EPA/600/R-08/080
July 2008
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Shane Williams
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Angela Paolucci
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, OH 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 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.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; 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 that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing 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 from the first six months of the
arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project in the City of Wellman, TX. The main
objective of the project was to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge Technologies' AD-33 media in
removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L. Additionally,
this project evaluates 1) the reliability of the treatment system (Arsenic Package Unit [APU]-100CS-S-2-
AVH), 2) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills, and 3) the capital
and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterizes the water in the distribution system and
any residuals produced by the treatment process. The types of data collected include system operation,
water quality parameters (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), and capital and
O&M cost.
The treatment system consisted of two 48-in-diameter, 72-in-tall carbon steel vessels in parallel
configuration, each containing approximately 38 ft3 of E3 3 pelletized media, which is an iron-based
adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG and marketed under the name of AD-33 by AdEdge. The
treatment system was designed for a maximum flowrate of 100 gal/min (gpm) and an empty bed contact
time (EBCT) of approximately 5.7 min per vessel.
Over the six-month operational period, the calculated average flowrate was 121 gpm based on the APU
system electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers and hour meter. This calculated average flowrate was
significantly greater than the design value and pre-existing master totalizer average of 86 gpm. Based on
a one-day flowrate test using a portable ultrasonic flow meter, it was determined that the APU system
flow meters/totalizers were the least accurate of the meters. Therefore, the master totalizer was used for
the purposes of this performance evaluation, and the use of the APU system flow meters/totalizers was
discontinued until the sensor's K-factors are adjusted to compensate for the inaccuracy.
The AdEdge treatment system began regular operation on August 10, 2006. Between August 10, 2006,
and February 9, 2007, the system operated an average of 4.5 hr/day, treating approximately 4,218,200 gal
of water. This volume of treated water was equivalent to about 7,420 bed volumes (BV) based on the 38
ft3 of media in each adsorption vessel.
Total arsenic concentrations measured in the IN samples varied significantly from 6.0 to 45.9 |og/L.
Soluble As(V) was the predominate species, ranging from 11.2 to 41.2 |og/L; soluble As(III)
concentrations ranged from 0.4 to 1.6 |o,g/L. A review of the significant variations measured in the IN
samples identified that system operations and sampling techniques were likely contributing to the
concentration variations. In fact, the after chlorination sample results provided concentrations in a more
realistic range and are believed to me more representative of the true water quality. The total arsenic
concentrations in the AC samples ranged from 37.5 to 47.2 |o,g/L. Soluble As(V) in the AC samples
remained predominate, ranging from 38.1 to 43.6 |o,g/L; soluble As(III) concentrations ranged from 0.7 to
2.0 ng/L.
As of February 6, 2007, total arsenic levels in the treated water following Vessels A and B were 1.2 and
1.8 |og/L, respectively at approximately 7,326 BV. Concentrations of vanadium, phosphate, and silica,
which could adversely affect arsenic adsorption by competing with arsenate for adsorption sites, averaged
144 |og/L, <10 |o,g/L (as P), and 44.5 mg/L (as SiO2), respectively, in AC samples. Vanadium existed
primarily in the soluble form (at 95%) and its concentrations were reduced to <3.2 |o,g/L in the treated
water. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and other ions in raw water were not considered significant
enough to impact arsenic removal by the media.
IV
-------
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the system showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 38.9 (ig/L to an average of 3.3 (ig/L).
The arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Lead
and copper concentrations in the distribution system remained below their respective action level of 15
and 1,300 |o,g/L and their levels were not adversely affected by the operation of the system.
The capital investment cost of $149,221 included $103,897 for equipment, $25,310 for site engineering,
and $20,014 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (or 144,000 gal/day [gpd]),
the capital cost was $l,492/gpm (or $1.04/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted to
an annualized cost of $ 14,085/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at the
system design flowrate of 100 gpm to produce 52,560,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost
would be $0.27/1,000 gal. Because the system actually operated an average of 4.5 hr/day at an average
flowrate less than 90 gpm, during the first 6 months of operation, the approximate annual water
production was 8,436,400 gal, and the actual unit capital cost was $1.67/1,000 gal of water.
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal, chlorine usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Although media
replacement did not occur during the first six months of system operation, the media replacement cost
would represent the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $30,010 to change out both
vessels (including 76 ft3 AD-33 media and associated labor for media change out and disposal).
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
Section 1.0: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
Section 3.0: MATERIALS AND METHODS 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 10
3.3.3 Backwash Water/Solid Sample Collection 10
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality 15
4.1.3 Distribution System 15
4.2 Treatment Process Description 16
4.3 System Installation 21
4.3.1 Permitting 21
4.3.2 Building Preparation 21
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 22
4.4 System Operation 22
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 22
4.4.2 Residual Management 24
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 24
4.5 System Performance 27
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 27
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 34
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 34
VI
-------
4.6 System Cost 34
4.6.1 Capital Cost 34
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 36
Section 5.0: REFERENCES 39
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Operational Data
APPENDIX B: Analytical Data
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations 9
Figure 4-1. Water Tower and Chlorination Shed (Small Grey Structure Left from Truck) 12
Figure 4-2. Vault Containing Supply Well Manifold, Sampling Tap, and Preexisting Master
Totalizer 13
Figure 4-3. Preexisting Chlorine Addition System 13
Figure 4-4. Water Treatment Facility in Wellman, TX 18
Figure 4-5. pH Adjustment System 20
Figure 4-6. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration 20
Figure 4-7. Average Flowrate Readings of APU System Totalizer and Master Totalizer 24
Figure 4-8. Treatment System Operational Pressures 25
Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, andTT Sampling Location 31
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves 32
Figure 4-11. Total Vanadium Breakthrough Curves 32
Figure 4-12. Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves 33
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 38
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 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. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 8
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Wellman, TX 14
Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide E33 (or AD-33) Pelletized Media 17
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of AdEdge APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System 19
Table 4-5. System Punch-List/Operational Issues 22
Table 4-6. Summary of APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System Operation 23
Table 4-7. Flowrates Measured by Various Flow Meters/Totalizers on October 9, 2006 24
Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium 28
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 29
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results 35
Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU System 36
Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System 37
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Ap differential pressure
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment System
BET Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration process
Cl chlorine
CRF capital recovery factor
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluorine
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HC1 hydrochloric acid
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchange
Hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
LOU Letter of Understanding
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detectable
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PLC programmable logic controller
psi pounds per square inch
PO4 orthophosphate
POE point of entry
POU point of use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level
SO42" sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCEQ
TCLP
TDS
TOC
TSS
U
V
voc
WTW
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
uranium
vanadium
volatile organic compounds
Wissenschaftlich-Technische-Werkstatten
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the City of Wellman and Mr. Marvin Crutcher,
who monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the treatment and distribution systems
throughout this study period. This performance evaluation would not have been possible without his
efforts.
-------
Section 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 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 text on March 25,
2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires 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 cost. 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 sites from a list of 115 sites to be the host sites for 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 Round 1 demonstration program. 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 that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the City of Wellman, TX 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. AdEdge Technologies' (AdEdge) Bayoxide E33 granular media
(developed by Bayer AG) was selected for demonstration at the Wellman site. As of May 2008, 38 of the
40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 30 systems was 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 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 process 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 provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al, 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/.
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 cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the City of Wellman, TX during the
first six-months of operation from August 10, 2006, through February 9, 2007. The types of data
collected included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution
system), residuals, and capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(MS/L)
Fe
Oig/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow, NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
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 County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home 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
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19w
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,61 5W
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
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk 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 Sauk 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
14w
13W
16W
20(a)
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127(c)
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
1,470W
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
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
Wellman, 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
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
35W
19w
56W
45
23W
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration
Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(MS/L)
Fe
Oig/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 of Three 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)
POURO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH/Kemiron)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
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
37w
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<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; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(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 program in June 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.
-------
Section 2.0: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
AdEdge's APU-100CS-S-2-AVH treatment system with AD-33 pelletized media was installed and has
operated in the City of Wellman, TX since August 10, 2006. Based on the information collected during
the first six months of system operation, the following summary and conclusion statements are provided:
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
AD-33 media was effective at removing soluble As(V). Through the first six months of
operation from August 10, 2006, through February 9, 2007, the system treated 4,218,200 gal
or 7,420 BV of water, leaving only trace levels, i.e., <1.1 (ig/L (on average), in the treated
water.
The arsenic treatment system significantly reduced arsenic concentrations (from 38.9 to 3.3
(ig/L, on average) in the distribution system. Impact of the treatment on lead and copper
concentrations, however, was less significant, with lead concentrations remaining relatively
unchanged from 0.2 to 0.3 |o,g/L (on average) and copper concentrations decreasing from 115
to 85.0 (ig/L (on average).
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
The system was easy to operate and maintain. The daily demand on the operator was
15 min after system startup, but progressively decreased to only 3 min by the end of
the first six-month period.
Operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment, with the exception of the pH
adjustment system. The pH adjustment system required additional operator training
and safety awareness.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
The treatment system did not require backwash (because pressure differential [Ap]
measured across the media vessels did not reach 10 psi, the Ap set point) or produce
any residual media during the first six months of system operation.
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
Based on the system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (or 144,000 gpd), the capital cost
was $l,492/gpm (or $1.04/gpd) of design capacity.
Media replacement and subsequent disposal did not occur during the first six months of
system operation. The cost to change out two vessels (76 ft3 AD-33 media) is estimated to be
$30,010, which includes the replacement media, spent media disposal, shipping, labor, and
travel.
-------
Section 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 AdEdge treatment system began on August 10, 2006. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the
system was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the arsenic MCL of
10 |og/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as described in a Performance
Evaluation Study Plan (Battelle, 2005). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the
unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled
downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding (LOU) Issued
Final Letter of Understanding (LOU) Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Plans Submitted to TCEQ
APU System Shipped and Arrived
System Permit Issued by TCEQ
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Final Study Plan Issued
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
November 18, 2004
March 22, 2005
March 29, 2005
April 12, 2005
April 20, 2005
May 30, 2005
June 28, 2005
August 25, 2005
October 14, 2005
February 2, 2006
June 20, 2006
August 9, 2006
December 28, 2005
August 10, 2006
TCEQ = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
APU = arsenic package unit
The required system O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated 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 gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task requires the tracking of the
capital cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media
replacement and disposal, chlorine consumption, electrical power usage, and labor. Data on Wellman
O&M cost were limited to electricity usage and labor because media replacement did not take place
during the first six months of system operation and chlorine consumption was not recorded.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection |
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic 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 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 for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
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
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) level; and conducted visual inspections
to ensure normal system operations. In the event of problems, the plant operator contacted the Battelle
Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of action taken, materials
and supplies used, and associated cost and labor, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Every other
week, the plant operator measured pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP), and recorded the data on a Bi-Weekly 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 and spent media disposal,
chemical and electricity consumption, and labor. Electricity consumption was tracked through the on-site
electric meter. Labor for various activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting, and repair and
demonstration-related work was tracked using Operator Labor Hour Log Sheets. The routine O&M
included activities such as completing field logs, replenishing chemical solutions, ordering supplies,
performing system inspections, and others as recommended by the vendor. The demonstration-related
labor, 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 the cost
analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the performance of the system, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the
treatment train, from the backwash discharge line, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides
the sampling schedule and analytes for each sampling event. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a flow
diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes and schedules at each sampling location.
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Distribution
Water
Sample
Locations'3*
IN
IN, AC, TA, and
TB
IN, AC, and TT
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each Vessel
Three residences
(including two
LCR residences)
No. of
Samples
1
4
3
2
3
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly or
as needed
Monthly
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),
Sb (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NO3,
NO2, NH3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity, TDS,
and TOC
On-site(b): pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free and
total).
Off-site: total As, Fe, Mn,
P, and V, SiO2, turbidity,
and alkalinity
Same as above plus
following:
Off-site: As(III) & As(V),
Fe (soluble), Mn (soluble),
V (soluble), Ca, Mg, F,
NO3, SO4, and TOC
pH, TDS, TSS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), and
Mn (total and soluble)
Total As, Fe, Mn, Cu, V
(total and soluble) and Pb,
pH, and alkalinity
Collection Date(s)
11/18/04
08/30/06, 09/20/06,
10/19/06, 11/15/06,
01/03/07, 02/06/07
08/10/06, 09/06/06,
10/02/06, 11/02/06,
11/28/06, 12/14/06,
01/18/07
To be determined
Baseline
sampling(c):
06/22/05, 07/14/05,
08/18/05, 09/14/05
Monthly sampling:
09/06/06, 10/10/06,
11/15/06, 12/14/06,
01/18/07
(a) Abbreviation (IN = at wellhead; AC = after chlorination; TA = after Vessel A; TB = after Vessel B; TT = after
Vessels A and B combined) corresponding to sample location in Figure 3-1.
(b) On-site measurements of chlorine not collected at IN.
(c) Sampling events performed before system startup.
-------
, temperature'5"), DO/ORPW,
As (total and soluble),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, turbidity, alkalinity
pH'1"', temperature'1',
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, turbidity, alkalinity
INFLUENT
Wellman, TX
AD-33ฎ Technology
Design Flow: 100 gpm
Biweekly
pHW, temperature'1"), DO/ORPW,
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
V (total), SiO2, PO4, turbidity,
alkalinity
DA: NaOCl
pH, IDS, TSS,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble)
pH'a\ temperature'3),
DO/ORPW, C12 (free and total),
As (total and soluble), As (III),
As (V), Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, turbidity, alkalinity
, temperature'1',
C12 (free and total), As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), V (total),
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
Backwash Sampling Location
ss ^ Sludge Sampling Location
STORAGE TANK
(110,000 GAL)
pHซ, temperature'1', DO/ORPW,
C12 (free and total), As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), V (total),
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, alkalinity
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Schedule and Locations
-------
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 Sample Collection. During the site visit on November 18, 2004, source water
samples were collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit described in 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.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation
study, treatment plant water samples were collected every other week for on- and off-site analyses shown
in Table 3-3. For the first monthly sampling events, samples were taken at the wellhead (IN), after
chlorination (AC), and after Vessels A and B combined (TT) and speciation was performed onsite during
these events. For the second sampling monthly events, samples were collected at IN, AC, after Vessel A
(TA), and after Vessel B (TB) without onsite speciation.
3.3.3 Backwash Water/Solid Sample Collection. Because the system did not require backwash
during the first six months of operation, no backwash residuals were produced. Further, because media
replacement did not take place, no spent media samples were collected.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. Samples were collected from the
distribution system by the plant operator to determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the
water chemistry in the distribution system, specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From June to
September 2005, prior to the startup of the treatment system, four baseline distribution sampling events
were conducted at three locations within the distribution system. Following startup of the arsenic
adsorption system, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
The three locations selected were sample taps within the City of Wellman. Two of the locations had been
included in the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling in the past. The baseline and monthly distribution
system samples were collected following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The homeowners
recorded the dates and times of last water usage before sampling and the dates and times of sample
collection for calculation of 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. Analytes for the baseline and
monthly sampling are listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution
system water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including preparation of arsenic speciation kits and sample coolers, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
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, color-coded waterproof label, consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
10
-------
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 designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. For
example, red, orange, yellow, and blue were used to designate sampling locations for IN, AC, TA, and
TB, respectively. The pre-labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate ziplock bags
and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling and shipping-related materials, such as latex gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included. The chain-
of-custody forms and FedEx airbills were completed except for the operator's signature and sample dates
and times. After preparation, the sample coolers were sent to the facility via FedEx approximately 1
week prior to the scheduled sampling date.
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, sample
custodians checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verfied that all samples indicated
on the forms were included and intact. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with
the plant operator by the Battelle Study Lead. The shipment and receipt of all coolers by Battelle were
recorded on a cooler tracking log.
Samples for metal 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, OH and Belmont Laboratories in
Englewood, OH, were packed in separate coolers at Battelle and picked up by couriers from each
laboratory. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through
analysis and final disposition. 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 QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were followed by
Battelle's ICP-MS, AAL, and Belmont Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limit (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
Wissenschaftlich-Technische-Werkstatten (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 400-mL 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.
11
-------
4.1
Section 4.0: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-Existing Treatment System Infrastructure
Supplied by five groundwater wells located along U.S. Highway 385, the community water system in the
City of Wellman distributes water to approximately 225 community members via 95 service connections.
Of the five supply wells, four are located in close proximity to the pre-existing 110,000-gal water tower
(Figure 4-1) and underground vault that houses the well manifold (Figure 4-2). The fifth is located
approximately 3 miles southwest. The five supply wells range in size from 6 to 8 in, each equipped with
a submersible pump of 7 to 15 horsepower (hp). The combined flowrate from the first four wells is
estimated to be 50 gpm and the flowrate from the fifth is 40 gpm. Therefore, the total flowrate is
approximately 90 gpm. Operating simultaneously 4 to 6 hr at a time, the well pumps are on typically
twice per day in the summer and once per day in the winter to meet the average and peak daily demand of
about 26,000 and 50,000 gal, respectively. The on/off of the well pumps are controlled by pressure
switches in the storage tank set at 40/54 psi. After chlorination with a 12.5% NaOCl solution (injected at
the Well 1 manifold as shown in Figure 4-3), water is sent to the water tower for storage and distribution.
The target free chlorine residual level in the distribution system is 1.0 mg/L (as C12).
Figure 4-1. Water Tower and Chlorination Shed
(Small Grey Structure Left of Truck)
12
-------
Figure 4-2. Vault Containing Supply Well Manifold, Sampling Tap, and
Pre-Existing Master Totalizer
Figure 4-3. Pre-Existing Chlorine Addition System
13
-------
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Two sets of source water samples were collected and speciated on
November 18, 2004 for on- and off-site analyses. One set was collected from Well No. 1 and the other set
from the manifold containing water from all five wells after chlorination. The results are presented in
Table 4-1 and compared to those taken by the facility for the EPA demonstration site selection.
Table 4-1. Water Quality Data for Wellman, TX
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 P)
As(total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III) (soluble)
As(V) (soluble)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
-
S.U.
ฐc
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
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Source
Water
Data(a)
NA
7.8
NA
NA
NA
246; 302*
406
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
102; 131*
NA
217; 224*
19.5*
0.096*
39; 33*
NA
NA
NA
NA
24; 55*
NA
6; <0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107; 172*
64; 58*
60; 61*
Battelle Data
Well
No. 1
Source
Water
Five Wells
Combined,
Chlorinated
11/18/04
8.2
15.6
6.6
741
369
442
0.6
1,690
5.2
0.6
0.04
<0.05
590
5.0
240
45.5
O.06
62.0
50.2
11.8
2.8
38.4
<25
<25
1.6
0.4
10.0
10.1
165
151
<0.1
<0.1
403
47.5
78.5
7.7
NA
NA
NA
250
446
0.9
806
3.4
5.4
<0.01
O.05
75
5.3
240
45.9
O.06
45.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA
2.0
NA
10.1
NA
145
NA
<0.1
NA
112
50.6
77.6
TCEQ
Treated Water
Data
04/27/98-11/10/04
7.5
NA
NA
NA
246-248
686
NA
823
NA
5.3-5.6
NA
NA
103-108
0.6-6.1
241-256
NA
NA
16.5-39.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
NA
<2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
140
73.7
122
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
NA = not analyzed; TCEQ = Texas Commission of Environmental Quality; TDS = total dissolved solids;
TOC = total organic carbon; NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units; * EPA data
14
-------
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 33 to 62 |og/L. Based on the
November 18, 2004 sampling results obtained by Battelle, out of 62 |o,g/L of total arsenic, 11.8 |o,g/L
existed as particulate arsenic and 50.2 |o,g/L as soluble arsenic. Soluble arsenic comprised 2.8 |o,g/L of
As(III) and 38.4 |o,g/L of As(V). Therefore, the predominant species is As(V). The existence of As(V) as
the predominant species is consistent with the rather oxidizing well condition as reflected by the high DO
(i.e., 6.6 mg/L) and ORP (i.e., 741 mV) levels measured during sampling.
Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations were generally low, ranging from its MDL of 25 |o,g/L to 55
Hg/L. In general, adsorptive media technologies are best suited for sites with relatively low iron levels in
source water (i.e., less than 300 |o,g/L, the secondary maximum contaminant level [SMCL] for iron).
Above 300 |o,g/L, taste, odor, and color problems can occur in treated water, along with an increased
potential for fouling of the adsorption system components with iron particulates. Manganese
concentrations also were low, ranging from <0.4 to 6 |o,g/L.
pH. The pH range of 7.7 to 8.2 was at the upper end of the target range of 6.0 to 8.0 for optimal arsenic
adsorption onto the AD-33 media. At pH values greater than 8.0 to 8.5, the vendor recommended that pH
adjustment be implemented in order to maintain the capacity of the adsorption media. Although pH
adjustment was not included in the original system design, a pH adjustment system was later
recommended by TCEQ (see Section 4.2).
Competing Anions. Silica, phosphate, and vanadium may compete with arsenic for available adsorptive
sites on the AD-33 media. The silica level in the source water sample collected by Battelle was 45.5
mg/L and the orthophosphate level was below detection (<0.06 mg/L). Based on the high silica levels in
raw water, the adsorptive capacity of the AD-33 media could potentially be adversely affected.
Vanadium concentrations were high, ranging from 145 to 165 |o,g/L in the source water samples collected
by Battelle. Prior studies have indicated that vanadium has an adverse effect on arsenic adsorption.
Effects of vanadium on arsenic adsorption will be closely monitored over the course of the demonstration
study.
Other Water Quality Parameters. The majority of water quality parameters analyzed in source water
were below their respective primary MCLs. Fluoride levels have been measured as high as 5.3 mg/L,
exceeding the MCL of 4 mg/L. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride also were observed to exceed
their respective SMCLs of 500 mg/L and 250 mg/L, respectively, in at least one source water sample.
Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations also were high, ranging from 3.4 to 5.2 mg/L.
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality. In addition to the source water data, Table 4-1 also presents
historic treated water quality data taken by the TCEQ from April 1998 through November 2004. The
treated water quality data obtained from TCEQ were similar to the City of Wellman and Battelle test
results. Total arsenic concentrations of the treated water ranged from 16.5 to 39.3 |og/L. Although no
arsenic speciation data were available for the water following chlorination, it was assumed that arsenic
was present as As(V) because of the addition of chlorine. The average pH of the treated water was 7.5.
Additional analytes (including several metals and radionuclides) were included in the historical data
provided by TCEQ. These data are summarized in Table 4-2.
4.1.3 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the facility, the mains for the
water distribution system in the City of Wellman are constructed of 6-in cast iron. Connections within
the distribution system include 3 to 6 in poly vinyl chloride (PVC). Piping within the homes is PVC and
copper; neither lead pipe nor lead solder are thought to be present.
15
-------
Table 4-2. TCEQ Treated Water Quality Data
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium 226
Radium 228
Unit
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
HB/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
TCEQ Treated Water
Data
<20
<3
28.8
<1
<1
<10
6.6
<10
<1
<0.4
1.1
43.2
<10
<1
7.1
8.8
15.2
0.3
<1
The three locations selected for distribution sampling before and after the treatment was installed were
representative of the distribution system overall. Two of the locations were also part of the city's historic
sampling network for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The facility also samples for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides as directed by the TCEQ, typically once every
two to three years.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The APU marketed by AdEdge is a fixed-bed, down-flow adsorptive media system used for small water
systems in the flow range of up to 100 gpm. The system uses Bayoxide E33 media (branded as AD-33 by
AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Lanxess (formerly Bayer AG) for the removal of
arsenic from drinking water supplies. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical properties of the AD-33
media. The media, available in both granular and pelletized forms, is delivered in a dry crystalline form
and listed by NSF International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking water applications. The
pelletized media, which is slightly denser than its granular counterpart (i.e., 35 vs. 28 lb/ft3), was used for
the demonstration at Wellman.
As groundwater is pumped through the fixed-bed pressure vessels, dissolved arsenic is adsorbed onto the
media, thus reducing the dissolved arsenic concentration in the treated water. When the media reaches its
capacity (effluent water >10 |o,g/L total As), the spent media is removed and can be disposed of as non-
hazardous waste after passing the EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. The
media life depends upon the arsenic concentration, the empty bed contact time (EBCT), the mode or
variability of operation (on-off), pH, and concentrations of competing ions in source water.
16
-------
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Bayoxide
E33 (or AD-33) Pelletized Media
Physical Properties
Parameter Values
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
BET Surface Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%, by wt.)
Particle size distribution (mm)
Crystal size (A)
Crystal phase
Iron oxide composite
Dry pelletized media
Amber
35
0.56
142
0.3
~5
1.0-1.4 (14x18 mesh)
70
a -FeOOH
Ch emical An alysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
Si02
MgO
Na20
S03
A12O3
MnO
TiO2
P205
Cl
Weight %
90.1
0.27
0.06
1.00
0.12
0.13
0.05
0.23
0.11
0.02
0.01
Data Source: Bayer AG
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
Two pretreatment components are installed at the Wellman demonstration site, i.e., chlorination and pH
adjustment. Chlorination had already been implemented prior to the demonstration study. Because
As(V) was the predominant species and the As(III) concentration was low (i.e., 2.8 ug/L based on
November 18, 2004, data), chlorination was used primarily to maintain a chlorine residual in the
distribution system. As described in Section 4-1, source water pH ranged from 7.7 to 8.2. A pH
adjustment system was required by TCEQ and installed to lower source water pH values to a target of 7.2.
The arsenic treatment system (specifically referred to as the APU-100CS-S-2-AVH system) consists of
two pressure vessels, Vessel A and Vessel B, operating in parallel. The system is located in a newly
constructed treatment facility located next to the pre-existing water tower and underground vault along
U.S. Highway 385 (Figure 4-4). Table 4-4 presents key system design parameters.
17
-------
Figure 4-4. Water Treatment Facility in Wellman, TX
The major process components of the arsenic removal system are discussed as follows:
Intake. Raw water is pumped from the five supply wells and fed to the treatment system.
Wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 are triggered to operate by a single pressure switch and Well 5, which
provides nearly half the water supply, is triggered to operate by a separate pressure switch.
The two pressure switches are configured to allow for simultaneous operation of all five
wells.
Pre-chlorination. The pre-existing chlorination system, shown in Figure 4-3, was relocated
inside the new treatment facility. The system was reconfigured to inject a 12.5% NaOCl
solution after the combined raw water sampling location (IN) (as opposed to down Well 1,
which was the configuration preceding this demonstration study) but prior to the AC
sampling location. The chlorination system was used primarily to provide a target free
chlorine residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as Cli) for disinfection purposes. The added benefit was
to oxidize any As(III) to As(V) prior to the adsorption vessels. Operation of the chlorine feed
system was linked to the well pump such that chlorine was injected only when the wells were
operating. Chlorine consumption was monitored by the system operator on a weekly basis.
pH Adjustment. A pH adjustment system was installed inside the new treatment facility
along with the arsenic treatment system. The pH adjustment system consisted of a solenoid
driven diaphragm metering chemical feed pump (ProMinentฎ, beta/4ฎ), a 50-gal high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) chemical feed tank (to store a 31% hydrochloric acid (HC1) solution),
tubing to transfer the acid from the tank to the well supply line, an injection valve, an in-line
mixer, and a pH probe and monitor (Figure 4-5). The acid injection point was located
approximately 10 ft downstream of the raw water sampling location (IN) after the chlorine
injection point, but prior to the AC sampling location.
18
-------
Table 4-4. Design Specifications of AdEdge Arsenic Removal System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Adsorption Vessels
Vessel Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/vessel)
No. of Vessels
Configuration
48 D x 72 H
12.6
2
Parallel
AD- 3 3 Adsorption Media
Media Type
Media Volume (ft3)
Media Weight (Ib)
AD-33 (pelletized)
76
2,660
38 ft3/vessel (36-inbed depth)
1,330 Ib/vessel
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Throughput to Breakthrough
(gal)
Average Use Rate (gal/day)
Estimated Media Life (day)
Pre-treatment
100
4.0
5.7
17,240
9,800,000
26,000
377 (12.4 months)
HC1
NaOCl
50 gpm/vessel
Bed volumes to 10 |ag/L total As breakthrough
from each vessel based on vendor estimate
1 BV = 568 gal
Based on 5.4 hr of daily operation at 80 gpm
Estimated frequency of media change-out
based on average throughput to system.
pH Adjustment
Prechlorination
Backwash
Pressure Differential Set Point
Backwash Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Frequency (per month)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Fast Rinse Flowrate
Fast Rinse Duration (min/vessel)
Wastewater Production (gal/vessel)
lOpsi
9
Once
113
20
113
Ito4
2,260
-
-
System was not backwashed within first six
months of operation
-
-
-
-
-
Adsorption. The arsenic treatment system consisted of two 48-in diameter, 72-in-tall
pressure vessels configured in parallel, each containing 38 ft3 of pelletized AD-33 media.
The vessels were carbon steel construction, skid mounted, and rated for 100-psi working
pressure (Figure 4-6). EBCT for this system was 5.7 min in each vessel at a design flowrate
of 50 gpm for each vessel (100 gpm total system flow). Hydraulic loading rate to each vessel
was approximately 4.0 gpm/ft2.
Each pressure vessel was interconnected with schedule 80 PVC piping and five electrically
actuated butterfly valves, which made up the valve tree as shown in Figure 4-6. In addition,
the system had two manual diaphragm valves on the backwash line and two manual lug-style
butterfly valves to divert raw water flow into each vessel. Each valve operated independently
and the butterfly valves were controlled by a Square D Telemechanique programmable logic
controller (PLC) with a Magelis XBT G2220 color touch interface screen.
19
-------
Figure 4-5. pH Adjustment System
Figure 4-6. Adsorption System Valve Tree and Piping Configuration
20
-------
Backwash. The vendor recommended that the APU treatment system be backwashed on a
regular basis to remove particulates and media fines that accumulated in the media beds. The
system can be backwashed automatically based on differential pressure (Ap) measured across
the individual pressure vessels, time of operation, or volume of water treated. The vendor
recommended a backwash flowrate of 113 gpm to achieve a backwash hydraulic loading of
about 9 gpm/ft2. Because the incoming flowrate from the supply well is insufficient to
provide the necessary flow for backwash, supplemental water is supplied from the treated
water storage tank to the head of the system. Each backwash cycle is set to last about 20 min
per vessel, generating a total of 4,520 gal for the two tanks. The backwash water produced is
pumped to a 5,000-gal polyethylene storage tank located next to the treatment system. From
the backwash storage tank, the backwash water is either discharged to a local sewer or
collected and used for irrigation purposes. However, due to the minimal pressure drop across
the vessels throughout the first six months of system operation, system backwash was never
performed. The pressure drop and the arsenic concentrations across the vessels will continue
to be monitored and a backwash will be scheduled, if needed, during the next six months of
system operation.
Media Replacement. As the total arsenic concentration in the treated water approaches the
MCL of 10 |og/L, replacement of the media in the vessels will be scheduled. Based on the
estimate provided by the vendor, breakthrough of arsenic is expected after about 17,240 BV
of water treated or about 12 months of operation. The spent media will be tested for EPA's
TCLP before disposal.
Water Storage. Treated water from the APU system was sent to the existing 110,000-gal
water tower located at the site and used to supply treated water to the distribution system
(Figure 4-1).
4.3 System Installation
The installation of the APU system was completed by the vendor and its subcontractor on July 20, 2006.
The following briefly summarizes some of the pre-demonstration activities, including permitting, building
preparation, and system installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. A pre-permit package was submitted to TCEQ by the City of Wellman on July
11, 2005, requesting an exception to use data from an alternative site in lieu of conducting an on-site pilot
study as required under 30 TAG ง290.42(g). The exception request included a written description of the
treatment technology along with a schematic of the system and relevant pilot- and full-scale data. On
August 25, 2005, a permit application package including a process flow diagram of the treatment system,
mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and equipment
layout was submitted to TCEQ for permit approval. TCEQ granted the exception request on October 31,
2005, and a conditional approval for construction on February 2, 2006. The conditional approval required
that the loading rate, media depth, and pH adjustment comply with the requirements outlined in the TCEQ
exception request response letter dated October 31, 2005.
A final response to the TCEQ conditional approval was submitted by Oiler Engineering, Inc., the engineer
of record, on June 26, 2006, ensuring that the system installation would be in accordance to the guidance
provided by the TCEQ.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. Construction of a new building to house the planned arsenic
treatment system began on January 20, 2006, and was completed on February 6, 2006. The building is a
21
-------
single-story metal structure with concrete flooring, shown in Figure 4-4. Additional preparation required
reconfiguration of the chlorination system from the previous treatment facility to the new building.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived on-site on October 14,
2005. The electrical and plumbing hookups were completed by the vendor's subcontractor, during the
week of March 6, 2006. During the week of August 9, 2006, the vendor completed the arsenic treatment
system installation and shakedown work, which included hydraulic testing, media loading, and media
backwash. Battelle was on-site on August 9, 2006, to inspect the system and provide training to the
operator for sampling and data collection. The system officially went online and was put into regular
service on August 10, 2006. As a result of the system inspections, a punch-list of items was identified,
some of which were quickly resolved and did not affect system operations or data collection, although
problems related to the media vessel flow meters could not be resolved immediately and resurfaced
throughout the six-month study period. The issues associated with the flow meters are further discussed
in Section 4.4.3. Table 4-5 summarizes the items identified and corrective actions taken.
Table 4-5. System Punch-List/Operational Issues and Corrective Action
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Punch-List/
Operational Issues
No backwash flow for
Vessel A
Relocate acid and chlorine
injection points
f nstall inline mixer after acid
and chlorine injection points
fnstall second chlorine
injection point after
treatment
fnstall "ESP' sampling point
on raw water line in vault
Calibrate and evaluate
pressure gauges on system
for accuracy
Replace backwash line
sampling port with larger
port
Confirm Vessels A and B
flow meters for proper
calibration and
measurements
Corrective Action(s) Taken
Malfunctioning actuator on valve B V-
Of4A replaced
Acid and chforine injection points moved
to inside of treatment building prior to
treatment system
Vendor notified but no action taken to
date
Vendor supplied 2 additional 4-in PVC
saddles to site; no additional action taken
to date
Sample tap installed on combined raw
water line in vault
Gauges functioning properly after
replacing malfunctioning actuator on
valve BV-Of4A
Larger sampling port provided to facility
Flow coefficients in software checked and
correct setting confirmed per factory
specifications; Battelle to send portable
flow meter to site to verify flow meter
reading
Resolution Date
8/11/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/14/2006
8/15/2006
10/9/2006
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the first six months of system
operation are tabulated and attached as Appendix A with the key parameters summarized in Table 4-6.
From August 10, 2006 through February 9, 2007, the system operated for approximately 819 hr,
equivalent to 4.5 hr/day and a utilization rate of 19%. Over the six-month period, the APU system treated
approximately 5,936,400 gal of water; equivalent to 10,442 BV based on the electromagnetic flow
meters/totalizers provided as part of the APU system. In comparison, the master totalizer utilized by the
22
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Flow Meter/Totalizer
Throughput (gal)
Throughput (BV)(C)
Average (Range of) Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range of) EBCT for System (min)(c)
Average (Range of) Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across System (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel A (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel B (psi)
Value/Condition
08/10/06-02/09/07
819
4.5
Electromagnetic(a)
5,936,419
10,442
121 (57-199)(d)
4.7 (2.9-10.0)
Turbine(b)
4,218,200
7,420
86 (21-161)(d)
6.6(3.5-27.1)
45.4 (36-53)
45.1(33-52)
1.4 (
-------
08/11/06 08/31/06 09/20/06 10/10/06 10/30/06 11/19/06 12/09/06 12/29/06 01/18/07 02/07/07
Figure 4-7. Average Flowrate Readings of APU System Totalizer and Master Totalizer
Table 4-7. Flowrates Measured by Various Flow
Meters/Totalizers on October 9, 2006
Flow Meter/Totalizer
Master Totalizer
Portable Flow meter
APU System Totalizer
Type of Flow
Meter/Totalizer
Turbine
ultrasonic
electromagnetic
Average
Flowrate
(gpm)
92
101
128
Difference
(%)
0
+10
+39
Vessel A, and Vessel B was 1.4, 0.6, and 0.9 psi, respectively and remained relatively low. As such, no
pressure increase was observed after 819 hr of system operation. Several pressure spikes were observed;
however, none of these spikes caused a significant increase in Ap, i.e. S10 psi, across the system or
adsorption vessels. As a result, no media backwash was performed during the first six months of system
operation.
4.4.2 Residual Management. No residuals were produced during this reporting period because
neither backwash nor media replacement was required during the first six months of system operation.
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The only operational irregularity
experienced during the first six months of the demonstration study was related to the electromagnetic
flow meters/totalizers on the APU treatment system.
Over the first six months of operation, the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers installed with the APU
system had been reporting flowrates significantly greater than the design value and master totalizer
24
-------
-Vessel A Inlet Pressure
-Vessel B Inlet Pressure
System Inlet Pressure
-Vessel A Outlet Pressure
-Vessel B Outlet Pressure
System Outlet Pressure
-Vessel A Differential Pressure
-Vessel B Differential Pressure
System Differential Pressure
Figure 4-8. Treatment System Operational Pressures
values. Because of this, a one-day flowrate test was performed on October 9, 2006, using a portable
ultrasonic flow meter to determine the accuracy of the electromagnetic flow meters/totalizers and turbine
master totalizer. The portable flow meter was pre-programmed at Battelle and then sent to the operator
along with written instructions specifically prepared for the test.
Each type of totalizer operates differently; hence several different variables could influence the actual
flow measurement. The master totalizer is a turbine type flow meter and most often used for water
distribution systems. Turbine meters are less accurate than displacement and jet meters, although turbine
meters allow for higher flow rates and less pressure loss than displacement type meters. The portable
flow meter is an ultrasonic type flow meter, which requires known values to be preset prior to use. The
portable flow meter reports an accuracy of ฑ1 to 3% within a velocity range of ฑ0.1 m/sec under ideal
flow conditions in 4-in plastic piping. The APU flow meter/totalizer is an electromagnetic type flow
sensor that is ordered with its fitting and factory calibrated in the fitting prior to shipment. The APU type
flow sensor requires a minimum of 10 straight pipe diameters upstream and a minimum of five straight
pipe diameters downstream of the flow meters/totalizers. At Wellman, neither upstream nor downstream
specifications were met. Upstream from the flow meters/totalizers there should be a minimum of 3 fl-
inches of straight pipe and downstream there should be a minimum of 15-in of straight pipe. For both
flow meters/totalizers, there are only 21-in upstream and 6-in downstream, a difference of 30% and 60%
less than the minimum requirements, respectively.
Based on the one-day flow rate test, it was concluded that the APU system flow sensors are the least
accurate of the meters due to the current piping configuration and that results from the master totalizer
and portable flow meter are within an acceptable margin of error. Recommendations were made that the
master totalizer be used for demonstration purposes and the use of the APU totalizer be discontinued until
piping configuration changes are made in compliance with the manufacture's specifications or until the
25
-------
factory set K-factors are adjusted to compensate for the inaccuracy. Currently, the vendor is working to
adjust the K-factors in the system software.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Two forms of pre-treatment were required at the Wellman site,
chlorination and pH adjustment. A chlorination step provided required chlorine residuals and oxidized
As(III) to As(V). Hydrochloric acid was planned to be used to lower the pH value of raw water to a more
optimal level in order to maintain effective adsorption by the AD-33 media. However, pH adjustment
was not initiated due to safety concerns. Throughout the six-month operational period, the pH values
ranged from 7.7 to 8.0 for the IN samples (i.e., raw water) and from 7.5 to 7.7 for the TT samples (i.e.,
treated water). The average pH values for the IN and TT samples were 7.8 and 7.6, respectively.
The existing chlorination system was relocated into the new water treatment building and reconfigured to
inject solution after the combined raw water sampling location (IN) (as opposed to down Well 1) but prior
to the AC sampling location. The chlorination system, as discussed in Section 4.2 and shown in Figure 4-
3, utilized a 12.5% NaOCl solution to reach a target free residual level of 1.0 mg/L (as C12). The
reconfigured chlorination system did not require additional maintenance or skills, other than those
required by the previous system. The operator monitored chlorine consumption rates (gal/week) and
residual chlorine levels.
System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls for automatic backwash. Each
media vessel was equipped with five electrically actuated butterfly valves, which are controlled by a
Square D Telemechanique PLC with a Magelis G2220 color touch interface screen. The automated
portion of the system did not require regular O&M; however, operator awareness and an ability to detect
unusual system measurements were necessary when troubleshooting system automation failures. The
equipment vendor provided hands-on training and a supplemental operations manual to the operator.
Operator Skill Requirements. The operation of the adsorption system demanded a higher level of
awareness and attention than the previous system. The system offers increased operational flexibility,
which, in turn, requires increased monitoring of system parameters. The operator's knowledge of the
system limitations and typical operational parameters are critical in achieving system performance
objectives. The operator was on-site typically five times per week and spent approximately 3 to 15 min
each day performing visual inspections and recording the system operating parameters on the daily log
sheets. Operator training began with on-site training and a thorough review of the system operations
manual. However, over the first six months of operation, the operator found increased knowledge and
invaluable system troubleshooting skills were gained through hands on operational experience. TCEQ
requires that the operator of the treatment system hold at least a Class D TCEQ waterworks operator
license. The TCEQ public water system operator certifications are classified by Class D through A.
Licensing eligibility requirements are based on education, experience, and related training. The minimum
requirements for a Class D license are high school graduate or GED and 20 hr of related training.
Licensing requirements incrementally increase with each licensing level, with Class A being the highest
requiring the most education, experience, and training.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included periodic checks of flow
meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. The pre-chlorination tank and
supply lines also were checked for leaks and adequate pressure. Typically, the operator performed these
duties when on-site for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for pre-chlorination and the
operator ordered chemicals as done prior to installation of the treatment system. HC1 was intended to be
used for pH adjustment, but not incorporated into the water treatment system and, therefore, not handled
by the operator.
26
-------
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the arsenic removal system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples
collected from the treatment facility and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. The treatment plant water was sampled on 15 occasions
including two duplicate and seven speciation events; a complete set of the results is included in Appendix
B. Table 4-8 summarizes the results for arsenic, iron, manganese, and vanadium across the treatment
train. Table 4-9 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters. The results of the water
samples collected throughout the treatment train are discussed below.
Arsenic. Figure 4-9 presents the results of seven arsenic speciation events measured at IN, AC, and TT
sampling locations. Figure 4-10 illustrates total arsenic concentrations measured across the treatment
train as a function of throughput in bed volumes. Total arsenic concentrations in the IN samples varied
considerably, ranging from 6.0 to 45.9 |o,g/L and averaging 27.4 |o,g/L (Table 4-8). The predominant
soluble species was As(V), ranging from 11.2 to 41.2 |o,g/L and averaging 22.8 |o,g/L. Low levels of
soluble As(III) and particulate As also were present, averaging 0.9 and 2.2 |og/L, respectively. The
arsenic concentrations measured in the IN samples during this six-month period are almost one-half of
those measured on November 18, 2004 from Well No. 1 (see Table 4-1). A review of the significant
variations identified that system operations and sampling techniques were likely contributing to the
concentration variations. In fact, the AC sample results provided concentrations in a more realistic range
and are believed to me more representative of the true water quality. The total arsenic concentrations in
the AC samples ranged from 37.5 to 47.2 |o,g/L. Soluble As(V) in the AC samples remained predominate,
ranging from 38.1 to 43.6 |o,g/L; soluble As(III) concentrations ranged from 0.7 to 2.0 |o,g/L.
On 10 occasions, total arsenic concentrations (along with various other analytical parameters) seemingly
increased from the wellhead to the after chlorination sampling location. The average total arsenic
concentration at the wellhead and after chlorination was 27.4 and 41.9 |og/L, respectively. The average
concentration of all other arsenic fractions (i.e., soluble As[III] and As[V] and particulate As) increased
proportionally (by approximately l!/2 times) after chlorination. Repeat analysis of these samples and
discussions with the operator have not revealed an explanation. Several hypotheses have been developed
to determine the cause of this inconsistency. One factor that is currently being evaluated is the
intermittent operation of the wells and possibility of samples being collected while the system is not
operating. The system treats water based on demand and the water is supplied by five wells. Wells 1, 2,
3, and 4 are operated by a single pressure switch and Well 5, which produces nearly half the treated water,
is operated by a separate pressure switch. This type of pressure switch configuration could allow some
wells to operate longer than others, thereby producing inconsistencies in water quality and analytical
results. In fact, in some cases, if one of the pressure switches is delayed, pressure could build in the pipe
line and prevent the delayed well pump or pumps from switching on. In an effort to evaluate this
possibility, the operator has been instructed to collect samples only while the system is operating and
producing the average flow that is expected from all five supply wells. Concentrations measured at the
after chlorination sampling location appear to be more representative of the true concentrations.
As shown in Figure 4-9, As(III) levels at the wellhead, after chlorination, and after adsorption were
similar at 0.9, 1.1, and 0.9 |o,g/L, respectively. Because 1.0 and 1.4 mg/L (as C12) of total chlorine were
measured at the AC and TT locations, respectively, the presence of As(III) at these locations most likely
was due to accuracy of the speciation method. Further, the residual chlorine levels measured at the TT
location was similar to those at the AC location, indicating no chlorine consumption by the media.
27
-------
Table 4-8. Analytical Results for Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium
Parameters
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
Hg/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
Hg/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
^g/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HS/L
HP/L
^g/L
^g/L
^g/L
Sample
Count
15
15
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
15
15
8
8
7
7
7
7
15
15
8
8
7
7
7
7
15
15
8
8
7
7
7
7
Concentration
Minimum
6.0
37.5
0.7
0.7
0.4
12.6
38.1
0.4
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.4
11.2
37.3
O.I
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.3
0.1
O.I
17.5
112
0.7
0.7
0.6
41.7
134
0.5
Maximum
45.9
47.2
2.0
2.3
1.4
42.0
43.6
1.4
7.2
4.1
0.1
1.6
2.0
1.8
41.2
42.9
0.3
131
51.9
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
1.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.2
0.7
0.2
157
168
1.5
10.8
3.2
154
161
3.8
Average
27.4
41.9
(a)
.(a)
.(a)
23.7
40.7
.(a)
2.2
2.0
.(a)
0.9
1.1
(a)
22.8
39.6
(a)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
0.6
0.3
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.6
0.3
O.I
86.7
144
_(b)
_(b)
1.7
82.5
150
_(b)
Standard
Deviation
13.5
3.4
.(a)
.(a)
(a)
12.7
2.1
.(a)
2.5
1.6
.(a)
0.4
0.5
.(a)
12.8
2.0
.(a)
31.8
12.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
43.0
14.0
_(b)
_(b)
1.1
45.5
10.9
_(b)
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
(a) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-10 for arsenic breakthrough curves.
(b) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-11 for vanadium breakthrough curves.
28
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameters
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
pH
Temperature
DO
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
IN
AC
TA
TB
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
ฐC
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
15
15
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
15
15
8
8
7
15
15
8
8
7
15
15
8
8
7
6
6
6
7
7
1
1
6
7
7
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
4
C
Minimum
232
239
254
246
248
0.4
3.6
4.6
70.0
218
249
3.5
3.5
3.9
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
42.1
42.6
41.3
42.8
24.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.5
8.1
9.8
21.3
21.0
10.1
4.7
5.0
4.6
5.0
5.2
oncentration
Maximum
301
272
270
276
265
7.6
6.8
7.0
318
470
380
5.6
6.1
6.1
25.4
<10
<10
<10
<10
57.6
47.5
47.2
48.5
47.6
1.1
2.4
1.2
3.4
0.6
1.3
1.5
1.4
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
22.3
23.8
21.3
21.0
23.8
6.5
6.0
4.6
5.0
6.3
Average
264
251
259
262
258
4.9
4.9
5.7
240
352
303
4.6
4.9
4.7
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
45.6
44.5
45.0
46.0
41.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.2
1.4
1.3
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
15.7
15.8
21.3
21.0
15.2
5.7
5.6
4.6
5.0
5.7
Standard
Deviation
14.7
9.9
5.3
8.7
6.1
2.2
1.1
0.8
82.7
92.5
54.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
5.3
-
-
-
-
3.8
1.7
1.9
2.0
7.9
0.3
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
-
0.1
5.0
4.9
-
-
5.0
0.6
0.3
-
-
0.5
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
29
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameters
ORP
Free C12
Total C12
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sample
Location
IN
AC
TA
TB
TT
TT
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
IN
AC
TT
Unit
mV
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
6
6
1
1
5
2
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
C
Minimum
477
481
475
524
492
0.2
1.0
1.4
350
418
371
113
118
114
195
281
236
oncentration
Maximum
535
574
475
524
659
0.4
1.0
1.4
604
668
557
155
161
164
474
507
401
Average
500
529
475
524
574
0.3
1.0
1.4
434
533
442
135
139
142
299
394
300
Standard
Deviation
25.6
35.8
-
-
65.2
0.1
-
-
87.3
95.0
71.5
13.5
13.4
18.1
90.0
85.6
60.4
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
The total arsenic breakthrough curves indicate that AD-33 removed arsenic to levels well below the MCL
(see Figure 4-10). Through the first six months of operation (August 10, 2006 through February 9, 2007),
the system treated 7,420 BV (4,218,200 gal) of water with treated water containing <2.3 |o,g/L of arsenic.
This represents approximately 43% of the media capacity, estimated at 17,240 BV (9,800,000 gal) by the
vendor.
Iron, Manganese, and Vanadium. Total iron levels in raw water averaged below the detection limit of
25 (ig/L (Table 4-8). However, iron was detected in the first three sampling events at 131, 51.8, and 39.1
Hg/L, respectively. Total iron concentrations after chlorination were below the detection limit, except on
October 19, 2006, when duplicate results revealed 51.9 and 46.4 |o,g/L. Iron levels consistently remained
below the detection limit in the effluent from the system.
Total manganese levels in raw water ranged from 0.2 to 1.8 (ig/L and averaged 0.6 (ig/L (Table 4-8).
Manganese in system effluent decreased to levels below the detection limit of <0.1 (ig/L. Soluble
manganese concentrations were similar to total concentrations, averaging 0.6, 0.3, and <0.1 (ig/L for IN,
AC, and TT locations, respectively.
Total vanadium levels in the IN samples varied significantly ranging from 17.5 to 157 |o,g/L with 95%
existing in the soluble form (Table 4-8). The vanadium concentrations in these samples were almost one-
half of those measured from Well No. 1 on November 18, 2004 (see Table 4-1). Figure 4-11 illustrates
the vanadium breakthrough curves at sampling locations across the treatment train. Total vanadium
concentrations were reduced to <3.2 |o,g/L.
On eight occasions, total vanadium concentrations (along with various other analytical parameters)
seemingly increased from the wellhead to the after chlorination sampling location. The average total
vanadium concentrations at the IN and AC samples were 86.7 and 144 |o,g/L, respectively. The average
30
-------
50 -|
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Arsenic Speciation at the Wellhead (IN)
=
=
=
DAs (particulate
As(lll)
DAs(V)
08/10/06 09/06/06 10/02/06
11/02/06
Date
12/14/06 01/18/07
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)
08/10/06 09/06/06 10/02/06
11/02/06
Date
OAs (particulate)
As(lll)
DAs(V)
11/28/06 12/14/06 01/18/07
Arsenic Speciation after Total Combined Effluent (TT)
DAs (particulate)
As(lll)
DAs(V)
1
08/10/06 09/06/06
10/02/06 11/02/06
Date
11/28/06 12/14/06 01/18/07
Figure 4-9. Concentrations of Arsenic Species at IN, AC, and TT Sampling Location
-------
-At Wellhead (IN) -- After Chlorination (AC) After Vessel A (TA) After Vessel B (TB) -X-After Combined Effluent (TT)
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves
-At Wellhead (IN) -"-After Chlorination (AC) -A-After Vessel A (TA) After Vessel B (TB) -*-After Combined Effluent (TT)
4 5
Bed Volumes (103|
Figure 4-11. Total Vanadium Breakthrough Curves
32
-------
concentration for soluble vanadium increased proportionally after chlorination. As with the other
parameters, repeat analysis and discussion with the operator have not revealed a good explanation.
Investigations to determine the cause of this inconsistency are actively being conducted. One possible
contributor, as discussed above for arsenic, is inconsistent operations of pressure switches and well
pumps that are used to supply water to the APU.
Competing Anions. Phosphate and silica, which can adversely affect arsenic adsorption onto the AD-33
media, were measured at sampling locations across the treatment train. Total phosphorous concentrations
remained low throughout the treatment train, averaging <10 ng/L (as P); therefore, it is not expected to
affect system performance. Silica concentrations remained relatively constant across the treatment train,
ranging from 41.8 to 46.0 mg/L (Table 4-9). Figure 4-12 illustrates the silica breakthrough curves at
sampling locations across the treatment train. Some silica was removed during the first 2,000 BV; similar
removal by AD-33 media was observed elsewhere during the arsenic demonstration studies (McCall et
al., 2007; Williams et al., 2007).
-At Wellhead (IN)
-After Chlorination (AC)
After Vessel A (TA)
After Vessel B (TB)
-After Combined Effluent (TT)
Bed Volumes (103)
Figure 4-12. Silica (as SiO2) Breakthrough Curves
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-9, pH values of raw water ranged from 7.7 to
8.0. After chlorination, pH values ranged from 7.6 to 7.8 and averaged 7.7. This pH range of 7.6 to 7.8
after chlorination, but prior to the adsorption vessels, is lower than that for which pH adjustment should
be implemented. As discussed previously, pH adjustment was recommended by TCEQ, but it has not
been implemented because of safety concerns.
Alkalinity averaged 264 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water and 260 mg/L (as CaCO3) in system effluent.
Total hardness ranged from 350 to 604 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water and remained stable throughout the
treatment train. Fluoride results remained consistent, ranging from 4.9 to 5.7 mg/L, at all sampling
33
-------
locations. DO levels averaged 5.7 mg/L in raw water and remained relatively consistent throughout the
treatment train. The results indicated that the AD-33 media did not affect the amount of alkalinity, total
hardness, fluoride, and DO in the treated water. ORP readings averaged 500 mV in raw water, but
increased to an average of 529 mV after chlorination and 574 mV in the total combined effluent (Table 4-
9).
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash was not performed during the first six-months of
operation; however, a backwash is anticipated to occur during the second six-month operation period.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation and operation of the arsenic
treatment system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected at 405 7th St., 106 8th St., and
705 Lynn St. on June 22, July 14, August 18, and September 14, 2005. Following installation of the
treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations,
with samples collected on September 6, October 10, November 15, December 14, 2006, and January 18,
2007. The results of the distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-10.
The most significant change in the distribution system water since the system began operation was a
decrease in arsenic concentration. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 33.2 to 44.7 (ig/L and
averaged 38.9 (ig/L for all three locations. After treatment began, arsenic concentrations decreased at all
three locations (averaging 3.3 (ig/L). The first distribution system samples collected on September 6,
2006 contained relatively high arsenic concentrations ranging from 7.0 to 11.4 |o,g/L. The remaining
samples contained lower arsenic concentrations ranging from 1.1 to 2.5 |o,g/L and averaging 1.6 |o,g/L,
which is similiar to the arsenic conentrations in the system effluent.
After treatment began, lead concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 0.5 (ig/L, with no samples exceeding the
action level of 15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 3.0 to 190 (ig/L, with no samples exceeding
the 1,300 (ig/L action level. Overall, operation of the arsenic treatment system did not adversely affect
the lead or copper concentrations in the distribution system. Measured pH values averaged 7.6, which is
consistent with the average pH values immediately after the adsorption vessels. The average pH values
were consistent before and after the treatment system became operational.
Alkalinity levels ranged from 254 to 367 mg/L as CaCO3, iron was not detected in any of the samples,
and manganese concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 0.3 (ig/L. The arsenic treatment system did not
appear to affect these water quality parameters in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The system cost is evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity and the
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. The capital cost includes the cost for equipment, site
engineering, and installation and the O&M cost includes media replacement and disposal, chemical usage,
electrical power use, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
arsenic treatment system was $149,221 (see Table 4-11). The equipment cost was $103,897 (or 70% of
the total capital investment), which included $76,254 for the skid-mounted APU-100CS-S-2-AVHunit,
$21,280 for the AD-33 media (76 ft3 to fill two vessels), $2,851 forthe pH adjustment system, and $3,512
for shipping.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparing one submittal package for the exception request and
permit application and obtaining the required permit in addition to labor and travel (see Section 4.3.1).
The engineering cost was $25,310, or 17% of the total capital investment.
34
-------
Table 4-10. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Type
Sampling
Date
Date
06/22/05
07/14/05
08/18/05
09/14/05
09/06/06
10/10/06
11/15/06
12/14/06
01/18/07
DS1
LCR
Stagnation Time
hr
11.3
10.5
6.5
8.5
6.5
9.3
6.5
6.5
6.5
DS2
LCR
X
s.u.
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.8
DS3
Residence
Alkalinity
mg/L
242
246
242
264
263
258
254
268
265
1/3
<
Hg/L
40.6
39.4
38.3
33.2
7.0
1.4
1.1
1.1
2.1
QJ
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
1
Hg/L
0.3
0.9
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
j=
Hg/L
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.4
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
O
Hg/L
62.3
67.0
51.1
67.5
3.0
10.1
7.8
5.2
134
Stagnation Time
hr
8.8
6.4
8.4
7.8
7.5
6.5
8.5
11.0
7.8
S3
S.U.
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
Alkalinity
Mg/L
242
251
246
264
367
260
258
262
212
1/3
<
Hg/L
42.3
39.7
37.9
36.2
11.4
2.4
2.1
2.5
1.4
QJ
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Hg/L
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
j=
Hg/L
<0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
O
Hg/L
73.0
65.8
97.2
126
74.4
78.0
129
141
139
Stagnation Time
hr
6.5
7.1
8.3
7.4
7.9
7.5
7.3
8.1
8.2
S3
S.U.
8.2
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.7
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
242
251
NA(a)
264
272
271
258
266
272
1/3
<
Hg/L
40.5
38.5
44.7
35.1
11.4
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.1
QJ
Hg/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Hg/L
0.5
0.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
j=
Hg/L
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
O
Hg/L
275
139
197
153
72.9
190
182
94.8
13.4
(a) Insufficient sample for analysis due to loss during shipment.
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = Not Analyzed
Lead action level =15 |ig/L; copper action level =1.3 mg/L
|ig/L as unit for all analytical parameters except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
-------
Table 4-11. Capital Investment Cost for APU System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
Equipment Cost
APU Skid-Mounted System (Unit)
AD-33Media(ft3)
pH Adjustment System
Shipping
Equipment Total
1
76
$76,254
$21,280
$2,851
$3,512
$103,897
70%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Material/ Labor/ Travel
Subcontractor Labor/ Travel
Engineering Total
$11,660
$13,650
$25,310
17%
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor/ Travel
Subcontractor Labor/ Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
$6,374
$13,640
$20,014
$149,221
13%
100%
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, load and backwash the media, perform system shakedown and
startup, and conduct operator training. The installation cost was $20,014, or 13% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $149,221 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 100 gpm (144,000
gpd), which resulted in $l,492/gpm ($1.04/gpd) of design capacity. The capital cost also was converted
to an annualized cost of $14,085/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7%
interest rate and a 20-year return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week at the system design flowrate of 100 gpm to produce 52,560,000 gal of water per year, the unit
capital cost would be $0.27/1,000 gal. Because the system only operated an average of 4.5 hr/day during
the first six months of operation, the estimated production for a one year period is approximately
8,436,400 gal of water and the unit capital cost is $1.67/1,000 gal of water.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost includes the cost for such items as
media replacement and disposal, chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-12).
Although media replacement did not occur during the first six months of system operation, the media
replacement cost would represent the majority of the O&M cost and is estimated to be $30,010 to change
out both vessels. This media change-out cost would include the cost for media, freight, labor, travel,
spent media analysis, and media disposal fee. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost
per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the projected media run length in bed volumes to 10 |o,g/L
arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-13).
The chemical cost associated with the operation of the treatment system included the use of hydrochloric
acid for pH adjustment and sodium hypochlorite for chlorination. The pH adjustment system was not
operated; therefore, no cost has accrued due to acid consumption. Sodium hypochlorite was already
being used at the site prior to installation of the APU system for disinfection purposes. The operation of
the APU system did not affect the usage of sodium hypochlorite; therefore, the incremental chemical cost
for chlorine was negligible and not included in O&M costs.
36
-------
Electrical bills prior to and after installation showed no indication of an increase in power consumption.
Therefore, electrical cost associated with operation of the system was assumed to be negligible.
Under normal operating conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed
7 min/day, 5 days per week, as noted in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was
$0.14/1,000 gal of water treated.
Table 4-12. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU-100CS-S-2-AVH System
Cost Category
Volume processed (gal)
Value
4,218,200
Assumptions
Through February 9, 2007
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
Media and Underbedding
replacement
Shipping
Vendor Labor/ Travel
Subcontractor labor
Media disposal
[including spent media analysis]
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal
($/l,000 gal)
$22,420
$983
$3,717
$1,890
$1,000
$30,010
See Figure 4-13
Vendor quote; $295/ft3 for 76 ft3 (two
media vessel)
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote plus spent media analysis
Based upon both vessels media run length
at 10-|ag/L arsenic breakthrough
Electricity Cost
Electricity ($/l,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor Cost
Average weekly labor (min)
Labor ($/l, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
35
$0.14
See Figure 4-13
7 min/day, 5 day /week
Labor rate = $6.00/hr
Based upon both vessels media run length
at 10-|ag/L arsenic breakthrough
37
-------
$10.00
$9.00
ซ Media Replacement Cost
O&M Cost
$0.00
0 10 20
Note: One bed volume equals 568 gallons
30 40 50
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (*10
Figure 4-13. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
38
-------
Section 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.
Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at the Webb Consolidated Independent School District in Bruni, Texas.
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(^:103-113.
EPA. 2001. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring." Fed. Register, 66:14:6975, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and
142.
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, DC.
EPA. 2003. "Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic."
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
McCall, S.E., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH. Six-Month Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/125. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
Williams. S., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2007. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media. U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Webb Consolidated Independent School District in
Bruni, TX. Six-Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-07/049. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
39
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Day of
Week
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Date
08/10/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
08/1 3/06
08/1 4/06
08/1 5/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
08/18/06
08/19/06
08/20/06
08/21/06
08/22/06
08/23/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
08/26/06
08/27/06
08/28/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
08/31/06
09/01/06
09/02/06
09/03/06
09/04/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
09/07/06
09/08/06
09/09/06
09/10/06
09/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
09/14/06
09/15/06
09/16/06
09/17/06
09/18/06
09/19/06
09/20/06
09/21/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
09/24/06
09/25/06
09/26/06
09/27/06
09/28/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/01/06
Operational
Hours
nr
0.0
14.9
3.3
4.6
5.6
8.7
4.6
3.3
2.4
6.3
3.0
3.4
6.9
7.7
9.4
9.7
7.9
1.5
12.3
5.0
5.9
6.3
3.3
5.5
4.6
3.8
3.6
4.8
4.6
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.9
5.0
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.7
3.8
4.4
3.6
4.8
4.9
13.5
5.3
4.2
2.3
4.9
4.7
5.6
5.6
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Meter
gal
33,039,400
33,115,400
33,136,000
33,160,600
33,187,200
33,214,400
33,233,700
33,256,600
33,270,000
33,301,000
33,325,900
33,347,400
33,368,900
33,392,500
33,417,900
33,441,400
33,462,000
33,466,100
33,501,300
33,522,200
33,551,100
33,578,700
33,595,600
33,622,000
33,643,400
33,664,800
33,686,200
33,711,400
33,735,500
33,756,000
33,777,400
33,797,000
33,823,700
33,850,300
33,873,800
33,896,100
33,917,900
33,942,300
33,964,700
33,991,600
34,011,900
34,035,700
34,054,400
34,080,700
34,107,400
34,146,300
34,174,900
34,197,400
34,209,700
34,236,200
34,264,500
34,294,000
34,325,300
Daily Treated
Volume
gal
0
76,000
20,600
24,600
26,600
27,200
19,300
22,900
13,400
31,000
24,900
21,500
21,500
23,600
25,400
23,500
20,600
4,100
35,200
20,900
28,900
27,600
16,900
26,400
21,400
21,400
21,400
25,200
24,100
20,500
21,400
19,600
26,700
26,600
23,500
22,300
21,800
24,400
22,400
26,900
20,300
23,800
18,700
26,300
26,700
38,900
28,600
22,500
12,300
26,500
28,300
29,500
31,300
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
0
76,000
96,600
121,200
147,800
175,000
194,300
217,200
230,600
261,600
286,500
308,000
329,500
353,100
378,500
402,000
422,600
426,700
461,900
482,800
511,700
539,300
556,200
582,600
604,000
625,400
646,800
672,000
696,100
716,600
738,000
757,600
784,300
810,900
834,400
856,700
878,500
902,900
925,300
952,200
972,500
996,300
1,015,000
1,041,300
1,068,000
1,106,900
1,135,500
1,158,000
1,170,300
1,196,800
1,225,100
1,254,600
1,285,900
Total Bed
Volumes
bv
0
134
170
213
260
308
342
382
406
460
504
542
580
621
666
707
743
751
813
849
900
949
978
1,025
1,062
1,100
1,138
1,182
1,224
1,261
1,298
1,333
1,380
1,426
1,468
1,507
1,545
1,588
1,628
1,675
1,711
1,753
1,785
1,832
1,879
1,947
1,997
2,037
2,059
2,105
2,155
2,207
2,262
Average
Flow/rate
gpm
NA
85
104
89
79
52
70
116
93
82
138
105
52
51
45
40
43
46
48
70
82
73
85
80
78
94
99
87
87
90
91
86
91
89
89
88
89
90
89
95
89
90
87
91
91
48
90
89
89
90
100
88
93
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU Totalizer
Meter
gal
23,951
133,239
157,120
191,863
229,992
264,499
293,575
327,434
344,691
392,696
431,068
466,586
502,488
539,511
577,067
611,907
641,610
647,446
689,782
719,819
760,881
801,170
825,870
863,921
898,784
927,588
955,246
991,279
1,025,595
1,054,775
1,085,135
1,113,081
1,150,871
1,190,365
1,223,797
1,255,406
1,286,453
1,321,101
1,352,826
1,390,716
1,419,142
1,452,145
1,478,474
1,515,255
1,552,716
1,612,618
1,653,161
1,684,529
1,701,942
1,738,868
1,777,720
1,819,883
1,863,726
Daily Treated
Volume
gal
0
109,288
23,881
34,743
38,129
34,507
29,076
33,859
17,257
48,005
38,372
35,518
35,902
37,023
37,556
34,840
29,703
5,836
42,336
30,037
41,062
40,289
24,700
38,051
34,863
28,804
27,658
36,033
34,316
29,180
30,360
27,946
37,790
39,494
33,432
31,609
31,047
34,648
31,725
37,890
28,426
33,003
26,329
36,781
37,461
59,902
40,543
31,368
17,413
36,926
38,852
42,163
43,843
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gal
0
109,288
133,169
167,912
206,041
240,548
269,624
303,483
320,740
368,745
407,117
442,635
478,537
515,560
553,116
587,956
617,659
623,495
665,831
695,868
736,930
777,219
801,919
839,970
874,833
903,637
931,295
967,328
1,001,644
1,030,824
1,061,184
1,089,130
1,126,920
1,166,414
1,199,846
1,231,455
1,262,502
1,297,150
1,328,875
1,366,765
1,395,191
1,428,194
1,454,523
1,491,304
1,528,765
1,588,667
1,629,210
1,660,578
1,677,991
1,714,917
1,753,769
1,795,932
1,839,775
Total Bed
Volumes
bv
0
192
234
295
362
423
474
534
564
649
716
779
842
907
973
1,034
1,087
1,097
1,171
1,224
1,296
1,367
1,411
1,478
1,539
1,590
1,638
1,702
1,762
1,813
1,867
1,916
1,982
2,052
2,111
2,166
2,221
2,282
2,338
2,404
2,454
2,512
2,559
2,623
2,689
2,795
2,866
2,921
2,952
3,017
3,085
3,159
3,236
Average
Flow/rate
gpm
NA
122
121
126
113
66
105
171
120
127
213
174
87
80
67
60
63
65
57
100
116
107
125
115
126
126
128
125
124
128
130
123
129
132
127
125
126
128
126
134
125
125
122
128
127
74
127
124
126
126
138
125
130
Average
Flow/rate A
gpm
NA
65.4
60.5
67.6
48.2
25.0
53.4
90.5
59.1
67.6
119.9
105.0
51.8
47.3
33.4
30.2
31.6
32.3
29.3
49.8
59.7
55.7
61.7
59.7
64.0
64.1
65.4
64.0
63.4
65.4
65.9
62.3
65.1
70.1
64.7
63.9
64.6
65.5
64.5
69.1
64.0
63.3
62.4
65.2
65.4
42.7
65.4
63.1
64.9
63.3
69.5
63.5
66.2
Average
Flow/rate B
gpm
NA
59.0
60.1
59.4
64.4
41.1
51.9
80.5
59.1
60.8
90.7
70.4
34.7
33.0
33.1
29.7
31.1
32.5
28.0
33.6
69.8
78.2
10.7
56.4
62.3
62.2
62.6
61.1
61.0
62.6
63.8
60.3
63.4
61.5
62.0
61.5
61.6
62.8
61.4
65.3
60.7
61.7
59.4
62.5
62.0
31.2
62.1
61.3
61.3
62.3
67.5
62.6
64.3
Inlet Pressure
PSI
36
8
0
46
44
47
0
0
44
43
49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
40
44
43
46
48
45
42
44
48
44
48
47
46
48
48
46
44
42
44
42
44
44
46
46
44
40
40
40
48
46
46
40
40
44
43
44
Outlet
Pressure
PSI
33
10
1
45
44
48
0
0
44
44
51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41
44
44
46
47
44
44
46
48
45
48
49
48
49
49
47
46
44
44
44
46
45
48
48
45
42
42
42
49
48
48
42
42
43
44
46
Pressure
Differential
PSI
3
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Thu
Fri
Date
10/02/06
1 0/03/06
1 0/04/06
1 0/05/06
1 0/06/06
1 0/07/06
10/08/06
10/09/06
10/10/06
10/11/06
1 0/1 2/06
1 0/1 3/06
1 0/1 4/06
10/15/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
1 0/20/06
10/21/06
1 0/23/06
10/24/06
10/25/06
10/26/06
10/27/06
10/28/06
10/29/06
1 0/30/06
10/31/06
11/01/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
11/04/06
11/06/06
11/07/06
11/08/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
11/11/06
11/12/06
11/13/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
11/16/06
11/18/06
11/20/06
11/21/06
11/22/06
11/24/06
11/27/06
11/28/06
11/30/06
12/01/06
Operational
Hours
nr
2.4
5.3
10.9
8.2
3.8
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.1
2.1
4.4
5.3
4.8
4.4
4.2
7.1
3.9
3.2
11.5
1.6
5.8
6.3
8.0
1.4
3.9
5.1
5.7
1.9
5.0
3.1
6.0
4.7
5.2
5.2
3.0
4.4
5.5
4.8
4.6
4.4
8.5
7.1
1.4
9.5
7.2
4.2
7.7
13.3
3.6
3.5
7.4
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Meter
gai
34,348,500
34,376,500
34,422,000
34,467,200
34,487,500
34,514,200
34,539,200
34,565,800
34,591,700
34,617,000
34,639,800
34,647,300
34,670,600
34,708,800
34,726,400
34,751,600
34,776,400
34,799,500
34,808,400
34,831,700
34,888,800
34,890,800
34,920,800
34,956,200
34,987,600
35,012,800
35,038,800
35,063,100
35,088,400
35,098,700
35,125,800
35,144,600
35,175,900
35,205,600
35,235,300
35,266,100
35,284,400
35,311,900
35,339,800
35,368,600
35,396,400
35,421,200
35,452,800
35,483,300
35,511,900
35,573,000
35,603,200
35,634,600
35,671,800
35,750,600
35,770,800
35,804,200
35,818,900
Daily Treated
Volume
gai
23,200
28,000
45,500
45,200
20,300
26,700
25,000
26,600
25,900
25,300
22,800
7,500
23,300
38,200
17,600
25,200
24,800
23,100
8,900
23,300
57,100
2,000
30,000
35,400
31,400
25,200
26,000
24,300
25,300
10,300
27,100
18,800
31,300
29,700
29,700
30,800
18,300
27,500
27,900
28,800
27,800
24,800
31,600
30,500
28,600
61,100
30,200
31,400
37,200
78,800
20,200
33,400
14,700
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gai
1,309,100
1,337,100
1,382,600
1,427,800
1,448,100
1,474,800
1,499,800
1,526,400
1,552,300
1,577,600
1,600,400
1,607,900
1,631,200
1,669,400
1,687,000
1,712,200
1,737,000
1,760,100
1,769,000
1,792,300
1,849,400
1,851,400
1,881,400
1,916,800
1,948,200
1,973,400
1,999,400
2,023,700
2,049,000
2,059,300
2,086,400
2,105,200
2,136,500
2,166,200
2,195,900
2,226,700
2,245,000
2,272,500
2,300,400
2,329,200
2,357,000
2,381,800
2,413,400
2,443,900
2,472,500
2,533,600
2,563,800
2,595,200
2,632,400
2,711,200
2,731,400
2,764,800
2,779,500
Total Bed
Volumes
By1
2,303
2,352
2,432
2,512
2,547
2,594
2,638
2,685
2,731
2,775
2,815
2,828
2,869
2,937
2,968
3,012
3,056
3,096
3,112
3,153
3,253
3,257
3,310
3,372
3,427
3,471
3,517
3,560
3,604
3,622
3,670
3,703
3,758
3,811
3,863
3,917
3,949
3,998
4,047
4,097
4,146
4,190
4,245
4,299
4,349
4,457
4,510
4,565
4,631
4,769
4,805
4,863
4,889
Average
Flow/rate
gpm
161
88
70
92
89
99
91
92
92
92
93
60
88
120
61
95
98
54
38
121
83
21
86
94
65
300
111
79
74
90
90
101
87
105
95
99
102
104
85
100
101
94
62
72
340
107
70
125
81
99
94
159
33
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU Totalizer
Meter
gai
1,892,368
1,937,203
2,002,215
2,065,789
2,094,019
2,131,415
2,165,969
2,202,812
2,238,965
2,274,199
2,305,780
2,315,671
2,349,386
2,391,138
2,427,468
2,462,190
2,497,148
2,542,188
2,571,835
2,575,347
2,656,647
2,664,075
2,712,601
2,757,824
2,818,802
2,829,299
2,864,949
2,899,391
2,941,041
2,948,962
2,987,116
3,012,449
3,056,088
3,095,999
3,142,454
3,181,806
3,210,514
3,246,301
3,287,855
3,326,104
3,363,546
3,399,411
3,456,845
3,511,902
3,522,844
3,614,399
3,664,271
3,697,728
3,748,951
3,859,197
3,887,493
3,915,038
3,976,151
Daily Treated
Volume
gai
28,642
44,835
65,012
63,574
28,230
37,396
34,554
36,843
36,153
35,234
31,581
9,891
33,715
41,752
36,330
34,722
34,958
45,040
29,647
3,512
81,300
7,428
48,526
45,223
60,978
10,497
35,650
34,442
41,650
7,921
38,154
25,333
43,639
39,911
46,455
39,352
28,708
35,787
41,554
38,249
37,442
35,865
57,434
55,057
10,942
91,555
49,872
33,457
51,223
110,246
28,296
27,545
61,113
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gai
1,868,417
1,913,252
1,978,264
2,041,838
2,070,068
2,107,464
2,142,018
2,178,861
2,215,014
2,250,248
2,281,829
2,291,720
2,325,435
2,367,187
2,403,517
2,438,239
2,473,197
2,518,237
2,547,884
2,551,396
2,632,696
2,640,124
2,688,650
2,733,873
2,794,851
2,805,348
2,840,998
2,875,440
2,917,090
2,925,011
2,963,165
2,988,498
3,032,137
3,072,048
3,118,503
3,157,855
3,186,563
3,222,350
3,263,904
3,302,153
3,339,595
3,375,460
3,432,894
3,487,951
3,498,893
3,590,448
3,640,320
3,673,777
3,725,000
3,835,246
3,863,542
3,891,087
3,952,200
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
3,287
3,366
3,480
3,592
3,641
3,707
3,768
3,833
3,896
3,958
4,014
4,031
4,091
4,164
4,228
4,289
4,351
4,430
4,482
4,488
4,631
4,644
4,730
4,809
4,916
4,935
4,998
5,058
5,131
5,145
5,212
5,257
5,334
5,404
5,486
5,555
5,605
5,668
5,741
5,809
5,875
5,938
6,039
6,136
6,155
6,316
6,404
6,462
6,553
6,746
6,796
6,845
6,952
Average
Flow/rate
gpm
199
141
99
129
124
139
125
128
128
128
128
79
128
131
126
132
139
106
127
18
118
77
139
120
127
125
152
113
122
69
127
136
121
142
149
126
159
136
126
133
136
136
113
129
130
161
115
133
111
138
131
131
138
Average
Flow/rate A
gpm
111.2
72.5
52.7
66.0
63.0
71.1
63.6
65.0
64.9
64.7
65.1
44.2
64.9
67.0
63.8
67.7
72.2
54.9
65.1
10.1
64.8
44.7
72.9
61.2
63.9
64.2
77.6
58.6
61.6
41.3
65.4
69.6
62.0
73.0
78.7
65.4
86.7
70.8
66.1
68.9
70.6
70.9
59.9
65.4
69.5
86.8
60.4
68.8
59.0
72.2
68.6
69.9
44.4
Average
Flow/rate B
gpm
87.7
68.5
46.4
63.6
60.8
67.4
61.6
62.9
63.3
62.9
63.2
35.3
62.4
64.3
61.4
64.6
67.6
33.3
92.1
8.0
53.0
32.3
66.5
58.5
63.1
60.6
76.3
54.8
58.8
28.2
63.2
64.4
59.0
68.2
70.3
61.1
72.6
64.1
60.3
63.6
64.9
64.6
53.2
62.9
64.0
73.9
54.6
64.7
51.7
66.0
62.8
63.6
40.2
Inlet Pressure
psi
40
40
48
48
42
44
46
46
48
48
48
48
42
46
44
44
44
46
53
42
52
44
44
44
51
44
44
44
51
44
48
44
44
44
44
47
44
45
44
44
44
45
46
51
44
44
44
44
47
46
46
46
40
Outlet
Pressure
PSI
42
42
47
50
44
46
48
48
50
50
50
44
44
48
44
43
43
45
52
42
52
43
43
43
50
42
43
44
52
43
47
42
42
42
42
46
43
44
43
42
44
42
45
50
43
43
44
42
46
44
45
44
42
Pressure
Differential
PSI
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
2
1
2
2
>
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Wellman, TX - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Continued)
Week
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Day of
Week
Mon
Tue
Wed
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Wed
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Thu
Fri
Mon
Wed
Thu
Sat
Tue
Wed
Fri
Sat
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Date
12/04/06
1 2/05/06
12/06/06
12/08/06
12/11/06
12/12/06
12/13/06
1 2/1 4/06
1 2/1 6/06
1 2/1 9/06
12/21/06
1 2/23/06
12/26/06
12/27/06
1 2/29/06
12/30/06
01/01/07
01/02/07
01/04/07
01/05/07
01/08/07
01/10/07
01/11/07
01/13/07
01/16/07
01/17/07
01/19/07
01/20/07
01/22/07
01/23/07
01/24/07
01/25/07
01/26/07
01/29/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/01/07
02/02/07
02/05/07
02/06/07
02/07/07
02/08/07
02/09/07
Operational
Hours
nr
5.4
4.9
4.5
6.7
13.5
3.3
4.8
3.8
3.9
10.0
5.4
5.1
11.0
5.3
8.4
9.8
3.7
7.3
3.8
5.1
8.7
4.9
5.3
6.3
15.2
8.6
6.2
5.0
11.4
6.3
4.5
3.7
3.9
6.3
2.0
1.6
3.4
5.2
16.7
3.0
2.5
3.4
3.6
Master Totalizer Measurements
Master
Totalizer
Meter
gai
35,870,800
35,900,400
35,925,900
35,963,100
36,025,800
36,045,800
36,074,600
36,098,000
36,123,100
36,187,400
36,213,600
36,244,800
36,323,700
36,331,500
36,374,000
36,389,100
36,423,700
36,447,800
36,482,100
36,504,100
36,564,300
36,591,900
36,620,200
36,655,000
36,727,700
36,738,400
36,772,800
36,803,000
36,873,400
36,907,300
36,937,200
36,953,900
36,978,500
37,049,000
37,071,500
37,077,100
37,096,800
37,117,900
37,182,300
37,200,500
37,220,400
37,237,300
37,257,600
Daily Treated
Volume
gai
51,900
29,600
25,500
37,200
62,700
20,000
28,800
23,400
25,100
64,300
26,200
31,200
78,900
7,800
42,500
15,100
34,600
24,100
34,300
22,000
60,200
27,600
28,300
34,800
72,700
10,700
34,400
30,200
70,400
33,900
29,900
16,700
24,600
70,500
22,500
5,600
19,700
21,100
64,400
18,200
19,900
16,900
20,300
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gai
2,831,400
2,861,000
2,886,500
2,923,700
2,986,400
3,006,400
3,035,200
3,058,600
3,083,700
3,148,000
3,174,200
3,205,400
3,284,300
3,292,100
3,334,600
3,349,700
3,384,300
3,408,400
3,442,700
3,464,700
3,524,900
3,552,500
3,580,800
3,615,600
3,688,300
3,699,000
3,733,400
3,763,600
3,834,000
3,867,900
3,897,800
3,914,500
3,939,100
4,009,600
4,032,100
4,037,700
4,057,400
4,078,500
4,142,900
4,161,100
4,181,000
4,197,900
4,218,200
Total Bed
Volumes
BV
4,981
5,033
5,078
5,143
5,253
5,288
5,339
5,380
5,424
5,538
5,584
5,639
5,777
5,791
5,866
5,892
5,953
5,996
6,056
6,095
6,201
6,249
6,299
6,360
6,488
6,507
6,567
6,620
6,744
6,804
6,857
6,886
6,929
7,053
7,093
7,103
7,137
7,174
7,288
7,320
7,355
7,384
7,420
Average
Flow/rate
gpm
160
101
94
93
77
101
100
103
107
107
81
102
120
25
84
26
156
55
150
72
115
94
89
92
80
21
92
101
103
90
111
75
105
187
188
58
97
68
64
101
133
83
94
APU Instrument Panel Measurements
APU Totalizer
Meter
gai
4,025,129
4,066,994
4,105,140
4,154,331
4,244,457
4,274,353
4,314,337
4,346,846
4,379,073
4,470,042
4,507,251
4,547,606
4,631,629
4,671,645
4,730,331
4,778,028
4,800,221
4,846,560
4,873,274
4,913,339
4,993,595
5,030,477
5,071,184
5,116,058
5,197,238
5,242,721
5,286,751
5,328,881
5,425,537
5,481,966
5,515,194
5,543,756
5,577,869
5,670,301
5,703,399
5,712,463
5,738,921
5,779,209
5,862,438
5,890,537
5,908,806
5,933,510
5,960,370
Daily Treated
Volume
gai
48,978
41,865
38,146
49,191
90,126
29,896
39,984
32,509
32,227
90,969
37,209
40,355
84,023
40,016
58,686
47,697
22,193
46,339
26,714
40,065
80,256
36,882
40,707
44,874
81,180
45,483
44,030
42,130
96,656
56,429
33,228
28,562
34,113
92,432
33,098
9,064
26,458
40,288
83,229
28,099
18,269
24,704
26,860
Cumulative
Treated
Volume
gai
4,001,178
4,043,043
4,081,189
4,130,380
4,220,506
4,250,402
4,290,386
4,322,895
4,355,122
4,446,091
4,483,300
4,523,655
4,607,678
4,647,694
4,706,380
4,754,077
4,776,270
4,822,609
4,849,323
4,889,388
4,969,644
5,006,526
5,047,233
5,092,107
5,173,287
5,218,770
5,262,800
5,304,930
5,401,586
5,458,015
5,491,243
5,519,805
5,553,918
5,646,350
5,679,448
5,688,512
5,714,970
5,755,258
5,838,487
5,866,586
5,884,855
5,909,559
5,936,419
Total Bed
Volumes
av
7,038
7,112
7,179
7,266
7,424
7,477
7,547
7,604
7,661
7,821
7,886
7,957
8,105
8,176
8,279
8,363
8,402
8,483
8,530
8,601
8,742
8,807
8,878
8,957
9,100
9,180
9,258
9,332
9,502
9,601
9,660
9,710
9,770
9,932
9,991
10,007
10,053
10,124
10,270
10,320
10,352
10,395
10,443
Average
Flow/rate
gpm
151
142
141
122
111
151
139
143
138
152
115
132
127
126
116
81
100
106
117
131
154
125
128
119
89
88
118
140
141
149
123
129
146
245
276
94
130
129
83
156
122
121
124
Average
Flow/rate A
gpm
118.2
76.0
75.4
65.5
61.4
83.8
74.1
74.5
71.9
83.6
61.9
70.4
67.3
65.8
61.7
44.4
53.3
55.6
59.7
67.9
83.1
64.8
65.3
61.2
49.4
49.4
61.2
75.1
75.6
81.4
63.2
72.7
79.2
134.3
183.5
66.5
61.6
72.8
41.7
78.5
62.7
62.0
63.8
Average
Flow/rate B
gpm
104.2
67.7
64.3
56.9
49.8
69.0
63.6
68.0
65.6
68.1
53.0
61.1
60.2
60.0
54.5
37.0
46.6
50.3
56.3
63.7
70.6
61.3
62.2
57.0
39.8
38.6
56.9
65.8
65.6
69.0
58.2
56.1
66.3
110.8
89.4
37.0
63.7
57.0
41.3
77.6
66.3
54.0
60.6
Inlet Pressure
psi
45
45
44
46
48
44
45
45
45
46
45
44
45
44
50
51
48
48
46
44
46
45
46
46
43
46
46
48
46
46
50
48
48
41
52
48
44
49
48
49
49
48
48
Outlet
Pressure
PSI
43
44
42
45
46
42
44
44
43
44
43
42
44
42
48
50
46
46
44
42
44
44
44
44
43
44
44
46
44
44
48
46
46
43
52
46
45
48
47
48
48
46
46
Pressure
Differential
PSI
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
>
(a) Totalizer A and B values are the average of readings taken on 08/20/06 and 08/22/06, respectively
NA = not available
Bed volume = 38 ft3 or 284 gallons (equivalent to the volume of media in one vessel)
Highlighted cells indicate calculated values.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume (d)
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Clj)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/10/06
IN
-
232
5.0(a)
245
5.2
25.4
43.5
1.1
-
7.7
22.3
5.4
178
-
-
604
130
474
45.9
42.0
3.9
0.8
41.2
131
<25
1.8
0.8
157
154
AC
-
248
6.8
305(a)
4.3
<10
43.8
0.3
-
7.7
23.8
5.8
352
NA
NA
422
131
291
46.4
43.6
2.8
0.7
42.9
<25
<25
0.2
0.3
136
134
TT
NA
248
7.0
302(a)
4.1
<10
24.4
0.2
-
7.5
23.8
-
271
NA
NA
415
133
282
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.5
08/30/06
IN
-
266
-
-
-
<10
42.1
0.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
52
-
0.6
-
17.5
-
AC
-
255
-
-
-
<10
43.6
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
43.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
135
-
TA
0.9
255
-
-
-
<10
41.3
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
0.8
-
TB
0.9
266
-
-
-
<10
42.8
0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
0.8
-
09/06/06
IN
-
265
6.0
244
4.0
<10
42.1
0.3
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
387
128
258
15.4
14.6
0.8
1.0
13.6
39
<25
0.6
0.4
53.4
51.8
AC
-
254
4.9
218
3.5
<10
42.6
0.2
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
521
136
385
37.7
39.2
<0.1
1.4
37.9
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
152
154
TT
1.2
265
6.0
249
3.9
<10
42.0
0.4
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
395
130
265
1.1
0.9
0.1
0.9
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
1.4
1.1
09/20/06|b|
IN
-
255
-
-
-
<10
48.2
0.3
-
7.7
20.0
4.7
483
-
-
-
-
-
14.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
44.7
-
AC
-
239
-
-
-
<10
46.6
0.3
-
7.7
20.0
5.0
569
NA
NA
-
-
-
40.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
138
-
TA
1.8
255
-
-
-
<10
45.4
0.1
-
7.6
21.3
4.6
475
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
0.7
-
TB
1.7
261
-
-
-
<10
48.5
0.1
-
7.7
21.0
5.0
524
NA
NA
-
-
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
0.7
-
10/02/0610
IN
-
301
0.4
70
3.5
<10
57.6
0.7
1.3
7.9
18.9
6.2
500
-
-
410
134
277
42.1
40.3
1.7
0.7
39.6
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
139
138
AC
-
258
5.8
260
4.3
<10
47.5
0.1
1.3
7.6
17.0
5.6
574
NA
NA
418
137
281
43.7
40.5
3.2
0.9
39.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
137
143
TT
2.3
258
5.6
265
4.6
<10
45.8
0.5
1.3
7.6
17.0
5.5
585
NA
NA
434
140
295
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
1.0
(a) Parameter analyzed outside of hold time, (b) Water quality measurements taken on 09/27/06. (c) Water quality measurements taken on 10/10/06. (d) Bed volumes calculated from Master Totalizer
readings.
IN = at wellhead; AC = after chlorination and pH adjustment; TA = after vessel A; TB = after vessel B; TT = total combined effluent.
NA = not available.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume(d)
Alkalinity (asCaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as Clj)
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/19/06
IN
-
256
258
-
-
-
<10
<10
46.3
46.7
0.4
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
29.5
29.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.7
0.6
-
92.1
90.0
-
AC
-
240
244
-
-
-
<10
<10
45.8
46.7
0.3
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
37.5
38.3
-
-
-
-
52
46
-
0.2
0.2
-
135
143
-
TA
3.2
260
260
-
-
-
<10
<10
47.1
47.2
0.2
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.0
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
0.9
1.0
-
TB
3.0
260
258
-
-
-
<10
<10
47.6
48.1
0.2
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.8
0.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
-
0.8
0.8
-
11/02/06
IN
-
267
4.6
221
4.2
<10
45.7
0.8
1.1
7.9
13.1
57.1
477
-
-
350
155
195
22.7
24.9
<0.1
0.4
24.5
<25
<25
0.6
0.5
71.8
82.1
AC
-
246
3.6
427
5.3
<10
43.0
0.2
1.5
7.7
11.5
59.8
522
NA
NA
668
161
507
39.2
39.2
<0.1
0.7
38.6
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
156
161
TT
3.7
261
4.6
272
4.6
<10
44.4
0.3
1.2
7.7
11.2
63.0
603
0.4
NA
395
159
236
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
0.6
0.5
11/15/06
IN
-
258
-
-
-
<10
44.7
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
22.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
77.7
-
AC
-
246
-
-
-
<10
42.7
1.0
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
38.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
168
-
TA
4.4
254
-
-
-
<10
44.2
0.6
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1.0
-
TB
4.1
246
-
-
-
<10
46.6
3.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1.1
-
11/28/06
IN
-
259
7.6
308
5.6
<10
45.5
0.9
1.1
7.8
15.2
6.5
479
-
-
423
147
276
19.7
12.6
7.2
1.4
11.2
<25
<25
0.8
1.2
56.7
41.7
AC
-
245
4.4
470
6.1
<10
43.3
0.9
1.5
7.7
15.6
5.8
481
NA
NA
608
148
460
47.2
43.1
4.1
1.4
41.6
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
161
160
TT
4.8
259
6.2
379
6.1
<10
45.4
0.2
1.4
7.6
15.9
5.9
492
0.2
NA
527
164
364
1.4
1.4
<0.1
1.6
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
3.2
3.7
12/14/06
IN
-
258
5.1
318
4.8
<10
43.3
0.5
1.3
7.9
12.4
5.7
529
-
-
489
136
353
10.7
12.6
<0.1
0.7
11.9
<25
<25
0.5
0.5
41.2
47.7
AC
-
243
3.8
400
5.2
<10
42.8
1.6
1.5
7.8
13.1
5.6
514
NA
NA
593
143
450
38.9
38.1
0.8
0.8
37.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
159
160
TT
5.4
252
4.8
380
4.4
<10
43.3
0.4
1.4
7.6
13.4
5.2
529
NA
1.4
557
155
401
1.1
1.0
<0.1
0.7
0.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
2.0
1.9
IN = at wellhead; AC = after chlorination and pH adjustment;
NA = not available.
TA = after vessel A; TB = after vessel B; TT = total combined effluent. . (d) Bed volumes calculated from Master Totalizer readings.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Treatment Plant Sampling at Wellman, TX (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume(c)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TOC
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as CIJ
Total Chlorine (as CI2)
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/03/07
IN
-
268
268
-
-
-
<10
<10
45.6
44.8
0.5
0.5
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
45.4
45.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.3
0.2
-
142
143
-
AC
-
272
270
-
-
-
<10
<10
45.1
45.7
2.3
2.4
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
44.6
46.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
0.2
-
139
141
-
TA
NA(a)
270
258
-
-
-
<10
<10
45.2
44.7
1.1
1.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
0.9
0.9
-
TB
NA(a)
262
276
-
-
-
<10
<10
45.4
45.5
0.3
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
0.7
0.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
3.1
3.2
-
01/18/07
IN
-
263
5.7
272
4.8
<10
45.4
0.4
1.2
8.0
8.1
NA(b)
535
-
-
372
113
259
21.2
19.2
2.1
1.6
17.6
<25
<25
0.4
0.6
64.3
62.2
AC
-
248
4.7
381
5.5
<10
45.3
0.6
1.5
7.8
9.8
NA(b)
512
NA
1.0
503
118
385
44.0
41.4
2.6
2.0
39.4
<25
<25
0.5
0.7
145
142
TT
NA(a)
263
5.5
273
4.9
<10
47.6
0.6
1.2
7.7
10.1
NA(b)
659
NA
NA
371
114
257
1.4
1.4
<0.1
1.8
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
3.1
3.8
02/06/07
IN
-
281
-
-
-
<10
42.5
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
40.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
111
-
AC
-
256
-
-
-
<10
42.7
0.1
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
41.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
112
-
TA
7.7
263
-
-
-
<10
44.6
0.3
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1.5
-
TB
6.9
268
-
-
-
<10
43.8
0.2
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10.8
-
(a) Operational data not taken, (b) DO probe not operational, (c) Bed volumes calculated from Master Totalizer readings.
IN = at wellhead; AC = after chlorination and pH adjustment; TA = after vessel A; TB = after vessel B; TT = total combined effluent.
NA = not available.
------- |