2 2
0.085
16
3.6
3.6
3.2
7.88
Minimum
19
16
<2
14
0.37
270
195
232
290
3
2.0
0.066
14
1.6
1.8
1.6
7.15
Maximum
33
19
5
14
1.2
860
225
265
300
4
2.4
0.104
17
13
13
4.8
8.16
Standard
Deviation
2.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.15
110
7.35
9.38
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.7
1.9
0.90
N/A
95%
Confidence
Interval
26-28
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.58-0.66
640-700
201 - 209
242 - 254
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.1-4.0
3.0-4.2
2.7-3.8
N/A
N/A = Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Interval calculated on data sets of eight value or more.
1 The value of analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
No direct measurement. Calculated by subtracting arsenic (III) values from soluble arsenic values.
3 Average value reflects 2 significant figures.
4 The median is reported for the pH data, not the mean.
27
-------
Table 4-2 contains the statistical summaries of measured treated water quality parameters for
Phase A. Laboratory analyses show an average concentration of 18 ng/L total arsenic remaining
in the treated water samples.
Table 4-2. Phase A Treated Water Quality
Number Analysis Units Average
of Location
Samples
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)1
As(V)2
Iron1
Manganese
Total
Alkalinity
Total
Hardness
TDS
TSS1
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
Dissolved
Ozone1
ORP
Turbidity
Turbidity
Day si- 12
Turbidity
Days 13 -17
PH4
73
2
2
2
73
73
17
17
2
2
3
2
2
17
123
75
60
15
59
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-site
On-site
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
(|jg/L)
(p.g/L)
(|jg/L)
(p.g/L)
(mg/L)
(Hg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(cm"1)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(NTU)
(NTU)
(NTU)
-
18
152
< 2
132
0.16
200
205
247
3103
<2
2.2
0.025
16
0.06
542
1.3
1.5
0.25
7.86
Minimum
8
14
<2
12
<0.02
23
195
230
300
<2
2.0
0.023
14
<0.01
375
0.10
0.20
0.10
7.67
Maximum
27
15
<2
13
0.41
540
215
264
310
<2
2.4
0.028
17
0.24
592
3.9
3.9
0.45
7.98
Standard
Deviation
4.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.15
160
6.48
9.98
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.06
31
1.0
0.90
0.10
N/A
95%
Confidence
Interval
17-19
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.11-0.20
160 - 250
201 - 209
241 - 253
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.02-0.09
536 - 548
1.0- 1.5
1.3- 1.8
0.15-0.30
N/A
N/A = Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Interval calculated on data sets of eight value or more.
1 The value of analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
2 No direct measurement. Calculated by subtracting arsenic (III) values from soluble arsenic values.
3 Average value reflects 2 significant figures.
4 The median is reported for the pH data, not the mean.
Figure 4-1 plots the turbidity measurements of both the feed and treated water during Phase A.
Average turbidity for the feed water was 3.6 NTU, with a peak value of 13 NTU measured on the
first day of start/stop operation.
Treated water turbidity averaged 1.3 NTU. However, a noticeable improvement in the treated
water turbidity occurred in the last third of the testing period (e.g., from September 9-13, 2003).
Prior to September 9, the nut used to seal the plate against the filter elements was inadequately
tightened thus allowing untreated water to occasionally bypass the filter elements. After
September 9, additional force was systematically applied to the nut to properly seat the top filter
plate. The average turbidity of the treated water after the filter vessel was properly tightened
(between September 9-13) was 0.25 NTU, compared to an average turbidity of 1.5 NTU in the
28
-------
treated water before the filter vessel was properly tightened (between August 28 and September
8). The iron concentration of the treated water also showed improved removal after September
9. The iron concentration prior to September 9 was 0.20 mg/L whereas the concentration after
September 9 was 0.03 mg/L. No significant improvement in arsenic removal was recorded as a
result of the change in operating procedure.
OFeed
• Treated
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD CD
CD
CD
i i
00 CD
CM CM
<<C/>C/>C/>C/>C/>C/>
O T-
00 CO
CM CO
CD
00 CD
CM CO
Date
Figure 4-1 Phase A Turbidity of Feed and Treated Water.
29
-------
Phase B
The arsenic concentrations in the feed and treated waters during Phase B are presented in Table
4-3. Reducing the pH to 7.5 (from pH 7.9) improved the arsenic removal efficiency in all
operation conditions. Maintaining the ORP at 550mV but reducing the pH of the feed water
stream to pH 7.5 produced the best removal efficiency of 77%. These conditions were selected
to conduct the 48-hour start/stop verification run (Phase C).
Table 4-3. Phase B Test Series Results
Number . . .
f Analysis TT .
ot *. Units Average
c , Location °
Samples
Minimum
Maximum
Removal
Efficiency
pH 7.9/ORP 550mV (Phase A data)
Feed Arsenic 72
Treated Arsenic 73
pH 7.5/ORP 550mV
Feed Arsenic 5
Treated Arsenic 5
pH 7.0/ORP 550mV
Feed Arsenic 5
Treated Arsenic 5
pH 7.9/ORP 650mV
Feed Arsenic 6
Treated Arsenic 6
pH 7.5/ORP 650mV
Feed Arsenic 5
Treated Arsenic 5
pH 7.0/ORP 650mV
Feed Arsenic 6
Treated Arsenic 6
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
27
18
26
6
24
11
23
7
22
9
23
9
19
8
22
4
23
8
21
6
14
6
17
7
33
27
29
9
27
16
24
8
35
11
28
13
33%
77%
54%
70%
59%
61%
30
-------
Phase C
Phase C testing was conducted at a feed water pH of 7.5 and an ORP set point of 550 mV. Table
4-4 and Table 4-5 contain the statistical summaries of measured feed and treated water quality
parameters for the 48-hour verification run. Laboratory analyses of the feed water samples show
an average total and soluble arsenic concentration of 18 |j,g/L and 10 ng/L, respectively. The
average arsenic (III) concentration was <2 ng/L, and the average arsenic (V) concentration was 9
|ig/L. Treated water produced during Phase C contained an average total and soluble arsenic
concentration of 9 |j,g/L each. Arsenic speciation indicated that no detectable (<2 ng/L) arsenic
(III) and 7 |J,g/L arsenic (V) were present in the treated water. The feed water contained an
average of 0.51 mg/L iron and 540 |J,g/L manganese.
Table 4-4. Phase C Feed Water Quality
Number , . , , 95%
,, Analysis TT . . _ ,. . _ , . Standard _, „..
of T . Units Average Minimum Maximum _ . . Confidence
„ , Location Deviation T , ,
Samples fnterval
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)1
As(V)2
Iron
Manganese
Total
Alkalinity
Total
Hardness
TDS
TSS
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
Turbidity
PH3
29
3
o
5
o
5
29
29
8
8
2
2
2
2
o
5
36
29
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-site
On-site
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-Site
On -Site
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(Hg/L)
(mg/L)
(Hg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(cm"1)
(mg/L)
(NTU)
-
18
10
<2
8
0.51
540
180
244
300
4
1.7
0.0619
13
7.7
7.44
13
9
<2
7
0.04
260
155
228
270
o
5
1.6
0.0510
13
4.9
7.21
25
10
<2
8
1.0
780
240
280
320
4
1.7
0.0728
14
15.5
7.62
3.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.25
147
29.1
17.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2
N/A
17-20
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.40-0.62
480 - 600
151 - 209
227 - 262
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.8-8.6
N/A
N/A = Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Interval calculated on data sets of eight value or more.
1 The value of lab analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
No direct measurement. Calculated by subtracting arsenic (III) values from soluble arsenic values.
3 The median is reported for the pH data, not the mean.
-------
Table 4-5. Phase C Treated Water Quality
Number , .
f Analysis TT . .
01 J. Units Average
c , Location &
Samples
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)1
As (V)2
Iron1
Manganese
Total
Alkalinity
Total
Hardness
TDS
TSS
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
ORP
Turbidity
PH3
29
3
3
3
29
29
8
8
2
2
2
2
3
42
36
29
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-site
On-site
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
(MgflO
(MgflO
(MgflO
(MgflO
(mg/L)
(MgflO
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(cnf1)
(mg/L)
(mV)
(MTU)
--
9
9
< 2
7
0.04
51
174
229
280
<2
1.6
0.0261
15
559
0.60
7.41
Minimum
5
6
<2
4
<0.02
2
145
213
260
<2
1.5
0.0225
13
399
0.15
7.20
Maximum
15
12
< 2
10
0.19
130
190
248
300
<2
1.7
0.0296
20
782
1.8
7.59
Standard
Deviation
3.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.04
36
15.1
11.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
83.9
0.45
N/A
95%
Confidence
Interval
8- 10
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.03-0.06
35-67
158- 189
218-240
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
529 - 590
0.40-0.80
N/A
N/A = Standard Deviation and 95% Confidence Interval calculated on data sets of eight value or more.
1 The value of lab analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
2 No direct measurement. Calculated by subtracting arsenic (III) values from soluble arsenic values.
3 The median is reported for the pH data, not the mean.
32
-------
Figure 4-2 plots the turbidity measurements of both the feed and treated waters over each of the
eight days of start/stop operations during Phase C. Average turbidity for the feed water was 7.7
NTU, over twice the average turbidity of the feed water in Phase A. Treated water turbidity was
consistently less than 1 NTU.
s
z
^^
^2
^H
3
16 -
J A
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0 -
0 °Fe
• Tr<
O
O
o o
0 0 $
o o o ^
0 £ £ ^ O
o * o o o
i * • .
^^V ^^A ^B ^^J
1 ' ' ' ^
"8"§"§"§"§"§"§
-P
CO
^p
00
4.4
Figure 4-2 Phase C Turbidity of Feed and Treated Water.
Task 3 - Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance
During Phases A and C, there were no problems with the system operation, system equipment, or
monitoring equipment. On the first day of Phase A, the main 480 volt 3 phase power supplying
the well house was lost. The test start was delayed for several hours, but there was no damage or
impact on any equipment. During an operational run of Phase B, the ORP controller failed. The
equipment was replaced, and the data collected during the failed run was discarded.
Several operating conditions and equipment performance factors were monitored during the
verification run. The results can be found in the daily log sheets in Appendix B and are
summarized below.
4.4.1 Power Usage
A portable ammeter was used to measure the current drawn by the entire system at the 220-volt
single phase 50Hz breaker. Separate measurements of both legs were collected and averaged on
33
-------
a daily basis. During Phase A, the average current draw was 6.64 amps with a standard deviation
of+/- 0.36 amps.
At 220 volts and 6.64 average amps, 477 kWh were consumed over the 327 hours of Phase A,
resulting in an overall energy consumption for the CampWater system of 6.3 kWh/1000 gallons
treated.
4.4.2 Total Treated Flow
The total volume of water treated over the course of each phase was measured using a totalizing
flow meter. The meter reading was recorded at the start and finish of each phase of testing. This
reading was recorded on the daily log sheets. The total volume of water treated for Phase A was
75,525 gallons, calculated by subtracting the final meter value on September 13, 2003, from the
initial reading on August 28, 2003. The total volume of water treated for Phase C was 12,430
gallons, which the sum of the volume of water treated during each day of start/stop operation.
4.4.3 System Flow Rates
The flow meter, which measured the treated water volume and flow rate, was verified once per
day using a stopwatch and 2.5 gallon volumetric container. The verifications showed that the
flow meter was accurately measuring flow rates over the duration of the test. Using the total
treated volume and the total time of Phase A, the average flow rate was 3.85 gallons per minute.
The average flow rate during Phase C was 4.25 gallons per minute. Because sample collection
was initiated after a total of three detention periods had passed after the start of the start/stop
periods, the actual duration of running the CampWater system was longer by at least four hours.
Incorporating this time into the average flow rate calculation yields a more realistic flow rate of
3.93 gallons per minute.
4.4.4 Head Loss
The head loss was recorded across each of the filter canisters. The data cannot be summarized
statistically since the values are dependent on flow rate, filter type, and filter run time. The
measurements are recorded on the daily log sheets presented in Appendix B.
4.4.5 Ozone
Ozone production, off-gas ozone concentration, and the dissolved ozone in the water were
measured once per day during Phase A. Ozone production and ozone off-gas concentration were
measured once per day during Phase C. No measurements of ozone were performed during
Phase B. To measure the ozone production, the system was stopped and the tubing connected to
the venturi injector was redirected to the ozone monitor to measure the concentration, gas
pressure, and gas temperature. To measure the off-gas ozone concentration, the off-gas vent was
streamed through the monitor. Table 4-6 summarizes the average concentration of the ozone gas
measurements during Phase A. All of the readings were collected and recorded on the daily log
sheets presented in Appendix B.
34
-------
Table 4-6. Ozone Measurements (Phase A)
Number . . . „ , , 95%
f Analysis TT . . _ ,. . _ , . Standard „ „.,
01 J. Units Average Minimum Maximum ~ ... Commence
. Location & Deviation T .
Samples Interval
Production
Air Flow Rate
Off- Gas
Dissolved
Ozone1
17
15
17
17
On-site
On-Site
On-site
On-site
(% wt)
SCFH
(% wt)
(% wt)
0.80
6
0.027
0.06
0.453
3.5
0.015
<0.01
1.7
8
0.054
0.24
0.32
1
0.010
0.06
0.61-
6-
0.021 -
0.02-
0.99
7
0.033
0.09
The value of lab analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
4.4.6 Ambient Parameters
The average feed water temperature during Phases A and C was 4°C. However, the average air
temperatures were lower during Phase C, which ran during February and March 2004, compared
to Phase A, which ran during August and September 2003. The atmospheric pressure, dew
point, and temperatures readings can all be found in the daily log sheets in Appendix B.
4.4.7 Qualitative Factors Evaluating System Reliability and Ease of Operation
There were few moving parts on the CampWater system that required monitoring or
maintenance. Operators monitored effluent turbidity and canister pressure gauges to know when
a filter change was needed. The ORP probe needed to be cleaned regularly, and the ORP
controller should be monitored to make sure the system operates at the set ORP range. The
system is small and can be set up to provide easy access to all components for routine
maintenance. The level of skill required for efficient operation was low, and the system had a
low-flow switch that would shut the pump down under unfavorable operating conditions.
Filters were replaced 12 times during Phase A, representing an average treated volume of 6294
gallons per filter set. The flow rate of the system decreased as the capacity of the filter cartridges
was approached. All 12 filter cartridges were changed when the flow rate dropped (four of each
20|im, 5|im, and l|im-absolute filter sizes) below 2.5 gpm in this test. A total of 144 filter
cartridges were used during Phase A. The filter manufacturer claims that the filters can be
washed and reused, which may reduce operating costs. However, this performance claim was
not evaluated during the course of the verification test. The 20- jim filters and/or 5|im filters may
have greater flow volume capacity and can be used longer than the 1 Jim-absolute filters prior to
replacement. No tests were performed to evaluate this option.
Operators needed to tighten the top plate tightly against the filter elements to create a positive
seal. Failure to achieve a tight seal showed an increase in turbidity and iron concentrations in the
treated water, and could potentially impact the removal rates of other particulates.
35
-------
4.5 Task 4 - Arsenic Removal
Phase A
Figure 4-3 plots the percent removal of total arsenic over the course of verification Phase A. The
percent removal of total arsenic ranges from 10% to 63%, with an average removal efficiency of
33%.
70% -
60% -
s!. 50% -
O 40% H
o
'E
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
O)
<
00
CM
O)
<
O
CO
Q.
CD
C/D
Q.
CD
C/>
i
CO
Q.
CD
op
IT)
Q.
CD
o
Q.
CD
Cf)
i
CD
Q.
CD
C/)
Q.
CD
op
CO
Figure 4-3: Phase A Total Arsenic Removal (%).
36
-------
Figure 4-4 shows the feed and treated water total arsenic concentrations during Phase A. The
feed water arsenic concentrations range from 19 to 33 |ig/L, while the treated water arsenic
concentration ranges from 8 to 27 |ig/L.
40 n
Feed
Treated
Figure 4-4: Phase A Total Arsenic Concentrations in Feed and Treated Waters.
37
-------
Phase C
The average concentration of arsenic in the treated water during Phase C was 9 ng/L. Nine of
the 29 treated water samples exceeded 10 |j,g/L arsenic. For three of the samples over 10 |ig/L,
low iron concentrations (0.04 and 0.08 mg/L) were measured in the feed water. Of the nine
samples that exceeded 10 |ig/L, six instances occurred when the iron-to-arsenic weight ratio of
the feed water was under 20:1 (recommended weight ratio for co-precipitation of iron to treat
arsenic, Sorg 2002).
Figure 4-5 shows the arsenic removal over the course of Phase C. The average removal
efficiency of the CampWater system in operating conditions of pH 7.5 and ORP 550 mV was
50%. Figure 4-6 graphically displays the arsenic concentrations in both the feed and treated
water samples during Phase C.
80% -
70% -
60% -
7-T 50% -
40% -
O
E
o
'§ 30% H
S2
** 20% -
10% -
0%
Samples overtime
Figure 4-5: Phase C Total Arsenic Removal (%).
As previously described, the two 300-gallon storage tanks installed to feed the test unit were
periodically filled by the well pump resulting in a storage period of up to three hours when the
CampWater system was continuously operating and significantly longer storage periods (up to
several days) under start/stop operations. Untreated water samples were collected after the
storage tank and before entering the first filtration unit. During the storage period, iron present
in the well water may have been oxidized more readily than reduced arsenic. The unknown
extent of oxidation during storage prior to treatment could have affected the feed water quality to
the treatment system.
38
-------
30 n
25 -
O)
c
0)
O
c
O
O
O
'c
0)
S2
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
Samples overtime
Figure 4-6: Phase C Total Arsenic Concentrations in Feed and Treated Waters.
4.6 Task 5 - Data Management
Data management for the verification test was accomplished using the procedures described in
Section 3.7, including the use of daily log sheets and a site visit. UAA staff completed the daily
log sheets provided in Appendix B each day of the ETV test. The data sheets were reviewed by
the project manager and originals held in the UAA office.
4.7 Task 6 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Acceptable QA/QC of the verification test was accomplished using the procedures described in
Section 3.8. Meter verifications, quantification of data precision and statistical uncertainty, and a
summary of relevant notes that qualify study data are provided below.
4.7.1 pH meter Verification
The pH meter was calibrated daily with pH=4, 7, and 10 buffers. The calibration was then
checked using the same pH=4, 7, and 10 buffers. All of the manually checked readings were
within 3% of the calibrated value. On day 12 of Phase A, the pH was calibrated but only
checked using the pH=7 buffer and on day 17 (final day), the pH meter calibration was not
performed. During Phase B, the pH meter was calibrated but not checked during the run with no
pH adjustment of the feed water and ORP at 650 mV.
39
-------
4.7.2 Turbidity Calibration
The turbidimeter was calibrated using Primary StabilCal standards four times during the 17-day
test period (Phase A), four times during Phase B tests, and five times during Phase C. Following
calibration, secondary gel ex standards of 0-10, 0-100, and 0-1000 NTU ranges were measured,
recorded, and used to check the readings for subsequent calibration verifications. A StabilCal
standard of NTU=1.0 was used to verify the lower turbidity range. The calibration verification
readings (of the secondary standards of 0-10, 0-100, and 0-1000) never differed more than 2.2%
from the set value for the gelex standards. The calibration verification of the 1.0 NTU standard
showed more variance with the set value, but at most varied approximately 13%.
4.7.3 Thermometer
The in-line thermometer was not NIST-certified, nor was it calibrated or verified weekly against
a NIST-certified thermometer during the verification testing. However, it was an industrial-
grade thermometer that provided consistent readings between 3 and 5°C during all phases of the
ETV test.
4.7.4 ORP Probe
A new Cole-Parmer ORP probe was installed prior to the start of verification Phase A. The ORP
probe was removed and calibrated against Ricca Chemical Company's Zobell's Solution at the
start of the each phase and once each week. Each calibration was within 10% of the ORP value
specified by the manufacturer of the ORP calibration solution. Therefore, the same probe
remained in place for the duration of Phases A and B. The probe was replaced before the start of
verification Phase C.
4.7.5 Ozone Monitor
An API 450M NEMA UV ozone monitor measured the generator ozone production rate and the
rate of ozone off-gas from the contact chamber. Prior to the start of the ETV testing, API
verified the monitor reading and provided a calibration certificate documenting monitor
performance. Due to the historical stability of similar instruments, API suggested that
calibration after the testing to certify readings was only necessary if the instrument failed or was
under continual use for more than one year. Since the monitor provided stable readings over the
course of the verification testing, UAA did not seek calibration confirmation after the testing was
completed.
4.7.6 TCLP and California WET
Spent cartridge filters were sent to TriMatrix Laboratories, which conducted the TCLP and
California WET tests on the material. Tables 4-7, 4-8, and list the laboratory findings for each
filter type. In all cases, the filter waste passed the current TCLP regulatory limits for all tested
metals. Therefore, the waste can be disposed legally in regular landfills in Alaska. The results
show that all filter sizes failed the current California WET regulatory limit for arsenic waste. For
states that use the WET test results for waste disposal, the filters would need to be processed as
40
-------
hazardous waste.
Appendix E.
Full laboratory results for the TCLP and California WET are found in
Table 4-7. TCLP and California WET Results for 1 micron Filters
1 micron
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Nickel
Nickel
Lead
Lead
Selenium
Selenium
Silver
Silver
Zinc
Zinc
Mercury
Mercury
Analysis
Type
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
Analytical
Result (mg/L)
NDj
6.68
1.08
11.7
ND
0.026
ND
ND
0.082
0.96
0.021
0.10
ND
ND
ND
0.21
ND
ND
0.83
2.48
ND
ND
Reporting Limit
(mg/L)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.010
0.20
0.20
0.0002
0.0020
Regulatory
Limit1'2
(mg/L)
5.0
5.0
100.0
100.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
NA
25
NA
20
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
NA
250
0.2
0.2
1 40CFR261.24 Toxicity Characteristics.
California regulations 66261.24.
3 ND=Non-detect.
41
-------
Table 4-8. TCLP and California WET Results for 5 micron Filters
5 micron
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Nickel
Nickel
Lead
Lead
Selenium
Selenium
Silver
Silver
Zinc
Zinc
Mercury
Mercury
Analysis
Type
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
Analytical
Result (mg/L)
NDj
8.23
1.19
14.2
0.013
0.032
ND
0.051
0.10
1.12
0.021
0.12
ND
ND
ND
0.29
ND
ND
0.99
3.77
ND
ND
Reporting Limit
(mg/L)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.010
0.20
0.20
0.0002
0.0020
Regulatory
Limit1'2
(mg/L)
5.0
5.0
100.0
100.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
NA
25
NA
20
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
NA
250
0.2
0.2
1 40CFR261.24 Toxicity Characteristics.
California regulations 66261.24.
3 ND=Non-detect.
42
-------
Table 4-9. TCLP and California WET Results for 20 micron Filters
20 micron
Arsenic
Arsenic
Barium
Barium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Chromium
Chromium
Copper
Copper
Nickel
Nickel
Lead
Lead
Selenium
Selenium
Silver
Silver
Zinc
Zinc
Mercury
Mercury
Analysis
Type
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
TCLP
WET
Analytical
Result (mg/L)
NDj
10.4
1.12
14.3
0.013
0.041
ND
0.053
0.44
5.46
0.024
0.17
ND
0.26
ND
0.38
ND
ND
0.69
1.92
ND
ND
Reporting Limit
(mg/L)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.010
0.010
0.20
0.20
0.0002
0.0020
Regulatory
Limit1'2 (mg/L)
5.0
5.0
100.0
100.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
NA
25
NA
20
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
NA
250
0.2
0.2
1 40CFR261.24 Toxicity Characteristics.
2 California regulations 66261.24.
3 ND=Non-detect.
4.7.7 Operations and Maintenance
The DISI O&M manual (Appendix A) adequately described the start-up and shutdown
procedures for the CampWater system (summarized in Chapter 2 of this document). The
operation of the ozone generator, the selection and replacement procedures for the filters, and
control of the recycle and filtration flow rate were all covered and explained adequately to
familiarize operators with the system functions. The procedure to determine appropriate filter
replacement rates was also adequately described.
4.7.8 Data Precision
The results of the triplicate analyses conducted during Phase A to determine data precision and
statistical uncertainty are summarized in Table 4-10 and 4-11. The tables are divided to reflect
analysis of feed water and treated water separately. Each measurement contains the average,
standard deviation, and relative standard deviation values obtained from the off-site water quality
parameters during the verification study. One result for arsenic (III) from triplicate arsenic
43
-------
speciation of the feed water samples was under the LOD. Results for iron, arsenic (III), and TSS
for treated water samples were all under the LOD. In these cases, the LOD was used as the value
when performing calculations on these results.
The relative standard deviation of one set of feed arsenic (III) triplicate analyses was 46%. The
concentrations of the samples were all under 5 |ig/L, thereby resulting in a large relative standard
deviation percentage when samples differed by only 1-2 |ig/L.
Table 4-10.
Arsenic
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)
Iron
Iron
Manganese
Manganese
Aluminum
TDS
TSS
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
Statistical Analysis
Number
of
Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Analysis
Location
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
of Phase A
Units
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(cm"1)
(mg/L)
Feed Water
Average
28
27
18
3
0.54
0.48
663
650
<10
290
3
2.3
0.104
14
Triplicate Samples1
Standard
Deviation
0.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
0.02
0
12
26
0
0
0
0
0.002
0
Relative Standard
Deviation (%)
2%
4%
6%
46%
3%
0%
2%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
1 Two sets of triplicate analyses were collected for total arsenic, iron and manganese. Each statistical analysis was
presented individually in the table.
The value of lab analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
44
-------
Table 4-11.
Arsenic
Arsenic
Soluble As
As (III)2
Iron2
Iron
Manganese
Manganese
Aluminum
IDS
TSS2
TOC
UVA
Sulfate
Statistical Analysis
Number
of
Samples
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
o
J
3
Analysis
Location
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
NSF
of Phase A
Units
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(cm"1)
(mg/L)
Treated Water
Average
17
17
16
<2
<0.02
0.02
40
78
<10
300
<2
2.0
0.029
14
Triplicate Samples1
Standard
Deviation
0.6
1.0
0.6
0
0
0
1.5
2.1
0
0
0
0.4
0.002
0
Relative Standard
Deviation (%)
3%
6%
4%
0%
0%
0%
4%
3%
0%
0%
0%
19%
6%
0%
Two sets of triplicate analyses were collected for total arsenic, iron and manganese. Each statistical analysis was
presented individually in the table.
The value of lab analysis' LOD was used to calculate statistical information when a value was non-detect.
4.7.9 Completeness
Calculation of data completeness was made for on-site and laboratory water quality
measurements. Tables of completeness data can be found in Appendix B.
Completeness of 82% was achieved for the feed and treated water pH measurements during the
Phase A, which was below the 95% completeness objective outlined in the ETV protocol. The
level of completeness for all other parameters either met or exceeded the completeness
objectives. A few exceptions that occurred on specific days are discussed in 4.7.10.
4.7.10 Additional Data Qualifiers and Notes
Over the course of the verification study, there were a few issues to note. These included:
• NSF requested ORP and pH measurements to be taken at the same time as water samples,
but the communication was not received until after verification testing had started.
Correlated sampling time started on Day 4.
• The sample labels on a feed and treated water sample testing arsenic, iron, and
manganese concentrations were switched on Day 13 of Phase A. The data were properly
reported in the data tables in Appendix E.
• A review of the daily data sheets indicates that a full pH check was not completed on one
day and a full pH calibration/check was not conducted on the final day of testing.
• During the site visit on Day 9 of the verification test, NSF noted that UAA staff members
were not properly recording errors written on the daily data sheets or logbook notes. NSF
45
-------
suggested using a single strike mark with operator initials to indicate data errors and
corrections.
During the Phase B series, the Hanna ORP controller failed and had to be replaced before
testing could continue. A Hanna ORP model HI8720 was installed and utilized for the
remainder of Phase B and Phase C.
46
-------
Chapter 5
References
The following references were used in the preparation of this report:
Sorg, Thomas, Iron Treatment for Arsenic Removal Neglected, Opflow: Reader Feedback,
November 2002.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. Washington, D.C.,
APHA, 1998.
U.S. EPA/NSF International. EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for
Arsenic Removal, April 2002.
47
-------
Chapter 6
Vendor Comments
Delta Industrial Services, Inc. submitted the following comments concerning the ETV test and
report. These statements were not validated in the verification test and are the opinion of Delta
Industrial Services, Inc.:
"I believe this report significantly contributes to the understanding of the science of arsenic
removal. The coprecipitation technology it evaluated has the stated advantages of economy and
simplicity, and, as seen in the report, is effective when the ratio of iron-to-arsenic and the pH of
the feedwater, and the process variables (e.g., ORP) are within certain limits. The
specific benefit of this project that I see is that it helps quantify these limits. This in turn
will assist in the proper application of this technology by engineers and regulators.
It is strongly suggested that further research be conducted to more precisely define the
relationship between arsenic removal effectiveness and both pH and iron-arsenic ratio. This
should include investigation of the various species of iron and arsenic, and the addition of iron if
naturally - occurring iron is insufficient. Although TCLP results regarding the leachate were
favorable, more research is needed to provide a method of meeting the California WET test. If
Delta Industrial Services can assist in these efforts (such as the loan of a pilot plant), please
contact us.
I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to all who made this project possible, including NSF,
USEPA, the State of Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation, Southwood Estates of
Anchorage AK (the location of the trial runs), and the excellent staff at the University of Alaska
Anchorage.
Delta Industrial does have filter-change data from earlier arsenic-reduction tests of the
CampWater Porta-5. Following these tests, a design change was made which replaced the
original cotton string-wound cartridges with a pleated inorganic design. Some data were
subsequently obtained to prove the change, but the extent is very limited. Therefore, because a
different style of filter cartridge was used in the [ETV] tests, the former data are not considered
applicable and the results from the [ETV] program are the only significant recorded filter-change
data on the unit in the present configuration. Reiterating the data from the [ETV] test, all the
filters were changed when one or more sets were ready for replacement. This occurred at an
average production of 6,294 gallons and cost approximately $82.40 (list price) for the complete
change, resulting in a per gallon cost of 1.3 cents.
The CampWater Porta-5, as the name implies, was designed for remote camps, temporary
remediation scenarios and emergencies. Therefore the design emphasis was more on portability
and fast response and less on cost per gallon from factors such as filter changes. It follows that
another design change would be in order for permanent installations where portability is no
longer an issue, to decrease the cost of filter changes. In fict, Delta Industrial did design and
produce a 40 gpm ozonation system utilizing 30-inch multi-media post-ozonation filters
followed by 5 micron bag filters, for a permanent installation. Although arsenic was not a
specific target in this application, iron was being effectively removed. In addition to
backflushing the multimedia filters periodically, one of the bag filters was changed during tests,
48
-------
after one week's operation, at about 70,000 gallons. This bag lists for about $75, resulting in a
per-gallon cost of about 0.1 cents. This indicates that coprecipitation of arsenic with the iron, if
it were a contaminant in this application, could be effected at a much lower cost per gallon by
going to the multi-media, followed by bag, filtration.
Very Sincerely, Jon Dufendach"
49
------- |