March 2014
NSF 13/39/EPADWCTR
EPA/600/R-14/029
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese,
and Ammonia in Drinking Water
Nagaoka International Corporation
CHEMILES NCL Series Water
Treatment System
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
March 2014
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Removal of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Ammonia in Drinking Water
Nagaoka International Corporation
CHEMILES NCL Series
Water Treatment System
Prepared by:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
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, through its Office of Research and Development,
funded and managed, or partially funded and collaborated in, the research described herein. It
has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for
publication. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred.
Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
Table of Contents
Verification Statement vs-i
Notice ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures v
List of Tables v
Appendices vi
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 2
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratory 3
1.2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3
1.3 Verification Testing Site 3
1.3.1 Site Description 3
1.3.2 Source/Feed Water Quality 4
Chapter 2 Equipment Capabilities and Description 6
2.1 General Description of Equipment 6
2.2 Engineering and Scientific Concepts 8
2.3 Pilot Unit Specifications 8
2.4 Chemical Consumption and Production of Waste Material 10
2.4.1 Chemical Consumption 10
2.4.2 Waste Production and Physical and Chemical Nature of Wastes 10
2.5 Licensing Requirements 11
2.6 Statement of Performance Objectives 11
2.7 Advantages of the CHEMILES System 11
2.8 Limitations of the CHEMILES System 11
Chapter 3 Methods and Procedures 13
3.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria 13
3.2 Key Water Quality Parameters 13
3.3 Definition of Operational Parameters 14
3.4 Operations and Maintenance 14
3.5 Field Operations Procedure 15
3.6 Environmental Technology Verification Testing Plan 15
3.6.1 Task A: Raw Water Characterization 16
3.6.2 Task B: Initial Test Runs 16
3.6.3 Task C: Verification Test Procedures 16
3.7 Task A: Raw Water Characterization 17
3.7.1 Site Background Information 17
3.7.2 Additional Analytical Data 17
in
-------
3.7.3 Evaluation Criteria 18
3.8 Task B: Initial Test Runs 18
3.8.1 Objectives 18
3.8.2 Work Plan 18
3.8.3 Arsenic Loss Test 18
3.8.4 Analytical Schedule 18
3.8.5 Evaluation Criteria 18
3.9 TaskC: Verification Test 19
3.9.1 Introduction 19
3.9.2 Experimental Objectives 19
3.9.3 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs 19
3.9.4 Task 2: Raw Water, Treated Water, and Backwash Wastewater Quality 21
3.9.5 Task 3: Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance 24
3.9.6 Task 4: Contaminant Removal 25
3.9.7 Task 5: Data Management 26
3.9.8 Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control 27
3.10 Operation and Maintenance 29
3.10.1 Maintenance 29
3.10.2 Operation 29
3.10.3 Operability Evaluation 30
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 31
4.1 Introduction 31
4.2 Equipment Installation, Start-up, and Shakedown 31
4.3 Task A: Raw Water Characterization 32
4.4 TaskC: Verification Test 33
4.4.1 Operating Results 33
4.4.2 Contaminant Reduction Results 34
4.4.3 Raw and Treated Water Quality Results 55
4.4.4 Backwash Frequency and Wastewater Quality 60
4.5 FTO System Operability Review 61
4.5.1 Introduction 61
4.5.2 Pilot Treatment System Controls 62
4.5.3 Electrical Equipment 62
4.5.4 O&M Manual 62
4.5.5 Monitoring 62
4.5.6 Operations 63
4.6 Power Consumption 63
4.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 64
4.7.1 Documentation 64
4.7.2 Quality Audits 64
4.7.3 Data Quality Indicators 64
Chapters 73
References 73
IV
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Photo of CHEMILES NCL Series water treatment system 6
Figure 2-2. Cross-sectional diagram of CHEMILES NCL Series column 7
Figure 2-3. Schematic Diagram of the CHEMILES CLT-300 Pilot Unit 9
Figure 2-4. Photo of CHEMILES CLT-300 pilot unit at test site 10
Figure 4-1. Verification test ammonia results 39
Figure 4-2. Daily sampling period ammonia results 40
Figure 4-3. March 48-hour sampling period ammonia results 41
Figure 4-4. Iron removal results 43
Figure 4-5. Iron removal results from March daily sampling period 45
Figure 4-6. Iron removal results from March 48-hour intensive sampling period 47
Figure 4-7. Arsenic removal results for weekly samples and March 320-hour
daily samples 48
Figure 4-8. Manganese removal results 50
Figure 4-9. Manganese removal results from May daily sampling period 53
Figure 4-10. Manganese removal results from May 14-16 48-hour intensive sampling
period without pH adjustment 54
Figure 4-11. Manganese removal results from May 21-23 48-hour intensive sampling
period with pH adjustment 55
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Historical Raw Water Quality Data 5
Table 2-1. CHEMILES CLT-300 Specifications 9
Table 2-2. CHEMILES Water Quality Limitations 12
Table 3-1. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria 13
Table 3-2. Key Water Quality Parameters 14
Table 3-3. Water Quality Parameters of Interest 14
Table 3-4. Water Quality Parameters for Raw Water Characterization 17
Table 3-5. On-site Equipment Operating Parameter Monitoring
and Data Collection Schedule 20
Table 3-6. Water Quality Sampling Schedule 22
Table 3-7. Water Quality Analytical Methods, Sample Preservation, and Holding Times . 23
Table 3-8. Contaminant Sampling Schedule 25
Table 3-9: Contaminant Analytical Methods 26
Table 4-1. Raw Water Characterization Data - November 7, 2012 33
Table 4-2. Summary Statistics for Operating Data 34
Table 4-3. Ammonia, Nitrate, and Nitrite Summary Data 36
Table 4-4. Ammonia, Nitrate, and Nitrite Results from March 320-Hour Daily
Sampling Period 37
Table 4-5. Ammonia, Nitrate, and Nitrite Results from March 48-Hour Intensive
Sampling Period 38
Table 4-6. Arsenic and Iron Weekly Sample Summary Data 42
Table 4-7. Arsenic and Iron Results from March Daily Sampling Period 44
Table 4-8. Arsenic and Iron Results from March 48-Hour Intensive Sampling Period .... 46
Table 4-9. Manganese Results from May Daily Sampling Period 51
Table 4-10. Manganese Results from May 48-Hour Intensive Sampling Periods 52
Table 4-11. Weekly Summary Data for On-Site Measurements 57
Table 4-12. Weekly Summary Data for Laboratory Measurements 57
Table 4-13. On-Site Water Quality Measurements for March 320-hour
Daily Sampling Period 58
Table 4-14. On-Site Water Quality Measurements for May 320-hour
-------
Daily Sampling Period 59
Table 4-15. Backwash Water - Water Quality Results 61
Table 4-16. Backwash Solids - TCLP and CAWET Analyses 61
Table 4-17. CHEMILES System Pumps and Operation per Day 63
Table 4-18. Manganese Weekly Sample Summary Data 65
Table 4-19. Manganese Results from March Daily Sampling Period 66
Table 4-20. Manganese Results from March 48-Hour Intensive Sampling Period 67
Table 4-21. Field Instrument Calibration Schedule 68
Table 4-22. Precision Data - Field Duplicates for Field Parameters 70
Table 4-23. Completeness Objectives 71
Table 4-24. Completeness Results 72
Appendices
Appendix A - Operation and Maintenance Manual
VI
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
CAWET
°C
c.u.
°F
DO
DWS
EPA
ETV
ft2
ft3
FTO
g
gfd
gpm
gpd
hp
hr
L
LCS
m
MCL
mL
mg
mg/L
ND
NIST
NRMRL
NSF
NTU
O&M
PLC/PC
psi
PSTP
QA/QC
QAPP
RCRA
RSD
SMCL
S.U.
TCLP
IDS
TOC
TSS
California Waste Extraction Test
Degree Celsius
Color Units
Degree Fahrenheit
Dissolved Oxygen
Drinking Water Systems
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Square Feet or Square Foot
Cubic Feet
Field Testing Organization
Gram
Gallons per Square Foot per Day
Gallon(s) Per Minute
Gallon(s) Per Day
Horsepower
Hour(s)
Liter
Laboratory Control Sample
Meter
Maximum Contaminant Level (USEPA standard)
Milliliter
Milligram
Milligram per Liter
Not Detected or Non-Detect
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF International
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit(s)
Operation and Maintenance
Programmable Logic Controller/Personal Computer
Pounds per Square Inch
Product Specific Test Plan
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Relative Standard Deviation
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
Standard Units
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
Microgram(s) per Liter
vn
-------
Acknowledgements
The Field Testing Organization (FTO), CH2M Hill, was responsible for all field testing
elements, including system operation, collection of samples, field data collection, and calibration
and checks of instrumentation. NSF International was responsible for all laboratory sample
analysis (except for backwash sludge analysis), data management, data interpretation, and
preparation of this report. TriMatrix Laboratories was responsible for the backwash sludge
analysis.
CH2M Hill
2020 SW 4th Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97201
Contact Person: Mr. Lee Odell
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Contact Person: Mr. C. Bruce Bartley
TriMatrix Laboratories
5560 Corporate Exchange Court SE
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512
Contact Person: Mr. Mike Movinski
The manufacturer of the equipment was:
Nagaoka International Corporation
6-1 Nagisa-cho
Izumiotsu-city
Osaka, Japan 595-0055
Contact Person: Mr. Katsuhiko Yamada
NSF International wishes to thank the CH2M Hill Portland, Oregon office for functioning as the
FTO for this verification project. NSF wishes to specifically thank the following CH2M Hill
staff: Mr. Lee Odell, Mr. Matthew Steiner, and Ms. Brittany Hughes
NSF and CH2M Hill wish to thank Clark Public Utilities of Clark County, Washington, USA, for
the use of the field testing site.
Vlll
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 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 that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders,
conducting field or laboratory testing, collecting and analyzing data and by 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 drinking water systems that serve public drinking
water supply systems. 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.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the CHEMILES water treatment system was a cooperative effort among the
following participants:
NSF International
CH2M Hill
Nagaoka International Corporation
Clark County (WA) Public Utilities
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 that products bearing the NSF Name, Logo and/or Mark meet those standards.
The EPA partnered with NSF to verify the performance of drinking water treatment systems
through the EPA's ETV Program.
NSF prepared the Test/Quality Assurance Plan (TQAP) and authored the final report. The NSF
Chemistry and Microbiology Laboratories analyzed all water samples except those analyzed in
the field. NSF provided technical oversight of the verification test and conducted an audit of the
field analytical and data gathering and recording procedures.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Contact: Mr. Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
Phone: (734) 769-8010
Fax: (734) 769-0109
Email: bartley@nsf.org
1.2.2 Field Testing Organization
CH2M Hill conducted the verification testing of the CHEMILES System. CH2M Hill operated
the pilot unit, recorded operational parameter readings as necessary, collected and analyzed
water samples for the parameters measured in the field, and collected and shipped to NSF the
samples for laboratory analysis.
Contact Information:
CH2M Hill
2020 SW 4th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97201
Contact Person: Mr. Lee Odell, Water Treatment Global Technology Lead, Vice
President
Phone: 503-872-4750
Email: Lee.Odell@CH2M.com
1.2.3 Manufacturer
The treatment system was the CHEMILES NCL Series water treatment system manufactured by
Nagaoka International Corporation (Nagaoka). The manufacturer was responsible for supplying
a field-ready pilot testing system equipped with all necessary components, including treatment
equipment, instrumentation and controls, and an operation and maintenance (O&M) manual.
-------
The manufacturer 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:
Nagaoka International Corporation
6-1 Nagisa-cho
Izumiotsu-city
Osaka, Japan 595-0055
Contact Person: Mr. Katsuhiko Yamada, Director
Phone: 81-725-21-5750
Email: k-yamada@nagaokajapan.co.jp
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratory
The NSF International Chemistry and Microbiology Laboratories in Ann Arbor, Michigan
performed all water quality analyses.
Backwash toxicity analyses were performed by:
TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc.
5560 Corporate Exchange Court SE
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512
Contact Person: Mr. Michael Movinski, Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Phone: 616-975-4500
Email: movinskim@trimatrixlabs.com
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
1.3.1 Site Description
The test site is the Clark Public Utilities Bridge Road Water Treatment Plant (also known as the
Hayes Road Well), located near Woodland, Washington in Clark County, USA. The site is only
about 200 feet away from the Lewis River, but it is not classified as ground water under the
influence of surface water. The site has an 8-inch diameter well with a submersible pump rated
at 50 gallons per minute (gpm). The plant is not continuously manned, and is only operated
periodically, depending on the level in the finished water reservoir. The treatment plant includes
manganese greensand filtration to remove iron, manganese, and arsenic. For the verification test,
-------
a separate 5 gpm pump was installed in the well casing to provide a dedicated supply to the pilot
unit.
1.3.1.1 Structural
The water treatment plant is fully enclosed in a small building. The pilot unit was located
outside, next to the building. The FTO used countertop space and a sink in the treatment plant
building for onsite analytical activities.
1.3.1.2 Handling of Filtrate and Residuals
All treated water (filtrate) from the CHEMILES pilot unit was collected in a holding tank, and
then discharged onto the ground on-site. Backwash wastewater from the pilot unit was stored in
a separate holding tank, then flow to the water treatment plant's backwash holding tank. No
solids were discharged onto the ground.
1.3.1.3 Discharge Permits
No discharge permits were required for the discharge of the filtrate. The State of Washington
Department of Ecology does not require discharge permits for water treatment plants with on-site
discharge.
1.3.2 Source/Feed Water Quality
Table 1-1 presents raw water quality for samples collected from the Bridge Road Water
Treatment Plant well in 2005 and 2010. No arsenic speciation data was available, data was
obtained as part of Task A: Raw Water Characterization.
-------
Table 1-1. Historical Raw Water Quality Data
Parameter
Turbidity
Total Arsenic
Ammonia
Sulfate
Fluoride
Silica
Temperature
pH
Alkalinity
Hardness
Iron
Manganese
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Units
NTU
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
°C
s.u.
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
10/21/2005
15
26.3
9.03
<50
<0.05
<5.0
0.02
<1
14.6
<1
<10
<1
7.25
240
<0.5
<1
3.93
<5
<1
43.1
0.04
Date
02/25/2010 to 10/17/2011 to
10/21/2010 07/09/2010 11/07/2011
0.5
15 31-36
0.30-0.32
2.2
<0.2
26.3
9-12
5.9-6.6 6.4-6.6
84
66.3
9.03-18.8 8.8-10.6
0.24-0.46 0.19-0.22
242
-------
Chapter 2 Equipment Capabilities and Description
2.1 General Description of Equipment
According to the manufacturer, the CHEMILES NCL Series system is a self-contained, system
designed for treatment of groundwater with minimal and sometimes no use of chemicals. The
system is a column design, intended for outdoor placement. The system does not include a
chemical feed pump, but it does include a treated water pump and a backwash pump. The
treatment column contains a sand filter medium, with a support gravel layer at the base. The
system must be allowed to ripen for three to six months, to allow autotrophic bacteria to colonize
the sand filter medium.
The CHEMILES NCL Series system comes equipped with a programmable logic controller
(PLC) to control operation. The PLC allows the operator to monitor operation of the system, and
to control the backwash frequency. Figure 2-1 is a photo of the system, and Figure 2-2 is a
cross-section diagram of the treatment column.
HIGH SPEED
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
Figure 2-1. Photo of CHEMILES NCL Series Water Treatment System.
-------
Activated Raw Water
by dissolved Oxygen
Contact Oxidation
(Removes Iron)
Ferrous Iron
sl/fby Ferric Oxi -Hydroxide film)
Ferric Hydroxide
Biological
Treatment
Layer
Nitrate Bacteria
(Removes NH4-N)
Iron Bacteria
(Removes Mn)
Treated
Water
S-System design will be different by the types
Collection and
Distribution Pipe
Figure 2-2. Cross-Sectional Diagram of CHEMILES NCL Series Column.
Raw water is introduced into the top of the column through a proprietary oxidation nozzle. The
nozzle is Nagaoka International Corporation's proprietary product, and is designed to induce air
into the nozzle utilizing the "Venturi effect", which reduces fluid pressure when the water flows
through a constriction. Air is induced through a hole in the nozzle near the constriction, and
causes the air and water to be mixed. Nagaoka designs their nozzles specifically for each
application based on the raw water quality, flow and water pressure to maintain the desired
dissolved oxygen concentration in the water.
The oxidation nozzle increases the dissolved oxygen (DO) level of the raw water, causing
soluble ferrous iron to oxidize to insoluble ferric iron, and arsenic (III) to oxidize to arsenic (V).
The sand filter media becomes coated with ferric oxi-hydroxide, which acts as a catalyst to
oxidize and retain a remaining portion of the iron. The bacteria on the filter medium oxidize any
remaining ferrous iron to ferric iron, and they also oxidize ammonia to nitrate, and soluble
-------
manganese to insoluble manganese dioxide. The ferric iron and manganese dioxide are retained
by the filter medium.
There are two types of backwashes for the CHEMILES system - "P" backwashes and "W"
backwashes. The P backwashes are partial backwashes, and W backwashes are whole-system
backwashes. The P backwashes occur several times per day, while the W backwashes usually
occur once per day or more infrequently. The P backwash just backwashes the upper filtration
zone, where most of the arsenic and iron precipitate is retained. The P backwash utilizes
Nagaoka's proprietary rotating surface washing nozzles to assist in the backwash process. This
approach minimizes disturbances of the biological active lower treatment zone. During the filter
ripening and initial test runs phase, Nagaoka sets the backwash frequency for this verification to
be three times per day for P backwashes (every eight hours), and after every ninth P backwash
for the W backwash. However, in the middle of the verification testing period, Nagaoka changed
the W backwash frequency so that it occurred after every sixth P backwash. Each P backwash is
designed to consume 66 gallons (gal) of treated water, and each W backwash is designed to use
92.5 gal. However, during the shakedown testing period, Nagaoka changed the backwash
volumes to 48.16 gal for each P backwash, and 69.3 gal for each W backwash, based on the raw
water quality of the test site.
2.2 Engineering and Scientific Concepts
It is well known that iron and arsenic can be removed from water by oxidation, coagulation and
precipitation. In the presence of an oxidant such a chlorine or oxygen, iron oxidizes from soluble
ferrous iron to relatively insoluble ferric iron, while arsenic oxidizes from the +3 valence state to
the +5 valence state. It is also well known that removal of arsenic can be aided by adding iron
(e.g. ferric chloride) as a coagulant. As (V) readily coagulates with iron, while As (III) must be
first oxidized to As (V). The arsenic is then co-precipitated with the iron, and the precipitate can
be retained by filtration media.
Ferrous iron can also be oxidized by autotrophic "iron bacteria", which use ferrous iron as an
electron donor, thus oxidizing it to the ferric state.
In the same manner, both ammonia and manganese can be oxidized by autotrophic bacteria.
Ammonia present in water as ammonium (NH4+) is oxidized first to nitrite, and then to nitrate.
Soluble manganese (Mn2+) is oxidized to manganese dioxide, which is insoluble, and is captured
by the filtration media.
2.3 Pilot Unit Specifications
The pilot unit was the CHEMILES NCL Series system with serial code CLT-300. The treatment
column is grey PVC, and is 4.1 meters (m) high (161.41 inches (in)), with an internal diameter of
300 millimeters (mm) (11.81 in). The filtration media height for this system is 3.1 m (122 in).
Table 2-1 gives the CLT-300 specifications. A schematic diagram of the system is provided as
Figure 2-3, and a photo of the pilot unit at the test site is presented in Figure 2-4.
-------
Table 2-1. CHEMILES CLT-300 Specifications
System Footprint
System Height
Filter Column Height
Filter Column Internal Diameter
Filter Cross-Sectional Area
Maximum Linear Velocity
Treatment Capacity
Minimum Feed Pressure
Feed pump Output
Effluent Pump Output
Backwash Pump Output
Effluent Holding Tank Volume
Partial ("P") Backwash Volume
Whole ("W") Backwash Volume
3mx3m(118inxll8in)
4.5 m (177 in)
4.1m (161.41 in)
300 mm (11.81 in)
0.07 m2 (0.75 square feet (ft2))
400 meters per day (m/d) (6.82 gpm/ft2)
28.27 m3/d (7,468 gallons per day (gpd))
2.0 bar (29 pounds per square inch (psi))
0.56 kW
0.56 kW
1.1 kW
0.5 m3 (132 gal)
0.25 m3 (66 gal)
0.35 m3 (92.5 gal)
Raw water nozzle V3
Prcsajip Gauge Cycling wsler Valve
Row water l|
Mow mtitr [
20A
VI
Raw walei CJ
V»lvc
Water
gritting t lipping y^ ^
isking plant P^\~1
4(^
20A
V7
xrt«
Backwash 1 >r nilwKt-
(
I Raw wattr
«.
i r
i i
i i
PI
wrtl Pump
HoscconiKctci for
IT
Buckwmb
ft
Kav. wntcr nojrfc
"i~
M
I
f
Walct level sensors
'57 V6
xft'<
*^~ 20A
irfacc Wa>itiinje
N077kfi
1
( olnmn
I V-fi.Kigpm-'ft-
9! 1. SI in. H161 in
Filter Sanct layer HI 02 in
1
_. . , TVt'aEtd water
itcclgjtci \flKc H(m. me|e|
H * r^n
bt^ttclwaltr
i
20A w ^J
25A W T ^Ovciflowlo
Hnctwaah Oackwadiin}! Hrainagc svslt
l^y^u jjS|;P Tieoledwalci
f Washing 25A
4QA »*KLJ*
bottling lank
Note 1:
Note 2;
Dotted Line area \* out of Tceting Sy^cni Si^plicd! from Nagaoka
"C >": Would be used if necessarly
Figure 2-3. Schematic Diagram of the CHEMILES CLT-300 Pilot Unit.
-------
Figure 2-4. Photo of CHEMILES CLT-300 Pilot Unit at Test Site.
2.4 Chemical Consumption and Production of Waste Material
2.4.1 Chemical Consumption
The CHEMILES system does not need any chemicals for water treatment. However, from
March 27 to April 8 during the verification test, Nagaoka decided to raise the pH from 6.45 to
7.02 as measured in the field by the field testing organization, through the pumping of sodium
hydroxide into the raw water stream. The goal was to evaluate whether manganese removal
improved with a higher pH.
2.4.2 Waste Production and Physical and Chemical Nature of Wastes
Backwash wastewater containing the solids (iron, arsenic and manganese) was discharged to a
backwash holding tank for sampling. The holding tank was then discharged to the Bridge Road
Treatment Plant's backwash holding tank. The contents of the tank are periodically infiltrated
10
-------
into the ground infiltration pond next to the treatment plant. The treated water was also
infiltrated into the ground at the same location.
2.5 Licensing Requirements
There are no special licensing requirements to operate the CHEMILES system during the ETV
test since the treated water will be discharged to the ground.
2.6 Statement of Performance Objectives
The statement of performance objectives for the verification test was as follows:
The CHEMILES system is capable of reducing total arsenic, iron, and manganese in the source
water to less than the EPA drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCL). The
CHEMILES system can also reduce ammonia in the source water by 75% or to less than 0.1
mg/L when the raw water contains a low level of ammonia.
2.7 Advantages of the CHEMILES System
According to Nagaoka, the main advantages of the CHEMILES system for removing iron,
arsenic, manganese, and ammonia from water are as follows:
The column design allows for a small footprint.
The CHEMILES system does not require any chemicals for water treatment.
Multiple contaminants can be removed by only one treatment column.
The CHEMILES system is an extremely high speed treatment system.
The system does not need to be installed inside a building.
2.8 Limitations of the CHEMILES System
Potential limitations of the CHEMILES system, with respect to source water quality are:
Poor water quality in source water can cause high solids loadings to the filter, increasing
backwash frequency and quantity of solids generated.
A disposal location, such as a settling basin or a sanitary sewer system, is needed to
handle the backwash waste generated on a daily basis.
The raw water must be introduced directly into the system from the well. Nagaoka states
that iron cannot be effectively removed if oxidized before introduction to the system.
Nagaoka has identified the water quality limitations listed in Table 2-2 for the CHEMILES
system.
11
-------
Table 2-2. CHEMILES Water Quality Limitations
Iron (total) Not to exceed 40.0 mg/L
Manganese Not to exceed 3.2 mg/L
Ammonia Not to exceed 1.5 mg/L(1)
Arsenic (total) Not to exceed 1.2 mg/L, or 1/30* of iron concentration
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Not less than 60 mg/L
Sulfide (as H2S) Not to exceed 0.2 mg/L
pH Between 6.5 and 8.0
(1) Treatment of higher concentrations possible by dilution-cycling treatment method.
12
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
3.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria
As defined in the ETV protocol, the objectives of the verification test are to evaluate equipment
in the following areas:
The actual results obtained by the equipment as operated under the conditions at the test
site;
The impacts on performance of any variations in feed water quality or process variation;
The logistical, human, and other resources necessary to operate the equipment; and
The reliability, ruggedness, ranges of usefulness, and ease of operation of the equipment.
To address these objectives, the verification test employed the quantitative and qualitative factors
listed in Table 3-1 in evaluating the CHEMILES system performance.
Table 3-1. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Criteria
Quantitative Factors
Qualitative Factors
Feed water flow rate
Treated water quality
Length of operating cycle
Frequency of backwash cycles
Power consumption
Maintenance requirements
Required level of operator attention
Spatial requirements
Discharge requirements
Waste disposal
Ease of operation
Safety
Susceptibility to environmental conditions
Impact of operator experience on successful
operation
3.2 Key Water Quality Parameters
The key treated water quality parameters monitored for the CHEMILES verification test are
listed in Table 3-2. Other parameters of interest that were measured are listed in Table 3-3. The
parameters of interest were not expected to have an immediate impact on the treatment process,
but are important parameters in drinking water supplies.
13
-------
Table 3-2. Key Water Quality Parameters
Water Quality
Inorganic Parameters
Temperature
Alkalinity
pH
Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP)
Turbidity
Arsenic (III)
Arsenic (V)
Total Iron
Dissolved Iron
Ammonia
Nitrate/Nitrite
Manganese
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Table 3-3. Water Quality Parameters of Interest
Other Parameters
Hardness
True Color
DO
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
Color
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Fluoride
Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC)
Silica
Sodium
Potassium
3.3 Definition of Operational Parameters
The following are definitions used in this report and for designation of sampling locations:
Treated water is defined as the water produced by the CHEMILES treatment process.
Raw water is defined as the water introduced to the CHEMILES system. For this system, the
raw water is equivalent to the feed water.
3.4 Operations and Maintenance
The manufacturer's operations and maintenance (O&M) documentation for a typical full-scale
system were reviewed by the FTO, and the results of this review are included in the results and
discussion section.
In addition, the following aspects of operability are addressed in this report:
14
-------
The fluctuation of flow rates and pressures through the unit such as how long feed
pumps can hold to the feed rate;
The presence of devices to aid the operator with flow control adjustment;
How pressure in the system is measured and documented;
The method for measuring the rate of flow of raw water; and
The adequacy and ease of use of the control systems.
The test unit is a pilot unit that is representative of the full-scale system, which will allow
observation of the design and operation of the system. The control system is also the same
system used in commercial applications. Therefore, it was possible to evaluate the following
operability issues directly during the verification test:
Length of filter runs between backwash cycles;
Change in pressure across the filtration media over time;
Frequency and ease of backwash;
Ease of operating the computer control system; and
Availability of process data to the operator.
3.5 Field Operations Procedure
CH2M Hill, as the FTO, conducted the testing of the CHEMILES described in this report. The
NSF Chemistry and Microbiology Laboratories performed the laboratory water quality analyses.
CH2M Hill field personnel performed field analytical work, using field laboratory equipment
and procedures.
The unit was operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The FTO visited the site once per day,
Monday through Friday, throughout the entire verification testing period. The visit's purpose
was for operational measurements, and sample collection when prescribed. Site visits also
occurred over the weekends during the 320-hour daily sampling and monitoring periods. If any
system operation alarm occurred, the details of the alarm and the occurrence time were shown on
the PLC control panel monitor, and the FTO corrected the alarm condition.
3.6 Environmental Technology Verification Testing Plan
A TQAP was prepared for the CHEMILES NCL Series system verification test in accordance
with the ETV EPA/NSF Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic Removal
(September 2003). This protocol was used for the aspects of testing relating to removal of
arsenic, iron, and manganese. There is no ETV Protocol for ammonia reduction, so best
available professional judgment was used for the testing aspects related to this contaminant.
The TQAP divided the work into three main tasks (A, B, C) with Task C, the verification test
itself, divided into six tasks. These tasks are:
Task A: Raw Water Characterization
Task B: Initial Test Runs
Task C: Verification Test
15
-------
Task 1: Verification Testing Runs
Task 2: Raw and Treated Water Quality
Task 3: Operating Conditions and Performance
Task 4: Contaminant Removal
Task 5: Data Management
Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
The TQAP, which included a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), specified procedures to be
used to ensure the accurate documentation of both water quality and equipment performance.
An overview of each task is provided below with detailed information on testing procedures
presented in later sections.
3.6.1 Task A: Raw Water Characterization
The objective of Task A was to obtain a chemical and physical characterization of the raw water
at the beginning of the verification testing period.
3.6.2 Task B: Initial Test Runs
During Task B, Nagaoka and CH2M Hill operated the system to ripen the biological filter, and to
evaluate equipment operation to determine the optimal operational settings needed to provide
effective treatment of the raw water.
3.6.3 Task C: Verification Test Procedures
3.6.3.1 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs
The CHEMILES system verification testing period began on November 5, 2012, and finished on
May 23, 2013. During this testing period, water quality measurements were made weekly, and
from March 11 to March 24, and again from May 10 to May 23, there were two 320-hour (13
days plus 8 hours) daily sampling periods. However, the second 320-hour daily sampling period
was for Manganese only. Within each 320-hour period there was one 48-hour intensive
sampling period.
3.6.3.2 Task 2: Raw Water and Treated Water Quality
During verification testing, raw and treated water samples were collected and appropriate sample
analyses were performed. The water quality analyses conducted for this verification are listed in
Tables 3-2 and 3-3.
3.6.3.3 Task 3: Operating Conditions and Performance
During verification testing, operating conditions and performance of the water treatment
equipment were documented. Equipment performance information includes data such as rate of
filter head loss gain, duration of filter runs and volume of water filtered per run, and frequency
and duration of backwashes. The operating conditions include plant flow rates and backwash
frequency.
16
-------
3.6.3.4 Task 4: Contaminant Removal
The objective of this task is to evaluate removal of iron, arsenic, manganese, and ammonia
during verification testing by measuring these parameters in the raw and filtrate waters.
3.6.3.5 Task 5: Data Management
The objective of this task was to establish an effective field protocol for data management at the
field operations site, and for data transmission between the FTO and NSF. Master field logs
were prepared and field sheets for data collection were used to ensure all scheduled activities
were performed. The logs were scanned and emailed to NSF on a weekly basis.
3.6.3.6 Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
An important aspect of verification testing was the development of specific QA/QC procedures.
The objective of this task was to assure accurate measurement of operational and water quality
parameters during the verification test.
3.7 Task A: Raw Water Characterization
3.7.1 Site Background Information
One production well provides ground water for the Bridge Road Water Treatment Plant. The
raw water is currently treated to remove iron, manganese, and arsenic. Section 1.3 provides a
description of the treatment plant, and the historical water quality data are presented in Table 1-
1.
3.7.2 Additional Analytical Data
On Day 3 of the verification test, the Week 1 grab samples of the raw water also served to
confirm the historical data. The Week 1 analyses included arsenic speciation to determine the
distribution of arsenic (III) and arsenic (V) in the raw water. Table 3-4 lists the parameters that
were analyzed for this initial sample set. Information on sampling and analysis methods and
procedures is provided in Sections 3.9.4 and 3.9.6.
Table 3-4. Water Quality Parameters for Raw Water Characterization
pH Iron
Temperature Manganese
Turbidity Nitrate
Alkalinity (total) Nitrite
TDS Ammonia
TSS TKN
Hardness (total) Sulfate
TOC Fluoride
DOC Silica
DO Sodium
True Color Potassium
Arsenic (total, plus speciation) HPC
Chloride Sulfide
vss
17
-------
3.7.3 Evaluation Criteria
The historical water quality data were evaluated in the context of the Nagaoka statement of
performance to confirm that the water source was appropriate for verification testing.
3.8 Task B: Initial Test Runs
3.8.1 Objectives
The primary objective of this task was to install and operate the pilot unit to ripen the filter media
for biologically mediated oxidative treatment of manganese and ammonia. This task also served
to check system integrity, and set the operational settings for optimal performance.
3.8.2 Work Plan
Nagaoka and CH2M Hill staff collaborated to install the equipment and ready the test system for
operation. Once ready for operation, CH2M Hill operated the CHEMILES system periodically
from October 2011 to November 2012. While operating, key water quality parameters were
measured at least once per week to monitor system performance.
During and after cultivation of the biological treatment layer in the filtration media, startup and
shakedown tests were conducted to determine the proper operating conditions for the verification
test. The FTO and Nagaoka measured water quality parameters in the field, using test kits.
Operational and water quality data collected during Task B are available upon request from the
manufacturer.
3.8.3 Arsenic Loss Test
The arsenic loss test is required per the ETV protocol for arsenic removal by coagulation/co-
precipitation, followed by filtration. This task is important for systems that add a coagulant, such
as iron. The objective is to run the system without coagulant addition to see what amount of
arsenic is removed, if any. The performance of the system without coagulant addition serves as a
baseline against which to measure performance with coagulant. Since the CHEMILES system
does not include coagulant addition, the arsenic loss test was not required for this verification,
and thus was not conducted.
3.8.4 Analytical Schedule
While the system was in operation during Task B, the raw and treated water was measured
weekly for iron, arsenic (total), manganese, ammonia, pH, DO, and temperature to monitor
system performance.
3.8.5 Evaluation Criteria
The data obtained during Task B was evaluated by the FTO and Nagaoka to set the optimal pilot
unit operational parameters for the verification test. When Nagaoka was satisfied that the pilot
18
-------
unit was performing suitably, CH2M Hill took full control of the system, and the verification test
began.
3.9 Task C: Verification Test
3.9.1 Introduction
The TQAP called for the CHEMILES pilot unit to be operated for a minimum of six months,
with weekly measurement of the key water quality parameters. During the verification test there
was one required 320-hour (13 days plus 8 hours) daily sampling period, and within the 320-hour
period there was a required 48-hour intensive sampling period. The verification test started on
November 5, 2012, and was scheduled to end on May 1, 2013. The 320-hour daily sampling
period occurred from March 11 to March 24, with the 48-hour intensive sampling period
occurring March 18 through March 20. In April, Nagaoka requested an additional 320-hour
daily sampling period be conducted in May for Manganese only because manganese removal had
not stabilized and reached steady-state performance by the time of the March daily sampling
period. Nagaoka also requested that the second week of additional testing in May be operated
with the pH of the raw water raised to 7 to evaluate whether manganese removal improved with
a higher pH. Forty-eight hour intensive sampling periods were performed each week of this
additional testing period. The additional testing period began on May 10, 2013, and ended on
May 23, 2013. The 48-hour intensive sampling periods were run May 14 through 16, and again
May 21 through 23.
The test unit was operated continuously, 24 hours a day, seven days per week, unless operation
had to be stopped for maintenance. Water quality data for the raw water, treated water, and
backwash wastewater were collected in accordance with the schedule described in the following
sections. All raw and treated water samples were grab samples collected from the sampling ports
installed at the site. At Nagaoka's request, the FTO also sampled the aerated water for pH,
temperature, ORP, and DO. These samples were collected from the top of the treatment column
with a ladle. Backwash grab samples were collected from a backwash collection vessel also with
a ladle.
3.9.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task was to assess the ability of the CHEMILES system to demonstrate the
treatment capability indicated in the Statement of Performance Objectives (Section 2.6). The
verification test described herein was designed to collect and analyze contaminant reduction
performance data, equipment operating performance data and characteristics, and other water
quality information in order to achieve the objective. Statistical analyses (standard deviation and
confidence intervals) were performed on all analytes with eight or more discrete samples
collected over the verification period.
3.9.3 Task 1: Verification Testing Runs
3.9.3.1 Introduction
The verification test was designed to evaluate the CHEMILES system under optimal operating
conditions, as determined by Task B, and to measure system performance over an extended
19
-------
operating period. The treated water produced during the verification was not used for public
supply purposes, it was discharged on-site.
3.9.3.2 Operating Schedule
The CHEMILES system was operated continuously during the verification test, except for the
scheduled backwashes or minor maintenance periods. The FTO field operators recorded daily
measurements of the routine operating parameters listed in Table 3-5. Water quality sampling
and analysis activities occurred as described in Section 3.9.4.
Table 3-5. On-site Equipment Operating Parameter Monitoring and Data Collection
Schedule
Parameter
Monitoring Frequency
Monitoring Method
Treated water production
Treated water flow rate
Filter Head loss
Backwash Flow Rate
Total Backwash Volume and
Duration
Operating Hours
Power Use
Labor Hours
Check & record once per day.
Check & record once per day.
Record initial clean bed total head loss at
start of filter run. Check & record once per
day. Record terminal head loss at end of
filter run.
Check & record when on site and backwash
is occurring.
Check & record when on site and backwash
is occurring.
Record once per day in log the total hours of
operation since last site visit.
Determined at end of test.
Determine labor hours required.
Flow meter. (PLC)
Flow meter. (PLC)
Water height change in sight
column.
System backwash flow meter.
Flow rate multiplied by length
of cycle.
Based on PLC/PC and total
volume meters, determine total
hours.
Power use calculated based on
equipment horsepower ratings.
Record time on-site daily in
logbooks.
To meet the goals of the verification testing for equipment employing precipitation and media
filtration, the following conditions were met:
Water treatment equipment operated continuously;
Interruptions in filtration occurred only as needed for backwashing of the filters; with
the exception of equipment failure or power interruption; and
The duration of each filter run and the number of gallons of water produced per
square foot of filter area were recorded in the operational results.
3.9.3.3 Evaluation Criteria
Field logs were used to record all of the information shown in Table 3-5. The hours of operation
needed to meet the protocol requirements were documented. Backwash cycles and times were
recorded. All data are summarized in this final report, including:
Duration of each filter run;
Average volume treated per run; and
Volume produced per square foot of filter surface.
20
-------
3.9.4 Task 2: Raw Water, Treated Water, and Backwash Wastewater Quality
3.9.4.1 Introduction
Water quality data were collected for the raw and treated water on a regular basis during the
verification test, including two 320-hour daily sampling periods that included 48-hour intensive
sampling periods. These data were the basis for determining performance of the system and
documenting the water quality achieved.
3.9.4.2 Work Plan
Table 3-6 provides a list of the water quality parameters that were monitored during the
verification test, along with the frequency of sampling for each parameter. The sampling plans
for arsenic, iron, manganese, and ammonia are listed in Section 3.9.6. Nitrate and nitrite are also
included in 3.9.6 with the target contaminants, since the treatment process oxidizes ammonia
first to nitrite, then to nitrate.
The FTO field staff measured some water quality parameters on-site. The NSF Chemistry
Laboratory measured the remaining water quality parameters. The methods used for
measurement of the water quality parameters are identified in Table 3-7, which also identifies the
party responsible for each parameter.
For the water quality parameters submitted to NSF, grab samples were collected in appropriate
containers (containing necessary preservatives as applicable) prepared by NSF and shipped to
CH2M Hill in coolers. The samples were shipped overnight on ice back to NSF. The NSF
Chemistry Laboratory analyzed all samples in accordance with the appropriate procedures and
holding times.
The backwash waste was analyzed per Table 3-6 during a backwash cycle to obtain information
on the TSS concentration and pH of the backwash wastewater. Backwash samples were also
measured for total arsenic, total iron, and manganese.
The ETV protocol calls for measuring the metals leached from any sludge produced from the
system using the TCLP and California WET (CAWET) leaching analysis procedures.
Arrangements were made to sample the sludge produced and to send the samples to an outside
lab for these analyses. The CFLEMILES system typically only produces sludge if the backwash
waste is passed through a solids separator, or is sent to a settling basin to remove suspended
solids prior to discharge. In other applications, the backwash would be discharged to a sewer
system and would be treated at a wastewater treatment facility. Measuring the TSS, iron, arsenic,
and manganese in the backwash waste provided the needed data to assess the quality of the
backwash water and its acceptability to a wastewater treatment plant.
21
-------
Table 3-6. Water Quality Sampling Schedule
Parameter
Sampling
Frequency During
48-Hour Intensive
Sampling Period
Sampling
Frequency During
320-Hour Daily
Sampling Period
Sampling
Frequency During
Remainder of Test
Test Streams to be
Sampled
Temperature
pH
Alkalinity (total)
Turbidity
ORP
DO
TKN
Hardness (total)
TSS
TOC
vss
True Color
DOC
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Fluoride
HPC
Silica
Sodium
Potassium
TSS(D
pH(1)
0, 24, 48 hours
0, 24, 48 hours
0, 24, 48 hours
0, 24, 48 hours
0, 24, 48 hours
0, 24, 48 hours
0, 24, 48 hours
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Raw and Treated
Backwash Water
Backwash Water
Samples were collected from the backwash holding tank
cycled. The backwash collection vessel was thoroughly
immediately after completion of a backwash
mixed immediately prior to sampling.
22
-------
Table 3-7. Water Quality Analytical Methods, Sample Preservation, and Holding Times
Parameter
Field Analyses
pH
True Color
Turbidity
Temperature
ORP
DO
NSF Laboratory Analyses
Alkalinity (total)
Hardness (total)
TSS
vss
TOC
DOC
Chloride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Fluoride
HPC
Silica
Sodium
Potassium
TKN
Contract Lab Analyses
EPA TCLP
California Wet Test
Analytical
Method
SM(1) 4500-IT B
Hach2120B
EPA 180.1
SM 2550
SM 4500-O G
SM 2320B
EPA 200.7
SM 2540 D
SM 2540 E
SM5310C
SM5310C
EPA 300.0
EPA 300.0
SM 4500-S2'
SM 4500-F C
SM9215B
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 351.2
EPA 13 11
Special CA
method and
metals by SW846
6010and7470a
Bottle Type
Plastic
Glass
Glass
Plastic
Glass
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Amber Glass
Amber Glass
Glass
Glass
Amber Glass
Plastic
Sterile Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Amber Glass
Plastic
Plastic
Preservation
None
Cool to 2-6 °C
None
None
None
Cool to 2-6 °C
HNO3, Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
H3PO4, Cool to 2-6 °C
H3PO4, Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
HNO3, Cool to 2-6 °C
HNO3, Cool to 2-6 °C
HNO3, Cool to 2-6 °C
H2SO4, Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
Cool to 2-6 °C
Holding Time
Analyze immediately
24 hours
Analyze immediately
Analyze immediately
Analyze immediately
14 days
6 months
7 days
7 days
28 days
28 days
14 days
14 days
7 days
14 days
30 hours
6 months
6 months
6 months
48 hours
6 months
6 months
(1) SM = Standard Method
3.9.4.3 Analytical Schedule
The sampling schedule in Table 3-6 is weighted toward the parameters that are critical to the
treatment process. The parameters that were measured on a less frequent basis are general water
quality parameters. Note that algae and UV254 are specified parameters in the ETV protocol for
arsenic reduction, but they are not included here, as they are surface water related parameters and
are generally not applicable to groundwater supplies. Aluminum is also specified, but it is not
included, as it is not being used as a coagulant and is not a parameter of concern for the
CHEMILES process.
3.9.4.4 Water Quality Sample Collection
Water quality data were collected following the schedule in Table 3-6. All raw and treated water
samples were grab samples collected from sampling taps installed in the test system. The
backwash samples were grab samples collected from a holding vessel immediately after
completion of a backwash cycle. Prior to collecting the sample, each valve was flushed for at
23
-------
least five seconds to be sure fresh water was obtained from the process lines. Each sample was
collected directly into a clean, large container. Aliquots of sample were then poured into the
required containers for laboratory analysis or on-site analysis. The raw and treated water samples
were both collected within a short period of time (less than one half hour when possible), so that
both the raw and treated water results are representative of the current conditions at the sampling
time.
Special sampling procedures were used for turbidity. The method for collecting grab samples
consisted of running a slow, steady stream from the sample tap, triple-rinsing a dedicated sample
beaker in this stream, allowing the sample to flow down the side of the beaker to minimize
bubble entrainment, double-rinsing the sample vial with the sample, carefully pouring from the
beaker down the side of the sample vial, wiping the sample vial clean, inserting the sample vial
into the turbidimeter, and recording the measured turbidity
Temperature measurements were performed by collecting a sample into a clean container and
immediately immersing the calibrated thermometer into the water.
The backwash samples were obtained from a backwash waste holding vessel, and were collected
immediately after completion of a backwash cycle. The backwash waste was thoroughly mixed
by mechanical agitation prior to sample collection. The samples were collected from the vessel
with a ladle.
3.9.4.5 Evaluation Criteria and Minimum Reporting Criteria
Performance was evaluated in the context of the manufacturer's statement of performance
objectives.
The water quality data and statistical analyses are presented in Chapter 4 in graphical and/or
tabular format. The statistical analyses include mean, standard deviation, range, and 95%
confidence interval.
3.9.5 Task 3: Operating Conditions and Treatment Equipment Performance
3.9.5.1 Introduction
The objectives of this task were to accurately and fully document the operating conditions during
treatment and evaluate the equipment performance. Operating conditions, including flow rates,
head loss gain over the course of filtration cycles, frequency and duration of filter backwash
cycles, and any maintenance required. Electrical use was calculated from the horsepower ratings
for the pumps and other equipment.
3.9.5.2 Work Plan
A description of the equipment and test system operating conditions are presented in Chapter 2.
During verification testing, operating parameters were routinely monitored by the FTO. Table 3-
5 presents a list of the operating parameters that were monitored to document the equipment
performance during the verifications test.
24
-------
3.9.5.3 Schedule for Operating Parameter Data Collection
Table 3-5 shows the list of operating parameters that were monitored during the verification test
and the frequency of the observations.
3.9.5.4 Evaluation Criteria
The data developed from this task were used to present operating data on system flow rate, head
loss (pressure drop) across the filter module, and frequency and duration of filter backwash
cycles.
The results of operating and performance data were tabulated and included:
Average volume of flow treated per day;
Average treated water flow rate;
Average run length and volume of water treated per filter run;
Average pressure drop across the module;
Average daily backwash wastewater production; and
Typical suspended solids in the backwash.
3.9.6 Task 4: Contaminant Removal
3.9.6.1 Introduction
The effectiveness of the CHEMILES treatment process for removal of iron, arsenic, manganese,
and ammonia were evaluated in this task. Assessment of treatment efficacy was made on the
basis of removal of total arsenic, total iron, and manganese, and oxidation of ammonia to nitrate.
3.9.6.2 Work Plan and Analytical Schedule
Table 3-8 provides the sampling schedule for the contaminants, plus nitrate and nitrite that were
monitored during the verification test.
Table 3-8. Contaminant Sampling Schedule
Parameter
48-Hour Intensive
Sampling Period(1)
320-Hour Daily
Sampling Period(1)
Remainder of Test
Test Streams to be
Sampled
Arsenic (total)
Iron (total)
Manganese
Ammonia
Nitrate/Nitrite(2)
Arsenic (total)
Iron (total)
Manganese
013
and 6 hours
after every
backwash
event
Once
Once
Once
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Raw and Filtrate
Raw and Filtrate
Raw and Filtrate
Raw and Filtrate
Raw and Filtrate
Backwash Water
Backwash Water
Backwash Water
(1) Only manganese was measured for the May 320-hour daily/48-hour intensive sampling period.
(2) To be measured with this schedule because the biological treatment process oxidizes ammonia to nitrite,
then nitrate.
Raw water samples were collected from the raw water sample tap upstream of the CHEMILES
system. Treated water samples were collected from the filtrate sample tap. Prior to collecting
the sample, each valve was flushed for at least five seconds to be sure fresh water was obtained
25
-------
from the process lines. The sample was collected directly into a clean large container. Aliquots
of sample were then poured into the required containers for laboratory analysis or on-site
analysis. The raw and treated water samples were both collected within a short period of time
(less than one half hour), so that data are representative of the current conditions.
Grab samples were collected in appropriate containers (containing necessary preservatives as
applicable) prepared by NSF and shipped to CH2M Hill in coolers. The samples were shipped
overnight on ice back to NSF. The NSF Chemistry Laboratory analyzed all samples in
accordance with the appropriate procedures and holding times.
Table 3-9: Contaminant Analytical Methods
Parameter
Arsenic (total)
Iron (total)
Manganese
Ammonia
Nitrate/Nitrite
Facility
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Analytical Method
EPA 200.8
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.8
EPA 3 50.1
EPA 300.0
Bottle Type
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Amber
Glass
Glass
Preservation
HNO3, Cool to
2-6 °C
HNO3, Cool to
2-6 °C
HNO3, Cool to
2-6 °C
H2SO4
Cool to 2-6 °C
Holding
Time
6 months
6 months
6 months
28 days
48 hours
3.9.6.3 Evaluation Criteria
Performance evaluation was conducted in the context of the manufacturer's statement of
performance objectives with respect to removal of iron, arsenic, manganese, and ammonia. The
following information is presented in Chapter 4:
The speciation of arsenic in the raw water;
Graphs plotting raw and filtrate iron, arsenic, manganese, ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite over
the six-month test period, as well as graphs for the 48-hour and 320-hour intensive sampling
periods;
Tables providing all sample results from the 48-hour and 320-hour sampling periods;
Tables summarizing all measurements over the six-month test period, including mean, and
standard deviation, range, and 95% confidence interval.
3.9.7 Task 5: Data Management
3.9.7.1 Introduction
The data management system used in the verification test included the use of computer
spreadsheets and manual recording of operational parameters for the equipment on a daily or
weekly basis. The FTO staff collected the information and entered it into logbooks and prepared
field log sheets. All field activities were documented. Field documentation included field
logbooks, photographs, field data sheets, and chain-of-custody forms. The procedures for
logbook format and entries followed the procedures outlined below:
Field notes were kept in a bound logbook;
26
-------
Pre-prepared log sheets were used to record all water treatment equipment operating data;
Each log sheet was labeled with the project name and the verification day number;
Completed pages were signed and dated by the individual responsible for the entries; and
Errors were corrected by drawing a single line through the error. The line was initialed
and dated.
Chain-of-custody forms accompanied all samples delivered to the analytical laboratory. Copies
of field log sheets were reviewed during the QA/QC site inspection by NSF.
3.9.7.2 Objectives
The objectives of this task were to: 1) establish a viable structure for the recording and
transmission of field testing data such that the FTO provided sufficient and reliable data for
verification purposes, and 2) develop a statistical analysis of the data, as described in the
document: EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Arsenic Removal:
Requirements For All Studies and Chapter Three of the same document.
3.9.7.3 Work Plan
The FTO site operators recorded on-site data and calculations (e.g., calculating calibration flow
rates using the bucket and stop watch and other similar routine calculations) by hand in field and
laboratory logbooks. Daily measurements were recorded on specially prepared data log sheets as
appropriate. The original logbooks were stored on-site, and copies were forwarded to NSF
approximately once per week during the testing period. Operating logs also included
descriptions of any problems or issues with the test system or analytical equipment.
A database for the project was set up in the form of custom-designed spreadsheets. The
spreadsheets were capable of storing and manipulating each monitored water quality and
operational parameter from each task, each sampling location, and each sampling time. All data
from the on-site laboratory logbooks and data log sheets was entered into the appropriate
spreadsheet. Following data entry, the spreadsheet was checked against the handwritten data
sheets, and any required corrections were made.
As samples were collected and sent to NSF for analysis, the samples were tracked by use of
chain of custody sheets. Each sample bottle was labeled with an NSF Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) label for tracking purposes.
3.9.8 Task 6: Quality Assurance/Quality Control
3.9.8.1 Introduction
The QA/QC of operation of the CFLEMILES system and the measured water quality parameters
were maintained during verification testing by following the QAPP developed as part of the
TQAP. The QAPP included accuracy and precision objectives for the analytical work,
discussion of the need to meet representativeness and completeness criteria, and calibration
requirements for field meters and analytical equipment/methods.
27
-------
3.9.8.2 Experimental Objectives
The objective of this task was to maintain strict QA/QC methods and procedures during
verification testing. Maintenance of strict QA/QC procedures is crucial, so that if a question
arises when analyzing or interpreting collected data, it will be possible to verify exact conditions
at the time of testing.
3.9.8.3 Work Plan
Equipment flow rates were documented and recorded on a daily basis. A daily walkthrough
during testing was established to verify that each piece of equipment or instrumentation was
operating properly. Inline monitoring equipment, such as flow meters, etc., were checked to
confirm they were operating properly.
The items listed below were performed in addition to any specified checks outlined in the
analytical methods.
Weekly QA/QC Verifications:
In-line flow meters (clean any fouling buildup as needed, and verify flow rate
volumetrically, bucket and stop watch or tank fill time);
In-line totalizer meter (clean any material buildup as needed and verify production rate
volumetrically, monitor volume recorded over time based on calibrated flow rate); and
Tubing/piping (verify good condition of all tubing and connections, replace as
necessary).
One-Time QA/QC Verifications:
Accuracy of pressure gauges was determined by using a dead weight pressure tester to
check the calibration of the pressure gauges or was based on receiving a current (within
the last six months) manufacturer's calibration certification.
3.9.8.4 Analytical Methods
The analytical methods utilized in this verification test for monitoring of water quality are listed
in Tables 3-7 and 3-10.
Sampling procedures are described in Sections 3.9.4.4 and 3.9.6.2.
The QAPP provided specific calibration procedures for the analytical methods performed on site
and also a summary of the laboratory calibration requirements based on the analytical methods.
The NSF Chemistry Laboratory performed all water quality analyses using EPA or Standard
Methods procedures as listed in Tables 3-7 and 3-10. All of the required calibration curves and
quality control procedures were documented in accordance with the published methods and as
described in the QAPP in the PSTP.
28
-------
3.10 Operation and Maintenance
The FTO obtained the O&M manual (supplied in Appendix A) from Nagaoka to evaluate the
instructions and procedures for their applicability during the verification test and for overall
completeness. The results of the O&M manual review are reported in Chapter 4.
3.10.1 Maintenance
Evaluation during the verification test and review of the O&M manual included confirmation
whether the manufacturer provided readily understood information on the recommended or
required maintenance schedule for the following:
Operating equipment:
pumps
valves
pressure gauges and
flow meters.
Non-mechanical or non-electrical equipment:
tanks
piping and
filter media.
3.10.2 Operation
Among the operating aspects that were evaluated are:
Media filtration:
Control of filtration flow and rate;
Observation and measurement of head loss across the media during the filter run;
Media backwashing:
Programming automated frequency;
Use of alternative water source;
Proper backwash venting and disposal;
Appropriate backwash rate;
Monitoring during return of filter to service;
Monitoring and observing operation:
flow rates; and
Filter head loss.
The protocol recommends that a manufacturer should provide a troubleshooting guide - a simple
checklist of what to do for a variety of problems including:
29
-------
No raw water (feed water) flow to plant;
Inability to control rate of flow of water through equipment;
Filter cannot be backwashed or backwash rate of flow cannot change;
Automatic operation (if provided) not functioning;
Filtered water turbidity too high;
Filter head loss builds up excessively rapidly;
Valve stuck or will not operate;
Low feed pump pressure;
Pump cavitation; and
No electric power.
The O&M manual was reviewed for details and information provided on above lists and other
operating conditions observed during the verification test.
3.10.3 Operability Evaluation
The following formed the basis of the review and evaluation for equipment operability during
verification testing. These aspects of plant operation are reported to the extent practical in
Chapter 4.
The factors considered included:
Can automatic backwash be initiated by:
- Reaching a set value for head loss?
- Reaching a set turbidity level in the treated water?
- Default minimum time?
Is granular media pressure differential measurement provided?
Is rate of flow of raw water measured?
Is backwash rate of flow measured and variable?
Is backwash duration (time) variable?
Other factors and questions included:
Does the equipment have sensors or monitoring equipment that can detect an equipment
malfunction, unsatisfactory filtrate water quality, or operating conditions that exceed
allowable limits?
If so, during such situations can the equipment be automatically shut down?
Upon automatic shutdown, can notification be provided if the operator is not present on
site?
30
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
The verification test program for the CHEMILES System began with equipment installation at
the test site in October of 2011, and ended with the completion of the verification test on May
23, 2013. The test site is described in Section 1.3, and the CHEMILES CLT300 system is
described in Chapter 2.
After installation and start up of the system, the FTO and Nagaoka operated the system to ripen
the biological filter, and monitored system performance until October 2012. At that point,
Nagaoka was satisfied with system performance for removal of arsenic, iron, and ammonia, but
not for removal of manganese. Because of the six month testing schedule, and the fact that the
ETV program was drawing to a close in October of 2013, NSF requested that the verification test
be started for arsenic, iron, and ammonia reduction. Manganese reduction was to be evaluated
later when system performance for this contaminant improved. Due to time constraints to start
testing, the raw water samples collected for Week 1 of the test also served as the raw water
characterization samples for Task A. The verification test started on November 5, 2012, and was
scheduled to end on May 1, 2013. The manganese reduction evaluation period began on January
15. The 320-hour daily sampling period for all contaminants was from March 11 to March 24,
with the 48-hour intensive sampling period occurring March 18 through March 20.
In April, Nagaoka requested an additional 320-hour daily sampling period be conducted in May
for Manganese only. The second week of operation was with the pH of the raw water raised to 7
so as to evaluate whether manganese removal improved with a higher pH. Forty-eight hour
intensive sampling periods were performed each week of this additional testing period. The
additional testing period began on May 10, 2013, and ended on May 23, 2013. The 48-hour
intensive sampling periods were run May 14 through 16, and again May 21 through 23.
This chapter presents a summary of the water quality and operating data collected during the
verification test. All contaminant data (arsenic, iron, manganese, and ammonia) for the 320-hour
daily sampling periods and the 48-hour intensive sampling periods are presented. Operating data
are presented to describe the flow rates; volume of treated water produced, backwash volumes
and frequency, pressure differential across the filter media, and related operating information.
QA/QC information, as described by the QAPP in the PSTP for this verification test, is presented
at the end of the chapter.
4.2 Equipment Installation, Start-up, and Shakedown
The pilot system was constructed by Nagaoka in Japan, and shipped to the test site. Nagaoka
and CH2M Hill staff installed the equipment at the site in October 2011. As discussed in Section
1.3.1, a separate well pump was installed to supply water to the CHEMILES system. After
system installation, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries required
replacement of some parts in the PLC control panel to meet the UL Standard 508 requirements.
Due to these corrections, and the UL certification process for the PLC, the system was operated
-------
irregularly through April 2012. In addition, the treated water pump was not functioning
properly, so it was removed from the unit and returned to the manufacturer. On September 15,
2012, Nagaoka staff visited the test site to replace the treated water pump, and from that time
through the end of the verification test, the system was operated continuously. Nagaoka had
estimated based on previous installations that the ripening process would take three to six
months. However, for this water source, and due to the problems discussed above, ripening took
much longer. As discussed above, in October 2012 Nagaoka agreed to begin the verification test
for arsenic, iron, and ammonia reduction, and sampling started on November 7, 2012.
Evaluation of manganese reduction began in January 2013 after the filter had more time to ripen.
4.3 Task A: Raw Water Characterization
Historical water quality data for the test site were supplied by Clark Public Utilities during the
planning stage for this verification test. As shown in Table 1-1, total arsenic ranged from 15 to
36 |ig/L, ammonia ranged from 0.30 to 0.32 mg/L, iron ranged from 8.8 to 18.8 mg/L, and
manganese from 0.19 to 0.46 mg/L. As discussed in Section 4.1, the Week 1 raw water samples
served also as the raw water characterization samples for this verification test. The chemical
analyses for this task included total arsenic and arsenic speciation (arsenic [III] and [V]) for the
water source.
The results of the initial raw water characterization test are presented in Table 4-1. The data
confirmed that the raw water quality was similar to the historical water quality used to plan the
verification test.
Results for pH, DO, and ORP are not included, because during NSF's audit of the testing
activities in early December, problems were found with these analyses that caused the preceding
measurements to be discarded. See Section 4.4.3 for further discussion.
The levels of ammonia, iron, and manganese agree well with the historical water quality data.
The total arsenic concentration was measured at 0.012 mg/L, and the arsenic (III) concentration
was measured at 0.006 mg/L. So approximately 50% of the arsenic in the raw water was As (III)
and the remaining 50% was As (V).
The TSS level of 11 mg/L was very high in this sample, compared to the rest of the samples for
the verification test. All other TSS measurements were below the reporting limit of 2 mg/L,
except for sample at 6 mg/L, and one at 4 mg/L.
32
-------
Table 4-1. Raw Water Characterization Data - November 7, 2012
Parameter Units Result
Temperature
Turbidity
True Color
Ammonia
Nitrate
Nitrite
TKN
Total Arsenic
Arsenic (3+)
Iron
Manganese
Alkalinity
DOC
Chloride
Sulfate
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
TSS
vss
Hardness
TOC
Fluoride
Sulfide
TDS
Silica
HPC
°C
NTU
Color Units(CU)
mg/LN
mg/LN
mg/LN
mg/LN
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
CFU/mL
12.5
0.88
4(1), 14(2)
0.34
0.05
O.02
O.10
0.012
0.006
11
0.22
90
0.9
27
5.3
3.0
6.7
25
U(3)
3
58
1.1
0.1
O.01
200
58
47
(1) True color measured for first time on November 29.
(2) True color also measured again on November 30.
(3) All other raw water TSS measurements for project were <2 mg/L, except for one sample with 6 mg/L , and
a second sample with 4 mg/L
4.4 Task C: Verification Test
4.4.1 Operating Results
The CHEMILES system verification test started on November 5, 2012. The FTO operated the
system based on the criteria established by Nagaoka during the filter ripening and shakedown
testing period. The backwash frequency was set at every 8 hours for the partial backwash, and a
full backwash after every 9th partial backwash. After the test started, Nagaoka requested that the
full backwash frequency be changed to after every 6th partial backwash. The flow rate was set at
4.7 gpm.
Table 4-2 shows the daily operating data for the verification test. FTO staff visited the site daily,
Monday through Friday, throughout the verification testing period to visually inspect system
operation and record the water production, system flow rate, and to witness a backwash event.
33
-------
The recorded treated water flow rates ranged from 4.41 gpm to 5.42 gpm, and averaged 4.87
gpm.
The system operated continuously, except for the backwashes. The P backwash cycle was 19
minutes and 40 seconds in length, while the W backwash cycle was 21 minutes and 40 seconds
long. The backwash water flowed to waste for 9 minutes and 30 seconds during the P backwash,
and 10 minutes and 30 seconds during the W backwash. Since the backwashes occurred every 8
hours, the system produced treated water for approximately 23 hours per day. The water
production, normalized to a 24-hour day, averaged 6,527 gal, with a range of 3,121 to 6,698 gal.
Excluding the one day with only 3,121 gal produced as an outlier, the minimum 24-h production
was 5,367 gal. It is not known why only 3,121 gal were produced one day. The FTO did not
note any operational issues, and the system flow rate recorded that morning was 4.78 gpm.
Filter head loss was monitored through a sight tube. For each backwash witnessed, the FTO staff
recorded the head loss at the end of the filter run, and the head loss at the start of the next filter
run. The ending head loss was often below the monitoring window on the sight tube, so only 47
actual ending head loss measurements were recorded over the 136 day test. For the 47 days
where head loss recovery calculations are possible, the average recovery was 257 mm of water,
with a rather wide range of 52 to 904 mm. The backwash flow rate was also recorded. The
mean backwash flow was 5.19 gpm, with a range of 4.92 to 10.67 gpm.
Table 4-2. Summary Statistics for Operating Data
Parameter
Count
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Confidence
Interval
Treated
Flow Rate(1)
(gpm)
137
4.87
4.41
5.42
0.14
±0.2
Water
Production
per 24
hours (gal)
135
6,527
5,637
6,698
339.9
±57.3
Feed Nozzle
Pressure
(psi)
136
19
18
20
0.79
±0.13
Backwash
Flow (gpm)
130
5.19
4.92
10.67
0.82
±0.14
Head loss
Recovery
after
Backwash
(mm H2O)
47
257
52
904
149
±43
1' Flow rate was the instantaneous reading each morning when the field staff checked the system.
4.4.2 Contaminant Reduction Results
This section presents the arsenic, iron, manganese, and ammonia reduction results for the raw
and treated water. Also included with the ammonia results are the nitrate and nitrite results,
since the system oxidizes ammonia to nitrate.
As the test progressed and the raw water results database was compiled, it became apparent that
the water source had less stability than would be desired. As discussed in Section 1.3.1, the well
was only about 200 feet from the Lewis River, and the groundwater level rises and lowers in
conjunction with the river level due to water releases from the Merwin Dam upstream. A water
plant operator informed the FTO that the groundwater level can rise as much as four feet when
34
-------
the river level rises. The rises in the water levels seem to be correlated with decreases in the
levels of the contaminants in the raw water. For instance, on March 19, during the first 48-hour
intensive sampling period, the raw water ammonia concentration dropped steadily from 0.63
mg/L as N at 12:20 PM on March 19 down to 0.25 mg/L as N at 9:20 AM on March 20. During
this period, the U.S. Geological Survey stream gauge just downstream of the Merwin Dam on the
Lewis River showed that the dam discharge approximately doubled from the morning to the
evening of March 19. The dam discharge stayed high until the early morning of March 21.
4.4.2.1 Ammonia
The ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite weekly sampling summary statistics are presented in Table 4-3,
and the March 320-hour daily sampling results and March 48-hour intensive sampling results are
presented in Tables 4-4, and 4-5, respectively. The ammonia raw and treated water weekly
sampling results and March 320-hour daily sampling results are plotted in Figure 4-1. The
ammonia results for the March 320-hour daily sampling period only are plotted in Figure 4-2,
while the March 48-hour intensive sampling results are plotted in Figure 4-3. Note that many of
the nitrate and nitrite samples exceeded their 48-hour holding time prior to analysis. During the
320-hour daily sampling period, samples collected on a Friday were shipped out that day, but
could not be delivered to NSF until the following Monday. And samples collected on a Saturday
were not shipped to NSF until Monday, resulting in a Tuesday delivery. During the 48-hour
sampling period, the samples collected March 18 at 5:20 PM through March 19 at 2:20 PM were
delivered to NSF the morning of March 20. The italicized samples in Table 4-5 were not
analyzed until March 22 due to an error with the automated analyzer the evening of March 20
that was not discovered until the morning of March 21.
As shown in Table 4-3, ammonia in the raw water for the weekly samples ranged from 0.07 to
0.71 mg/L as N, with a mean of 0.40 mg/L. Ammonia in the treated water ranged from 0.03 to
0.19 mg/L as N, with a mean of 0.05 mg/L. Nagaoka's target performance criterion for ammonia
was 75% reduction. The 75% reduction performance level was achieved for all weekly
raw/treated sample pairs, except three. The first pair was that for November 21, and in this
instance 75% reduction was not achieved because the raw concentration was at the minimum of
0.07 mg/L measured for the entire test. The treated water level was less than the laboratory
reporting limit of 0.03 mg/L, so the low percent reduction was simply a function of the low raw
water concentration and the analytical method reporting limit. The other two sample pairs with
less than 75% reduction corresponded to spikes in the raw water ammonia concentration on
January 23 and March 12. There were three treated water samples that had greater than 0.1 mg/L
of ammonia measured. Two were at 0.19 mg/L, occurring on January 23 and March 12 with the
raw water ammonia spikes. The third was 0.11 mg/L on March 6. See Figure 4-1 for the
ammonia spikes and corresponding treated water spikes. Since the CFIEMILES System uses
biologically mediated oxidation of ammonia for treatment, the system likely cannot respond
rapidly to spikes in the raw water ammonia concentration, as were observed for this unique water
source.
As discussed above, the raw water ammonia concentration dropped by approximately 50%, then
rebounded during the March 320-hour daily sampling period, likely due to higher discharges
from the upstream dam. See Table 4-4 and Figure 4-2 for the data. This occurrence was also
captured in the 48-hour intensive sampling period from March 18 to 20. Despite these
35
-------
fluctuations in the raw water ammonia level, the CHEMILES system maintained 75% or greater
reduction of ammonia for all of the 48-hour intensive sample pairs, and for all of the daily
sampling pairs except for one - March 12 at 12:10 PM. The percent reduction for this sample
pair was 71.2%.
As the CHEMILES System oxidized the ammonia and nitrate was produced, with a mean
concentration of 0.44 mg/L as N, and a maximum concentration of 0.66 mg/L as N in the weekly
treated water samples. Higher treated water levels were found during the March 48-hour
intensive sampling period. These spikes correlated with backwashes of the filtration media. An
examination of the data in Table 4-5 reveals that the treated water nitrate concentrations were
highest immediately after a backwash event (zeros in the filtration time column). However, the
highest measured concentration of 1.5 mg/L as N is well below the EPA MCL of 10 mg/L as N
for nitrate. The nitrate levels dropped to the typical steady-state treatment levels in the samples
collected an hour after the backwashes.
All weekly raw and treated water samples had nitrite below the laboratory reporting limit of 0.02
mg/L as N. During both the March daily sampling period and the March 48-hour intensive
sampling period there were small spikes in the treated water nitrite level. As shown in Table 4-4,
on March 15 the treated water nitrite level was measured at 0.04 mg/L as N. On March 19
during the 48-hour intensive sampling period there also was a small amount of nitrite detected in
the treated water for multiple samples, reaching a maximum level of 0.07 mg/L as N. These
levels are well below the EPA MCL of 1 mg/L as N for nitrite.
Table 4-3. Ammonia, Nitrate, and Nitrite Summary Data(1)
Parameter
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Ammonia (mg/L N)
Raw
24
0.40
0.07
0.71
0.17
±0.07
Treated
25
0.05
0.03
0.19
0.05
±0.02
Nitrate (mg/L N)
Raw
26
0.05
<0.05
0.14
0.02
±0.01
Treated
26
0.44
0.24
0.66
0.13
±0.05
Nitrite (mg/L N)
Raw
26
0.02
O.02
O.02
NA
NA
Treated
26
0.02
O.02
O.02
NA
NA
(1) Concentrations reported as non-detect set equal to the detection limit for calculating statistics.
36
-------
Table 4-4. Ammonia, Nitrate, and Nitrite Results from March 320-Hour Daily Sampling
Period(1)
Date
3/11/2013
3/12/2013
3/13/2013
3/14/2013
3/15/2013
3/16/2013
3/17/2013
3/18/2013
3/19/2013
3/20/2013
3/21/2013
3/22/2013
3/23/2013
3/24/2013
Time
11:36 AM
12:10 PM
-
10:38 AM
10:41 AM
9:00 AM
4:01 PM
2:30 PM
3:OOPM
2:45 PM
12:10 PM
11:57 AM
5:06PM
3:38PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Ammonia (mg/L N)
Raw
0.71
0.66
0.67
0.51
0.51
0.63
0.63
0.61
0.53
0.28
0.41
0.58
0.58
0.57
14
0.56
0.28
0.71
0.11
±0.06
Treated
0.12
0.19
0.16
0.03
0.03
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
14
0.08
0.03
0.19
0.05
±0.03
Nitrate (mg/L N)
Raw
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
<0.05(2)
<0.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
O.05
14
0.05
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
Treated
0.39
0.38
0.41
0.43
0.47
0.44
0.48
0.42
0.45
0.32
0.38
0.45
0.50
0.48
14
0.43
0.32
0.50
0.05
0.03
Nitrite (mg/L N)
Raw
O.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
O.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
O.02
14
0.02
0.02
0.02
NA
NA
Treated
O.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
<0.02
O.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
O.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.02
14
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.00
(1) Concentrations reported as non-detect set equal to the detection limit for calculating statistics.
(2) Results in italics are from samples where the 48-hour holding time was exceeded.
37
-------
Table 4-5. Ammonia, Nitrate, and Nitrite Results from March 48-Hour Intensive Sampling
Period(1)
Date
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
Time
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Filtration Run
Time (hr)
o
6
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
Ammonia (mg/L N)
Raw
0.61
0.62
0.55
0.63
0.62
0.63
0.58
0.65
0.63
0.63
0.62
0.62
0.53
0.47
0.44
0.39
0.37
0.35
0.34
0.33
0.29
0.25
0.27
0.30
0.28
25
0.48
0.25
0.65
0.15
±0.06
Treated
0.08
0.12
O.03
0.096
0.09
0.13
<0.03
0.13
0.15
0.11
0.03
0.12
0.07
<0.03
O.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
O.03
O.03
O.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
O.03
25
0.06
0.03
0.15
0.04
±0.02
Nitrate (mg/L N)
Raw
O.05
O.05
O.05
<0.05(2)
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.05
25
O.05
0.05
0.05
NA
NA
Treated
0.42
0.40
1.5
0.48
0.45
0.5
1.3
0.43
0.42
0.47
1
0.43
0.45
0.42
0.75
0.43
0.47
0.36
0.84
0.32
0.39
0.34
0.76
0.34
0.32
25
0.56
0.32
1.50
0.31
±0.12
Nitrite (mg/L N)
Raw
O.02
O.02
O.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
O.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.02
25
O.02
0.02
0.02
NA
NA
Treated
O.02
0.02
0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.07
<0.02
0.04
0.03
0.07
<0.02
0.03
O.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
O.02
O.02
O.02
25
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.01
±0.01
(1) Concentrations reported as non-detect set equal to the detection limit for calculating statistics.
(2) Results in italics are from samples where the 48-hour holding time was exceeded.
38
-------
ETVTest results summary: Ammonia Removal (November 7th, 2012 ~ May 1st, 2013)
320hr
Intensive
Sampling
Date
Raw Water ^^Treated Water
Figure 4-1. Verification Test Ammonia Results.
39
-------
Ammonia removal: 320 hour (March 11
March 24)
Date
Raw Water ^Hreated Water
Figure 4-2. Daily Sampling Period Ammonia Results.
40
-------
Ammonia Removal: 48 hour (March 18 - March 20)
Date
-Raw Water --Treated Water
Figure 4-3. March 48-HourSampling Period Ammonia Results.
41
-------
4.4.2.2 Iron
The raw and treated weekly sample summary statistics for iron are presented in Table 4-6, and
the individual weekly sampling results, as well as the March daily sampling results, are plotted in
Figure 4-4. The raw water iron concentrations varied widely during the test, just as the ammonia
levels did, ranging from 2.0 to 15 mg/L, with a mean of 9.4 mg/L. All treated water iron
measurements were below the EPA secondary MCL of 0.3 mg/L. The treated water iron
concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 0.18 mg/L, with a mean of 0.05. On March 27, Nagaoka
requested that the FTO raise the raw water pH with NaOH to try to improve the biologically
mediated manganese treatment. At this time, the treated water iron level rose to 0.40 mg/L on
March 27, and 0.62 mg/L on April 3. The pH adjustment was stopped on April 8, and the treated
water iron level was measured at 0.03 mg/L on April 11. These two high treated water iron
results are excluded from the weekly sample data set due to the change in the treatment
condition. Nagaoka theorized that the NaOH reacted with a portion of iron in the raw water to
produce colloidal Fe(OH)3, which passed through the filtration media. See the vendor comments
in Chapter 6 for further discussion. The results from the March daily sampling period are
presented in Table 4-7, and these results are also graphically presented in Figure 4-5. The 48-
hour intensive sampling results are presented in Table 4-8, and graphically in Figure 4-6. During
the 48-hour sampling period, there were two treated water samples that had iron present above
0.3 mg/L - those from 11:20 AM and 3:20 AM. Both of these samples were collected right after
a backwash (zeros in the filtration time column), and the samples collected an hour after both of
these samples had iron at only 0.04 mg/L.
Table 4-6. Arsenic and Iron Weekly Sample Summary Data(1)
Parameter
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Arsenic (mg/L)
Raw
26
0.008
O.002
0.014
0.003
±0.001
Treated
26
0.002
O.002
O.004
NA
NA
Iron (mg/L)
Raw
26
9.4
2.0
15
2.7
±1.0
Treated
24
0.05
0.02
0. 18
0.05
±0.02
(1) Concentrations reported as non-detect set equal to the detection limit for calculating statistics.
42
-------
ETVTest results summary: Iron Removal (November 7th, 2012 May 1st, 2013)
Date
-Raw Water -^Treated Water ^^ EPA Level
Figure 4-4. Iron Removal Results.
43
-------
Table 4-7. Arsenic and Iron Results from March Daily Sampling Period
Date
3/11/2013
3/12/2013
3/13/2013
3/14/2013
3/15/2013
3/16/2013
3/17/2013
3/18/2013
3/19/2013
3/20/2013
3/21/2013
3/22/2013
3/23/2013
3/24/2013
Time
11:36 AM
12:10 PM
.
10:38 AM
10:41 AM
9:00 AM
4:01 PM
2:30 PM
3:OOPM
2:45 PM
12:10 PM
11:57 AM
5:06PM
3:38PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Arsenic (mg/L)
Raw
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.010
0.011
0.014
0.014
0.019
0.013
0.005
0.008
0.012
0.013
0.014
14
0.013
0.005
0.019
0.003
±0.002
Treated
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
14
O.002
O.002
0.002
NA
NA
Iron (mg/L)
Raw
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
10
7.2
10
11
11
11
14
11
7.2
12
1.2
±0.63
Treated
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.17
14
0.07
0.03
0.17
0.03
±0.02
44
-------
Iron removal: 320 Hour (March 11 ~ March 24)
Date
Raw Water -Hreated Water
Level
Figure 4-5. Iron Removal Results from March Daily Sampling Period.
45
-------
Table 4-8. Arsenic and Iron Results from March 48-Hour Intensive Sampling Period
Date
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
Time
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Filtration Run
Time (hrs)
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
Arsenic (mg/L)
Raw
0.019
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.013
0.010
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.005
25
0.014
0.005
0.020
0.006
±0.003
Treated
O.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
O.002
O.002
O.002
25
0.02
0.02
0.02
NA
NA
Iron (mg/L)
Raw
11
11
12
12
12
11
13
12
11
11
12
12
10
9.4
8.4
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.3
7.2
25
9.9
7.2
13
1.9
±0.74
Treated
0.09
0.12
0.29
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.29
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.32
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.12
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.34
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.28
0.03
0.06
25
0.11
0.03
0.34
0.10
±0.04
46
-------
Iron Removal: 48 Hour (March 18 ~ March 20)
<^<^<^<^<^^^^^^^<^^^<^<^<^^^^^^^<^^
;> V V ^
Raw Water
Time
Treated Water
EPA Level
Figure 4-6. Iron Removal Results From March 48- Hour Intensive Sampling Period.
4.4.2.3 Arsenic
The arsenic weekly sample summary statistics are presented in Table 4-6 along with the iron and
manganese data. The arsenic results for the 320-hour daily sampling period are reported in Table
4-7, and those for the 48-hour intensive sampling period are reported in Table 4-8. The weekly
sampling results and the 320-hour daily sampling results are plotted together in Figure 4-7. The
historical water quality data in Table 1-1 suggested that the arsenic concentration in the raw
water ranged from 15 to 36 |ig/L. However, this was not the case at any time during the
verification test. The arsenic level reached as high as 0.020 mg/L during the March 48-hour
intensive sampling period, but most of the time it was below the EPA MCL of 0.010 mg/L. The
weekly samples statistical analysis shows a mean raw water arsenic concentration of 0.008 mg/L
for the test, with a range of <0.002 to 0.014 mg/L. There were two weeks where the raw water
arsenic level was below the laboratory reporting limit of 0.002 mg/L. Arsenic was below the
reporting limit for all treated water samples, including all of those for the March 320-hour daily
and 48-hour intensive sampling periods, except for one sample during the intensive sampling
period with arsenic reported at 0.002 mg/L.
47
-------
0.02
0.018
0.016
ETV Test results summary: Arsenic Removal (November 7th, 2012 ~ May 1st, 2013)
Date
Raw Water
Treated Water
EPA regulated level
Figure 4-7. Arsenic Removal Results For Weekly Samples and March 320-Hour Daily Samples.
48
-------
4.4.2.4 Manganese
The monitoring period for manganese removal was delayed until January 2013 to allow more
time for the manganese oxidizing bacteria to cultivate on the filtration media. As discussed
previously, the verification testing period was extended into May of 2013 to allow for second
320-hour daily sampling and 48-hour intensive sampling periods focusing only on manganese
reduction. The results of the weekly manganese samples from January 15 to May 22 are
presented in Table 4-9. These results, as well as the March 320-hour daily sampling results, are
presented graphically in Figure 4-8. The weekly sample raw water manganese levels ranged
from 0.13 to 0.32 mg/L, with a mean of 0.21 mg/L. The treated water levels ranged from 0.02 to
0.28 mg/L, with a mean of 0.11 mg/L. Of the fifteen treated water weekly manganese sample
results, only two samples were below the EPA secondary MCL of 0.05 mg/L. These were the
samples from April 3 and April 11. April 3 was during the pH adjustment period discussed
above in Section 4.4.2.2, while the April 11 sample was collected three days after pH adjustment
was stopped on April 8. No other official verification testing samples were collected during this
first pH adjustment period; Nagaoka only had the FTO measuring manganese reduction in the
field to monitor performance. Adjustment of pH was also included in the May extended testing
period, as described below.
The results for the May 320-hour daily sampling period for manganese only are presented in
Table 4-10, and are plotted in Figure 4-9. During the first week, from May 10 to May 16, the pH
of the raw water was not raised. From May 17 to May 23, the mean feed water pH after NaOH
addition was 7.03, with a range of 6.85 to 7.28. From May 10 to May 16, the raw water
manganese concentration ranged from 0.09 to 0.19 mg/L, with a mean of 0.14 mg/L. For the
second week, from May 17 to May 23, the raw water manganese concentration was higher,
ranging from 0.21 to 0.32 mg/L, with a mean of 0.25 mg/L. Likewise, the treated water
manganese concentrations were lower the first week than the second week. From May 10 to
May 16 the treated water manganese ranged from 0.03 to 0.07 mg/L, with a mean of 0.04 mg/L.
From May 18 to May 23, the treated water manganese ranged from 0.02 to 0.12 mg/L, with a
mean of 0.06 mg/L. For this second week, the two lowest manganese measurements were on the
22nd and 23rd, at 0.02 and 0.04 mg/L, respectively. This indicates that perhaps pH adjustment
takes a few days to affect the treated water levels.
The manganese results for the two May 48-hour intensive sampling periods are provided in
Table 4-10, and graphically in Figures 4-10 and 4-11. An examination of the second data set for
the May 21 to May 23 period more clearly shows the effect of the raw water pH adjustment.
From 2:20 PM on May 21 to 6:20 AM on May 22, the treated water manganese level remained
fairly constant between 0.10 and 0.13 mg/L. But then it dropped to 0.04 mg/L three hours later
at the May 22 9:20 AM sampling point, and it remained low at a mean concentration of 0.05
mg/L (data not shown) and a maximum of 0.07 mg/L through the end of the intensive sampling
period at 2:20 PM on May 23.
49
-------
ET V Test results summary: Manganese removal (November 7th, 2012 ~ May 23rd, 2013)
^ ^
Raw Treated
Water Water
Series 1
EPA regulated
Level
SeriesS
-------
Table 4-9. Manganese Results from May Daily Sampling Period
Without pH adjustment
Date
5/10/2013
5/11/2013
5/12/2013
5/13/2013
5/14/2013
5/15/2013
5/16/2013
Time
12:20 PM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
12:30 PM
3:10 PM
2:40 PM
2:20 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Manganese (mg/L)
Raw
0.19
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.14
0.19
7
0.14
0.09
0.19
Treated
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.07
7
0.04
0.03
0.07
With pH Adjustment
Date
5/17/2013
5/18/2013
5/19/2013
5/20/2013
5/21/2013
5/22/2013
5/23/2013
Time
12:40 PM
9:45 AM
1:15 PM
12:45 PM
2:36 PM
2:48 PM
2:20 AM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Manganese (mg/L)
Raw
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.32
0.29
0.21
7
0.25
0.21
0.32
Treated
0.02
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.02
0.04
7
0.06
0.02
0.12
51
-------
Table 4-10. Manganese Results from May 48-Hour Intensive Sampling Periods
Date
5/14/2013
5/14/2013
5/14/2013
5/14/2013
5/14/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/15/2013
5/16/2013
5/16/2013
5/16/2013
5/16/2013
5/16/2013
5/16/2013
5/16/2013
5/16/2013
Time
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Manganese (mg/L)
Raw
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.19
25
0.16
0.13
0.20
0.02
±0.01
Treated
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.07
25
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.01
±0.004
Date
5/21/2013
5/21/2013
5/21/2013
5/21/2013
5/21/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/22/2013
5/23/2013
5/23/2013
5/23/2013
5/23/2013
5/23/2013
5/23/2013
5/23/2013
5/23/2013
Time
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Manganese (mg/L)
Raw
0.32
0.27
0.30
0.28
0.31
0.29
0.27
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.22
0.21
25
0.26
0.17
0.33
0.05
±0.02
Treated
0.12
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
25
0.07
0.02
0.13
0.03
±0.01
52
-------
GRAPH 4
0.35
Additional Manganese testing: 320 hour (May 10 ~ May 23)
\
|
Date
Raw Water -B-Treated Water EPALevel
Figure 4-9. Manganese Removal Results from May Daily Sampling Period.
53
-------
0.25
0.1
0.05
Additional Mn testing: 48 hour without pH adjustment
(May 14 ~ May 16)
Raw Water
O
-------
Additional Mn testing: 48 hour with pH adjustment
(May 21 ~ May 23)
0.35
Raw Water
Date
Treated Water
EPA Level
Figure 4-11. Manganese Removal Results From May 21-23 48-Hour Intensive Sampling
Period With pH Adjustment.
4.4.3 Raw and Treated Water Quality Results
The water quality sampling schedule was presented in Table 3-6. The water quality parameters
were measured in both the raw water and treated water streams. Temperature, pH, ORP, and DO
were also measured in samples collected from the top of the treatment column, immediately
downstream of the aeration nozzle. The summary statistics for the weekly on-site water quality
measurements are provided in Table 4-11, and the summary statistics for the weekly laboratory
measurements are provided in Table 4-12. Table 4-13 provides the on-site measurement results
for the March 320-hour daily sampling period, while Table 4-14 provides the results for the May
320-hour daily sampling period. The May data are split up by week, with individual summary
statistics for each week, because of the NaOH addition for pH adjustment the second week. And
note that for the May data, the split caused the sample counts to be below eight, so the standard
deviation and 95% confidence intervals are not calculated. The ETV protocols call for these
parameters to be reported only when the sample size is eight or more.
All pH measurements prior to December 12, 2012 were excluded from the weekly samples
dataset due to calibration of the pH meter using expired buffer solutions. The aerated water and
treated water pH measurements from March 27 and April 3 were also excluded from the weekly
55
-------
samples dataset because of the previously discussed pH adjustment with NaOH injection. The
raw water results from these two days are included because the NaOH injection was downstream
of the raw water sampling port. The pH of the raw water averaged 6.39 over the verification
testing period, with a minimum of 6.17 and a maximum of 6.57. Aeration of the raw water for
treatment raised the pH to a mean of 6.68, with a range of 6.55 to 6.80. The pH of the treated
water was slightly lower, with a mean of 6.46 and a range of 6.36 to 6.54. The raw water
temperature was steady throughout the verification test, ranging from 11.9 to 14.2 °C.
The DO measurements prior to December 12 were also excluded because of a bad membrane on
the DO probe. The DO of the raw water ranged from 2.97 to 4.16 mg/L, with a mean of 3.49
mg/L. Aeration of the water raised the DO level to an average of 9.77 mg/L (range 7.61 to
11.31). Passage of the water through the media column consumed oxygen, as would be expected
for a biological treatment process. The DO of the treated water averaged 6.51 mg/L (range 3.62
to 8.85).
The ORP measurements prior to January 15 were excluded because the measurement procedure
was not standardized. The FTO found that the ORP continued to drift at a good pace while
measurements were attempted, even after waiting up to ten minutes for it to stabilize. Prior to
January 15, the official measurement was made after waiting varying times. From January 15
onward, the procedure was standardized such that the measurement was always recorded after
waiting for three minutes. Also, a portion of the ORP measurements are missing from the March
320-hour daily sampling dataset in Table 4-13 due to the ORP probe being broken. The ORP of
the raw water ranged from -65 to 87 mV, with a mean of 2 mV. Aeration increased the ORP to a
mean of 17 mV, with a range of-36 to 106 mV. Treatment of the water through the CFIEMILES
further increased the ORP to the range of 94 to 435 mV, with a mean of 213 mV, even though
the treatment process consumed a portion of the dissolved oxygen in the water.
The turbidity of the raw water was low, at 0.09 to 0.88 NTU, with a mean of 0.33 NTU. The
treatment process raised the turbidity somewhat, to a range of 0.17 to 3.23 NTU (mean of 0.80).
The HPC results from the November and December monthly samples were excluded from the
dataset because the samples were collected from sampling tubes that were contaminated with
biofilm. For the remaining samples collected during the verification test, the tubing was
removed, and the samples were collected directly from the sampling valves. While the valves
still likely contained some biofilm, this was the only option available for collecting the FIPC
samples. The FIPC samples were always collected last, to allow as much flushing as possible
prior to sample collection.
The treatment process did not seem to affect any of the laboratory measurement parameters,
except for the FIPC count. But these data are questionable because all treated water HPC counts
were below 10 CFU/mL, except for one count of 149. For most raw/treated sample pairs, the
raw water count was 1, or <1 CFU/mL, so the treatment process did add a small amount of HPC
to the water but not to a degree warranting any concern about hitting the EPA MCL of 500
CFU/mL.
56
-------
Table 4-11. Weekly Summary Data for On-Site Measurements
(i)
Parameter
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
PH
Raw
27
6.39
6.17
6.57
0.09
±0.03
Aerated
19
6.68
6.55
6.80
0.07
±0.03
Treated
23
6.46
6.36
6.54
0.06
±0.02
Temperature (°C)
Raw
33
12.7
11.9
14.2
0.50
±0.17
Aerated
30
12.6
11.7
14.5
0.70
±0.25
Treated
33
12.9
11.9
14.5
0.62
±0.21
ORP(mV)
Raw
21
2
-65
87
45
±19
Aerated
17
17
-36
106
43
±20
Treated
21
203
55
435
101
±43
DO (mg/L)
Raw
28
3.49
2.97
4.16
0.31
±0.12
Aerated
24
9.77
7.61
11.31
0.74
±0.29
Treated
28
6.51
3.62
8.85
1.38
±0.51
Turbidity
(NTU)
Raw
33
0.33
0.09
0.88
0.20
±0.07
Treated
33
0.77
0.17
3.23
0.61
±0.21
True Color
(CO
Raw
11
12
0
17
5
±3
Treated
11
7
0
15
6
±4
(1) Concentrations reported as non-detect set equal to the detection limit for calculating statistics.
Table 4-12. Weekly Summary Data for Laboratory Measurements^
Parameter
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Parameter
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Raw
14
87
70
100
11
±5.6
Treated
14
79
61
120
17
±8.9
VSS
(mg/L)
Raw
10
2
<2
o
J
0.3
±0.2
Treated
10
<2
<2
<2
NA
NA
DOC (mg/L)
Raw
10
1.3
0.6
1.8
0.43
±0.27
Treated
10
1.1
0.6
1.7
0.38
±0.23
Hardness
(mg/L CaCO3)
Raw
27
68.4
56.0
90.0
8.24
±3.11
Treated
25
68.6
54.0
88.0
8.69
±3.41
Chloride
(mg/L)
Raw
10
49
21
80
21
±13
Treated
9
57
21
160
44
±29
TOC (mg/L)
Raw
28
1.4
0.5
2.1
0.4
±0.2
Treated
28
1.0
0.1
1.7
0.3
±0.1
Sulfate (mg/L)
Raw
28
4.0
0.9
8.6
2.1
±0.77
Treated
27
4.1
1.0
8.7
2.1
±0.78
Fluoride
(mg/L)
Raw
10
0.1
<0.1
0.1
NA
NA
Treated
10
0.1
<0.1
0.1
NA
NA
Potassium
(mg/L)
Raw
10
3.9
3.0
5.0
0.74
±0.46
Treated
10
3.8
3.0
4.7
0.61
±0.38
Sulfide (mg/L)
Raw
10
0.02
O.01
0.03
0.01
±0.004
Treated
10
0.01
O.01
<0.01
NA
NA
Magnesium
(mg/L)
Raw
27
7.6
6.0
9.5
0.87
±0.33
Treated
27
7.7
6.0
10
1.0
±0.38
HPC (CFU/mL)
Raw
8
3
<1
20
7
±5
Treated
8
24
2
149
51
±35
Sodium (mg/L)
Raw
10
35
20
53
12
7.2
Treated
10
39
20
70
16
9.8
Silica (mg/L)
Raw
10
55
50
61
4.1
±2.6
Treated
10
52
45
57
3.8
±2.3
TSS (mg/L)
Raw
27
o
J
<2
11
1.9
0.71
Treated
27
<2
<2
<2
NA
NA
(1) Concentrations reported as non-detect set equal to the detection limit for calculating statistics.
57
-------
Table 4-13. On-Site Water Quality Measurements for March 320-hour Daily Sampling Period
Date
3/11/2013
3/12/2013
3/13/2013
3/14/2013
3/15/2013
3/16/2013
3/17/2013
3/18/2013
3/19/2013
3/20/2013
3/21/2013
3/22/2013
3/23/2013
3/24/2013
Time
11:36 AM
12:10 PM
NR(2)
10:38 AM
10:41 AM
9:00 AM
4:01 PM
2:30 PM
3:OOPM
2:45 PM
12:10 PM
11:57 AM
5:06PM
3:38PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
pH
Raw
6.44
6.47
6.38
6.40
6.39
6.45
6.47
6.50
6.49
6.39
6.45
6.48
6.39
6.43
14
6.44
6.38
6.50
0.04
±0.02
Aerated
NM(1)
6.67
NM
6.61
6.59
6.65
6.58
6.65
6.66
6.51
6.62
6.67
NM
NM
10
6.62
6.51
6.67
0.05
±0.03
Treated
6.44
6.41
6.38
6.38
6.37
6.51
6.36
6.42
6.50
6.43
6.43
6.43
6.34
6.42
14
6.42
6.34
6.51
0.05
±0.03
Temperature (°C)
Raw
12.8
13.1
13.1
12.8
13.1
12.3
12.5
13.0
12.9
12.1
11.9
12.5
12.3
12.8
14
12.7
11.9
13.1
0.39
±0.21
Aerated
NM
13.2
NM
13.1
13.3
12.4
12.6
12.7
13.0
12.0
11.4
12.4
NM
NM
10
12.6
11.4
13.3
0.59
±0.37
Treated
13.0
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.7
12.3
13.4
12.9
13.2
12.2
12.3
12.6
12.8
13.2
14
13.0
12.2
13.7
0.48
±0.25
ORP(mV)
Raw
-1
-46
-1
-19
0
-28
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
-16
-46
0
NM(3)
NC
Aerated
NM
-33
NM
6
27
0
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4
0
-33
27
NC
NC
Treated
417
121
118
90
101
76
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
154
76
417
NC
NC
DO (mg/L)
Raw
3.27
3.10
3.50
3.17
3.30
3.39
3.74
3.92
3.84
4.44
4.39
3.64
3.19
3.37
14
3.59
3.10
4.44
0.43
±0.23
Aerated
NM
8.97
NM
8.40
8.75
8.36
8.62
8.69
8.82
8.36
9.51
8.86
NM
NM
10
8.73
8.36
9.51
0.35
±0.22
Treated
4.22
3.62
4.02
4.23
4.16
3.59
4.33
3.84
4.37
5.51
5.29
3.82
3.57
4.67
14
4.23
3.57
5.51
0.59
±0.31
Turbidity
(NTU)
Raw
0.19
0.15
0.45
0.54
0.35
0.69
0.38
0.35
0.38
0.20
0.49
0.30
0.75
0.28
14
0.39
0.15
0.75
0.18
±0.09
Treated
1.46
1.25
1.09
0.89
1.44
1.91
0.31
1.05
0.84
1.24
1.67
0.52
0.69
0.76
14
1.08
0.31
1.91
0.45
±0.24
(1) NM = not measured
(2) NR = not recorded
(3) NM = not measured, probe broken from 3/17 through 3/24
(4) NC = not calculated due to sample count
58
-------
Table 4-14. On-Site Water Quality Measurements for May 320-hour Daily Sampling Period
Date
5/10/2013
5/11/2013
5/12/2013
5/13/2013
5/14/2013
5/15/2013
5/16/2013
Time
12:20 PM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
12:30 PM
3:10 PM
2:40 PM
2:20 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
pH
Raw
6.31
6.18
6.11
6.16
6.29
6.32
6.32
7
6.24
6.11
6.32
Aerated
6.64
NM
NM
NM
6.62
6.69
6.63
4
6.65
6.62
6.69
Treated
6.45
6.37
6.38
6.43
6.43
6.53
6.42
7
6.43
6.37
6.53
Temperature (°C)
Raw
14
13.7
14
13.7
14.1
14.2
13.9
7
13.9
13.7
14.2
Aerated
14.5
NM
NM
NM
15.3
13.6
14.2
4
14.4
13.6
15.3
Treated
14.4
14.2
14.4
14.4
13.9
14.2
14.7
7
14.3
13.9
14.7
ORP(mV)
Raw
31
113
53
68
141
87
91
7
83
31
141
Aerated
43
NM
NM
NM
131
103
83
4
90
43
131
Treated
165
205
330
254
239
314
481
7
284
165
481
DO (mg/L)
Raw
2.59
2.86
2.79
2.86
3.07
3.45
2.81
7
2.92
2.59
3.45
Aerated
8.98
NM
NM
NM
9.30
9.18
9.25
4
9.18
8.98
9.30
Treated
7.70
7.95
7.80
8.10
7.91
7.75
6.04
7
7.61
6.04
8.10
Turbidity
(NTU)
Raw
0.35
0.34
0.21
0.25
0.18
0.25
0.41
7
0.28
0.18
0.41
Treated
0.23
0.22
0.24
0.29
0.24
0.33
0.45
7
0.29
0.22
0.45
5/17/2013
5/18/2013
5/19/2013
5/20/2013
5/21/2013
5/22/2013
5/23/2013
12:40 PM
9:45 AM
1:15 PM
12:45 PM
2:36 PM
2:48 PM
2:20 AM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
6.47
6.51
6.53
6.52
6.48
6.57
6.36
7
6.49
6.36
6.57
7.28
7.07
7.03
7.01
6.92
7.06
6.85
7
7.03
6.85
7.28
7.01
6.97
6.81
6.83
6.73
7.48
6.95
7
6.97
6.73
7.48
14.5
13.9
13.9
13.6
13.6
12.6
12.8
7
13.6
12.6
14.5
14.4
13.3
13.9
14.2
13.4
12.5
12.9
7
13.5
12.5
14.4
14.3
14.2
14.6
13.7
13.8
12.7
12.9
7
13.7
12.7
14.6
-227
-117
-117
145
-86
-1
-65
7
-69
-227
145
-178
-92
-105
-196
-77
9
-18
7
-94
-196
9
2
27
98
-77
32
55
55
7
27
-77
98
4.08
3.21
3.71
3.28
2.98
3.82
3.87
7
3.56
2.98
4.08
8.20
8.75
8.71
8.85
8.93
10.34
10.24
7
9.15
8.20
10.34
6.52
8.15
6.06
6.16
5.84
6.79
7.84
7
6.77
5.84
8.15
0.44
0.15
0.44
0.19
0.3
0.14
0.32
7
0.28
0.14
0.44
2.40
8.31
0.57
0.36
0.46
0.61
0.59
7
1.90
0.36
8.31
(1) NM = not measured
59
-------
4.4.4 Backwash Frequency and Wastewater Quality
As described in Sections 2.1 and 4.4.1, the CHEMILES System backwash cycle was set to occur
automatically every eight hours. Most of the backwashes were the partial backwash described in
2.1; the whole backwash only occurred after every 6th partial backwash. The backwash waste
was discharged into a collection vessel from which the backwash samples were drawn. This
vessel was used only for collection of the backwash waste for the scheduled sampling events.
The non-sampled backwash waste was collected into a different vessel, from which the waste
was slowly discharged onto the ground. During the NSF QA audit on December 5, a backwash
event was observed, and it was noted that the backwash waste volume on that day was greater
than the 50 gallon capacity of the vessel by about five gallons. However, the FTO noted that for
the next backwash sampling event on January 3, the entire backwash volume was captured by the
50 gallon vessel. To ensure that all of the backwash waste was collected prior to sampling, the
FTO began using a 65-gallon collection vessel for the remaining backwash sample collection
events.
The backwash waste was sampled and analyzed following the schedules in Tables 3-6 and 3-8.
Immediately following a backwash event, samples were collected from the backwash collection
vessel with a ladle. Table 4-12 shows the results for total arsenic, total iron, manganese, TSS,
and pH. The backwash waste was enriched in arsenic, iron, manganese, and TSS, as would be
expected, given the removal of contaminants as measured in the treated water. The CHEMILES
System produced an average daily volume of 6,527 gal, and generated an average backwash
volume of 150 gpd. Thus, on a mass balance basis, the theoretical concentration of contaminants
in the backwash would be projected to be approximately 42 times higher in the backwash, based
on complete removal of contaminants from the media into the backwash waste. However,
comparison of the mean raw water concentrations in Table 4-6 to the backwash results in Table
4-15 reveals increases of only about 7X for arsenic, 13X for iron, and 4X for manganese.
Analysis of the filter media by Nagaoka after the test ended revealed that the filter media particle
sizes had increased, indicating the backwashes did not fully remove the accumulated
contaminants from the filter media particles.
60
-------
Table 4-15. Backwash Water - Water Quality Results
Date
12/05/12
01/03/13
02/13/13
03/06/13
03/12/13
04/03/13
05/01/13
Count
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Total Arsenic
(mg/L)
0.057
NM
0.012
0.045
0.041
0.160
0.025
6
0.057
0.012
0.160
Total Iron
(mg/L)
220
NM
32
73
82
290
54
6
125
32
290
Manganese
(mg/L)
0.28
NM
0.48
NM
0.71
2.4
0.27
5
0.83
0.27
2.4
TSS (mg/L)
410
NM
100
160
170
540
120
6
250
100
540
pH
NR(1)
6.53
6.49
6.31
6.47
6.86
6.39
6
6.51
6.31
6.86
(1) Not reportable due to improper calibration of pH meter
(2) NM = not measured
Local disposal requirements determine whether water is acceptable for discharge to a sanitary
sewer system or another discharge location, or if it requires further treatment prior to discharge.
The suspended solids present in the backwash waste can be expected to contain most of the
arsenic, iron, and manganese because the basis of the technology is to precipitate and filter out
the contaminants. If solid separation were required before the backwash waste could be
discharged, the solids would need to be sent to a landfill for disposal. A sample of the backwash
was collected and analyzed following the EPA TCLP and the CAWET requirements. The
backwash solids were not considered a hazardous waste based on the arsenic concentrations,
which were below the 5 mg/L limit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Table 4-16 presents the results of the TCLP and CAWET analyses.
Table 4-16. Backwash Solids - TCLP and CAWET Analyses
Parameter Units TCLP CAWET
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
<0.50
<0.35
<0.050
<0.25
<0.050
<0.25
<0.00020
<0.050
<0.20
<0.050
<0.25
1.6
0.37
<0.050
<0.050
<0.25
<0.25
<0.0030
<0.050
<0.50
<0.010
0.95
4.5 FTO System Operability Review
4.5.1 Introduction
61
-------
In general the pilot treatment plant was very easy to operate and maintain. The unit was
completely automated and required only minimal maintenance. Initially, the unit required some
process modifications, but once they were adjusted, very little adjustment was required. Below
are some detailed descriptions of operations and maintenance issues.
The quality of the equipment provided, including piping, valves and controls was excellent and
held up quite well throughout the test period. There was relatively easy access to the piping,
controls and pilot filter. Even though the pilot filter was quite tall, an enclosed structure with
ladder steps and access platforms was provided.
4.5.2 Pilot Treatment System Controls
The pilot system is controlled by a PLC. The PLC monitored flow in the system, operated
pumps and valves and conducted backwashing. The PLC was standard commercial equipment
available in Japan and the US, and equipment manuals were provided in English. The O&M
manual provided by Nagaoka accurately described the PLC set points and, the FTO staff was
able to change the set-points when requested by Nagaoka.
4.5.3 Electrical Equipment
When the pilot system arrived, it did not have an Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) sticker on the
panel, since the panel was constructed in Japan. Nagaoka hired a local electrical inspector to
inspect the equipment and a UL listing was achieved after some modification to the conduits.
This is not likely to be an issue in the future, since Nagaoka is now familiar with UL listing
requirements in the U.S.
4.5.4 O&M Manual
The O&M Manual provided by Nagaoka accurately described the treatment system and
explained how to operate the pilot plant. There were a few instances in the O&M manual where
English translations could be improved for clarity, but our staff had no difficulty in
understanding the manual and the instructions included within it.
4.5.5 Monitoring
Pilot plant monitoring was done through a combination of data recording and sample collection.
Data recording was a mix of items recorded by the PLC and field recording. Field recording was
required of flow rates and head loss in the filter. The PLC monitored some flow rates, and
backwash statistics (number of backwashes, time since last backwashing). The pilot system
could be improved by adding a differential pressure recording device across the filter and
incorporating all of the flow data into the PLC. A data logger would also be useful to allow
evaluation of data on a more frequent basis.
The Nagaoka CHEMILES system uses a finished water pump with a VFD to control the filter
rate of the system. This finished water pumping system provides a nice way to adjust or
maintain a filter loading rate, however it creates a vacuum on the bottom of the filter when the
62
-------
pump is operating under some conditions. This vacuum makes traditional means of measuring
head loss across a filter difficult by either a traditional differential pressure meter or by
piezometric readings. Further, the filter vacuum is a function of how fast the pump is running
and therefore is not useful in determining when a backwash should be initiated based on head
loss. There are differential pressure-meters than can measure positive and negative pressure and
including one on this system would provide useful head loss information.
Sample collection provisions were provided for raw and finished water. In the pilot test, to
collect the aerated raw water sample, the sample collector had to access the top of the filter and
collect a water sample with a scoop; however the full scale systems have a permanent sample
line which makes sample collection easier. The aerated water sample is a key point for assessing
the influent dissolved oxygen content.
4.5.6 Operations
Operation of the pilot plant was very easy. Since the pilot plant was highly automated, only
monitoring and some infrequent maintenance were required to operate the treatment plant.
Infrequent maintenance included cleaning the aeration nozzles. Nagaoka provided a spare
aeration nozzle with the pilot unit, and to clean the aeration nozzle, CH2M HILL replaced the
original nozzle with the replacement nozzle and soaked the original one in a dilute acid solution
to remove the precipitated iron. Over the testing period, the aeration nozzle only required
replacement and cleaning one time.
Nagaoka provided excellent customer support for operations and recommended some operational
modifications based on the data collected. The suggested modifications were implemented and
improved performance of the unit.
4.6 Power Consumption
The CHEMTLES Systems uses three pumps for operation: a raw water pump, a treated water
pump, and a backwash pump. The horsepower ratings and operational details of these pumps are
provided in Table 4-16. Based on an estimated pump efficiency of 90%, these three pumps
consume approximately 29.5 kW/day. The electrical consumption of the PLC and online meters
was not included in this power consumption analysis.
Table 4-17. CHEMILES System Pumps and Operation per Day
Pump
Raw Water
Treated
Water
Backwash
Horsepower
Rating (hp)
0.75
0.75
1.5
Time during each 8 Hour Cycle (hrs
Filtrating
7.667
7.667
Backwash
0.167
Water Cycling
0.167
Total
7.667
7.833
0.167
During 24 Hour
Span (hrs)
Total
23
23.5
0.5
63
-------
4.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
As described in Section 3.9.8, Task 6 was implementation of a structured QA/QC program as
part of this verification to ensure the quality of the data being collected. A QAPP was developed
as part of the PSTP and followed by the field staff and laboratory during the testing period.
Careful adherence to the established procedures ensured that the data presented in this report are
sound, defensible, and representative of the equipment performance.
4.7.1 Documentation
FTO site operators recorded on-site data and calculations (e.g., calculating calibration flow rates
using the bucket and stop watch, and other similar routine calculations) in a field logbook and
prepared field log sheets. Daily measurements were recorded on specially prepared data log
sheets. The original logbook was stored on site, and copies were forwarded to the project
coordinator at NSF offices once per week during the verification test. The operating logbook
included calibration records for the field equipment used for on-site analyses.
Data from the field log sheets and NSF Laboratory data reports were entered into Excel
spreadsheets. These spreadsheets were used to conduct the statistical analyses. The data in the
spreadsheets were proofread by the initial data entry person. NSF staff then checked at least
10% of the data entered into the spreadsheets to confirm that the information was correct.
Samples delivered to the NSF Laboratory for analyses were tracked using chain-of-custody
forms. Each sample bottle was labeled with a bar code for tracking in the NSF LIMS system.
The NSF laboratory reported the analytical results using the NSF LIMS system reports. These
laboratory data were entered into the data spreadsheets, corrected, and verified in the same
manner as the field data.
4.7.2 Quality Audits
The NSF QA department conducted an on-site audit on December 05, 2012 to review the field
procedures, including the collection of operating data and performance of on-site analytical
methods. The PSTP requirements and QAPP were used as the basis for the audit. The NSF QA
auditor prepared an audit report. All deficiencies were corrected, and a second site visit was
conducted by NSF on December 17 and 18 to follow up on the audit issues. The audit findings
that impacted the test data are discussed elsewhere in this report.
4.7.3 Data Quality Indicators
The data quality indictors established for the ETV project and described in the QAPP included:
Representativeness
Accuracy
Precision
Completeness
64
-------
4.7.3.1 Representativeness
Representativeness refers to the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent the
frequency distribution of a variable in a population. In this verification testing,
representativeness was assured by executing consistent sample collection procedures in
accordance with established approved procedures, and following specific sample preservation,
packaging, and delivery procedures. Approved analytical methods were used to provide results
that represent the accurate and precise measurements of drinking water. For equipment
operating data, representativeness entailed collecting and documenting a sufficient quantity of
data during operation to be able to detect a change in operations.
Because manganese removal had not stabilized and reached steady-state performance by the time
of the March daily sampling period, the March Manganese data did not represent the true
Manganese removal performance of the system. Additional verification testing was performed in
May and those data were representative for Manganese removal evaluation. The March data are
presented below for reference.
Table 4-18. Manganese Weekly Sample Summary Data'
(i)
Parameter
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Manganese (mg/L)
Raw
17
0.21
0.13
0.32
0.06
±0.03
Treated
15
0.11
0.02
0.28
0.08
±0.04
(1) Concentrations reported as non-detect set equal to the detection limit for calculating statistics.
65
-------
Table 4-19. Manganese Results from March Daily Sampling Period
Date
3/11/2013
3/12/2013
3/13/2013
3/14/2013
3/15/2013
3/16/2013
3/17/2013
3/18/2013
3/19/2013
3/20/2013
3/21/2013
3/22/2013
3/23/2013
3/24/2013
Time
11:36 AM
12:10 PM
-
10:38 AM
10:41 AM
9:00 AM
4:01 PM
2:30 PM
3:OOPM
2:45 PM
12:10 PM
11:57 AM
5:06PM
3:38 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Manganese (mg/L)
Raw
0.31
0.26
0.25
0.23
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.26
0.23
0.16
0.21
0.23
0.22
0.22
14
0.25
0.16
0.31
0.04
±0.02
Treated
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.22
0.22
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.04
0.15
14
0.19
0.04
0.26
0.07
±0.04
66
-------
Table 4-20. Manganese Results from March 48-Hour Intensive Sampling Period
Date
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/18/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/19/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
3/20/2013
Time
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
5:20PM
7:20 PM
8:20 PM
10:20 PM
1:20 AM
3:20 AM
4:20 AM
6:20 AM
9:20 AM
11:20 AM
12:20 PM
2:20 PM
Count
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Std. Deviation
95% Conf. Interval
Filtration Run
Time (hrs)
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1
3
Manganese (mg/L)
Raw
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
25
0.22
0.16
0.27
0.04
±0.02
Treated
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.11
25
0.17
0.09
0.24
0.05
±0.02
4.7.3.2 Accuracy
4. 7.3.2.1. On-Site Equipment Accuracy and Calibration
The accuracy of on-site analytical equipment and flow meters was regularly calibrated or
checked for accuracy according to Table 4-21. The calibration records were recorded on the
field data sheets. All calibrations and calibration checks were performed at the required
frequency. All calibrations and calibration checks were within the specified QC objectives.
67
-------
Table 4-21. Field Instrument
Instrument
Flow Meters
Portable Turbidimeter
Calibration Schedule
Calibration Method
Volumetric "bucket & stop watch"
Secondary turbidity standards
Primary turbidity standards
Frequency
Weekly
Daily
Weekly
Acceptable
Accuracy
± 10%
N/A
Portable pH/ISE Meter
with Combination pH/
Temperature Electrode
DO Meter
Thermometer (National Institute of
Standards and Technology [NIST]-
traceable)
Spectrophotometer (true color)
ORP Meter
Three-point calibration using
4.0, 7.0 and 10.0 buffers
Daily
Based on known air saturation Daily
concentrations of DO at the measured air
temperature
Calibration against a NIST-traceable
thermometer within the previous 12
months from the expected end date of
the test. None
Chlorine check standard
Per manufacturer's instructions
Daily
Daily
±5%
N/A
-5%
- 25%
N/A = Not Applicable.
4.7.3.2.2. Laboratory An alyses
Accuracy for the laboratory analyses was quantified as the percent recovery of a parameter in a
sample to which a known quantity of that parameter was added. The following equation was
used to calculate accuracy:
Accuracy = Percent Recovery = 100 x
- X
measured
where Xkn0
= known concentration of measured parameter
= measured concentration of parameter
Accuracy also incorporates calibration procedures and use of certified standards to ensure the
calibration curves and references for analysis are near the "true value." Accuracy of analytical
readings is measured through the use of spiked samples and lab control samples. The percent
recovery is calculated as a measure of the accuracy.
The QAPP and the NSF Chemistry Laboratory QA/QC requirements established the frequency
of spike sample analyses at 10% of the samples analyzed. Laboratory control samples (LCS) are
also run at a frequency of 10%. The recovery limits specified for the parameters in this
verification were 70-130% for laboratory-fortified samples and 85-115% for LCS. These
recovery limits for the QC sample analyses associated with samples from this test were not
reviewed for this verification. The QC sample results are reviewed by the appropriate NSF
Laboratory staff as part of laboratory QA/QC requirements.
68
-------
4.7.3.3 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and provides
an estimate of random error. Analytical precision is a measure of how far an individual
measurement may be from the mean of replicate measurements. Precision of duplicate analyses
was measured by use of the following equation to calculate RPD:
RPD =
200
S,+S2
where:
Sl = sample analysis result; and
^ = sample duplicate analysis result.
Acceptable analytical precision for the verification test was set at an RPD of 30%.
Field duplicates were collected to incorporate both sampling and analytical variation to measure
overall precision against this objective. The precision goal, as measured by RPD, for the field
measurements was ±30%. The NSF Laboratory's precision requirements varied depending on
the method, but were generally around 20%.
4. 7.3.3.1. Field Duplicates
The field duplicate results and RPD calculations are provided in Table 4-18. All duplicate
measurements have an RPD of 30% or less, except for the raw water turbidity replicate pairs on
February 28 and April 11, and the treated water turbidity pair on April 11. It is not known why
the turbidity appeared to be unstable on April 11. No observations were recorded indicating any
operational issues with the treatment equipment.
69
-------
Table 4-22. Precision Data - Field Duplicates for Field Parameters
pH (S.U.)
Date
Raw Water
Treated Water
01/23/13
02/13/13
02/28/13
04/11/13
Repl
6.48
6.40
6.37
6.18
Rep 2
6.48
6.42
6.38
6.17
%RPD
0
0.31
0.16
0.16
Repl
6.49
6.36
6.38
6.43
Rep 2
6.51
6.37
6.38
6.44
%RPD
0.31
0.16
0
0.16
Turbidity (NTU)
Date
Raw Water
Treated Water
01/23/13
02/13/13
02/28/13
04/11/13
Repl
0.34
0.24
0.32
0.28
Rep 2
0.28
0.19
0.45
0.18
%RPD
19
23
34
43
Repl
0.77
0.61
0.72
0.17
Rep 2
0.79
0.60
0.77
0.46
%RPD
2.6
1.7
6.7
92
Temperature (°C)
Date
Raw Water
Treated Water
01/23/13
02/13/13
02/28/13
04/11/13
Rep 1
12.1
12.7
12.7
12.8
Rep 2
12.0
12.7
12.7
12.8
%RPD
0.83
0
0
0
Rep 1
12.3
12.6
12.9
13.3
Rep 2
12.3
12.6
12.9
13.3
%RPD
0
0
0
0
ORP(mV)
Date
Raw Water
Treated Water
01/23/13
02/13/13
02/28/13
04/11/13
Rep 1
-13
-57
13
83
Rep 2
-16
-45
16
78
%RPD
21
24
21
6.2
Rep 1
153
240
136
309
Rep 2
118
238
120
317
%RPD
26
0.84
13
2.6
DO (mg/L)
Date
Raw Water
Treated Water
01/23/13
02/13/13
02/28/13
04/11/13
Rep 1
3.45
3.44
3.99
3.27
Rep 2
3.86
3.39
3.69
2.97
%RPD
11
1.5
7.8
9.6
Rep 1
5.89
5.82
5.84
8.85
Rep 2
6.09
5.72
5.94
8.75
%RPD
3.3
1.7
1.7
1.1
4. 7.3.3.2. Laboratory Analytical Duplicates
The NSF Chemistry Laboratory precision was monitored during the verifications test in
accordance with QAPP and the NSF quality assurance program. Laboratory duplicates were
analyzed at 10% frequency of samples analyzed. All duplicate sample analyses met the NSF
Chemistry Laboratory's RPD
70
-------
4.7.3.4 Method Blanks
The NSF Laboratory included method blanks as part of the standard analysis procedures.
Method blanks were analyzed in accordance with the approved methods. No data were flagged
as having been affected by method blank results.
4.7.3.5 Completeness
Completeness refers to the amount of valid, acceptable data collected from a measurement
process compared to the amount expected to be obtained. Completeness was calculated using
the following:
%C = (V/T)X100
where: %C = percent completeness
V = number of measurements judged valid
T = total number of measurements
T Table 4-19 provides the completeness objectives for performance parameters and/or methods
based on the sample frequency.
Table 4-23. Completeness Objectives
Number of Samples Per Parameter
and/or Method Percent Completeness
0-10 80%
11-50 90%
>50 95%
For the purpose of evaluating the completeness requirements, only data up through the originally
scheduled end date of May 1 were evaluated. The completeness calculations are provided in
Table 4-20 for those parameters with less than 100% completeness.
71
-------
Table 4-24. Completeness Results
Parameter
Backwash Monitoring
Ammonia - Raw Water
Ammonia - Treated Water
Manganese - Treated Water
Iron - Treated Water
Hardness - Treated Water
Hardness - Raw Water Samples
Sulfate - Treated Water
Magnesium - Raw and Treated Water
TSS - Raw and Treated Water
HPC - Raw and Treated Water
TKN - Raw and Treated Water
Nitrate - Raw and Treated Water
Nitrite - Raw and Treated Water
pH - Raw Water
pH - Treated Water
pH - Backwash Waste
ORP - Raw and Treated Water
DO - Raw and Treated Water
Number of
Scheduled
Samples
123
60
60
60
60
26
26
26
26
26
8
38
60
60
38
38
7
o o
38
o o
38
Number of
Reported
Samples
116
58
59
59
58
23
25
25
25
25
6
36
47
47
32
30
6
20
33
Percent
Completeness
95%
97%
98%
98%
97%
88%
96%
96%
96%
96%
75%
95%
78%
78%
84%
79%
86%
53%
87%
Completeness
Requirement
Met?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Comment
No backwash was monitored on 7 of 123 days.
Treated water results from pH adjustment period
discarded. See Section 4.4.2.2.
Contaminated samples as previously discussed
Some samples analyzed past allowable holding time,
as discussed in Section 4.4.2.1.
Some samples analyzed past allowable holding time,
as discussed in Section 4 .4. 2.1.
pH measurements discarded from data set, as
discussed in Section 4.4.3.
pH measurements discarded from data set, as
discussed in Section 4.4.3.
ORP measurements discarded from data set, as
discussed in Section 4.4.3, and ORP probe broke.
DO measurements discarded from data set, as
discussed in Section 4.4.3.
72
-------
Chapter 5
References
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition, APHA, AWWA,
and WEF, Washington D.C. 1999.
U.S. EPA Drinking Water Methods for Chemical Parameters. EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water. EPA Methods are available from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS).
Chapter 6
Vendor Comments
I believe this report significantly contributes to the understating of an effective groundwater
treatment technology and we are proud that our Chemiles is the first and the only Japanese
drinking water treatment technology that conducted EPA's ETV testing.
The Chemiles is designed for simultaneously removing Iron, Arsenic, Manganese, and Ammonia
in only one treatment column. In addition, the treatment process does not require any chemical
injection; therefore it sharply reduces operation cost and eliminates the need of chemical storage
and injection facilities. Filtration and backwash processes are automatically controlled and that
makes it easier for operation and maintenance works.
As seen in the report, the Chemiles was effective for reduction of Iron, Arsenic to less than EPA
secondary MCL level, and Ammonia to less than desired level of 0.1 mg/L. The reduction of
Manganese to below EPA secondary MCL level took longer time than we expected. It was
caused by the low pH of the site's raw water pH, which was at averaged 6.39, lower than our
desired pH level of 6.5 to 8.0. And as stated in Section 4.2, the continuous operation of the
system was affected by the UL Standard certification process, as well as repair and replacement
of the treated water pump. During that time the system was randomly stopped and restarted and
that caused the ripening period for Manganese-removal-effective bacteria to take longer toe
than our experiences.
However, with the data of the addition May 320-hour testing period, we could say that low pH of
groundwater will require more time for Manganese ripening process but the system could reduce
Manganese to below EPA secondary MCL without a need of pH adjustment.
pH adjustment could reduce Manganese even more below EPA secondary MCL level. However,
if the groundwater contained DO, which is not common for deep well, (the groundwater used in
this ETV Test contained 3.49 mg/L DO), part of Fe2+ was oxidized to Fe3+ before coming to the
system. When a pH increasing reagent is injected into such groundwater, Fe(OH>3 will be formed
and it might cause leakage through the filter media. Therefore we suggest that the pH adjustment
should eftty be an optional operation method only if raw water pH is too low, below 6.0.
Raw water qualities are different case by case and site by site. Based on raw water quality,
Nagaoka can design and select optimum operating conditions of CHEMILES system in order to
73
-------
ensure that treated water qualities meet with requirements of the customer as well as with EPA's
regulated level for drinking water.
I wish to express my sincerest thanks to all who made this ETV Test Project possible, including
CH2M Hill, NSF, USEPA, Clark Public Utilities, and IPS Service. Your continued support over
a long time project implementation helped us overcome many difficulties and make this ETV
Test successful.
We hope our Chemiles system will contribute to an environmentally-friendly and economical
solution for drinking water treatment.
Very sincerely,
Katsuhiko Yamada
74
-------
Appendix A - Operation and Maintenance Manual
Provided upon request.
75
------- |