EPA/600/R-08/081
My 2008
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Jody P. Lipps
Abraham S.C. Chen
Sarah E. McCall
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on meth-
ods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sedi-
ments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies mat protect and improve the environ-
ment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulator}' and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the arsenic removal treatment
technology demonstration project at Charette Mobile Home Park (CMHP) in Dummerston, Vermont.
The objectives of the project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of an Aquatic Treatment Systems
(ATS) arsenic removal system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level
(MCL) of 10 (ig/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required system operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator skills, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project
also characterized water in the distribution system and residuals produced by the treatment process.
The ATS system consisted of two parallel treatment trains, each having three 10-in diameter. 54-in tall,
sealed polyglass columns connected in series to treat up to 11 gal/min (gpm) of water. Water supplied
from three source water wells was chlorinated to provide chlorine residuals and then passed through a 25-
(im sediment filter and the three adsorption columns in each train. Each adsorption column was loaded
with 1.5 ft"1 of A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media, which consisted of an activated alumina substrate and
a proprietary iron complex. Based on the design flowrate of 11 gpm through each train, the empty bed
contact time (EBCT) in each column was 1 min and the hydraulic loading rate to each column was 20.4
gpm/ft2. The actual flowrate was much lower, averaging only 2.8 and 3.3 gpm for Trains A and B,
respectively, throughout the evaluation period. A 50% reduction in flow was observed after the 23rd
week of operation. The flowrate increased again after the 39th week but fluctuated greatly after this
point. As a result, each adsorption column had a much longer EBCT, ranging from 1.6 to 56.1 min
throughout the entire study period. The highly variable and low flowrates from the wells might be
attributed, in part, to slow recovery rates of the aquifer resulting from a dry summer.
Between June 24, 2005, and October 10, 2006, the system operated at an average of 7.6 hr/day for a total
of 3,636 hr, treating approximately 745,000 gal of water which contained 20.8 to 101 (.ig/L of arsenic
existing predominately as soluble As(V). During the first 34-week-long test run, arsenic concentrations
following the lead columns reached 10 (.ig/L after treating 5.700 and 5,400 bed volumes (BV) of water
through Trains A and B, respectively. (BV was calculated based on 1.5ftJ [or 11.2 gal] of media in an
individual column.) Arsenic concentrations reached 10 (.ig/L in the system effluent (following the final
columns) after treating approximately 17.400 and 17,600 BV through Trains A and B, respectively (or
5,800 and 5,900 BV, respectively, if considering the three columns in each train as one large column).
Media were replaced after approximately 8 months of operation and arsenic concentrations reached 10
(.ig/L in the system effluent (after the second lag column) after approximately 15,000 BV and 17,000 BV
for Trains A and B, respectively (or 5,000 and 5670 BV, respectively, if considering the three columns in
each train as one large column). Arsenic concentrations in the effluent of the new lead columns were
around 10 (ig/L at the time of the media changeout.
Arsenic breakthrough occurred sooner than projected (at 40,000 BV in the lead column) by the vendor. It
is presumed that relatively high pH values of source water (averaging 7.6), competing anions, such as
silica, and higher influent arsenic concentrations (i.e., 41.3 (.ig/L, on average, compared to 30 (.ig/L
observed during the initial site visit) might have contributed, in part, to early arsenic breakthrough from
the adsorption columns. The arsenic mass removed by the adsorption media during the two runs ranged
between 0.30 and 0.49 (.ig of As/mg of dry media per column.
Aluminum concentrations in the treated water following adsorption columns (existing primarily in the
soluble form) were approximately 10 to 30 (ig/L higher than those in raw water, indicating leaching of
aluminum from the adsorptive media. Leaching of aluminum continued throughout the study period;
IV
-------
however, there was a decreasing trend in aluminum concentration in the treated water during each test
run.
Comparison of distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the system showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentrations at two of the three residences. One residence had elevated
arsenic concentrations ranging from 16.3 to 26.0 (ig/L through the first three months. Starting from the
fourth month, all three residences had arsenic concentrations below 3.1 (.ig/L. After the sixth month,
arsenic concentrations began to increase and media were changed out after 34 weeks of operation.
Arsenic concentrations decreased again after the changeout. The wells were not able to generate enough
water to meet the demand of CMHP, so water was hauled in and stored in the 5,500 gal atmospheric
storage tank (where water treated from the ATS system was stored). Therefore, distribution sampling was
discontinued after April 2006 because the results were not representative of the treated water from the
ATS system. Lead and copper levels did not appear to have been impacted by the treatment system.
The capital investment cost of $14,000 included $8,990 for equipment, $2,400 for site engineering, and
$2,610 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 22 gpm (or 31,680 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $636/gpm (or $0.44/gpd). Annualized capital cost was $l,321/yr based upon a 7% interest rate
and 20 year life. The unit capital cost was $0.11/1,000 gal assuming the system operated continuously 24
hr/day, 7 days a week at 22 gpm. At the current use rate of 1,565 gal/day, the unit capital cost increased
to$2"31/l,000gal.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption
system, such as media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. The incremental cost
for electricity was negligible. Media replacement of the lead and first lag columns in each Train occurred
on February 14, 2006, after 34 weeks of system operation. The cost to replace the four columns was
$3,910 for media, labor and travel. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000
gal of water treated as a function of the media run length to the 10-(.ig/L arsenic breakthrough from the
third column in series.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 6
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Residual Solid 9
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 9
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 9
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 9
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 10
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 Facility Description 11
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 11
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality 12
4.2 Treatment Process Description 14
4.3 Permitting and System Installation 16
4.4 System Operation 17
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 17
4.4.2 Residuals Management 22
4.4.3 System/Operation, Reliability and Simplicity 23
4.4.3.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements 23
4.4.3.2 System Controls 23
4.4.3.3 Operator Skill Requirements 23
4.4.3.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities 23
4.4.3.5 Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements 23
4.5 System Performance 24
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 24
4.5.1.1 Arsenic 24
4.5.1.1 Silica, Sulfate. Bicarbonate and Nitrate 31
4.5.1.3 Aluminum 31
VI
-------
4.5.1.4 Iron and Manganese 31
4.5.1.5 Other Water Quality Parameters 31
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling 31
4.5.2.1 TCLP 31
4.5.2.2 Metals 31
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 36
4.6 System Cost 38
4.6.1 Capital Cost 38
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 38
5.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES B-l
APPENDIX C: ARSENIC MASS REMOVAL CALCULATIONS C-l
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Treatment Building at Charette Mobile Home Park 11
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Pressure Tanks and Booster Pumps 12
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/2200CS System with Series Operation 15
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 18
Figure 4-5. As/2200CS System with Adsorption Columns Shown in Foreground and Sediment
Filters Attached to Wall 19
Figure 4-6. Close-Up View of a Sample Tap (TE). a Pressure Gauge, and Copper Piping at End
of Treatment Train A 19
Figure 4-7. Average Flowrate of Three Source Wells and the Treatment System 21
Figure 4-8. Influent Pressure from Three Source Wells 22
Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Entire System 27
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Train A, Train B, and Entire
System for Runs 1 and 2 28
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Mass Removed by Trains A and B During Run 1 29
Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire System 32
Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire
System for Runs 1 and 2 34
Figure 4-14. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across the Entire System for Runs 1 and 2 34
Figure 4-15. O&M and Media Replacement Cost (for Replacement of Two Columns at a Time) 40
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedules and Analyses 8
Table 4-1. Source and Treated Water Quality Data for Charette Mobile Home Park Site 13
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorption Media 14
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of As/2200CS System 17
Table 4-4. Summary of As/2200CS System Operations 20
Table 4-5. Summary of Flowrate and Pressure Variations During System Operation 22
Vll
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results 25
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Analytical Results 26
Table 4-8. Arsenic Mass Removed by Columns A through F and Capacity of Media for
Arsenic 30
Table 4-9. TCLP Results of a Composite Spent Media Sample 35
Table 4-10. Spent Media Metals Results 35
Table 4-11. Summary of Media Capacity for Arsenic 36
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results 37
Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost 39
Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost 39
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
CMHP Charette Mobile Home Park
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
FfLX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
LX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mil manganese
N/A not analyzed
Na sodium
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
IX
-------
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC poly vinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SBMHP Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP
TO
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Task Order
UV
ultraviolet
VDEC Vennont Department of Environmental Conservation
VSHA Vennont State Housing Authority
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator of Charette Mobile Home Park in
Dummerston, Vermont, the owner of P2 Environmental, and the manager of the Vermont State Housing
Authority. The operator of the park monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the
treatment and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period. The owner of P2
Environmental provided timely communication and assistance in system operation and performed
bimonthly arsenic speciation across the treatment trains. This performance evaluation would not have
been possible without their support and dedication.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975. under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (.ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects which were partially funded
with Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential
demonstration sites and the water system at Charette Mobile Home Park (CMHP) in Dummerston,
Vermont, was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. Aquatic Treatment Systems, Inc's. (ATS's) As/2200CS arsenic
treatment system was selected for demonstration at the CMHP site in September 2004.
As of January 2008, 37 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of 26 systems
were completed.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems. 17 point-of-use (POU) units
(including nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and
eight AM units at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations,
technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron,
and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the
12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is reported in two EPA reports (Wang et
al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.go\7ORD/NRMRL/wsw:i'd/dw/arsemc/piiblications.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic
treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The
specific objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M costs of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the ATS system at the CMHP site in Vermont from June 22,
2005 through October 10, 2006. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality data
(both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and preliminary
O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality'
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow, NH
Goffstown, NH
Rolliiisford. NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton. DE
StevensvUle. MD
Houghton, NYM)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's Count}'
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Llome Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM(G2)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM(E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
7Q(W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250leJ
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19(a)
27(a)
15la)
25la)
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1.312IC>
1.615IC)
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater. MI
Sanduskv,MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville. WI
Climax, MN
Sabin. MN
Sank Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City-
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sank Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM(E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM(E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14la)
13la)
16la)
20ia-'
17
39")
34
25(a)
42w
146(a)
127IC)
466(c)
1.387IC)
l,499(c)
7827(o
546(c)
l,470(ci
3,078IC)
l,344(c)
l,325(ci
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellmau, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation. AZ
Valley Vista, AZ.
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
77Q(e.!
150
40
100
320
145
450
90
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(Hg/L)
Fe
(MS/L)
pH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks. MT
Fruitland. ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale. OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella. CA
Tehachapi, CA
City ofThree Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO'"
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)fe)
IX (Arsenex E)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (TUX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37la)
35
15
<25
<25
134
69fc)
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; FflX = hybrid ion exchanger; EX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(IH).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Replaced Village of Lyman, NE site which withdrew from the program in .Time 2006.
(e) Facilities upgraded systems in Springfield, OH from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the 16 months of operation, the following conclusions were
made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media was effective in removing arsenic to below its MCL of
10 (ig/L. The run length to breakthrough at 10 (.ig/L, however, was short, ranging from 5,000
to 7,000 bed volumes (BV) for each column according to the two test runs performed.
Complete breakthrough following the lead columns occurred at approximately 12,000 BV,
resulting in an adsorptive capacity between 0.45 and 0.49 (.ig of As/mg of dry media. System
breakthrough at 10 (ig/L was between 17,000 and 18,000 BV (or 5,700 and 6,000 BV if
considering the three columns in each train as one large column) for both runs. BV was
calculated based on the volume of media in each column.
• Arsenic breakthrough from the lead columns occurred much sooner than the 40,000 BV
projected by the vendor. It is presumed that relatively high pH values of the source water
(averaging 7.7), competing anions, such as silica, and higher-than-expected influent arsenic
concentrations (ranging from 20.8 to 101 (ig/L and averaging 41.3 (.ig/L) might have
contributed to the early arsenic breakthrough. The vendor's estimate was based on an
influent arsenic concentration of 30 (.ig/L. However, the vendor's arsenic breakthrough also
was projected using an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 1 min/column based on a flowrate
of 11 gallons per minute (gpm) per treatment train, compared to the actual EBCT of 1.6 to
56.1 min caused by the lower flowrates experienced by the source water wells.
• Some aluminum (i.e., 10 to 30 (ig/L) was observed to leach out from the adsorption columns.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• Very little attention was needed to operate and maintain the system. The daily demand on the
operator was typically 10 min to visually inspect the system and record operational
parameters.
• Operation of the treatment system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The system did not require backwash to operate. As a result, no backwash residual was
produced.
• The only residual produced by the treatment system was spent media. The media in the lead
and first lag columns in each train were replaced on February 14, 2006, after approximately
34 weeks of operation.
Technology Costs:
• Using the system's rated capacity of 22 gal/min (gpm) (or 31,680 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $636/gpm (or $0.44/gpd).
• The cost to change out four adsorption columns (lead and first lag column in each train) at a
time was estimated to be $3,910 based on the invoice provided by the vendor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the ATS treatment system began on June 22, 2005 and ended on October 10, 2006. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The
overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the
MCL of 10 ng/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the
system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair
and replacement. Any unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator
on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of
preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, and
general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The
staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required the tracking of the capital cost for
equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electrical power use, and labor.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Final Study Plan Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to VDEC
Permit Issued bv VDEC
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
September 14, 2004
November 18, 2004
December 2, 2004
January 12, 2005
January 28, 2005
February 28, 2005
March 9, 2005
April 1. 2005
April 29, 2005
May 23, 2005
June 22, 2005
June 22, 2005
VDEC = Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
the instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded
system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System
Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) level; and conducted visual inspections
to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the plant operator would contact the
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ug/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number,
frequency, and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health
and safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated
by process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
Battelle Study Lead, who determined if ATS should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information, including the problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials
and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a
biweekly basis, the plant operator measured several water quality parameters oil-site, including
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and residual chlorine, and
recorded the data on an On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement, chemical usage.
electricity consumption, and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M,
troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour
Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing
NaOCl solutions, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the
vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules and analytes measured
during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes,
containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in
Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the CMHP, one set of source water samples was
collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1). The sample tap was flushed for
several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedules and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'"'
At Wellhead
(IN)
At Wellhead
(IN), after
Chlorination
(AC), after
Each
Adsorption
Column (TA
to TF), and
after Entire
System (TT)
Three LCR
Residences
Spent Media
from
Adsorption
Columns
No. of
Samples
1
4-9
->
j
4
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Weekly or
Biweekly
Monthly101
Once
Analytes
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off-site: As (total, and
soluble), As(III), As(V).
Fe (total and soluble).
Mn (total and soluble).
Al (total and soluble).
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
NO3, NO2, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, alkalinity, turbidity,
TDS, and TOC
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total/1"
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(iri), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity,
and/or alkalinity
Total As, Fe, Mn, Al, Cu,
and Pb, pH and alkalinity
TCLP and total Al, As,
Cd, Ca, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg.
Mn, Ni, P, Si, and Zn
Collection Date(s)
9/14/04
06/22/05, 07/05/05,
07/19/05, 08/03/05,
08/16/05, 08/29/05,
09/19/05, 09/27/05,
10/04/05, 10/13/05,
10/25/05, 11/01/05,
11/08/05, 11/28/05,
12/13/05,01/05/06,
01/25/06,01/31/06,
02/15/06, 02/28/06,
03/16/06, 03/29/06,
04/11/06, 04/27/06,
05/10/06, 06/01/06,
06/05/06, 06/22/06,
07/11/06,07/18/06,
08/02/06, 08/17/06,
09/07/06, 09/18/06,
09/26/06, 10/10/06
Baseline sampling:
12/07/04,01/04/05,
02/01/05, 04/05/05,
Monthly sampling:
07/27/05, 08/16/05,
09/20/05, 10/13/05,
11/08/05, 12/13/05,
01/26/06, 02/14/06,
04/11/06
02/14/06
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-4.
(b) Taken only at AC, TA to TF, and TT.
(c) Four baseline sampling events performed before system startup. Sampling discontinued after April 2006
when water was delivered to site to keep up with demand.
LCR = lead and copper rule; TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
Bold font indicates mat speciation was performed.
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, samples were
collected by the plant operator weekly or bi-weekly at four to nine locations across the treatment train,
including at the wellhead (IN), after chlorination (AC), after each adsorption column (TA to TF), and
after the entire system (TT). Speciation was performed for As, Fe, Mn, and Al approximately every other
month. On-site measurements for analytes listed in Table 3-3 also were performed during each sampling
event.
3.3.3 Residual Solid. Because the system did not require backwash, no backwash residuals were
produced during system operations. Spent media samples were collected from each of the columns
replaced on February 14, 2006. ATS collected one gallon of sample from each column and shipped the
samples to Battelle. Approximately 200 g of the spent media from each container were collected and
placed in one container. After being homogenized, one aliquot was tested for TCLP. Another aliquot
(approximately 100 g) was air-dried, crushed (using a mortar and pestle), acid-digested, and analyzed for
the metals listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to the system start-up from December 2004 to
April 2005, four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences that were
part of the historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). Following system startup,
distribution system water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same locations until April 2006
when the Vermont State Housing Authority (VSFIA) had to deliver water to meet the Park's demand
because the wells were not supplying enough water. The delivered water was stored in the 5,500-gal
atmospheric storage tank before being treated by the ATS system for distribution.
Samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Rule
Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA. 2002). The dates and times of last
water usage before sampling and of sample collection were recorded for calculating the stagnation time.
All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that
stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary)- The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate Ziploc® bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-of-
custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample dates and
-------
times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's
sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelle "s inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
(ICP-MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories,
including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, Ohio. Belmont Labs in Englewood,
Ohio, and TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, Ohio, were packed in separate coolers and picked up by
couriers. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through
collection, analysis, and final disposal. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the
respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, Belmont Labs, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality
assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the
QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of
80%). The quality assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a
QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic
Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Multi-340i probe in the beaker until a stable value
was obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach™
chlorine test kits following the user's manual.
10
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The CMHP water system at Dummerston, Vermont, supplied water to approximately 14 mobile homes.
The water treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, was located on Dummerston Station Road. The water
source was groundwater from three bedrock supply wells (Wells No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3) installed in
1999. The total combined flowrate from the three wells was estimated to be approximately 22 gpm based
on a flow test conducted by the plant operator. The average daily use rate was approximately 2.500 gpd.
The preexisting system included a 5,500-gal atmosphere storage tank, two booster pumps, and four
pressure tanks (Figure 4-2). The only treatment for the preexisting water system was chlorination via
injection of a 0.625% NaOCl solution for disinfection.
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Treatment Building at Charette Mobile Home Park
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 14, 2004, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained
from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC) are presented in Table 4-1.
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 7.0 to 30.0 ng/L. Based on the September 14,
2004, sampling results, the total arsenic concentration in the source water was 30.0 ng/L. of which
28.6 |ig/L (or 95%) existed as soluble As(V). This speciation result is consistent with the relatively high
DO and ORP values of 6.1 mg/L and 212 mV, respectively, measured during sampling.
pH values of source water ranged between 7.8 and 8.1. The vendor indicated mat the A/I Complex 2000
media could effectively remove arsenic as long as the pH values of source water were less than 9.0. As
such, no pH adjustment was planned at the site.
-------
Figure 4-2. Preexisting Pressure Tanks and Booster Pumps
Concentrations of iron (<25 (ig/L) and other ions in raw water were sufficiently low so pretreatment prior
to the adsorption process was not required. Concentrations of orthophosphate and fluoride also were
sufficiently low (i.e., <0.1 and <0.2 mg/L, respectively) and, therefore, not expected to affect arsenic
adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media. Silica concentration was 12.3 mg/L, similar to the level
measured in source water at the Spring Brook Mobile Home Park (SBMHP) site in Wales. Maine.
Because the A/I Complex 2000 media was shown to be especially selective for silica at the SBMHP site
(Lipps et al., 2006), the effect of silica on arsenic adsorption was carefully monitored throughout the
study period.
Other water quality parameters as presented in Table 4-1 had sufficiently low concentrations and,
therefore, were not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media.
4.1.2 Distribution System and Treated Water Quality. According to a VDEC Sanitary Survey,
the distribution system consisted of a looped distribution line constructed of approximately 950 ft of 3-in
lead pipe. 850 ft of 2-in polyvinyi chloride (PVC) pipe, and 500 ft of 1-in polyethylene pipe (P2
Environmental, 2005).
Compliance samples from the distribution system were collected monthly for bacterial analysis. Under
the EPA LCR, samples were collected from customer taps at four residences and the pump station every
three years. A summary of the distribution system water sampling results collected by VDEC is
presented in Table 4-1. Arsenic concentration measured was 30 (ig/L, similar to those in source water.
Lead concentrations ranged from the method reporting limit of 5 to 6 (ig/L; copper concentrations ranged
from the method reporting limit of 30 to 300 |.ig/L. Radium-226 and Radium-228 were present at 0.2 and
0.5 pCi/L, respectively, which was less than the 5-pCi/L MCL.
12
-------
Table 4-1. Source and Treated Water Quality Data for Charette Mobile Home Park Site
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As(total)
As (total soluble)
As (particulate)
As(HI)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Pb (total)
Cu (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Ra-226
Ra-228
Radon
Gross Alpha
Unit
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Facility
Source
Water Data00
-
8.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
135
188
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
45
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.07
27
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32
75
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Battelle
Source
Water Data
9/14/04
7.9
11.1
6.1
212
137
156
0.4
246
<0.7
0.24
<0.01
<0.05
51
<0.1
20.0
12.3
<0.06
30.0
30.1
<0.1
1.5
28.6
<25
<25
5.1
4.2
<10
<10
2.0
2.0
0.8
0.6
N/A
N/A
22
28
21
<1
<1
N/A
N/A
VDEC
Source
Water Data
1999-2004
7.8-8.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
190-215
N/A
0.4-1.8
200-210
N/A
<0.1
O.002
N/A
<0.2-53
<0.2
17-18
N/A
N/A
7-28
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60-150
N/A
20-60
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<5
<30
17-23
23-39
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND-2.8
ND-3
VDEC
Treated
Water Data
2000-2004
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<5-6
<30-300
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.5
N/A
N/A
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
N/A = not analyzed
ND = not detected
13
-------
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The ATS As/2200CS adsorption system uses A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media for arsenic removal.
The A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media consist of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex.
Table 4-2 presents physical and chemical properties of the adsorptive media, which has NSF International
(NSF) Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water.
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Phvsical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity
Hardness (kg/in2)
Particle Size Distribution (mesh)
Particle Size Distribution (mm)
BET Surface Area (nr/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Value
Activated alumina/iron complex
Granular solid
Light brown/orange granules
51
1.5
14-16
28 x48(<2% fines)
0.589x0.295
320
<0.1
<5
Chemical Analysis
Constituent
A12O., (%, dry)
NaIO4 (%, dry)
Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2'6H2O (%, dry)
Value
90.89
3.21
5.90
The ATS As/2200 CS system is a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system designed for use at small water
systems with flowrates of around 22 gpm. Upon exhaustion, the columns containing spent media are
dewatered and shipped to ATS's shop in Massachusetts. The spent media can be either disposed of after
being subjected to the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test or recycled for
beneficiary use according to the vendor.
The system at CMHP was configured in series with water being split into two treatment trains. The
system was designed for the lead column to be removed upon exhaustion and each of the two lag columns
to be moved forward one position (i.e., the first lag column would become the lead column and the
second lag column would become the first lag column). A new column loaded with virgin media would
then be placed at the end of each treatment train. Figure 4-3 shows a schematic diagram of the system.
Major system components are described as follows:
• Chlorine Feed System. Chlorine was injected after water from the three supply wells was
combined. The feed system consisted of a 30-gal chemical day tank and a Walchem EZ
Series feed pump with a maximum capacity of 1.0 gal/lir. Proper operation of the feed
system was tracked by the operator through measurements of free chlorine across the
treatment train. To maintain a target level of 0.2 to 0.4 mg/L (as C12) of free chlorine
residual, a 0.625% NaOCl solution was used at a rate of 0.44 mL/min when the well pumps
were running.
14
-------
—*
Ul
Treated Water To
Atmospheric Tank
Water is supplie
by wells 1.2 & 3
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3
Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic
Adsorption Adsorption Adsorption
Worker Guard Guard
Column Column Column
10"x64' 10"x54" 10"x54"
Notes:
1) Trains A and B are duplicate parallel treatment trains.
2) All treatment columns have a head assembly that can be adjusted for inflow outflow and by pass.
3) Each 10" X 54" tank has 1.5 cubic feet of media.
4) The System is made with 1" in fittings and connections
0 ATS 2006
021505
NfO
Symbol Key
Ball Valve
QL Drain
G) Pressure Gauge
| ] Check Valve
I {") I Flow Rate Meter Totalizer
^H 11 gpm Flow Restrict or
Sam pie Port
N/O Normally Open
NIC Normally Closed
A ChlorinationTap
Schematic is NOT TO SCALE
design by TJB/ATS
As2200cs dummerston.wk4
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/2200CS System with Series Operation
-------
• Sediment Filters. One 25-[im sediment filter was installed at the head of each treatment
train. Hie 6-in x 20-in filters were used to remove any large particles so that they did not
flow into and accumulate in the adsorption columns.
• Adsorption Columns. Following the sediment filter, each treatment train had three 10-in x
54-in sealed polyglass columns (by Park International) each loaded with 1.5 ftj of A/I
Complex 2000 media. Each adsorption column had a riser tube and a valved head assembly
to control inflow, outflow, and by-pass.
• Totalizer/Flow Meter. One Model F-1000 paddlewheel totalizer/flow meter (by Blue-White
Industries) was installed on the downstream end of each treatment train to record flowrate
and volume of water treated through the treatment train.
• Storage Tank. One 5,500 gal atmospheric storage tank was located at the system outlet to
provide temporary storage of the treated water.
• Booster Pumps and Pressure Tanks. Two preexisting 2-horsepower (hp) multistage
centrifugal CR-4 booster pumps (by Grundfos) and three 120-gal WM series captive air
pressure tanks (by Well Mate) with a total storage capacity of approximately 500 gal were
located after the atmospheric storage tank. The pressure tank/booster pump assembly was
used to supply the treated water with the necessary pressure to the distribution system. The
on/off settings of the booster pumps were controlled by the low/high pressure switch set at
30/50 pounds per square inch (psi) in the pressure tanks.
• Pressure Gauges. One each BII (0-100 psi) pressure gauge was installed at the system inlet
just prior to the sediment filter, at the head of each column, and at the system outlet. The
pressure gauges were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop across the
treatment train.
• Sampling Taps. Sampling taps made of PVC by US Plastics were located prior to the
system and following each adsorption tank for water sampling.
The system was constructed using 1-in copper piping and fittings. The design features of the treatment
system are summarized in Table 4-3, and a flow diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule is
presented in Figure 4-4. A photograph of the system installation is shown in Figure 4-5 and a close-up
view of an adsorptive media column is shown in Figure 4-6.
4.3 Permitting and System Installation
Engineering plans for the system were prepared by ATS and reviewed by Roberts & Franzoni
Engineering, Inc. The plans, consisting of a schematic and a written description of the As/2200CS
system, were submitted to VDEC for approval on April 29, 2005. The approval was granted by VDEC on
May 23, 2005.
The system was placed in the existing treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, without any additions or
modifications. The As/2200 CS system, consisting of factory-packed adsorption columns and pre-
assembled system valves, gauges, and sample taps, was delivered to the site by ATS on June 21, 2005.
The system installation began that same day. The sediment filters were attached to the wall at the head of
the treatment trains (Figure 4-5). The media columns were then set into place and plumbed together using
copper piping and connections. The mechanical installation was complete on June 22, 2005. Before the
16
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of As/2200CS System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Adsorption Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ftVcolumn)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ibs)
Media Volume (ft3)
10Dx54H
0.54
6
Series
A/I Complex 2000
83
1.5
-
-
3 columns per train, 2 trains in parallel
3 columns in series per train
Activated alumina/iron complex (See Table 4-2)
Per column
Per column
Service
System Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)/column
Maximum Use Rate (gpd)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated Media Life (months)
22
20.4
1.0
2,500
40,100
450,000
12
1 1 gpm per train
-
Per column, 3.0-min total EBCT for 3
adsorption columns in each train
Based on usage estimate provided by park
Bed volumes to breakthrough to 10 ug/L from
lead column
Vendor-provided estimate to breakthrough at 10
Hg/L from lead column based on 1 . 5 ft3 ( 1 1 .2
gal) of media in lead column
Estimated frequency of media change-out in
lead column based on throughput of 1,250 gpd
per train
Backwash
Backwash
-
No system backwash required
system was put online, the system piping was flushed and the columns were filled one at a time to check
for leaks. Once all columns were filled, the system operated for a short period with the treated water
going to the sewer. After it was determined mat the system was operating properly, the first set of system
samples and a sample for the total coliform test were collected. Upon receipt of the coliform test result
(that indicated absence of bacteria) on June 24, 2005, the treated water was directed to the distribution
system.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system were tabulated and
attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. From June 22, 2005, through
October 10, 2006, the treatment system operated for 3,636 hr based on hour meter readings of the well
pumps. The operational time represented a utilization rate of approximately 32% with the well pumps
operating an average of 7.6 hr/day. The total system throughput during the first 34-week period was
approximately 391,400 gal (or 195,700 per train). After changeout of the first two columns in each
treatment train, the system ran for an additional 34 weeks, treating another 353,500 gal (or 176,750 per
train) of water. This corresponds to 17,315 and 15,750 BV of water processed through a column
containing 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal) of media throughout the first and second 34-week periods, respectively.
For the entire system, i.e., six columns in two trains with 9 ft3 (67.2 gal) of media, it treated
approximately 5,824 BV and 5,260 BV, respectively, throughout the two 34-week test periods.
17
-------
INFLUENT
(WELLS 1.2, and 3)
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Charette Mobile Home Park in
Dummerston, VT
As/2200CS Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 22 gpm
Weekly or Biweekly
pH'a>, temperature'8', DO'3', ORP'a>,
C12 (total and free)'31.
As (total, particulate. and soluble).
As (III), As (V). Fe (total and soluble).
Mn (total and soluble).
Al (total and soluble).
Ca. Mg, F, NO,, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, and/or alkalinity
LEGEND
At Wellhead
After Chlorination
After Adsorption Column
(TA-TFI
After Entire System
INFLUENT Unit Process
DA: Cli | Chlorine Disinfection
Process Flow
Note: After November 8,2005, only As and SiO2 analyzed at TA-TF locations and speciation performed bimonthly
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
18
-------
Figure 4-5. As/2200CS System with Adsorption Columns Shown in
Foreground and Sediment Filters Attached to Wall
Figure 4-6. Close-Up View of a Sample Tap (TE), a Pressure Gauge,
and Copper Piping at End of Treatment Train A
Except for a few outliers, flowrates of the three source water wells ranged from 0.0 to 3.3 gpm and
averaged 0.3 gpm for Well 1; from 0.3 to 3.1 gpm and averaged 1.1 gpm for Well 2; and from 0.9 to 5.0
gpm and averaged 2.8 gpm for Well 3 during the system operation. For unknown reasons, the flowrates
of the source water wells reduced more than half after the 23rd week of operation and remained low for
approximately 14 weeks. Afterwards, flowrates began to increase again, but were highly variable for the
last 31 weeks of the study period (Figure 4-7). Table 4-5 details the fluctuations observed during the
three time periods.
19
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of As/2200CS System Operations
Operation Parameter
Media Run
Operating Duration
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day)
Average of Influent Pressure [Range] (psi)
Average Flowrates of Source
Water Wells [Range] (gpm)
Average Flowrates of
Treatment Trains (gpm)
Throughput (gal)
Throughput (BV per train)'31
Average EBCT (min)(al per
Column [Range]
Average Pressure Losses
Across Trains (psi) [Range]
Well#l
Well #2
Well #3
Combined
Train A
Train B
Combined
Train A
Train B
Combined
Train A
Train B
Combined
Train A
Train B
Combined
Train A
Train B
Values
Run 1
06/24/05-02/13/06
1.566
6.7
12.0 [0.0-30]
0.5 [0.0-3.3]
1.4 [0.3-3.1]
3.3 [0.9-5.0]
6.7 [1.5-9.0]
3.3 [0.2-6.2]
3.9 [1.3-7.1]
7.0 [0.2-13.3]
193,700
197,700
391,400
17.140
17.490
34.630
3.4 [1.8-56.1]
2.9 [1.6-8.6]
1.6 [0.8-56.1]
8.4 [0.0-16.0]
6.9 [0.0-15.0]
Run 2
02/15/06-10/10/06
2,070
8.7
9.4 [0.0-25]
0.3 [0.0-1.7]
0.9 [0.3-1.9]
2.4 [0.9-4.1]
4.2 [1.3-9.0]
2.4 [0.5-5.1]
2.6 [0.4-5.5]
4.8 [0.8-10.5]
163.800
189.700
353,500
14.600
16.900
31.500
4.7 [2.2-22.4]
4.3 [2.0-28.0]
2.3 [1.1-14.0]
5.4 [0.0-14.0]
2.1 [0.0-9.0]
Both Runs
06/24/05-10/10/06
3,636
7.6
10.8 [0.0-30]
0.3 [0.0-3.3]
1.1 [0.3-3.1]
2.8 [0.9-5.0]
4.2 [1.3-9.0]
2.8 [0.2-6.2]
3.2 [0.4-7.1]
6.1 [0.2-13.3]
357,500
387,400
744,900
31.740
34.390
66.130
4.0 [1.8-56.1]
3.5 [1.6-28.0]
1.8 [0.8-56.1]
7.1 [0.0-16.0]
5.4 [0.0-15.0]
(a) Calculated based on 1.5 ft3 (or 11.22 gal) of media in lead column.
The treatment system showed similar flowrate fluctuations coinciding with those of the wells. The ranges
of flowrates for Trains A and B throughout the study period were 0.3 to 6.2 and 0.3 to 7.1 gpm,
respectively (compared to the design flowrate of 11 gpm per train) (Figure 4-7). These resulted in EBCT
values ranging from 1.8 and 56.1 min per column for Train A and from 1.6 and 28.0 min per column for
Train B (compared to the design EBCT of 1.0 min per column or 3.0 min for three columns).
The highly variable flowrates are believed to have been caused, in part, by drying up and slow recovery
rates of the source water wells. Based on the average flowrate and average daily operating time, the
average daily use rate was approximately 1.647 gpd, which was approximately 66% of mat provided by
the park. The flowrates also were affected by the influent pressure to the system. Because there was no
pressure tank/booster pump prior to the system, influent pressures were typically low, ranging from 0 to
30 psi (Figure 4-8).
The pressure loss across each column ranged from 0 to 20 psi and averaged 3 psi. The total pressure loss
across each treatment train (three columns in series) varied between the two runs and the two treatment
trains. During Run 1, the treatment trains had an average pressure loss of 6.9 to 8.4 psi. However, in Run
2, Train A had an average pressure loss of 5.4 psi while Train B had an average pressure loss only of 2.1
psi. The average influent pressure at the head of the system from the wells was 12 psi for Run 1 and 9.4
psi for Run 2. The average pressure following the last column in Train A was similar for both Runs 1 and
2 at 3.6 and 4.1 psi, respectively. Train B had a wider variance between Run 1 and Run 2 for the average
pressure following the last column with Run 1 average pressure at 5.3 psi and Run 2 average pressure at
9.1 psi. The treated water was fed into a 5,500 gal atmospheric storage tank so that the pressure was
20
-------
Flow rate decreases by ( Flow rate increases
about half in all three wells. ; but highly variable.
Q.
O)
S, 3
o
iE
6/2/2005 7/22/2005 9/10/2005 10/30/2005 12/19/2005 2/7/2006 3/29/2006 5/18/2006 7/7/2006 8/26/2006 10/15/2006
Date
6/2/2005 7/22/2005 9/10/2005 10/30/2005 12/19/2005 2/7/2006 3/29/2006 5/18/2006 7/7/2006 8/26/2006 10/15/2006
Date
Figure 4-7. Average Flowrate of Three Source Wells and the Treatment System
21
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Flowrate and Pressure Variations During System Operation
Date
06/24/05-11/29/05
12/01/06-03/14/06
03/16/06-10/07/06
Range and Average Flowrates for Each Well and Combined
Well #1 (gpm)
Well #2 (gpm)
Well #3 (gpm)
Combined (gpm)
0.1-3.3 (0.7)
0.3-3.1 (1.9)
1.0-5.0 (4.2)
1.5-9.0 (6.7)
0.0-0.3 (0.2)
0.3-0.9 (0.8)
0.9-2.8(2.1)
0.7-3.9(3.1)
0.0-1.7 (0.3)
0.9-2.8(2.1)
0.9-4.1(2.5)
1.1-6.9 (3.7)
Range and Average Flowrates for Each Train and Combined
Train A (gpm)
Train B (gpm)
Combined (gpm)
0.6-6.2 (3.6)
0.3-7.1 (4.0)
0.4-13.3 (8.2)
0.3-4.6 (1.4)
0.2-5.3 (1.7)
0.2-9.9 (3.3)
0.4-5.0(2.1)
0.3-5.5 (2.5)
0.6-10.5 (4.8)
Range and Average Inlet System Pressure
Inlet System
Pressure (psi)
0-30 (14.9)
0.0-25 (6)
0-23 (9.7)
06/02/05 07/22/05 09/10/05 10/30/05 12/19/05 02/07/06 03/29/06 05/18/06 07/07/06 08/26/06 10/15/06
Date
Figure 4-8. Influent Pressure from Three Source Wells
0 psi at the tank and preexisting pressure tanks; booster pumps were used to feed the distribution system
from the atmospheric storage tank.
4.4.2 Residuals Management. The only residuals produced by the operation of the As/2200CS
treatment system was spent media. The media from the first two columns of each treatment train were
replaced on February 14, 2006, after 34 weeks of operation. Because the system did not require
backwash, no backwash residuals were produced.
22
-------
4.4.3 System /Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. One operational difficulty encountered was
insufficient water from the three wells used to supply the treatment system. This might have been caused
by a low water table resulting from a dry summer in Vermont. There also was an imbalance of flow to
the two treatment trains during the first month of the demonstration. Train A was treating approximately
30% more water than Train B. After the first month, flow became more balanced and at the end of the
first run. Train A received 49% and Train B received 51% of the water. At the beginning of the second
run, Train B was treating more man 75% of the flow. By the end of the evaluation, Train A treated
approximately 46% and Train B treated 54% of the water. Additional discussion regarding system
operation and operator skill requirement are provided below.
4.4.3.1 Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Because arsenic existed predominately as As(V),
oxidation of As(III) to As(V) was not required. However, for disinfection purposes, prechlorination was
performed using the preexisting chlorine addition system. No other pre- or post-treatment was required
for this system.
4.4.3.2 System Controls. The As/2200CS adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only
the operation of the supply well pumps to send water through the adsorption columns to the 5,500-gal
atmospheric storage tank and booster pumps to supply water to the distribution system. The media
columns themselves required no automated parts and all valves were manually activated. The inline
flowmeters were barter}' powered so that the only electrical power required was that needed to run the
supply well pumps and booster pumps, which were in place prior to the installation of the ATS treatment
system. The system operation was controlled by a float valve in the atmospheric storage tank.
4.4.3.3 Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to
operate the treatment system were minimal. The operation of the system did not require additional skills
beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply system in place at the site.
The CMHP treatment facility is considered by VDEC as a public community water system. A public
system is one that has 15 or more service connections or that serves 25 or more people. A community
system is one that serves residents on a year-round basis. Individuals who operate or supervise the
operation of a public water system in the state of Vermont must possess an operator certificate.
The five classes of water systems in Vermont are Classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and D. Classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 apply to
water systems with their own source(s) of supply and Class D applies to systems that distribute water.
Class 3 applies to systems that fall under one of the following categories: 1) disinfection by oilier than
chlorine or ultraviolet (UV); 2) sequestering or filtering of manganese or iron; 3) fluoridation; 4)
corrosion control; 5) pH control; 6) air stripping; 7) granular activated adsorption; 8) ion exchange; or 9)
aeration. Although treatment of arsenic through adsorption is not specifically listed under Class 3, the
treatment system falls under Class 3 (VDEC, 2007). The operator at CMHP possesses a Class 3
certification.
4.4.3.4 Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative
maintenance activity recommended by ATS was to inspect the sediment filters monthly and replace as
necessary. The treatment system operator visited the site approximately three times per week to check the
system for leaks, and record flow, volume, and pressure readings.
4.4.3.5 Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for pre-
chlorination. The operator ordered chemicals as had been done prior to the installation of the treatment
system.
23
-------
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the treatment system was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected from the
raw and treated water from the treatment and distribution systems. The system ran from June 22, 2005.
through February 14, 2006, when the first two columns in each train (i.e., TA through TD), were changed
out. The second set of lag columns (TE and TF) were switched to the lead position and four new columns
were added as lag columns. The system operated for an additional 34 weeks before the arsenic levels in
the effluent from the system (following the third columns) had reached 10 (ig/L and the study was
completed.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-6 summarizes the arsenic, iron, manganese, and
aluminum results from samples collected throughout the treatment plant for the two runs. Table 4-7
summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of
analytical results through the 68 weeks of system operation. The results of the treatment plant sampling
are discussed below.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 36 occasions
during the 68 weeks of system operation (with duplicate samples taken on three and field speciation
performed on eight of the 36 occasions).
Figure 4-9 contains three bar charts each showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, and
soluble As, including As(III) and As(V), across the entire system for Runs 1 and 2. Total As
concentrations in raw water ranged from 20.8 to 101 (ig/L and averaged 41.3 (ig/L (Table 4-6). Soluble
As(V) was the predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 20.6 to 67.0 (.ig/L and averaging
37.5 (ig/L. Soluble As(UI) also was present in source water, with concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 3
(ig/L and averaging 1.2 (ig/L. Particulate As was low with concentrations typically less than 1 (ig/L. The
influent arsenic concentrations measured during this 68-week period were generally higher than those in
the raw water sampled during the initial site visit on September 14, 2004 (Table 4-1).
Arsenic concentrations after the lead columns reached 10 (.ig/L at approximately 5,700 BV from Train A
(TA) and 5,400 BV from Train B (TB) (Figure 4-10) (note that BV was calculated based on the amount of
media, i.e., 1.5 ftj, in each lead column). Arsenic, existing almost entirely of As(V) (Figure 4-9),
approached complete breakthrough (concentrations equal to those in the influent) after the lead columns
at approximately 12.000 BV. Arsenic breakthrough from the lead columns occurred much sooner man
projected by the vendor (i.e., at 40,000 BV). Although the vendor indicated that the media could
effectively remove arsenic as long as the pH values were less than 9.0, the relatively high pH values of
source water (averaging 7.6; see Table 4-7) might have contributed, in part, to early arsenic breakthrough
from the adsorption columns. Influent arsenic concentrations during the 68-week evaluation also were,
on average, higher than those collected historically by the facility. Battelle, and VDEC. The vendor-
estimated breakthrough was based on approximately 30 (ig/L of As, compared to the average raw water
arsenic concentration of 41.3 (.ig/L during the 68 weeks of operation. However, the vendor's arsenic
breakthrough also was projected using an EBCT of 1 mill/column based on a flowrate of 11 gpm per
treatment train; this EBCT was much shorter than the actual EBCT and the flowrate was much higher
than the actual flowrate (see Table 4-4).
Based on the breakthrough curves shown in Figure 4-10 and the resulting mass removal data summarized
in Table 4-8, the arsenic loading on the adsorption media was estimated to be between 0.45 and 0.49 (,ig of
As/mg of media in the lead columns. The loading was calculated by dividing the arsenic mass represented
by the shaded areas in Figure 4-11 by the amount of dry media (1.5 ft3) in each lead column (see
Appendix C). The total arsenic mass removed during Run 1 by the lead columns in Trains A and B (TA
24
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As
(particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
Number of
Samples
19 [19]lal
4 [4]
8-19 [19](al
16 [19]
4 [4]
1[3]
2-3 [0]
2 [4]
4 [4]
1[4]
2-3 [0]
2 [4]
4 [4]
1[4]
2-3 [0]
2 [4]
19 [19](al
1[4]
1-13 [3]la)
16 [19f >
4 [4]
1[4]
2-3 [0]
2 [4]
19 [19](al
1[4]
1-1 1 [3 f"
16 [19f >
4 [4]
1[4]
23 [0]
2 [4]
19 [19] Lal
1[4]
1-11 [2](a)
16 [19f >
4 [4]
1[4]
2-3 [0]
2 [4]
Concentration (u^g/L)
Minimum
28.8 [20.8]
25.7 [21.5]
Maximum | Average
72.2 [101]
25.7 [79.7]
42.2 [40.5]
25.7 [43.0]
Standard
Deviation
12.7 [21.5]
-[21.6]
(bi
<0.1 [0.2]
<0.1 [0.3]
1.2 [10.1]
<0.1 [4.4]
0.34 [3.5]
<0.1 [1.7]
0.58 [4.5]
- [2.3]
(bi
0.4 [0.2]
0.5 [0.2]
3.0 [1.1]
0.5 [1.2]
1.8 [0.53]
0.5 [0.58]
1.1 [0.4]
- [0.4]
(bi
29.1 [20.6]
25.5 [20.0]
44.4 [67.0]
25.5 [67.0]
39.3 [35.7]
25.5 [40.8]
6.9 [21.4]
-[20.1]
(bi
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 |<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [-]
<25 |<25]
1.7 [1.9]
12.1 [2.5]
<0.1 [<0.1]
<0.1 |<0.1]
<0.1 [1.1[
1.2 [1.6]
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Analytical Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as P04)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TD
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
AC
TT
AC
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
°C
°C
°C
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number of
Samples
15 [9]
1-10 [01
12 [9]
15 [91
1-10 [0]
13 [9]
15 [91
1-10 [0]
12 [91
8[0]
2-8 [0]
7 [01
8 [9]
2-3 [01
6 [9]
18 [19]
8-17 [191
15 [19]
15 [9]
1-9 [0]
11 [9]
15 [9]
1-10 [0]
12 [9]
16 [10]
4 [8]
1-9 [0]
13 [10]
16 [10]
4 [8]
1-8 [0]
13 [10]
7 [6]
12 [9]
7 [6]
8 [6]
16 [8]
i-nroi
13 [8]
16 [8]
1-1 1[0]
13 [8]
16 [8]
1-1 1[0]
13 [8]
Concentration/Unit
Minimum
110[121]
44 [-]
110 [125]
<0.1 [<0.1]
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
Arsenic Species After Chlorination (AC)
70
60
I 50
c
°
| 40
|
" 30
20
10
n
Run 1 Run 2
~
— i —
i — i
-
• As (partlculate)
DAs (V,
DAs (III)
^B
•
H
U
6/22C005 8/16/2005 10/13/2005 12/13/2005 4/11/2006 6/5/2006 8/2/2006 9/26/2006
12/13/2005 4/11/2006
6/5/2006 8/2/2006
Date
Arsenic Species After Entire System (TT)
o> 50 -
J«H
!3o^
As (participate)
DAs (V)
DAS (III)
8/16/2005 12/13/2005 4/11/2006 6/5/2006 8/2/2006 9/26/2006
Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Entire System
-------
Train A
8.0 10.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
2.0 4.0
8.0 10.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Train B
t-o
oo
8.0 10.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
10.0 12.0
Bed Volumes (xlO3)
Note: 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Train A, Train B, and Entire System for Runs 1 and 2
-------
1
Train A
Run 1
8.0 10.0
Bed Volumes (X103)
Train B
14.0 16.0
6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
14.0 16.0
Note: I BV = 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-11. Arsenic Mass Removed by Trains A and B During Run 1
29
-------
and TB) was estimated to be 16.4 and 15.1 g, respectively. The first set of lag columns (i.e., Column TC
and TD or the middle columns) removed an estimated 10.8 and 10.6 g. respectively, which were
approximately 32% less than the mass removed by the lead columns. These lag columns did not reach
their full capacity for arsenic before they were replaced. The final columns in each train, i.e., TE and TF,
removed an estimated 2.9 and 3.4 g, respectively.
During Run 2, Columns TE and TF were moved to the lead position to maximize their usage for arsenic
removal. Columns TE and TF removed an estimated 10.0 and 11.5 g, respectively, during Rim 2, making
their total arsenic mass removal 12.9 and 14.9 g, respectively. The first lag columns (i.e., middle
columns, or TA and TB that were rebedded), removed an estimated 10.2 and 11.2 g of arsenic,
respectively. The arsenic mass removed by the lead and first lag columns during Run 2 was very similar
to that during Run 1. The final columns for Run 2 (i.e., TC and TD) removed an estimated 7.0 and 7.1 g
of arsenic, respectively.
Breakthrough curves for the middle and final columns in each train (TC-TF) and the entire system (TT)
also are presented in Figure 4-10. Breakthrough curves were plotted based on a BV of 1.5 ff for each
individual column. Arsenic concentrations from the middle columns (TC and TD) reached 10 (.ig/L at
approximately 13,000 and 12,500 BV, respectively (or 6,500 and 6,250 BV. respectively, if considering
the first two columns in each train as one large column). Arsenic concentrations from the final column in
each treatment train (TE and TF) reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 17,400 and 17,600 BV, respectively
(or 5,800 and 5,900 BV, respectively, if considering all columns in each train as one large column).
Table 4-8 summarizes the arsenic mass removed by each of the columns for the two runs and a detailed
calculation of arsenic mass removed is provided in Appendix C.
Table 4-8. Arsenic Mass Removed by Columns A through F and
Capacity of Media for Arsenic(a)
Column
TA
TB
TC
TD
TE(C|
TFw
Arsenic Mass Removed (fig)
(Column Position)
Runl
16,450,288
(Lead)
15,139,310
(Lead)
10,849,436
(First lag)
10,583,800
(First lag)
2,937,703
(Second lag)
3.425.869
(Second lag)
Run 2
10,196,282
(First lag)
11,222,302
(First lag)
7,000,376
-------
4.5.1.1 Silica, Sulfate, Bicarbonate and Nitrate. Among the anions analyzed, silica, sulfate,
alkalinity (existing primarily as HCO3" at pH values between 7.0 and 8.2), and nitrate were present in
significant concentrations in raw water (Table 4-7) and potentially could compete with arsenic for
adsorptive sites. As shown in Figure 4-12, silica was consistently removed by (and did not reach complete
breakthrough from) the adsorption columns throughout the two adsorption runs. However, HCO3, SO42",
and NO3", showed little or no adsorptive capacity on the media (Figure 4-13).
4.5.1.3 Aluminum. As shown in Table 4-6, total aluminum concentrations in source water were
below detection. Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in soluble form) in the treated water
following the adsorption columns were about 10 to 30 ug/L higher than those in raw water, indicating
leaching of aluminum from the adsorptive media. With the increase in aluminum concentration following
the treatment system, the concentrations, however, were below the secondary drinking water standard for
aluminum of 50 to 200 ug/L. Leaching of aluminum continued throughout the study period; however,
there was a decreasing trend in aluminum concentration in treated water throughout the evaluation
(Figure 4-14).
4.5.1.4 Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations, both total and dissolved, were consistently less
than the reporting limit of 25 ug/L in source water and across the treatment trains (Table 4-6).
Manganese concentrations in source water also were low, ranging from 1.7 to 37.9 ug/L and averaging
10.0 ug/L. Manganese concentrations in the treated water following the adsorption columns were
typically below the reporting limit (<1 ug/L), indicating complete removal of manganese by the
adsorptive media.
4.5.1.5 Other Water Quality Parameters. Fluoride, orthophosphate. total phosphorus, total chlorine
and hardness concentrations remained relatively constant throughout the treatment train.
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling. Spent A/I Complex 2000 media samples were collected from each
lead and first lag columns during media changeout on February 14, 2006. The samples were collected
according to Section 3.3.3 for TCLP and total metals analysis and the analytical results are presented in
Tables 4-9 and 4-10, respectively.
4.5.2.1 TCLP. The TCLP results indicated that the spent media was non-hazardous and could be
disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Barium was the only metal detected by the TCLP test at a concentration
of 4.6 mg/L, which is well below the limit of 100 mg/L of Ba.
4.5.2.2 Metals. The spent media ICP-MS results indicate that the media removed arsenic as water
passed through Columns A and C in Train A and Columns B and D in Train B, as evident by the
decreasing arsenic loadings shown in Table 4-10. The arsenic loadings on the spent media based on the
ICP-MS results and arsenic breakthrough curves are summarized in Table 4-11. A/I Complex 2000 dry
media mass was calculated based on a moisture content of 3% based on results from the spent media
analysis.
As expected, arsenic loading on the media was low, amounting to only 0.64 ug/mg of dry media (on
average) on the lead vessels and 0.42 ug/mg (on average) on the first lag vessels. The arsenic loadings
measured on the spent media by ICP-MS were 36% (for the lead columns) and 33% (for the first lag
columns) higher man those estimated based on the breakthrough curves. It is unclear what may have
contributed to the differences observed.
Besides aluminum, all metals analyzed on the spent media were below 1.0% (by weight). The average
aluminum composition was 39%, equivalent to 74% as A12O3. This amount was significantly lower than
the 91% listed in the ATS's material specifications (Table 4-2). The spent media results also showed that
31
-------
Train A
to
2.0 t.O
8.0 10.0 12.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
8.0 10.0
Bed Volumes (x103)
14.0 16.0
Train B
Bed Volumes (x103)
12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
8.0 10.0 12.0
Bed Volumes |x10:)
14.0 16.0
Note: 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire System
-------
Alkalinity
161
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
— IN (Run 1) —*— TT [Run 1)
--o- IN (Run 2) -ni- TT (Run 2)
8.0 10.0
Bed Volumes (A103)
12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0
Sulfate
200 n
180
160
3- 140
'tT 120
o
c 100
I 80
S 60
40
20
—•—IN (Run 1) A TT (Run 1)
- •* - IN (Run 2) - nft - TT (Run 2)
6.0 8.0 10.0
Bed Volumes (A103)
—•—IN (Run 1) —*—TT (Run 1)
-•o-IN(Run2) -:A-TT(Run2)
6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
BedVolumes("10;)
16.0 18.0
Note: 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-13. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations
Across Treatment Trains and Entire System for Runs 1 and 2
33
-------
Run 1
40
30
20 -
10 -
-• • « * »-
-• * « • « # •-
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
8.0 10.0 12.0
Bed Volumes (A103)
14.0 16.0 18.0
Run 2
8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
16.0
Note: 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-14. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Entire System for Runs 1 and 2
34
-------
Table 4-9. TCLP Results of a Composite
Spent Media Sample
Analyte
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercurv
Selenium
Silver
TCLP
Concentration
(mg/L)
0.10
4.6
0.010
0.010
0.050
0.0020
0.10
0.010
Table 4-10. Spent Media Metals Results(a)
Parameter
Bed Volume
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silica
Zinc
Unit
BVA3
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
M-g/g
Sampling Location
TA
17.2
384,832
360.951
678
592
1.42
1.53
8.986
8,721
1,413
1,368
7.387
6,570
5.32
4.78
1.887
1,891
262
239
53.6
53.2
302
320
392
311
551
538
TB
17.5
374,348
393.355
606
670
1.58
1.70
7.647
7,911
1,053
1,047
7.097
7,379
3.01
2.95
1.805
1,832
169
170
35.3
37.4
351
376
518
450
372
370
TC
17.2
404,135
404.246
412
413
1.81
1.92
9.091
9,061
181
178
5.606
5,590
0.85
0.85
1.866
1,843
18.9
18.3
9.43
8.44
368
341
650
674
<50
<50
TD
17.5
410,177
409.579
401
406
2.01
2.13
9.029
9,057
129
136
4.907
4,955
0.87
0.92
1.835
1,763
38.9
40.4
8.75
9.03
339
352
611
395
<50
<50
(a) With analyses of duplicate samples
35
-------
Table 4-11. Summary of Media Capacity for Arsenic
TA
TB
TC
TD
Breakthrough Curves00
Table 4-8
Spent Media(b)
Table 4-10
ug As/mg of dry media
0.49
0.45
0.32
0.31
0.64
0.64
0.41
0.40
(a) Calculations account for 3% moisture content of A/I Complex
2000 media.
(b) Averages of duplicate samples.
the media had some capacities for positively charged metal ions, such as copper, lead, manganese, nickel,
and zinc. For example, zinc in the lead vessels had an average concentration of 0.46 (ig/mg, while zinc
was not detected in the first lag vessels above the reporting limit of 0.05 (.ig/mg.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution water samples were collected from three LCR residences on December 7,
2004; January 4, 2005; February 1, 2005; and April 5, 2005. Following the installation of the treatment
system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations. The results
of the distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-12.
As expected, prior to the installation of the arsenic adsorption system, arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system were similar to those measured in raw water, ranging from 25.9 to 51.0 (.ig/L. After
system startup, As concentrations remained elevated from 16.3 to 26.0 ^g/L at Lot 1 and from 4.7 to
11.2 (.ig/L at Lot 4 during the first one to three months. Since men, arsenic concentrations decreased to
below 3 (ig/L before steadily increasing to 6.8 (.ig/L at Lots 1 and 6 and 4.8 j.ig/L at Lot 4 just before
media changeout. One additional sample was collected two months after the media changeout and the As
concentrations were between 1.0 and 2.4 (ig/L. Distribution system water sampling was discontinued
after April 2006 when the Park began hauling water in to keep up with demand. The hauled water was
mixed with the treated water in the 5,500 gallon storage tank prior to distribution.
Prior to system startup, iron and manganese concentrations in the distribution system were low and
similar to those in raw water. Two residences (Lots 4 and 6), however, had elevated iron (as high as
602 (.ig/L) and manganese concentrations (as high as 83.2 (ig/L). After system startup, iron
concentrations were mostly near or below the method reporting limit of 25 ug/L, except for two samples
taken from Lot 4 that had elevated concentrations of 128 and 346 ^g/L. Manganese concentrations were
similar to those of the treated water, except for one sample taken from Lot 1 which had an elevated
concentration of 50.1 (ig/L.
With the exception of two samples collected at Lot 6 prior to system startup, aluminum concentrations
were slightly higher in water collected after system startup. Although aluminum concentrations were
higher in the distribution system than the source water, the concentrations were well below the secondary
MCLof200^g/L.
One sample collected at Lots 6 and 4 during the baseline sampling exceeded the lead action level of
15 ng/L (i.e., 37 (.ig/L from Lot 6 on January 4, 2005, and 22.1 (ig/L from Lot 4 on December 7, 2004).
After system startup, lead concentrations at all distribution locations were below 7.5 ug/L. Copper values
ranged from 17.2 to 138 (ig/L and averaged 63.4 (ig/L prior to system startup and ranged from 1.9 to
36
-------
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
y
8
9
Address
Sample Type
Flushed /1st Draw
Sampling Date
12/7/2004
1/4/2005
2/1/2005
4/5/2005
7/27/2005
8/16/2005
9/20/2005
10/13/2005
11/8/2005
12/13/2005
1/26/2006
2/14/2006
4/11/2006
DS1
Lot1
LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
20.5
12.0
16.0
11.0
14.0
8.8
11.0
NA
7.0
7.0
8.0
6.5
6.5
Q.
7.9
7.7
7.3
7.7
8.2
8.2
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.9
7.9
8.1
7.8
£
_c
"Jo
je
<
142
136
138
132
110
110
141
154
132
141
125
133
133
3
27.7
25.9
30.8
30.7
16.3
26.0
20.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
3.5
6.8
1.0
0)
y.
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
c
4.1
3.7
2.2
0.8
50.1
6.7
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.5
<
<10
<10
<10
<10
15.9
<10
<10
15.4
56.6
54.1
48.6
<10
17.8
.O
a.
2.2
4.0
2.5
1.2
1.0
2.2
1.3
0.3
1.4
0.2
0.1
<0.1
1.3
0
82.0
85.9
84.9
81.3
32.3
72.3
82.5
18.8
33.6
16.5
9.2
1.9
26.2
DS2
Lot 6
LCR
1st Draw
Stagnation
Time (hrs)
11.8
13.0
12.0
11.8
12.3
12.5
12.8
13.0
11.4
11.3
10.5
8.5
10.6
D,
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.5
8.0
8.1
8.0
7.8
£
_c
"to
je
<
142
132
138
132
132
132
150
145
110
145
130
133
128
3
29.0
40.8
34.3
30.6
2.5
2.5
2.1
1.5
0.8
1.2
4.2
6.8
1.2
01
u_
<25
339
43.9
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
c
1.7
83.2
10.6
0.8
0.2
0.5
<0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.9
<0.1
0.3
<
<10
82.2
53.4
10.9
11.9
13.9
14.1
13.9
12.9
12.6
22.4
<10
24.2
.O
a.
0.3
37.0
5.1
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.3
<0.1
0.2
0
18.9
138
43.3
29.6
20.9
29.6
20.9
21.6
18.3
37.1
9.3
6.6
30.0
DS3
Lot 4
LCR
1st Draw
11
II
«> i—
8.8
8.9
17.5
20.0
20.3
11.4
7.7
21.4
23.8
10.8
22.5
20.2
10.9
O.
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.9
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.8
£
_c
"co
jc
<
142
132
133
141
132
141
141
145
132
145
134
129
128
3
51.0
34.0
39.3
33.3
4.7
11.2
6.5
2.9
3.1
2.7
3.4
4.8
2.4
O)
LJ-
602
139
175
25.9
34.4
346
128
<25
48.8
<25
<25
<25
47.1
c
33.8
13.6
10.4
4.9
4.1
16.6
2.7
1.2
1.1
0.5
<0.1
2.8
4.2
<
19.8
<10
<10
<10
10.9
17.6
18.5
<10
19.7
18.4
13.2
<10
11.9
.a
a.
22.1
8.9
7.3
2.5
1.6
7.5
3.6
0.4
2.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
0
105
38.6
36.5
17.2
25.9
55.5
35.0
18.9
28,2
20.8
4.5
2.0
15.3
NS = not sampled; NA = not available.
Lead action level = 15 |jg/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
The unit for analytical parameters is (jg/L except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
BL = Baseline Sampling
-------
82.5 (.ig/L and averaged 25.7 (ig/L after system startup. All samples analyzed for copper were below the
action level of 1.3 mg/L. The pH and alkalinity remained relatively constant throughout distribution
system water sampling.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This included the tracking of the capital cost for the treatment
system such as equipment, engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for chemical supply, electrical
power usage, and labor. No cost was incurred for building and discharge-related infrastructure
improvements. If required, this cost would have been funded by the demonstration site and would not be
included in the following cost analyses.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
$14.000 (see Table 4-13). The equipment cost was $8.990 (or 64% of the total capital investment), which
included $4,060 forme treatment system mechanical hardware, $2,880 for the A/I Complex 2000
adsorption media (i.e., $320/ftJ or $5.82/lb to fill six columns), and $2,050 for the vendor's labor and
shipping cost.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the
piping connections to the distribution tie-in points, and assembling and submission of the engineering
plans for the permit application (Section 4.3). The engineering cost was $2,400, which was 17% of the
total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost to unload and install the treatment system, complete the piping
installation and tie-ins, and perform the system start-up and shakedown (Section 4.3). The installation
costs were $2,610, or 19% of the total capital investment.
Using the system's rated capacity of 22 gpm (or 31,680 gpd), the capital cost was $636/gpm (or
$0.44/gpd). The capital cost of $14,000 was converted to an annualized cost of $l,321/yr using a capital
recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-yr return. Assuming that the system was
operated 24 hr a day, 7 days a week at the design flowrate of 22 gpm to produce 11.6 million gal of water
per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.11/1,000 gal. However, since the system was operated an
average of 7.6 hr/day with an average daily use rate of 1,565 gal/day (see Table 4-4), producing
approximately 571,200 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost was increased to $2.31/1,000 gal at this
reduced rate of production.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the As/2200CS treatment system
includes only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor (Table 4-14).
For a three-column system operating in series, the media in the lead column is ideally replaced when the
arsenic concentration in the lead column effluent equals the raw water concentration, but before the
arsenic concentration following the final lag column reaches the 10 (.ig/L target value. Once the lead
column is exhausted, the first and second lag columns are moved up to the lead and first lag positions and
a column containing new media is placed in the final lag position. This method allows the media's
capacity for arsenic to be fully utilized before its replacement. If the media exhibits a sharp adsorption
front (with atypical S-shaped breakthrough curve) and if the anticipated run length is relatively short,
replacement may be more cost-effective to wait until the first two or all three columns in the treatment
train need to be replaced. At Dummerston, the first two sets of columns (lead and first lag) were changed
out on February 14, 2006, after 34 weeks of operation. The cost of the changeout for four columns (i.e.,
38
-------
Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Adsorption Media Columns
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media (ft3)
25-um Sediment Filters
Piping and Valves
Flow Totalizers/Meters
Hour Meters
Procurement, Assembly, Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
6
9
2
1
2
3
1
1
—
$720
$2,880
$750
$1.020
$1,120
$450
$1,600
$450
$8,990
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
64%
Engineering Cost
Design/Scope of System (hr)
Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses
Subcontractor Labor
Engineering Total
10
1
—
—
$1,500
$300
$600
$2,400
—
—
17%
Installation Cost
Plumbing Supplies/Paris
Vendor Installation Labor (hr)
Vendor Travel (day)
Subcontractor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
10
2
—
—
-
$500
$1,300
$710
$100
$2,610
$14,000
—
—
—
19%
100%
Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
391,400
Remarks
Amount of water processed through both Trains
during Run 1
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media ($/ft3)
Media Volume (ft3)
Total Media Replacement ($)
Labor ($)
Travel and Delivery ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal
($/l,000 gal)
517
6.0
3,100
260
550
3,910
See Figure 4- 15
For replacement media
Amount of media in four columns (i.e., two lead
and two first lag columns)
Vendor invoice
Vendor invoice
Vendor invoice
Vendor invoice
Based upon media run length at 10-|ag/L arsenic
breakthrough from third adsorption column
Chemical Usage
Chemical ($)
0.000
No additional chemical required
Electricity
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical cost assumed negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M cost ($71,000 gal)
1
340
0.87
See Figure 4-14
10 min/day, 3 day/week
17hrat$20/hr
-
Based upon media run length at 10-|j.g/L arsenic
breakthrough from third column
39
-------
two sets of the lead and first lag columns) was $3,910 (see cost breakdown in Table 4-4). The spent
media was returned to ATS and sold for use in another product; therefore, there was no additional cost for
disposal of spent media. By averaging the media replacement cost (i.e., $3,910) over the life of the
media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of the media run length in BV. To
be consistent with the operational data, the media run length in BV was calculated by dividing the system
throughput through each train by the quantity of media in the lead column, i.e., 1.5 ff (or 11.2 gal). As
shown in Figure 4-15, the unit media replacement cost is $9.96/1,000 gal for a media run length of 17,500
BV (or 195,700 gal per train or 391,400 gal for the entire system).
Sodium hypochlorite was added to the water prior to the installation of the system so the cost was not
tracked for the chemical addition. There were no additional electrical requirements added by ATS with
the exception of the hour meters on each well. The well pumps and booster pumps were in place at the
treatment building prior to the installation of the treatment system. Therefore, the electrical cost
associated with the system operation was assumed to be negligible.
The routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed about 10 min/day, 3 day/week as noted
in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.87/1,000 gal of water treated (Table 4-14).
The unit O&M cost is driven by the cost to replace the spent media and is a function of the media run
length (see Figure 4-15). As shown in this figure, the unit O&M cost would be $10.87/1,000 gal for a
media run length of 17,500 BV or treating 391,400 gal of water.
$25.00 -,
$20.00
=- $15.00
re
o
5
O $10.00
$5.00
$0.00
-O&M Cost (including Media
Replacement)
• Media Replacement Cost Only
5,000
10,000 15,000 20,000
Media Working Capacity (BV)
25,000
30,000
Note: 1 BV = 1.5 cf of media in one column
Figure 4-15. O&M and Media Replacement Cost (for Replacement of
Four Columns at a Time)
40
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology'.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L.Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA,90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 66:14:6975.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Absorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME. Six-
Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/090. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
P2 Environmental. E-mail communication dated February 27,2005 between Battelle and Patricia Beavers
at P2 Environmental.
VDEC. Personal communication with David Webb on April 9, 2007.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Roitnd 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
41
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
06/23/05
06/24/05
06/27/05
06/28/05
06/29/05
06/30/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
07/04/05
07/05/05
07/06/05
07/07/05
07/08/05
07/09/05
07/11/05
07/12/05
07/13/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/16/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/30/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
he
9.1
12.9
37.2
43.1
48.1
50.6
55.3
58.5
74.7
79.9
84.1
NM
96.6
101.9
118.0
130.2
135.2
138.8
145.4
150.6
172.0
192.0
201.2
210.8
220.3
224.9
236.9
241.7
245.2
247.7
251.6
254.0
Operational
Hours
hr
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
System was bypassed
3.8
24.3
5.9
5.0
2.5
4.7
3.2
16.2
5.2
4.2
NM
12.5
5.3
16.1
12.2
5.0
3.6
6.6
5.2
21.4
20.0
9.2
9.6
9.5
4.6
12.0
4.8
3.5
2.5
3.9
2.4
0.00
4,54
4.10
2.62
4.97
4.32
5.18
4.76
2.62
2.87
5.42
4.03
2.24
4.09
4.49
2.62
5.15
4.92
4.48
0.83
0.40
0.52
2.79
2.02
4.23
4.01
4.62
4.79
5.39
5.11
5.71
263.4
3134.2
4032.7
4913.2
5583.5
6602.5
7237.8
9090.6
10156.7
10995.5
11745.2
12750.6
13914.9
15355
16337.9
17248.9
17801
18794
19710
21918
22663
23453
24355
25509
25972
27746
28590
29248
29856
30653
31240
23
279
359
438
498
588
645
810
905
980
1047
1136
1240
1369
1456
1537
1587
1675
1757
1953
2020
2090
2171
2274
2315
2473
2548
2607
2661
2732
2784
0.00
4.42
4.26
1.81
5.52
4.32
5.79
5.25
2.49
2.44
6.21
4.38
1.28
4.43
5.03
2.23
5.93
5.59
5.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.64
0.00
4.60
4.46
5.25
5.54
6.14
5.90
6.64
236.2
1876.7
2437.4
3223.7
3776.9
4682.4
5210.2
6414.2
7874
8082.5
8436.5
9282.1
10062.1
10930
11384
12136.5
12524
13238
14015
15279
15279
15461
15759
16365
16524
17826
18506
19141
19792
20618
21246
21
168
217
286
333
413
464
572
702
720
752
827
897
974
1015
1082
1116
1180
1249
1362
1362
1378
1405
1459
1473
1589
1649
1706
1764
1838
1894
499.6
4973.4
6470.1
8111.3
9276.7
11188.1
12448
15504.8
18030.7
19078
20181.7
22032.7
23977
26285
27721.9
29385.4
30325
32032
33725
37197
37942
38914
40114
41874
42496
45572
47096
48389
49648
51271
52486
22
221
288
361
413
498
554
691
803
850
899
982
1068
1171
1235
1309
1351
1427
1502
1658
1691
1734
1788
1866
1894
2031
2099
2156
2212
2285
2339
0
3.1
4.2
5.5
7.8
6.8
6.6
3.1
8.1
4.2
NM
3.9
6.1
2.4
2.0
5.5
4.4
4.3
5.4
2.7
0.6
1.8
2.1
3.1
2.3
4.3
5.3
6.2
8.4
6.9
8.4
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
Date
08/01/0?
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08-08/05
08/09/05
08/14/05
08/17/05
08/19/05
08/20/05
08 27/05
08/28/05
08/29/05
09/01/05
09/08/05
09/10/05
09/12/05
09/15/05
09/17/05
09/27/05
09/28/05
09/29/05
10/03/05
10/05/05
10/08/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/14/05
10/17/05
10/20/05
10/22/05
Sup ply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hi-
258.8
260.7
262.8
264.5
265.9
268.2
281.2
289.9
320.6
335.3
343.6
349.4
376.4
379. 1
382.7
395.4
421.0
430.9
437.1
448.9
456.7
504.6
511.0
514.1
5373
543.5
610.4
621.7
626.9
635.9
648.9
662.3
671.0
Operational
Hours
hr
4.8
1.4
2.1
1.7
1.4
2.3
13.0
8.7
30.7
14.7
8.3
5.8
27
2.70
3.6
12.7
25.6
9.9
6.2
11.8
7.8
47.9
6.4
3.1
23.2
6.2
66.9
11.3
5.2
9.0
13.0
13.4
8.7
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.88
5.43
5.67
5.69
6.21
5.50
2.27
1.74
4.45
4,4!
4.8
4.15
3.15
2.75
4.97
4.45
3.57
2.53
4,82
4.93
3.52
3.47
1.72
4.45
2.53
2.69
0
2.98
3.46
5.21
4,0!
4.35
5.15
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
32670
33252
33952
34485
34951
35688
38160
39155
43426
46110
47570
48773
54360
55015
55680
58366
63652
65655
66815
69190
70877
79269
80353
80820
85029
86105
88468
90515
91446
92810
95282
97585
99146
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
2912
2964
3026
3074
3115
3181
3401
3490
3870
4110
4240
4347
4845
4903
4963
5202
5673
5852
5955
6167
6317
7065
7162
7203
7578
7674
7885
8067
8150
8272
8492
8697
8837
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.57
6.27
5.81
6.50
7.08
6.32
2.23
1.30
5.16
5.19
5.63
4.87
3.75
2.97
5.80
5.21
4.1
2.76
5.70
5.91
4.04
4.05
1.9
5.25
2.96
3.2
0
3.48
4.13
6.1
4.73
5.2
6.11
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
22858
23522
24322
24932
25507
26302
28868
29504
33403
36249
37823
39162
45330
46070
46805
49832
55492
58060
59377
62080
64023
73666
74960
75445
80311
81548
82784
85165
86253
87791
90615
93223
95020
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
2037
2096
2168
2222
2273
2344
2573
2630
2977
3231
3371
3490
4040
4106
4172
4441
4946
5175
5292
5533
5706
6566
6681
6724
7158
7268
7378
7590
7687
7825
8076
8309
8469
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
55528
56774
58274
59417
60458
61990
67028
68659
76829
82359
85393
87935
99690
101085
102485
108198
119144
123715
126192
131270
134900
152935
155313
156265
165340
167653
171252
175680
177699
180601
185897
190808
194166
Total
Cumulative
Bed Volumes
Treated
BV
2475
2530
2597
2648
2694
2762
2987
3060
3424
3670
3805
3919
4443
4505
4567
4822
5309
5513
5624
5850
6012
6815
6921
6964
7368
7471
7632
7829
7919
8048
8284
8503
8653
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
10.6
14.8
11.9
11.2
12.4
11.1
6.5
3.1 1
4.4
6.. 3 1
6.1
7.3
7.3
8.6
6.5
7.5
7.1
7.7
6.7
7.2 1
7.8
6.3 1
6.2
5.1
6.5
6.2
0.9
6.5
6.5
5.4
6.8 1
6.1
6.4
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Date
10/24/05
10/26/05
10/31/05
11/02/05
11/04/05
11/07/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/14/05
11/16/05
11/19/05
11/22/05
11/26/05
11,29/05
12/01/05
12/03/05
12/05/05
12/08/05
12/10/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/22/05
12/28/05
12/30/05
12/31/05
01/02/06
01/03/06
01/04/06
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
682.9
693.6
713.6
718.7
726.5
737.1
749.1
752.8
769.6
777.7
793.8
805.9
827.6
857.4
875.7
892.6
912.7
938.6
963.8
994.8
1004.2
1016.0
1043.9
1054.1
1072.7
1132.8
1148.7
1157.1
1178.8
1187.4
1196.9
Operational
Hours
hi-
11.9
10.7
20.0
5.1
7.8
10.6
12.0
3.7
16.8
8.1
16.1
12.1
21.7
29.8
18.3
35.2
37.0
25.9
21.2
35.0
9.4
11.8
27.9
10.2
18.6
60.1
15.9
8.4
21.70
8.6
9.5
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.97
3.07
4.53
5.33
4.48
2.95
5.14
3.13
4.43
3.33
2.45
4.53
2.71
1.67
NM
1.38
1.63
1.25
0.63
1.45
1.35
1.43
0.63
1.85
NM
0.55
1.75
0.00
1.95
1.27
1.40
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
101107
102973
106521
107784
109647
112837
114255
115121
117705
119370
122048
124135
127650
130728
NM
133941
135688
138004
139937
142815
143840
14491 1
146251
148778
149837
153950
155318
156065
157878
158560
159375
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
9011
9178
9494
9606
9772
10057
10183
10260
10491
10639
10878
1 1 064
11377
11651
NM
11938
1 2093
12300
12472
12729
12820
12915
1 3035
13260
13354
13721
13843
13910
14071
14132
14205
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.85
3.79
5.36
6.21
5.23
3.41
6.07
3.67
5.31
3.98
2.95
5.40
3.23
1.92
NM
1.56
2.05
1.33
0
1.63
1.5
1.72
0.00
2.17
NM
0
2.01
0
2.35
1.33
1.5
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
97249
99449
103520
104978
107129
1 09887
112423
113429
116456
118410
121612
124112
128301
131846
NM
135440
137403
140006
142197
145542
146437
147605
1 48567
150613
151736
156124
157556
158336
160250
160947
161766
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
8667
8864
9226
9356
9548
9794
10020
10110
10379
10553
10839
1 1 062
11435
11751
NM
12071
12240
12478
12674
12972
13051
13156
13241
13424
13524
13915
14042
14112
14283
14345
14418
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
198356
202422
210041
212762
216776
222724
226678
228550
234161
237780
243660
248247
255951
262574
NM
269381
273091
278010
282134
288357
290277
292516
294818
299391
301573
310074
312874
314401
318128
319507
321141
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
8839
9020
9360
9481
9660
9925
10102
10185
10435
10596
10858
11062
11406
11701
NM
12004
12170
12389
12573
12850
12935
13035
13238
13342
13439
13818
13942
14010
14177
14238
14311
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
5.9
6.3
6.3
8.9
8.6
9.4
5.5
8.4
5.6 1
7.4
6.1
6.3
5.9
3.7
NM
2.1
1.7
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.2
1.4
7.5
2.0 1
2.4 1
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.9
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Date
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/13/06
01/1706
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/25/06
01/27/06
01/29/06
02/04/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/11/06
02,1306
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
02/19/06
02/20/06
02/23/06
02/26/06
02/28/06
03/02/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/10/06
03/14/06
03/16/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
1255.3
1263.4
1282.1
1320.5
1340.3
1350.4
1393
1416.3
1435.2
1489.5
1517.6
1529.3
1558.4
1574.9
Operational
Hours
hr
58.4
8.1
18.7
38.4
19.8
10.1
42.6
23.3
18.9
54.3
28.1
11.7
29.1
16.5
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
1.30
1.91
1.91
1.40
1.82
0.39
2.33
1.49
2.07
2.11
2.12
2.73
2.23
2.22
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
164406
165087
166705
170093
171825
172705
176605
178467
180191
18493?
187323
188846
190880
192316
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
14653
14714
14858
15160
15314
15393
15740
15906
16060
16483
16695
16831
17012
17140
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
1.32
2.17
2.18
1.39
1.99
0
2.68
1.61
2.3
2.39
2.51
3.22
2.62
2.64
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
166885
167529
169237
172737
174481
175341
179256
181227
183062
188130
190730
191858
194659
196234
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
14874
14931
15084
15395
15551
15628
15976
16152
16316
16767
16999
17100
17349
17490
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
331291
332616
335942
342830
346306
348046
355861
359694
363253
373065
378053
380704
385539
388550
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
14763
14822
14970
15277
15432
15510
15858
16029
16187
16625
16847
16965
17181
17315
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
2.9
2.7
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.7
3.1
3.0
3.0 1
3.8
2.8
3.0
Media Changeout
1593.7
1604.5
1615.5
1632.8
1651
1685.7
1713.8
1733.8
1775.8
1875.1
IS7.M
1900.5
1938.8
1952.6
1976.8
1981.7
1989.1
18.8
10.8
11
17.3
18.2
34.7
28.1
20
42
59.3
0
40
38.3
13.8
24.2
4.9
7.4
1.62
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.59
2.01
2.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
259
704
1471
1499
2487
2927
2927
2927
2928
NM
5605
NM
7518
11063
11867
11867
0
23
63
131
134
222
261
261
261
261
NM
500
NM
670
986
1058
1058
1.46
1.94
0.77
0.00
o.oo
2.86
2.63
2.19
0.79
0.00
5.27
2.3
3.12
3.33
4.28
3.69
3.48
0
796
1692
2320
2584
4645
7161
8994
9879
10883
NM
14107
17531
19115
23297
24365
25374
0
71
151
207
230
414
638
802
880
970
NM
1257
1562
1704
2076
2172
2261
0
1055
2396
3791
4083
7132
10088
11921
12806
13811
NM
19712
NM
26633
34360
36232
37241
0
47
107
169
182
318
450
531
571
615
NM
878
NM
1187
1531
1615
1660
0.0
1.6
2.0
1.3
0.3
1.5
1.8 1
1.5 1
0.4
0.3 1
NM
2.5
NM
2.2
5.3
6.4
2.3
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Date
03/27/06
03/31/06
04/01/06
04/05/06
04/06/06
04/07/06
04/11/06
04/13/06
04/15/06
04' 1 8/06
04/21/06
04, 25/06
04/27/06
04/29/06
05/03/06
05/05/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
05/15/06
05/18/06
05/22/06
05/24/06
05/26/06
05/29/06
05/31/06
06/07/06
06/13/06
06/15/06
06/19/06
06/23/06
06/28/06
06/30/06
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
2008.3
2028. 1
2031.2
2061.2
2068.9
2076.8
2108.2
2124.6
2130.7
2150.3
2178.2
2215.7
2233
2253
2291
2311
2327
2367
2430
2459
2499
2517
2547
2550
2601
2667
2711
2722
2745
2770
2796
2815
Operational
Hours
hr
19.2
19.8
3.1
30
7.7
7.9
31.4
16.4
6.1
19.6
27.9
37.5
17.3
20
38
20
48
8
63
29
40
18
20
13
40
77
44
11
23
25
26
19
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
3.92
4.07
4.53
2.62
2.48
3.51
2.63
2.72
3.87
2.58
2.17
2.50
2.17
2.03
2.08
2.00
1.07
2.13
0.49
1.45
0.00
1.35
0.00
3.39
1.63
1.92
0.99
2.72
3.58
3.00
3.15
2.83
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
14156
17153
17748
21446
22223
22869
24203
25718
26677
29582
32248
35473
37010
38503
41429
42757
47006
47725
50701
53268
56691
58201
59475
60054
62572
67568
73313
74747
77772
XI 181
84847
86725
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
1262
1529
1582
1911
1981
2038
2157
2292
2378
2637
2874
3162
3299
3432
3692
3811
4189
4254
4519
4748
5053
5187
5301
5352
5577
6022
6534
6662
6932
7235
7562
7730
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpin
4.65
4.63
5.05
2.87
2.80
4.00
3.05
3.07
4.38
2.78
2.27
2.63
2.48
2.29
2.25
2.13
0.9
2.23
0.38
1.61
0
1.52
0
3.47
1.29
1 .94
0.68
2.98
4.01
3.4
3.48
3.18
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
28797
32124
32774
36954
37843
38577
42304
44226
45304
48545
51373
54801
56491
58286
61707
63464
67753
68492
71245
73842
77468
79151
80465
81072
83558
88775
94908
96496
99857
102322
106369
108468
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
2567
2863
2921
3294
3373
3438
3770
3942
4038
4327
4579
4884
5035
5195
5500
5656
6039
6104
6350
6581
6904
7054
7172
7226
7447
7912
8459
8600
8900
9120
9480
9667
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
42953
49277
50522
58400
60066
61446
66507
69944
71981
78127
83621
90274
93501
96789
103136
106221
114759
116217
121946
127110
134159
137352
139940
141126
146130
1 56343
168221
171243
177629
183503
191216
195193
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
1914
2196
2251
2602
2677
2738
2964
3117
3208
3482
3726
4023
4167
4313
4596
4734
5114
5179
5434
5664
5979
6121
6236
6289
6512
6967
7496
7631
7916
8177
8521
8698
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
5.0
5.3
6.7
4.4
3.6
2.9
2.7
3.5
5.6
5.2
3.3
3.0
3.1 1
2.7
2.8
2.6
3.0
3.0
1.5
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.2
1.5
2.1 1
2.2
4.5
4.6
4.6
3.9
4.9
3.5
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
65
66
67
68
Date
07,03/06
07/05/06
07/08,06
07/13/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/1806
07/21/06
07/22/06
07/25/06
07/27/06
07/29/06
07/31/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
08 09/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/16/06
08/22/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
09']] -06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/19/06
09/21/06
09/23/06
09 2? 06
09/27/06
09/30/06
10/05/06
10/06/06
10/07/06
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
lir
2835
2851
2878
2927
2937
2948
2974
3004
3012
3037
3059
3079
3097
3115
3135
3182
3199
3209
3246
3302
3333
3339
3468
3490
3498
3517
3530
3544
3558
3576
3598
3631
3640
3645
Operational
Hours
hr
20
16
27
49
10
11
26
30
8
25
22
20
18
18
20
47
17
10
37
56
31
6
129
22
8
19
13
14
14
18
22
33
9
5
Treatment Tram A
Flow
Rate
gpm
2.09
3.31
2.51
2.31
2.13
2.13
1.05
1.14
2.27
2.39
0.83
2.17
2.55
2.35
0.79
2.38
0.00
2.13
\.ll
0.58
1.27
0.49
2.18
4.61
4.51
5.01
2.07
2.27
1.80
2.17
4.53
1.55
1.91
3.53
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
89110
90609
93211
97548
98450
99404
101630
104127
104843
106299
108207
109939
111466
113091
114747
118666
120104
120994
124025
128742
131218
131747
145804
145192
146450
1 49677
151597
153185
154604
156315
158455
162382
163187
163778
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
7942
8076
8308
8694
8775
8860
9058
9280
9344
9474
9644
9798
9935
10079
10227
10576
10704
10784
11054
11474
11695
11742
12995
12940
13053
13340
13511
13653
13779
13932
14123
14473
14544
14597
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
2.33
3.68
2.66
2.48
2.33
2.25
1.15
1.17
2.25
2.48
0.75
2.19
2.69
2.5
0.72
2.45
0
2.27
1.71
0
1.8
0.38
2.25
5.03
4.88
5.45
2.37
2.44
2.05
2.21
5.1
1.65
2.02
3.92
Cumulative Volume
Treated
gal
111081
112765
115508
120031
121003
122016
124394
127000
127735
129896
131852
133634
135183
136846
138550
142575
144241
144942
147949
152559
154740
155570
165147
169557
170879
174264
176323
178082
179638
181526
183818
188134
189010
189651
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
9900
10050
10295
10698
10785
10875
11087
11319
11385
11577
11752
11910
12048
12197
12348
12707
12856
12918
13186
13597
13791
13865
14719
15112
15230
15532
15715
15872
16011
16179
16383
16768
16846
16903
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
200191
203374
208719
217579
219453
221420
226024
231127
232578
236195
240059
243573
246649
249937
253297
261241
264345
265936
271974
281301
285958
287317
310951
314749
317329
323941
327920
331267
334242
337841
342273
350516
352197
353429
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
8921
9063
9301
9696
9780
9867
1 0072
10300
10364
10526
10698
10854
10991
11138
11288
11642
11780
11851
12120
12536
12743
12804
13857
14026
14141
14436
14613
14762
14895
15055
15253
15620
15695
15750
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
4.2
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.4
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.5
3.8
3.1
2.9
5.4
5.8
5.1
4.0
3.5
3.3
3.4
4.2
3.1
4.1
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
Unit
10A3
mg/L1"
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(B)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L<"
mg/L1"
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
LJg/L
M9/L
|jg/L
ijg/L
M9/L
|jg/L
ijg/L
Mg/L
|jg/L
06/22/05
IN
-
110
<0.1
20
0.1
<0.0
5
12.9
0.3
7.7
13.9
5.8
173
-
-
178
83.9
94.4
44.3
45.0
<0.1
3.0
42.1
<25
<25
9.7
9.5
<10
<10
TA
-
47lc)
3.7lc
)
70lc)
0.1
<0.0
5
0.4
<0.1
6.5
14.2
5.6
449
-
-
169
69.0
100
0.7
0.7
<0.1
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.8
<10
<10
TB
-
44lc)
3.2lc
)
59lc<
0.1
<0.0
5
0.6
1.6
6.6
14.0
5.8
322
-
-
188
74.0
114
0.6
0.5
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.8
<10
<10
07/05/05
IN
-
132
<0.1
21
-
<0.0
5
12.0
0.4
7.8
15.9
-
-
-
-
177
85.5
91.8
39.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.2
-
<10
-
TA
0.9
141
<0.1
23
-
<0.0
5
4.7
<0.1
7.6
11.9
-
-
-
-
172
80.1
91.9
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
22.9
-
TB
0.7
132
<0.1
23
-
<0.0
5
5.1
0.1
NAl°
)
NA(a
)
-
-
-
-
177
79.3
97.4
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
22.5
-
TT
0.8
132
0.1
21
-
<0.0
5
0.3
0.1
7.0
15.2
-
-
0.3
NAla
)
164
73.7
90.2
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
12.1
-
07/19/05
IN
-
132
<0.1
23
0.1
<0.0
5
11.8
1.3
7.0
15.6
-
-
-
-
159
80.1
78.7
52.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.4
-
<10
-
TA
2.0
132
<0.1
24
0.1
<0.05
6.6
0.7
7.0
16.3
-
-
-
-
161
81.0
80.0
4.4lc)
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
23.0
-
TB
1.4
145
<0.1
24
0.1
<0.0
5
7.3
0.4
7.2
17.1
-
-
-
-
165
82.2
82.5
6.3lc)
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
23.5
-
TT
1.7
145
<0.1
28
0.4
<0.05
1.1
0.5
7.0
16.0
-
-
0.2
NAla)
164
80.2
83.4
13.7'°'
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
26.7
-
08/03/05
IN
-
123
<0.1
23
0.2
<0.0
5
12.2
0.2
7.5
15.7
-
-
-
-
183
89.5
93.8
61.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.4
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.0
123
<0.1
23
0.1
<0.0
5
8.7
<0.1
7.4
12.3
-
-
-
-
169
82.2
87.1
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.6
-
TB
2.2
128
<0.1
22
0.1
<0.0
5
9.2
<0.1
7.5
12.3
-
-
-
-
183
88.1
95.1
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
17.9
-
TT
2.6
128
<0.1
23
0.1
<0.05
2.2
<0.1
7.6
16.0
-
-
0.3
NAla)
214
88.8
125
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
27.4
-
08/16/05
IN
-
119
<0.1
20
0.1
<0.0
5
13.3
0.1
8.1
12.8
-
-
-
-
205
92.8
112
46.6
46.8
<0.1
2.3
44.4
<25
<25
8.4
8.4
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.1
119
<0.1
19
0.1
<0.0
5
10.4
0.6
8.4
14.8
-
-
-
-
211
95.4
116
2.1
2.2
<0.1
0.6
1.6
<25
270
0.1
0.1
30.3
16.0
TB
3.2
123
<0.1
20
0.1
<0.0
5
10.5
0.1
6.9
14.5
-
-
-
-
209
96.0
113
3.1
3.3
<0.1
0.5
2.8
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
18.9
16.7
TC
-
132
<0.1
21
0.1
<0.0
5
6.5
<0.1
NAl°
)
NA(a
)
-
-
-
-
203
94.2
109
0.6
0.7
<0.1
0.5
0.2
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
27.9
20.8
TD
-
136
<0.1
20
0.1
<0.0
5
6.7
<0.1
NAla
)
NA(a
)
-
-
-
-
206
96.2
110
0.6
0.8
<0.1
0.5
0.4
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
24.6
20.0
TT
3.7
110
<0.1
22
0.1
<0.0
5
3.7
0.1
6.5
17.2
-
-
0.0
0.0
197
92.6
105
0.6
0.8
<0.1
0.4
0.4
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
22.9
20.9
Cd
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As PO4.
(c) Rerun results were similar. Data is questionable.
(d) Water quality measurement not recorded by operator.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10A3
mg/L(al
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
08/29/05
IN
-
123
0.1
21.1
0.1™
<0.05
-
16.8
0.2
7.7
13.8
-
0.4
191
88.7
103
36.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
.
-
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.0
132
0.1
21.2
0.1™
O.05
-
14.7
<0.1
7.2
13.7
-
-
191
89.0
102
6.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
16.6
-
TB
4.4
132
0.1
21.2
0.1™
O.05
-
14.6
0.1
7.5
13.5
-
-
193
91.8
101
7.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
17.0
-
TT
4.6
132
0.1
23.3
0.1""
<0.05
-
8.3
<0.1
7.6
16.2
0.3
0.4
171
83.7
87.2
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
26.5
-
09/19/05
IN
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
7.5
12.7
-
-
147
69.5
77.4
72.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
35.9
-
<10
-
TA
6.4
-
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
7.8
NAlc)
-
-
155
71.6
83.6
12.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.7
-
TB
5.8
-
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
7.6
NA(C)
-
-
153
69.7
83.1
14.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
23.0
-
TT
6.1
-
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
7.8
11.8
0.2
0.2
171
78.9
92.1
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
23.1
-
09/27/05
IN
-
132
<0.1
O.1
16.0
16.2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
O.05
-
14.4
14.7
0.1
0.1
NA(C)
NAlc)
-
-
163
164
73.7
73.2
89.1
91.3
30.4
30.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.2
2.1
-
<10
<10
-
TA
7.1
163
<0.1
<0.1
16.9
17.1
<0.05
<0.05
O.05
O.05
-
13.1
13
<0.1
<0.1
NA(C)
NAlc)
-
-
146
147
65.2
66.0
80.6
81.3
16.9
18.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
13.3
13.8
-
TB
6.6
154
<0.1
<0.1
17.8
17.9
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
12.8
13.1
<0.1
0.1
NA(C)
NA™
-
-
143
145
62.9
65.5
79.7
79.1
19.7
19.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
15.5
15.9
-
TT
6.8
154
<0.1
O.1
17.3
17.3
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
O.05
-
8.6
8.6
<0.1
0.3
NA(C)
NAlc)
NA(C)
NA(C)
155
150
71.0
67.6
83.6
82.4
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
21.9
20.6
-
10/04/05
TC
7.8
132
<0.1
14.5
<0.05
O.05
-
11.1
0.1
NA(C)
NAlc)
-
-
153
70.2
82.7
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
15.5
-
TD
7.2
141
<0.1
17.5
<0.05
<0.05
-
8.3
<0.1
NA(C)
NA(C)
NA(C)
NAlc)
158
73.8
84.0
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
16.1
-
10/13/05
IN
-
132
<0.1
20.3
0.1
-
<10
11.8
0.2
8.1
11.8
-
-
177
81.5
95.4
43.0
43.1
O.1
1.5
41.6
<25
<25
5.1
1.4
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
.
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.2
163
<0.1
45.4
0.1
-
<10
10
0.1
8.0
11.1
-
-
152
70.2
82.1
31.4
29.8
1.6
0.7
29.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
11.8
11.3
TB
7.7
154
<0.1
30.0
0.1
-
<10
10.5
0.1
8.0
11.1
-
-
157
72.8
84.2
33.4
31.3
2.2
0.8
30.5
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
11.9
12.3
TC
-
132
0.1
23.1
0.1
-
<10
8.8
0.1
NA(C)
NAlc)
-
-
173
80.3
92.4
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.1
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
13.4
14.9
TD
-
132
0.1
21.5
0.1
-
<10
8.9
0.3
NA(C)
NAlc)
-
-
174
80.9
93.4
1.1
1.1
O.1
0.5
0.6
<25
<25
O.1
0.1
14.0
12.5
(a) As CaCO3. (b)
(c) Rerun results were similar.
As PO4.
Data are questionable.
(d) Water quality measurement not recorded by operator.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total Al
10A3
mg/L(a>
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a>
mg/L(a)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
10/25/05
IN
-
141
<0.1
24
0.1
<10
10.6
<0.1
8.2
11.0
-
-
166
79.5
86.6
57.8
<25
4.1
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
9.0
141
<0.1
22
0.1
<10
10.2
0.1
8.2
10.7
-
-
165
77.2
87.6
30.8
<25
<0.1
13.5
TB
8.7
136
<0.1
22
0.1
<10
10.3
0.2
8.2
10.6
-
-
164
77.0
86.5
32.1
<25
<0.1
14.0
TT
8.8
136
<0.1
22
0.2
<10
7.3
0.1
8.1
12.9
0.3
0.5
174
83.4
90.3
0.6
<25
<0.1
20.8
11/01/05
IN
-
132
<0.1
18.5
0.1
<10
12.4
0.2
8.1
11.7
-
-
194
81.0
113
32.9
<25
4.1
<10
TA
9.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.8
-
-
-
TB
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.7
-
-
-
TC
-
132
<0.1
20.7
0.1
<10
10.0
<0.1
8.0
11.8
-
-
165
79.1
85.7
1.2
<25
<0.1
15.6
TD
-
136
<0.1
20.6
0.1
<10
10.0
<0.1
8.1
11.6
-
-
167
81.0
86.5
2.5
<25
0.2
15.8
TE
-
132
<0.1
20.8
0.1
<10
8.4
<0.1
8.1
11.3
-
-
168
80.8
87.3
0.3
<25
0.2
18.3
TF
9.3
132
<0.1
20.6
0.1
<10
8.3
<0.1
8.1
11.7
-
-
171
82.1
88.9
0.4
<25
0.3
18.5
11/08/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
<10
11.8
-
8.0
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
56.2
<25
5.6
<10
TA
10.0
-
-
-
-
<10
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.1
-
-
-
TB
9.7
-
-
-
-
<10
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.4
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
<10
9.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
<10
9.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
<10
7.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
<10
7.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
TT
9.9
-
-
-
-
<10
7.4
-
8.3
11.7
0.3
-
-
-
-
0.2
<25
<0.1
18.1
Cd
(a) As CaCO3
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as
SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
Total
Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10A3
mg/L(a>
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|Jg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L!a)
mg/L(al
mg/L'"
Mg/L
|jg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ug/L
Mg/L
pg/L
|jg/L
|jg/L
pg/L
|jg/L
11/28/2005(b)
IN
-
132
<0.1
20.8
0.1
<10
12.4
0.7
7.8
10.2
-
-
165
72.4
92.9
40.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.9
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
10.7
0.5
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
11.8
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
11.7
136
<0.1
21
0.1
<10
8.2
0.4
7.7
10.5
0.5
0.4
172
73.2
98.5
1.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
16.5
-
12/13/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
7.3
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
30.8
29.6
1.2
0.4
29.1
<25
<25
1.7
<0.1
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
10.7
0.1
0.3
-
-
-
25.7
26.0
<0.1
0.5
25.5
<25
<25
12.1
1.2
<10
10.2
TA
12.5
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
12.7
-
-
-
-
-
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
12.6
-
-
-
-
-
9.2
-
7.9
10.4
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
14.8
14.1
01/05/06
IN
-
132
<0.1
21
0.1
<10
12.7
0.3
7.1
9.1
-
-
176
83.9
92.2
29.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.4
-
1.6
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
9.9
0.4
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
14.3
-
-
-
-
-
11.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
14.5
-
-
-
-
-
11.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
14.5
141
<0.1
22
0.1
<10
9.5
0.2
7.8
10.5
0.4
0.4
162
78.8
83.3
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
11.2
-
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) Water quality measurements were taken on 1 1/27/2005.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as
N)
Total P
Silica (as
SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Free
Chlorine
Total
Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca
Hardness
Mg
Hardness
As (total)
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total Al
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/Lw
mg/L">
ug/L
ug/L
kig/L
ug/L
01/25/06
IN
-
;
-
-
;
11.8
-
8.4
9.2
-
-
;
-
-
34.5
45.4
34.5
<10
AC
-
;
-
-
;
-
-
8.1
7.7
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
-
"
TA
15.7
;
-
-
;
11.2
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
-
"
TB
15.9
;
-
-
;
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
31.3
-
-
"
TC
-
;
-
-
;
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
23.6
-
-
"
TD
-
;
-
-
;
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
24.2
-
-
"
TE
-
;
-
-
;
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
3.2
-
-
"
TF
-
;
-
-
;
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
4.6
-
-
"
TT
15.8
;
-
-
;
10.3
-
8.0
9.6
0.4
0.4
;
-
-
3.9
<25
<0.1
13.5
01/31/06
IN
-
127
127
<0.1
<0.1
21.1
20.8
0.2
0.2
<10
<10
11.5
12.1
0.4
0.4
7.2
9.7
-
-
157
165
71.7
80.1
85.7
85.4
31.8
28.8
<25
<25
6.9
6.5
<10
<10
AC
-
;
-
-
;
-
-
7.5
9.4
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
"
TA
16.2
;
-
-
;
11.2
11.4
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
27.3
27.9
-
-
"
TB
16.4
;
-
-
;
11.7
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
27.3
27.5
-
-
"
TC
-
;
-
-
;
9.9
10.1
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
20.7
21.0
-
-
"
TD
-
;
-
-
;
10.3
10.5
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
20.9
21.7
-
-
"
TE
-
;
-
-
;
10.0
10.1
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
3.1
3.4
-
-
"
TF
-
;
-
-
;
10.1
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
4.6
5.4
-
-
"
TT
16.3
139
139
<0.1
<0.1
21
21
0.1
0.1
<10
<10
9.6
10.3
0.3
0.3
7.8
9.9
0.3
0.3
172
160
81.2
77.7
90.8
82.0
3.7
4.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
10.5
<10
02/15/06
IN
-
;
-
-
;
-
11.7
-
7.3
9.5
-
-
;
-
-
24.1
<25
5.4
<10
AC
-
;
-
-
;
-
-
-
7.7
9.2
0.1
0.2
;
-
-
;
-
-
_
TA
0.0
;
-
-
;
-
<0.2
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
1.0
-
-
_
TB
0.0
;
-
-
;
-
<0.2
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
0.9
-
-
_
TC
-
;
-
-
;
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
1.0
-
-
_
TD
-
;
-
-
;
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
1.1
-
-
_
TE
-
;
-
-
;
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
6.7
-
-
_
TF
-
;
-
-
;
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
10.7
-
-
_
TT
0.0
;
-
-
;
-
0.2
-
7.1
10.4
0.1
0.3
;
-
-
1.0
<25
1.6
13.8
td
(a) As CaCO3.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as
SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
Total
Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
Total Fe
Total Mn
TotalAI
10"3
mg/L<"
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/Lla)
mg/L'"
mg/L("
|jg/L
|jg/L
ug/L
|jg/L
02/28/06
IN
-
122(b)
<0.1
22
0.1
<10
11.1
0.2
8.4
7.4
-
-
28.4
<25
9.9
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
7.4
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
TA
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
4.7
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
TB
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
-
-
13.2
-
-
TT
0.5
132
<0.1
24
0.1
<10
1.1
0.6
7.3
8.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
<25
<0.1
13.0
03/16/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
22.4
<25
15.5
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
TB
2.0
-
-
-
-
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
12.0
-
-
TT
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
3.3
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
<25
<0.1
20.8
03/29/06
IN
-
153
<0.1
23.2
<0.05
<10
11.2
0.3
7.9
9.5
-
-
157
72.8
84.4
47.2
<25
14.8
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
9.8
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
TB
2.8
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.9
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
TT
2.1
141
<0.1
23.8
0.1
<10
5.4
0.7
7.7
13.1
0.2
0.2
165
76.8
88.6
0.2
<25
0.3
18.0
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) Sample reanalyzed outside of hold time.
td
ON
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Total P
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
Total
Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10"3
mg/L(ai
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
"C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/l_w
mg/L(i"
mg/L(i"
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
04/11/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
7.4
8.5
-
32.7
32.6
0.2
0.5
32.0
<25
<25
3.4
2.3
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
11.5
7.9
9.8
0.4
0.4
-
32.8
32.5
0.3
0.6
31.9
<25
<25
3.8
2.5
<10
<10
TA
2.2
-
-
-
-
9.0
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
12.2
-
TB
3.8
-
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
12.4
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
16.3
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
14.6
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
23.7
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
10.0
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
24.7
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
10.4
-
TT
3.1
-
-
-
-
5.8
7.8
9.7
0.1
0.1
-
0.7
0.6
O.1
0.4
0.2
<25
<25
1.4
0.2
16.3
15.3
04/27/06
IN
133
0.1
24
0.1
<10
11.4
0.2
8.0
10.3
154
78.9
75.1
28.7
<25
1.9
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
7.5
11.2
0.4
0.4
-
-
TA
3.3
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
0.1
-
TB
5.0
-
-
-
-
9.4
-
-
-
0.1
-
TC
-
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
0.1
-
TD
-
-
-
-
8.1
-
-
-
0.1
-
TE
-
-
-
-
11.7
-
-
-
25.0
-
TF
-
-
-
-
11.5
-
-
-
24.8
-
TT
4.3
138
0.1
23
0.1
<10
7.3
0.1
7.8
11.2
0.4
0.4
162
80.5
81.0
0.1
<25
0.1
13.5
05/10/06
IN
.
13.3
_
7.5
10.3
.
29.0
84.7
5.5
<10
AC
.
_
8.0
10.5
0.3
0.3
.
-
TA
4.2
.
10.7
_
-
-
.
1.6
-
TB
6.0
.
10.3
_
-
-
.
1.7
-
TC
.
8.7
_
-
-
.
0.3
-
TD
.
8.1
_
-
-
.
0.3
-
TE
.
12.5
_
-
-
.
23.9
-
TF
.
11.8
_
-
-
.
24.1
-
TT
5.2
.
8.4
_
8.0
10.9
0.3
0.3
.
0.3
<25
0.1
19.9
(a) As CaCO3.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10"3
mg/L™
mg/L
mg/L
MS/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L™
mg/Llal
mg/L™
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
MS/L
06/01/06
IN
_
150
150
0.1
<0.1
23
22
<10
<10
<10
<10
11.2
10.7
0.3
0.4
6.5
12.7
143
147
74.3
77.2
68.4
69.5
23.0
24.8
-
-
<25
<25
-
3.1
3.9
<10
<10
-
AC
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.6
10.2
9.2
-
6.0
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
7.4
10.0
9.6
-
5.5
5.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
_
8.5
8.2
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
_
8.6
8.4
-
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
_
11.5
10.9
-
23.6
24.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
_
10.8
10.3
-
24.6
24.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
6.6
133
133
0.1
O.1
24
24
0.2
0.2
<10
<10
8.0
8.2
0.3
0.3
7.0
14.3
140
143
74.0
76.5
65.8
66.8
0.3
0.2
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
O.1
11.4
11.8
-
06/05/06
IN
-
11.3
7.5
12.4
-
20.8
20.8
0.1
0.2
20.6
48.6
<25
5.9
3.2
<10
<10
AC
-
11.7
7.7
12.2
-
21.5
20.2
1.3
0.2
20.0
<25
<25
4.7
2.7
<10
<10
TA
5.8
10.8
-
-
4.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
7.7
10.3
-
-
5.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
8.8
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
8.9
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
11.9
-
-
23.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
11.3
-
-
22.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
6.9
9.3
7.7
12.6
-
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
<10
12.8
06/22/06
IN
-
138
0.1
23
0.1
<10
11.4
0.3
-
171
79.3
91.7
50.7
-
-
27.7
-
36.6
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
7.2
10.7
-
-
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
9.1
10.5
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
9.7
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
9.4
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
11.8
-
-
29.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
11.7
-
-
29.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
8.3
134
0.1
25
0.1
<10
9.5
0.2
-
174
81.2
93.1
0.3
-
-
<25
-
0.2
17.8
-
(a) As CaCO..
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as
N)
Total P
Silica (as
SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
Free
Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca
Hardness
Mg
Hardness
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10A3
mg/Lw
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L(ai
mg/L'"
mg/Lw
ug/L
|jg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
|jg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
07/1 1/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
12.0
-
7.4
13.5
-
-
-
-
29.3
<25
3.9
<10
TA
8.4
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.5
<25
0.6
11.4
TB
10.4
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.3
<25
0.6
11.0
TC
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
<25
0.2
12.2
TD
-
-
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
<25
0.6
11.9
TE
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.1
<25
0.1
10.8
TF
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.0
<25
0.1
10.7
TT
9.5
-
-
-
-
9.5
-
7.7
13.5
0.3
-
-
-
0.3
<25
0.1
11.3
07/18/06
IN
-
121
<0.1
<1
0.2
<10
12.1
0.5
7.7
12.7
-
162
77.4
84.4
61.8
61.6
37.9
<10
TA
9.0
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.6
-
-
-
TB
11.1
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.8
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35.7
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
36.0
-
-
-
TT
10.2
125
<0.1
20
0.1
<10
9.4
0.5
7.5
13.3
0.3
171
80.6
90.7
0.6
<25
0.1
<10
08/02/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
NA(b)
NA(b)
-
-
-
-
69.6
67.3
2.3
0.3
67.0
<25
<25
1.9
2.5
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
-
NA(b)
NA(b)
-
-
-
-
71.7
67.3
4.4
0.3
67.0
<25
<25
2.5
1.8
<10
<10
TA
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
11.8
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
-
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
-
-
-
1.1
1.1
<0.1
0.3
0.9
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
16.7
17.3
td
Jo
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as
SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
Total
Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
Total Al
10A3
mg/L("
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|jg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L(a)
mg/L'"
mg/Llal
M9/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
08/17/06
IN
-
140
<0.1
23
0.1
<10
11.4
0.6
NA(b)
NA(b)
-
156
77.8
78.3
33.2
<25
4.4
<10
TA
10.2
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25.4
-
-
-
TB
12.5
-
-
-
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24.6
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.9
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35.8
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
36.0
-
-
-
TT
12.1
136
<0.1
22
0.1
<10
9.7
0.4
NA(b)
NA(b)
0.3
172
81.4
90.9
2.5
<25
<0.1
14.4
09/07/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
NA(b)
NAlb)
-
-
-
-
37.8
<25
6.7
<10
TA
12.5
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.5
-
-
-
TB
14.3
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24.0
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.0
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.1
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.5
-
-
-
TT
13.5
-
-
-
-
-
9.4
-
NAlb)
NA(b)
NA(b)
-
-
-
4.4
<25
<0.1
15.4
09/18/06
IN
-
156
0.3
23
<0.05
<10
11.7
0.9
7.2
12.0
-
174
83.7
90.6
101
108
33.2
27.6
TA
13.1
-
-
-
-
-
11.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.3
-
-
-
TB
15.5
-
-
-
-
-
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28.2
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.4
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.4
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38.6
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
39.9
-
-
-
TT
14.4
135
0.2
24
<0.05
<10
10.3
0.6
7.3
11.3
NA(b)
153
76.3
76.7
6.6
<25
<0.1
11.8
Cd
o
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Silica (as SiO2)
PH
Temperature
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10*3
mg/L
S.U.
°C
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/26/06
IN
-
11.8
NA(a)
NA(a)
34.4
24.3
10.1
1.1
23.2
<25
<25
3.1
1.1
<10
<10
AC
-
12.4
NA(a)
NA(a)
45.8
45.4
0.4
1.2
44.3
<25
<25
4.7
1.6
<10
<10
TA
13.8
11.0
-
-
22.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
16.1
11.5
-
-
23.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
11.0
-
-
8.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
10.6
-
-
6.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
12.1
-
-
32.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
11.4
-
-
31.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
14.9
10.6
NA(a)
NA(a)
7.1
7.1
<0.1
1.2
5.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.2
18.4
16.4
10/10/06
IN
-
11.0
NA(a)
NA(a)
71.3
-
-
-
<25
9.2
<10
-
TA
14.9
10.8
-
-
31.0
-
-
-
<25
O.1
-
-
TB
17.2
10.8
-
-
30.7
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
-
TC
-
10.0
-
-
12.4
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
-
TD
-
10.9
-
-
10.9
-
-
-
<25
O.1
-
-
TE
-
10.8
-
-
43.4
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
-
-
TF
-
11.7
-
-
42.2
-
-
-
<25
O.1
-
-
TT
16.0
10.5
NA(a)
NA(a)
12.0
-
-
-
<25
<0.1
14.5
-
Cd
(a) Water quality measurements not recorded by operator.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
APPENDIX C
ARSENIC MASS REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
-------
Train A
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0.0
900
1,100
1.000
1.100
900
1.400
700
1.100
800
500
500
1.600
Concentration (ug/L)
Raw
44.3
39.9
52.3
61.9
46.6
36.9
72.2
30.4
43.0
57.8
32.9
56.2
40.2
After
Column
A
0.7
0.3
4.4
1.2
2.1
6.0
12.6
16.9
31.4
30.8
30.8
30.1
37.3
Difference
43.6
39.6
47.9
60.7
44.5
30.9
59.6
13.5
11.6
27.0
2.1
26.1
2.9
Total Arsenic Removed by Column A
Mass
Removed
(R5)""
-
1,589.991
2.043.758
2.305.996
2.457,181
1,440.929
2.690.329
1.086.536
586.266
655.701
308.952
299.397
985.251
16,450,288
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0.0
300
500
700
800
1.200
800
1.400
300
1.300
1.300
600
1.000
900
1.700
900
1,000
1.000
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Column
E
6.7
10.9
11.3
15.9
23.7
25.0
23.9
23.6
23.7
29.4
30.1
35.7
34.5
35.8
29.1
38.6
32.2
43.4
After
Column
A
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.05
1.6
6.0
4.7
10.7
12.5
17.6
20.9
25.4
23.5
29.3
22.3
31.0
Difference
5.7
10.6
10.7
15.7
23.0
25.0
22.3
17.6
19.0
18.7
17.6
18.1
13.6
10.4
5.6
9.3
9.9
12.4
Total Arsenic Removed by Column A
Mass
Removed
(u.g)(b)
-
103,834
226.141
392.402
657.400
1.221.796
802.640
1.186.123
233.148
1.040.671
1.002.025
424.829
673.113
458,651
577,561
284,746
407.690
473.515
10,196,282
Run 1
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
4.100
1.100
1.300
500
1.600
900
2.000
1,800
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Column
A
2.1
16.9
31.4
30.8
30.1
37.3
37.0
33.4
27.3
After
Column
C
0.7
0.5
0.9
1.2
1.4
5.6
9.9
16.7
20.7
Difference
1.4
16.4
30.5
29.6
28.7
31.7
27.1
16.7
6.6
Total Arsenic Removed by Column C
Mass
Removed
(US)00
-
1.549.646
1.095.454
1.659.001
618.967
2.052.039
1.123.695
1.860.085
890,548
10,849,436
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
700
800
1.200
800
1.400
300
1.300
1.300
600
1.000
900
1.700
900
1.000
1,000
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Column
A
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.05
1.6
6.0
4.7
10.7
12.5
17.6
20.9
25.4
23.5
29.3
22.3
31.0
After
Column
C
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.7
1.3
2.9
5.0
7.4
8.2
12.4
Difference
0.2
0
0.1
0
1.3
5.8
4.4
10.5
12.1
16.9
19.6
22.5
18.5
21.9
14.1
18.6
Total Arsenic Removed by Column C
Mass
Removed
(mi)""
.
2.973
1,699
2.548
22.083
211.065
64,976
411,300
623.851
369.469
775.036
804,551
1.479.999
772.063
764,419
694,347
7,000,376(c)
C-l
-------
Run 1
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
500
1,600
900
2.000
1.300
500
Concentration ((ig/L)
After
Column C
1.2
1.4
5.6
9.9
16.7
23.6
20.7
After
Column E
0.3
0.2
1.3
0.6
0.9
3.2
3.1
Difference
0.9
1.2
4.3
9.3
15.8
20.4
17.6
Total Arsenic Removed by Column E
Mass Removed
(U£)(b)
-
22.296
186.858
259.902
1.065.939
999.265
403,443
2,937,703
Note: Amount of mass removed before vessel was moved to the lead position for Run 2.
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)W
Concentration (ng/L)
Raw
After 1
Column E | Difference
Amount removed from Run 1
500
900
300
500
700
800
1.200
800
1.400
300
1.300
1,300
600
1.000
900
1,700
900
1.000
1.000
20.7
24.1
28.1
22.4
47.2
32.7
28.7
29.0
23.0
20.8
50.7
29.3
61.8
69.6
33.2
37.8
101.0
34.4
71.3
3.1
6.7
10.9
11.3
15.9
23.7
25.0
23.9
23.6
23.7
29.4
30.1
35.7
34.5
35.8
29.1
38.6
32.2
43.4
17.6
17.4
17.2
11.1
31.9
9.0
3.7
5.1
-0.6
-2.9
21.3
-0.8
26.1
35.1
-2.6
8.7
62.4
2.2
27.9
Total Arsenic Removed by Column E
Mass Removed
(ug)""
2,937,703
403.443
668,866
220.407
300.459
630.221
684,579
323.604
149.486
133.773
0
507.914
565.882
322.330
1,299,512
621.090
220.195
1.358.754
1.371.707
639.139
12,955,621
Note: Amount of mass removed from both Run 1 and Run 2.
C-2
-------
Train B
Run 1
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0.0
700
700
800
1.000
1.200
1.400
800
1.100
1.000
500
500
2.100
Concentration (ug/L)
Raw
44.3
39.9
52.3
61.9
46.6
36.9
72.2
30.4
43.0
57.8
32.9
56.2
40.2
After
Column
B
0.6
0.3
6.3
1.2
3.1
7.8
14.8
19.7
33.4
32.1
30.7
30.4
38.9
Difference
43.7
39.6
46.0
60.7
43.5
29.1
57.4
10.7
9.6
25.7
2.2
25.8
1.3
Total Arsenic Removed by Column B
Mass
Removed
(m5)(b)
.
1,238.146
1.272.332
1.812.521
2.212,567
1,849.893
2,571.419
1.156.820
474.152
749.555
296,212
297.274
1.208,418
15,139,310
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
800
900
1.000
1.100
1.400
800
1.200
600
1,300
1.400
600
1.200
900
1,300
800
1.000
1.000
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Column
F
10.7
13.2
12.0
17.1
24.7
24.8
24.1
24.6
22.9
29.5
29.0
36.0
35.3
25.4
30.5
39.9
31.8
42.2
After
Column
B
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.05
1.7
5.5
5.8
10.3
12.3
17.8
20.2
24.6
24.0
28.2
23.0
30.7
Difference
9.8
12.9
11.5
16.9
24.0
24.8
22.4
19.1
17.1
19.2
16.7
18.2
15.1
0.8
6.5
11.7
8.8
11.5
Total Arsenic Removed by Column B
Mass
Removed
(m5)(b)
.
385.606
466,295
603.041
955.311
1,449.210
800.941
1.057.446
461.199
1,002.025
1.067.213
444.637
848.505
303.856
201.509
309.165
435.294
431,047
11,222,302
Run 1
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)W
0
4.100
1.100
1.300
500
1.600
900
2.000
1,300
500
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Column
B
3.1
19.7
33.4
30.7
30.4
38.9
35.5
33.3
31.3
27.3
After
Column
D
0.8
0.6
1.1
2.5
2.3
8.3
13.3
19.5
24.2
20.9
Difference
2.3
19.1
32.3
28.2
28.1
30.6
22.2
13.8
7.1
6.4
Total Arsenic Removed by Column D
Mass
Removed
(mi)01'
.
1.863.058
1,200,562
1,670,042
597,733
1.994.283
1,009,033
1,528,837
576,924
143.329
10,583,800
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1.000
1.100
1.400
800
1.200
600
1.300
1,400
600
1.200
900
1.300
800
1.000
1.000
Concentration (jig/L)
After
Column
B
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.05
1.7
5.5
5.8
10.3
12.3
17.8
20.2
24.6
24.0
28.2
23.0
30.7
After
Column
D
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.9
3.5
5.4
6.9
10.9
Difference
0
0.1
0.2
0
1.4
5.3
5.6
10.1
12.0
17.3
19.4
22.7
20.5
22.8
16.1
19.8
Total Arsenic Removed by Column D
Mass
Removed
(MS)0"
2.123
7.007
5.945
23,782
170.720
138.869
433,383
656,975
373.291
935.139
804.551
1,192,493
735,541
825.997
762.295
7,068, 112(c)
C-3
-------
Run 1
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
500
1.600
900
2.000
1,300
500
Concentration (jig/L)
After
Column D
2.5
2.3
8.3
13.3
19.5
24.2
20.9
After
Column F
0.4
0.2
1.3
0.7
1.8
4.6
4.6
Difference
2.1
2.1
7.0
12.6
17.7
19.6
16.3
Total Arsenic Removed by Column F
Mass Removed
(MS)00
-
44,591
309.165
374.565
1,286,771
1.029.629
381.148
3,425,869
Note: Amount of mass removed before vessel was moved to the lead position for Run 2.
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
Concentration Gig/L)
Raw
After
Column F
Difference
Amount of mass removed from Run 1
1,200
800
900
1.000
1.100
1.400
800
1.200
600
1.300
1,400
600
1,200
900
1,300
800
1.000
1,000
24.1
28.1
22.4
47.2
32.7
28.7
29.0
23.0
20.8
50.7
29.3
61.8
69.6
33.2
37.8
101
34.4
71.3
10.7
13.2
12.0
17.1
24.7
24.8
24.1
24.6
22.9
29.5
29.0
36.0
35.3
25.4
30.5
39.9
31.8
42.2
13.4
14.9
10.4
30.1
8.0
3.9
4.9
-1.6
-2.1
21.2
0.3
25.8
34.3
7.8
7.3
61.1
2.6
29.1
Total Arsenic Removed by Column F
Mass Removed
(MS)""
3.425.869
756.774
480.734
483,495
859.971
889.911
353.756
149,486
84.086
0
527,237
639,139
332.522
1,531,385
804,551
416,821
1.161.916
1,352,596
673,113
14,923,362
Note: Amount of mass removed from both Run 1 and Run 2.
(a) 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal = 42.46771 L
(b) Mass Removed (ug) = average difference in concentration (ug/L) x Volume Treated (BV) x 42.4677 (L/BV)
(c) Column did not reach capacity before end of evaluation.
Media in each column = 33,660,400 mg based on a bulk density of 51 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 3%.
C-4
------- |