EPA/600/R-09/015
February 2009
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Sarah E. McCall
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, 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 arsenic removal
treatment technology demonstration project at the Orchard Highlands Subdivision site in Goffstown, NH.
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]-GOFF-LL), 2) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator's skills, and
3) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized the water in the
distribution system and process residuals produced by the treatment process.
The treatment system consisted of two 18-in-diameter by 65-in-tall fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP)
vessels in series configuration, each containing approximately 5 ft3 of AD-33 media. The media was an
iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer AG under the name of Bayoxide 33, which was labeled
as AD-33 by AdEdge. The system was designed for a peak flowrate of 10 gal/min (gpm), based on the
pump curve provided by the facility, and an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of about 3.7 min per vessel.
The actual average flowrate of 13 gpm was 30% higher than the peak flowrate. The higher flowrate
decreased the EBCT from 3.7 to 2.9 min, which might have contributed, in part, to earlier than expected
breakthrough of arsenic.
The AdEdge treatment system began regular operation on April 15, 2005. Between April 15, 2005, and
August 6, 2007, the system operated at an average of 5.3 hr/day for atotal of 4,559 hr, treating
approximately 3,459,000 gal of water. Two test runs were conducted with Run 1 (from April 15, 2005,
through September 6, 2006) treating approximately 2,085,000 gal and Run 2 (from September 6, 2006
through August 6, 2007) treating approximately 1,374,000 gal. Flowrates to the system, calculated based
on daily totalizer and hour meter readings on the lead vessel ranged from 9 to 16 gpm and averaged
13 gpm.
Raw water contained 24.0 to 37.3 |o,g/L of total arsenic, existing almost entirely as soluble As(V). During
Run 1, total arsenic levels in the treated water reached 10 |o,g/L at approximately 19,500 bed volumes
(BV) following the lead vessel and at approximately 25,710 BV following the lag vessel. (BV following
the lead vessel was calculated based on the amount of media in the lead vessel only; BV following the lag
vessel, or the entire system, was calculated based on the combined media volume in both the lead and lag
vessels). These results suggested that doubling the EBCT from 2.9 (1 vessel) to 5.8 min (2 vessels)
increased the run length, and, therefore, removal capacity, by approximately 32%.
Concentrations of phosphorous and silica, which could interfere with arsenic adsorption by competing
with arsenate for adsorption sites, ranged from 16.3 to 99.2 (ig/L (as P) and from 23.1 to 31.7 mg/L (as
SiO2), respectively, in raw water. Low concentrations of iron, manganese, and other ions in raw water did
not impact the arsenic removal capacity of the media.
On September 6, 2006, the media in Vessel A was changed out and piping was modified to make the
vessels switchable. Run 2 was carried out with the partially exhausted Vessel B in the lead position and
the newly rebedded Vessel A in the lag position. After approximately 1,374,000 gal of water had been
treated by the system, the effluent of the system reached 10 (ig/L on August 6, 2007, when sampling was
discontinued and the performance evaluation was completed.
The system was backwashed only twice during the demonstration because there had been minimal solids
buildup in the vessels and because pressure differential (Ap) across the vessels had remained essentially
unchanged at 3 to 6 pounds per square inch (psi). Backwash was initiated manually with each vessel
IV
-------
backwashed with the treated water from the 2,000-gal hydropneumatic tank for 20 min at 16 gpm (or
9 gpm/ft2), producing approximately 320 gal of wastewater. Arsenic concentrations in the backwash
wastewater were 30.2 |o,g/L from the lead vessel and 3.6 |o,g/L from the lag vessel for the first event,
compared to the treated water arsenic level of 0.3 |og/L, suggesting desorption and/or release of media
fines. The arsenic desorption might be due to slightly higher pH of the treated water in the
hydropneumatic tank following aeration for radon removal. Approximately 0.33 Ib of solids were
discharged from Vessel A, including 3.6 x 10"4 Ib of arsenic, 0.01 Ib of iron, and 3.4 x 10"3 Ib of
manganese. Approximately 0.04 Ib of solids were discharged from Vessel B including 3.5 x 10"5 Ib of
arsenic, 6.5 x 1Q"4 Ib of iron, and 6.9 x 10"5 Ib of manganese.
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 30 (ig/L to an average of 1.1 (ig/L). The
arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Neither lead
nor copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
The capital investment cost of $34,210 included $22,431 for equipment, $4,860 for site engineering, and
$6,910 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (14,400 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $3,421/gpm of design capacity ($2.38/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $2,243/gpm of design
capacity ($1.5 6/gpd).
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. The media was replaced only once during
the demonstration in Vessel A which cost $4,199. The O&M cost was calculated to $2.34/1,000 gal
based on the media replacement cost and the cost of labor and electricity incurred during the
demonstration.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 10
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 10
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater 11
3.3.4 Residual Solids 11
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 11
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Distribution System 17
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.3 System Installation 18
4.3.1 Permitting 18
4.3.2 Building 20
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 20
4.4 System Operation 23
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 23
4.4.2 Backwash 23
4.4.3 Media Change-out 24
4.4.4 Residual Management 24
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 24
4.5 System Performance 25
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 25
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling 31
VI
-------
4.5.3 Spent Media 32
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling 34
4.6 System Cost 34
4.6.1 Capital Cost 34
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 36
5.0 REFERENCES 38
APPENDICES
Appendix A: OPERATIONAL DATA
Appendix B: ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Treatment Building at Orchard Highlands Subdivision 13
Figure 4-2. Aeration System for Radon Treatment 14
Figure 4-3. 10,000-gal Storage Tank 14
Figure 4-4. Booster Pumps 15
Figure 4-5. 2,000-gal Hydropneumatic Pressure Tank 15
Figure 4-6. Schematic of APU-GOFF-LL System 19
Figure 4-7. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 21
Figure 4-8. APU-GOFF-LL Treatment System 22
Figure 4-9. System Control Panel 22
Figure 4-10. System Being Delivered to Site 23
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, TA, and TB Sampling Locations 28
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Runs 1 and 2 29
Figure 4-13. Total Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves for Runs 1 and 2 30
Figure 4-14. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost 37
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 9
Table 4-1. Orchard Highlands Subdivision Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media 17
Table 4-3. Design Features of APU-GOFF-LL System 20
Table 4-4. Summary of Treatment System Operation 24
Table 4-5. Freeboard Measurements after Run 1 24
Table 4-6. Runs 1 and 2 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Orthophosphate, Iron, and Manganese 26
Table 4-7. Runs 1 and 2 Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results 27
Table 4-8. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results 32
Table 4-9. Average Spent Media Total Metal Analysis 33
Table 4-10. TCLP Results of Spent Media 33
Table 4-11. Distribution System Sampling Results 35
Table 4-12. Capital Investment Cost for APU-GOFF-LL System 36
Table 4-13. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU-GOFF-LL System 37
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
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
CO2 carbon dioxide
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
HOPE high density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchange
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not analyzed
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
ND not detectable
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
psi pounds per square inch
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point of use
PVC polyvinyl chloride
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
SO42" sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
U uranium
V vanadium
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to Orchard Highlands Subdivision and Mr. John
Blumberg, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, who monitored the treatment system and collected
samples from the treatment system and distribution system throughout this demonstration. This
performance evaluation would not have been possible without his efforts.
-------
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 |o,g/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective
arsenic removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the
17 host sites, with each site receiving one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites, and the Orchard Highlands Community Water System in Goffstown, NH 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), using Bayoxide E33 media
developed by Bayer AG, was selected for demonstration at the Orchard Highlands site in September
2004. As of October 2008, 39 of the 40 systems were operational, and the performance evaluation of 31
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 (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 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 As, Fe, 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 website at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the 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 Orchard Highlands Subdivision in
Goffstown, NH from April 15, 2005, through August 6, 2007. The types of data collected include system
operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and
capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(Mg/L)
Fe
(Mg/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
1,615W
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
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
l,344(c)
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Arnaudville, 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
90(ป)
50
37
35W
19W
56(a)
45
23(a)
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 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites (Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(Mg/L)
Fe
(Mg/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 Cffi-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)ฎ
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.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the 30 months of system operation from April 2005 to August
2007, the following conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology
demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems
AD-33 media was effective at removing soluble As(V) in source water.
Breakthrough at 10 (ig/L from the lead tank occurred at 19,810 bed volumes (BV) (1
BV = 5 ft3), which represented only 32% of the vendor-projected media run length.
Breakthrough at 10 (ig/L from the lag vessel occurred at 25,710 BV (1BV = 10 ft3).
The earlier than expected arsenic breakthrough was attributed, in part, to the
relatively short empty bed contact time (EBCT), i.e., 2.9 min versus the design value
of 3.7 min in each vessel, and competing anions, such as phosphorous and silica.
Phosphorous was removed by the media from up to 99.2 (ig/L (as P) to less than its
detection limit of 10 (ig/L during the treatment of first 1,000,000 gal (or 13,700 BV)
of raw water. Phosphorus competed with arsenic for available adsorption sites.
The spent media was non-hazardous and could be disposed of at a lined sanitary
landfill permitted by the State for high metal wastes.
A significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 30 (ig/L to an
average of 1.1 (ig/L) occurred in the distribution system.
Neither lead nor copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the
operation of the system.
Required system O&Mand operator's skill levels:
Very little attention was required from the operator. The daily demand was typically
10 min to visually inspect the system and record operational parameters.
Operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
No backwash was required during system operation. The system was backwashed
only twice throughout the 30-month evaluation period due to lack of solids buildup
in the vessels. Pressure differential (Ap) across the vessels had remained constant
throughout the performance evaluation. Each backwash event produced
approximately 640 gal of wastewater.
Some arsenic desorption and/or release of media fines might have occurred during
media backwash, as evidenced by elevated total arsenic concentrations in backwash
wastewater (i.e., up to 133 |o,g/L vs. 10.6 |o,g/L in the treated water). Somewhat
higher pH values of the treated water used for backwash likely contributed to the
arsenic desorption. The treated water from the hydropneumatic tank had been
aerated for radon removal.
-------
Cost-effectiveness of the technology:
Using the system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (14,400 gpd), the capital cost was
$3,421/gpm of design capacity ($2.38/gpd) and equipment-only cost was
$2,243/gpm of the design capacity ($1.56/gpd).
Media replacement cost represented the majority of the O&M cost. The media in the
lead vessel was replaced once at a cost of $4,199 or $2.01/1,000 gal, which
accounted for 86% of the O&M cost. The rest of the O&M cost was incurred by
electricity and labor.
-------
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 April 15, 2005, and ended on August 6, 2007. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The
overall system performance was based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target
MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as described in the
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.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of
preventative 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 quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
wastewater produced during each backwash cycle and the need to replace media upon arsenic
breakthrough. Backwash wastewater and spent media were sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
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 required tracking of the
capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement
and disposal, electricity usage, and labor.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Plans Submitted to NHDES
Final Study Plan Issued
System Permit Issued by NHDES
APU Unit Shipped and Arrived
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
September 13, 2004
November 9, 2004
November 24, 2004
December 7, 2004
January 18, 2005
February 9, 2005
March 1, 2005
March 3, 2005
March 24, 2005
March 3 1,2005
April 12, 2005
April 14, 2005
April 15, 2005
April 15, 2005
NHDES = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
-------
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 electricity consumption and labor
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed weekly and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. Approximately three times a week, the plant operator
recorded system operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a Daily
System Operation Log Sheet, and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If
any problem occurred, 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 actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and
labor incurred, on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. Twice a month, the plant operator measured
several water quality parameters, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), and recorded them on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
Backwash data were recorded on a Backwash 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,
electricity consumption, and labor. Electricity consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for
various activities, such as routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related
work, was tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included
activities such as completing field logs, performing system inspections, and others as recommended by
the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as performing field
measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead and the
vendor, was recorded, but not used for the cost analysis.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant,
during adsorption vessel backwash, and from the distribution system. The sampling schedule and
analytes measured during each sampling event are listed in Table 3-3.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Sampling
Locations'3'
IN
IN, TA, TB
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
3
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Once every
two to four
weeks on a
eight-week
cycle(b'c)
Once every
eight-week
cycle
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),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, NH4, NO3,
NO2, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site: pH,
temperature, DO, and
ORP
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Ca,
Mg, F, N03, S04, Si02,
PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity
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),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and
alkalinity
Sampling
Date
09/13/04
05/02/05, 05/16/05,
05/31/05,06/27/05,
07/12/05, 07/25/05,
08/22/05, 09/06/05,
09/20/05, 10/04/05,
11/01/05, 11/15/05,
12/12/05, 01/10/06,
02/07/06, 02/21/06,
03/07/06, 04/04/06,
04/18/06, 05/02/06,
05/30/06, 06/27/06,
07/25/06, 08/08/06,
08/23/06, 09/05/06,
09/19/06, 10/02/06,
11/07/06, 12/05/06,
01/03/07, 02/07/07,
03/07/07, 04/02/07,
06/11/07,08/06/07
04/15/05, 06/15/05,
08/08/05, 10/17/05,
11/29/05,01/24/06,
03/21/06, 05/17/06,
06/12/06, 07/12/06,
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes (Continued)
Sample
Type
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Wastewater
Spent
Media
Sampling
Locations'3'
Three LCR
Residences
Backwash
Discharge
Line from
Each Vessel
Top,
Middle, and
Bottom of
Lead Vessel
No. of
Sampling
Locations
o
3
2
o
J
Frequency
Monthly(d)
Sampling
based on
system
performance
Once during
media
change-out
Analytes
pH, alkalinity, As (total),
Fe (total), Mn (total), Cu
(total), and Pb (total)
1st event: pH, TDS,
turbidity, As (soluble),
Fe (soluble), and Mn
(soluble)
2nd event: pH, TDS,
TSS, turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble)
Al, As, Ca, Cd, Cu, Fe,
Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Si,
andZn
Sampling
Date
Baseline sampling:
01/10/05, 01/25/05,
02/07/05, 03/21/05
Monthly sampling:
05/16/05, 06/13/05,
07/11/05,08/08/05,
09/06/05, 10/05/05,
12/05/05, 12/12/05,
01/09/06, 02/06/06,
03/06/06, 04/03/06,
05/02/06, 06/13/06,
07/10/06
08/22/05, 08/07/06
09/06/06
(a)
Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-7: IN = at wellhead, TA = after
Vessel A, TB = after Vessel B
Ca and Mg analyzed biweekly from November 15, 2005 through August 23, 2006.
Starting October 2, 2006, analytes reduced to total P, silica, and total arsenic on a monthly basis and
on-site measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP discontinued on November 7, 2006.
Four baseline sampling events performed from January 2005 to March 2005 before system startup.
LCR = Lead and Copper Rule, TDS = total dissolved solids, TOC = total organic carbon, TSS = total
suspended solids
(b)
(c)
(d)
Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample volumes, containers, preservation, and
holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial site visit, one set of source water samples was collected
and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (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. Treatment plant water samples were collected by the plant
operator once every two to four weeks on an eight-week cycle. Samples were collected at three locations,
i.e., at the wellhead (IN), after the lead adsorption vessel (TA), and after the lag adsorption vessel (TB),
10
-------
and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation kits were used for on-site speciation
at the same three locations on a bimonthly basis.
3.3.3 Backwash Wastewater. Two backwash wastewater samples were collected during the
performance evaluation. Samples were collected from the sample tap installed on the backwash
wastewater discharge line from each vessel on August 22, 2005, and August 7, 2006. During the first
event, a grab sample was collected directly from the outfall of the discharge line. An unfiltered aliquot
was analyzed for pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and turbidity, and a filtered aliquot using 0.45-(im disc
filters was analyzed for soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese. During the second event, a composite
sample was taken from a 32-gal plastic container that collected a sidestream of backwash wastewater at
approximately 1 gpm from a tap on the discharge line over the duration of the backwash for each vessel.
An unfiltered aliquot was analyzed for pH, TDS, total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, and total arsenic,
iron, and manganese and a filtered aliquot for soluble arsenic, iron, and manganese.
3.3.4 Residual Solids. Residual solids included backwash solids and spent media samples. Due to
low solids in the backwash wastewater, backwash solids were not collected from the two backwash
events.
Three spent media samples were collected from the lead vessel during the media change-out on
September 6, 2006. Spent media was collected from the top, middle, and bottom of the media bed using a
wet/dry shop vacuum that was thoroughly cleaned and disinfected prior to use. The media removed from
each layer was well-mixed and stored in a 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene (HOPE) bottle.
Metal analyses were conducted on air dried and acid digested samples (see analytes in Table 3-3), and the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test was conducted on an unprocessed sample
following the protocol described in the QAPP (Battelle, 2004). The plant operator also submitted a
sample of the spent media for the TCLP test.
3.3.5 Distribution System Water. Water samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from January to March 2005,
four baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences within the distribution
system. Following system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
three locations.
Homeowners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times
of last water usage before sampling and of actual sample collection were recorded for calculation of the
stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-water faucet that had not been used for at least 6
hours to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. Analytes for the baseline samples conincided with the
monthly samples as shown in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the distribution water
samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses 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 QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sample 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
11
-------
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-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.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the demonstration site, the 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. The
labeled bottles were separated by sampling location, placed in zip-lock bags, and packed into the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were completed except for the operator's signature and
the sample dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped back to Battelle. Upon receipt, the
sample custodian checked sample IDs against the chain-of-custody forms and verified 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 were packed in separate coolers and
picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH and Belmont
Labs in Englewood, OH, which were under contract with Battelle for this demonstration study. 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 EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and Belmont Labs. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDLs), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i handheld field meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the probe in the beaker until a stable value was
obtained.
12
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Preexisting Treatment System Infrastructure
The community water system supplies water to 42 homes in the Orchard Highlands Subdivision in
Goffstown, NH. Figure 4-1 shows the water treatment building. The water source was a single, deep
bedrock well drilled to a depth of approximately 800 ft. The flowrate from this supply well was estimated
to be 7.5 gpm based on the pump curve provided by the facility. The actual average and peak flowrates
recorded at the site after the installation of the treatment system were 13 and 15 gpm, respectively. The
existing system includes an aeration system for radon treatment (Figure 4-2), a 10,000-gal storage tank
(Figure 4-3), two booster pumps (Figure 4-4), and a 2,000-gal hydropneumatic pressure tank (Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-1. Preexisting Treatment Building at Orchard Highlands Subdivision
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected inside the treatment building
from two sample taps before and after the aeration unit on September 13, 2004. The analytical results are
presented in Table 4-1 and compared to historic raw water data taken by the facility for the EPA
demonstration site selection and treated water data taken by the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES) for compliance purposes. Except for pH and TDS, the analytical
results were comparable for the samples collected before and after the aeration unit.
Total arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 30 to 33 |o,g/L. Out of 32.7 |o,g/L of total arsenic,
32.3 (ig/L (98.7%) existed as soluble As(V) and only 0.8 |^g/L (1.3%) existed as soluble As(III). Since
the majority of arsenic was As(V), a pre-oxidation step prior to adsorption was not necessary.
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Aeration System for Radon Treatment
Figure 4-3. 10,000-gal Storage Tank
14
-------
Figure 4-4. Booster Pumps
Figure 4-5. 2,000-gal Hydropneumatic Pressure Tank
15
-------
Table 4-1. Orchard Highlands Subdivision Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As(total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
V (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Radon
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
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
Mg/L
ug/L
Mfi/L
ug/L
Mfi/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
PCi/L
Facility
Data
NA
7.2
NA
NA
NA
44
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<6
NA
6
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
<0.001
30
<100
NA
NA
<30
NA
NA
8
14
3
13,100
Battelle Data
Raw
09/13/04
6.9
12.0
5.1
226
85
25
0.2
84
<0.7
O.04
<0.01
0.05
1.2
0.3
5.8
25.7
0.2
32.7
33.1
0.1
0.8
32.3
<25
<25
13.5
2.8
2.4
0.4
8
7
2
NA
Post-
Aeration
09/13/04
7.5
13.1
5.9
235
93
31
0.2
248
O.7
O.04
O.01
O.05
1.1
0.4
5.8
25.8
0.3
30.5
32.2
0.1
0.5
31.7
<25
<25
3.5
2.9
1.9
0.4
9
9
2
NA
NHDES
Treated
Water Data
00-04
7.2
8.0
NA
NA
44
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<6
0.4
6
NA
0.03
30-33
NA
NA
NA
NA
<100
NA
<30
NA
NA
NA
8
14
o
J
NA
NA = not analyzed, ND = not detectable
The pH values of raw water samples ranged from 6.9 before aeration to 7.5 after aeration. Aeration might
have helped remove some carbon dioxide (CO2), thereby increasing the pH values of the aerated water.
Nevertheless, these pH values were well within the acceptable pH range of 6.5 to 8.0 for effective arsenic
adsorption by the AD-33 media. Therefore, pH adjustment was not recommended.
The adsorptive capacity of the AD-33 media can be impacted by high levels of competing anions such as
orthophosphate, silica, vanadate, and fluoride. Orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 0.3
mg/L (as PO4), which could compete with arsenate for adsorption sites. Concentrations of other
competing anions appeared to be low enough not to affect the media's adsorption of arsenic. Iron was not
detected (with a reporting limit of 25 ug/L) in raw water; therefore, pre-treatment for iron removal prior
to adsorption was not required.
16
-------
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system was constructed primarily of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe. Connections to the distribution system and piping within residences were made of
copper.
Compliance samples from the distribution system were collected for NHDES for quarterly bacterial
analysis, and for periodic analysis of inorganic chemicals, nitrates, radiologicals, synthetic organic
compounds, and volatile organic compounds (Table 4-1).
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The AdEdge arsenic package unit (APU) is a fixed-bed down-flow adsorption system, which uses
Bayoxide E33 (or AD-33 as branded by AdEdge), an iron-based adsorptive media developed by Bayer
AG, for arsenic removal from drinking water supplies. Table 4-2 presents physical and chemical
properties of the media. AD-33 media is delivered in a dry crystalline form and listed by NSF
International (NSF) under Standard 61 for use in drinking water applications.
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media0
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (% [by wt.])
Particle Size Distribution
(U.S. standard mesh)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron oxide composite
Dry granules
Amber
28.1
142
0.3
0
~o
10x35
70
a-FeOOH
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
SO3
Na2O
TiO2
SiO2
A1203
P205
Cl
Weight (%)
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by Bayer AG.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller
The arsenic treatment system at the Orchard Highland Subdivision site consisted of two pressure vessels
operating in series. For series operation, the media in the lead vessel is removed and replaced when the
effluent from the lag vessel reaches 10 (ig/L of arsenic. The spent media is disposed of after being
17
-------
subjected to TCLP testing. After rebedding, the lead vessel is switched to the lag position and the lag
vessel is switched to the lead position. The series operation better utilizes the media capacity when
compared to the parallel operation because the lead vessel exhausts completely prior to change-out.
The system piping/valving as initially installed did not allow for switching of the lead/lag vessels, but was
modified, after the media change-out, to allow for switching of the vessel position. The schematic of the
system with switchable lead/lag vessels is shown in Figure 4-6. The adsorption vessels received water
directly from the well and the effluent for the adsorption system was further treated by the preexisting
aeration unit for radon removal. Table 4-3 presents the key system design parameters. Figure 4-7 shows
the generalized process flow for the system including sampling locations and parameters to be analyzed.
The key process components are discussed as follows:
Intake. Raw water was pumped from the well and fed into the treatment system at
approximately 13 gpm. The well pump was controlled by a float switch within the
10,000-gal storage tank.
Adsorption System. The treatment system consisted of two 18-in-diameter, 65-in-tall
pressure vessels in series configuration, each containing 5 ft3 of AD-33 media supported
by a gravel underbed. The vessels were fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) construction,
rated for 150 pounds per square inch (psi) working pressure, skid-mounted, and piped to
a valve rack mounted on a welded frame. The design EBCT for the system was
approximately 3.7 min based on a media volume of 5 ftVvessel (with a bed depth of 37.5
in) and a design flowrate of 10 gpm. Figure 4-8 shows the installed system and Figure 4-
9 shows the system control panel.
Backwash. On automatic operation, backwash might be set by time or pressure
differential. The system also might be backwashed manually. The adsorption vessels
were taken offline for backwash one at a time using the treated water from the 2,000-gal
hydropneumatic tank. The purpose of the backwash was to remove particles and media
fines accumulating in the beds. The backwash wastewater produced was discharged to
an on-site surface drainage field for disposal.
Aeration, Storage, and Distribution. Effluent of the adsorption system was aerated to
remove radon before entering the existing 10,000-gal storage tank. Two existing booster
pumps were used to pump water from the storage tank to the 2000-gal hydropneumatic
tank to ensure adequate supply pressure to the distribution system.
4.3 System Installation
The installation of the APU system was completed by Thursty Water Systems, a subcontractor to
AdEdge, on April 14, 2005. The following subsections summarize pre-demonstration activities,
including permitting, building preparation, and system offloading, installation, shakedown, and startup.
4.3.1 Permitting. The engineering plan with design drawings for the proposed treatment system
was submitted to the NHDES by AdEdge on March 3, 2005. NHDES granted the treatment system
permit on March 31, 2005. NHDES commented that the disposal of the periodic backwash wastewater
should be consistent with that allowed for the Rollinsford, NH site studied in Round 1 of the EPA's
arsenic technology demonstration project and that the completed installation should be disinfected and
tested for bacterial presence before being placed into service.
18
-------
adedge
Basic Goffstown Flow Diagram
Reversible LEAD/LAG Arsenic Treatment System
Treated Water
to distribution
flow Restrictoror
manual diaphragm uah/e
Figure 4-6. Schematic of APU-GOFF-LL System
-------
Table 4-3. Design Features of APU-GOFF-LL System
Design Parameter
Pretreatment
Value
NA
Remarks
Not required
Adsorbers
Number of Adsorbers
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Vessel Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ft3)
Media Bed Depth (in)
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)
2
Series
18 D x65H
1.77
Bay oxide E33
10 (total)
34
10
5.6
3.7
Two vessels, each vessel with 5 ft3 of
media
Based on 10 gpm flowrate
Backwash
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Backwash Duration (min/vessel)
Backwash wastewater Generated (gal/vessel)
Design Backwash Frequency (time/month)
15.9
9
20
320
Ito2
-
-
-
Set to manual so that backwash sample
could be collected
Adsorption System
Average Throughput to System (gpd)
Average Throughput to System (BV/day)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Volume to Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated Media Life (months)
11,550
308
62,690
2,344,600
6.7
Vendor estimated
Bed volumes to breakthrough at 10 (o,g/L
from lead vessel based on vendor estimate
Based on vendor estimated bed volumes to
breakthrough at 10 (o,g/L from lead vessel
Estimated frequency of media change-out
from lead vessel based on throughput of
1 1,550 gpd and breakthrough at 10|ag/L
from lead vessel
4.3.2 Building. The existing building that housed the preexisting treatment system had an
adequate building footprint to house the planned arsenic treatment system. Additional preparation was
not needed.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived on-site on April 12,
2005. Figure 4-10 shows a photograph of the system arriving at the site. Several of the PVC connections
were damaged during shipping and had to be replaced before system installation. AdEdge and Thursty
Water System, an AdEdge subcontractor, installed the treatment system during April 13 through 14,
2005. After media loading, a water sample was collected from the system for bacterial analysis on April
14, 2005. The system was bypassed until April 15, 2005, when the results of the bacterial test indicated that
the system could be placed online. Meanwhile, AdEdge and the plant operator performed the system
shakedown and startup work, which included media backwash and flow adjustment to approximately 16
gpm for the backwash cycle. Battelle conducted a system inspection and provided operator training on
data and sample collection.
20
-------
Bimonthly
plLa), temperature^3),
DOH ORPH
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),^
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
WELL
SURFACE
DRAINAGE/LEACH
FIELD BACKWASH
DISPOSAL
pH, LDS, LSS, turbidity,
As (total and soluble), Fe (total and soluble),-
Mn (total and soluble)
pLL3), temperature1^3),
DOH ORPH
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V)^
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pLL3), temperature^3),
DOH ORPH
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),^
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S04, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
Once Every
Two to Four Weeks
pH>), temperature^), DO<3),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
F, N03, S04, Si02, P04,
turbidity, alkalinity
Orchard Highlands Subdivision,
Goffstown, NH
AD33 Lechnology
Design Flow: 10 gpm
pH>), temperature^3), DC>H
ORPH
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
F, NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, alkalinity
pH>), temperature^), DO<3),
ORP
-------
Figure 4-8. APU-GOFF-LL Treatment System
Figure 4-9. System Control Panel
22
-------
Figure 4-10. System Being Delivered to Site
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. System operational data collected during the demonstration were
tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4 and are broken
down into Run 1, Run 2, and total. Run 1 covers the operation from system startup on April 15, 2005, to
when the media in the lead vessel was replaced on September 6, 2006. Run 2 covers the operation
following the media change-out to when the effluent of the treatment system reached approximately 10
(ig/L on August 6, 2007. From April 15, 2005, through August 6, 2007, the system operated for a total of
4,559 hr based on well pump hour-meter readings recorded since June 9, 2005 when an hour meter was
installed. Before installation of the hour meter, the daily run time was estimated by taking the average.
This cumulative operating time represents a use rate of approximately 22.5% during this 30-month
demonstration period. The system operated for an average of 5.4 hr/day.
Run 1 treated approximately 2,085,000 gal, or 55,750 BV, of water based on totalizer readings on the lead
vessel. (Bed volume was calculated based on 5 ft3 of media in the lead vessel). After media change-out
and vessel switching, Run 2 treated approximately 1,374,000 gal, or 36,740 BV, of water. Flowrates to
the system, calculated based on daily totalizer and hour meter readings on the lead vessel, ranged from 9
to 16 gpm and averaged 13 gpm. The highest flowrate occurred when the pump was initially turned on
and the flowrate decreased gradually as the well pump operated. The average system flowrate was 30%
higher than the 10-gpm design value (Table 4-3), which was derived from the 7.5-gpm supply well
flowrate according to the facility-provided pump curve. Based on the flowrates to the system, EBCTs for
the lead vessel varied from 2.3 to 4.2 min and averaged 2.9 min, compared to the design value of 3.7 min.
4.4.2 Backwash. AdEdge recommended that the treatment system be backwashed approximately
once or twice per month either manually or automatically. Automatic backwash could be initiated either
23
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of Treatment System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Cumulative Operating Time (hr)
Days of Operation (day)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr)
Throughput (gal)
Bed Volumes (BV)(a)
Average (Range of) Flowrate (gpm)
Average (Range of) EBCT (min)(a)
Average (Range of) Inlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Outlet Pressure (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel A (psi)
Average (Range of) Ap across Vessel B (psi)
Runl
04/15/05-09/06/06
2,716
510
5.3
2,085,000
55,749
13 (9-16)(b)
2.9 (2.3-4.2)
27 (20-36)
9 (5-12)
5 (1-10)
4 (3-6)
Run 2
09/07/06-08/06/07
1,843
334
5.5
1,374,000
36,738
13(ll-15)(c)
2.9 (2.5-3.4)
24 (18-28)
10 (5-14)
6 (2-8)
1 (0-3)
Total
04/15/05-08/06/07
4,559
844
5.4
3,459,000
92,487
13 (9-16)(b'c)
2.9 (2.3-4.2)
26 (18-36)
10 (5-14)
5 (1-10)
3 (0-6)
(a) Calculated based on 5 ft3 of media in lead vessel.
(b) Except for one outlier at 6 gpm on May 9, 2006.
(c) Except for one outlier at 7 gpm on September 7, 2006.
by a timer or by Ap across the vessels. Due to the steady Ap readings across the vessels (i.e., 1 to 6 psi),
the system was backwashed only twice during Run 1, i.e., about four and 16 months after system startup.
4.4.3 Media Change-out. The system was taken offline on September 6, 2006 for media change-
out of Vessel A, which was performed by Thursty Water System and AdEdge. Before change-out, depths
of freeboard (from the flange at the top of each vessel to the media bed surface) were measured, which
showed only 4 to 6% reduction compared to those measured just before system startup. The reduction
most likely was due to media compaction. Spent media from Vessel A was then removed as described in
Section 3.3.4. After media replacement, the vessels were properly backwashed and the freeboard in
Vessel A measured before the system resumed normal operation.
Table 4-5. Freeboard Measurements after Run 1
Parameter
Volume Loaded (ft3)
Initial Freeboard (in)
Final Freeboard (in)
Bed Reduction (in)
Bed Reduction (%)
Vessel A
5.0
19.5
22
2.5
6
Vessel B
-
19.5
21
1.5
4
Note: Media was change-out in Vessel A only.
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the system included spent
media, as discussed above, and backwash wastewater. Piping for backwash wastewater from both vessels
was combined aboveground before exiting the building through the floor. The discharge line traveled
underground to behind the treatment building where it exited at the ground surface. Backwash
wastewater flowed down the surface drainage field and infiltrated to the ground. Any particulates or
media fines carried in the backwash wastewater remained in the drainage field.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. There were no operational problems with the
treatment system. The Ap gauge on Vessel B had to be replaced after the gauge was stuck following a
24
-------
backwash. This gauge was replaced approximately one month later when the media in Vessel A was
replaced. The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and
post-treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive
maintenance activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The majority of arsenic at this site existed as As(V). As such, a
pre-oxidation step was not required.
System Automation. The system was fitted with automated controls that would allow for backwash
cycles to be controlled automatically; however, because Ap readings across the adsorption vessels did not
rise during the performance evaluation, only two manual backwashes were performed. Initially, the
system piping did not allow the lead and lag vessels to switch after rebedding of the lead vessel. On
September 20, 2006, the piping and valves were reconfigured so that the vessels might be switchable
upon media rebedding.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
system were minimal. The operator was onsite typically three times a week and spent approximately 10
min each day performing visual inspection and recording the system operating parameters on the daily log
sheets. Normal operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to operate
the existing water supply equipment.
Based on the size of the population served and the treatment technology, the State of New Hampshire
requires Grade IA certification for operation of the treatment system. The State of New Hampshire has
five grades of certifications based on the complexity of the treatment and distribution system. The grades
range from Grade IA, the least complex, to Grade IV, the most complex.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of flowmeters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. Typically, the operator
performed these duties only when he was onsite for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. No chemical was used as part of the treatment
system at the Orchard Highlands Subdivision site.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the
treatment plant, the media backwash, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic,
orthophosphate, total phosphorous, iron, and manganese concentrations measured at the three sampling
locations across the treatment train. Table 4-7 summarizes the results of other water quality parameters
including those measured onsite. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through the
demonstration.
Water samples for Run 1 were collected on 41 occasions, including five duplicates, with field speciation
performed during 10 of the 41 occasions at IN, TA, and TB sampling locations. Water samples for Run 2
were collected on 10 occasions at the three sampling locations; speciation was not performed during Run
2. The results of the water samples collected throughout the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. Figure 4-11 contains three bar charts showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate
arsenic, soluble As(III), and soluble As(V) at three locations for each of the 10 speciation events. Total
25
-------
arsenic concentrations in raw water ranged from 24.0 to 37.3 |o,g/L and averaged 29.7 |o,g/L. Soluble
As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 25.3 to 33.6 p.g/L and averaging 29.0 |o,g/L. Soluble
As(III) and particulate As concentrations were low, each averaging 0.5 (ig/L. The arsenic concentrations
measured were consistent with those collected previously during source water sampling (Table 4-1).
Table 4-6. Runs 1 and 2 Analytical Results for Arsenic, Orthophosphate, Iron, and Manganese
Parameter
AS ^totaij
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As(III)
As(V)
Orthopho sphate
(<*c p^
(as f)
Total P (as P)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
Unit
HB/L
W/L
HB/L
Hg/L
W/L
HB/L
W/L
HB/L
W/L
HB/L
W/L
^g/L
HB/L
W/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
HB/L
^g/L
^g/L
Sample
Count
41 [10]
41 [10]
41 [10]
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
27 [9]
27 [9]
27 [9]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
10
10
10
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
10
10
10
Minimum
24.0 [28.2]
25.4
0.1
O.I
25.3
O.05
O.05
O.05
28.4 [16.3]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25
<25
<25
0.6 [2.4]
O.I [0.4]
0.1 [3.0]
0.9
0.4
0.3
Concentration
Maximum
37.3 [34.5]
34.5
1.6
0.9
33.6
0.1
0.1
O.05
99.2 [80.4]
<25 [<25]
37.7 [<25]
72.5 [<25]
<25
<25
105
16.7 [2.4]
3.9 [0.4]
2.0 [3.0]
3.6
1.6
1.0
i
Average
29.7 [31. 3]
(a)
29.6
(a)
0.5
(a)
0.5
(a)
29.0
(a)
0.1
0.1
O.05
71.0 [54.0]
(b)
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25 [<25]
<25
<25
<25
3.3 [2.4]
1.2 [0.4]
0.6 [3.0]
1.5
1.1
0.7
Standard
Deviation
3.5 [2.2]
3.2
0.6
0.2
3.1
0.0
0.0
-
18.3 [21.6]
-[-]
3.9 [-]
9.4 [-]
-
-
29.1
3.3 [-]
0.9 [-]
0.5 [-]
0.9
0.4
0.2
Data in brackets collected during Run 2.
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Statistics not meaningful for data related to arsenic breakthrough; see data on Figures 4-11 and 4-12.
(b) Statistics not meaningful for data related to total phosphorous breakthrough; see data on Figure 4-13.
26
-------
Table 4-7. Runs 1 and 2 Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate
(asN)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
IN
TA
TB
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
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
ฐc
ฐc
ฐc
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [9]
41 [9]
41 [9]
41 [1]
41 [1]
41 [1]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
36 [2]
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
Concentration
Minimum
33.0 [62.0]
34.0 [48.0]
35.0 [48.0]
<0.1 [0.6]
0.1 [0.4]
0.2 [0.4]
4.5 [6.0]
4.5 [6.0]
4.6 [6.0]
O.05
[<0.05]
<0.05
[<0.05]
O.05 [0.1]
23.4 [23.1]
19.1 [22.9]
8.9 [19.7]
0.1 [0.2]
0.1 [0.3]
O.I [0.8]
6.8 [7.1]
6.9 [7.3]
6.9 [7.2]
10.0 [11. 9]
10.3 [12.1]
9.6 [12.3]
3.7 [5.7]
3.2 [4.2]
3.9 [4.5]
168 [167]
183 [160]
194 [160]
17.8
18.5
20.1
12.8
13.7
13.9
5.0
4.7
4.1
Maximum
88.0 [62.0]
63.0 [48.0]
60.0 [48.0]
1.5 [0.6]
0.7 [0.4]
0.7 [0.4]
9.0 [6.0]
10.0 [6.0]
9.0 [6.0]
4.7 [O.05]
1.1 [O.05]
5.1 [0.1]
31.7 [25.7]
27.1 [25.1]
27.2 [25.4]
3.5 [0.2]
3.2 [0.3]
3.6 [0.8]
7.5 [7.1]
7.4 [7.4]
7.5 [7.4]
15.9 [12.9]
16.5 [13.2]
16.8 [13. 5]
8.0 [6.2]
7.6 [5.2]
7.4 [5.6]
302 [197]
247 [206]
307 [196]
42.8
40.9
43.0
31.7
29.9
31.8
12.8
13.1
12.4
Average
46.7 [62.0]
45.9 [48.0]
45.4 [48.0]
0.4 [0.6]
0.3 [0.4]
0.3 [0.4]
5.6 [6.0]
5.6 [6.0]
5.6 [6.0]
0.2 [O.05]
0.1 [O.05]
0.2 [0.1]
25.4 [24.7]
25.0 [24.4]
24.6 [24.2]
0.6 [0.2]
0.7 [0.3]
0.7 [0.8]
7.1 [7.1]
7.2 [7.3]
7.3 [7.3]
12.6 [12.4]
12.8 [12.7]
12.9 [12.9]
6.2 [6.0]
5.8 [4.7]
6.0 [5.0]
212 [182]
212 [183]
218 [178]
28.4
29.4
28.7
19.5
20.4
20.3
8.9
9.0
8.5
Standard
Deviation
10.5 [-]
6.9 [-]
5.9 [-]
0.2 [-]
0.1 [-]
0.1 [-]
1.0 [-]
1.2 [-]
1.0 [-]
0.7 [-]
0.2 [-]
0.8 [-]
1.3 [0.8]
1.3 [0.7]
2.7 [1.8]
0.7 [-]
0.8 [-]
0.8 [-]
0.2 [0.0]
0.1 [0.1]
0.1 [0.1]
1.5 [0.7]
1.4 [0.8]
1.8 [0.8]
1.0 [0.4]
1.1 [0.7]
0.8 [0.7]
22.9 [21.2]
15.7 [32.5]
20.5 [25.5]
6.4
6.2
5.2
5.5
4.8
4.2
1.5
1.8
1.6
Data in brackets collected during Run 2.
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
27
-------
Arsenic Speciation at the Wellhead (IN)
35-
_ 30-
|25-
O
| 20-
0)
o
o 15 -
O
5 10-
5-
n -
=
p=
=
D As (particulate)
As(lll)
DAs(V)
^
04/15/05 06/15/05 08/08/05 10/17/05 11/29/05 01/24/06 03/21/06 05/17/06 06/12/06 07/12/06
Arsenic Speciation after Lead Vessel A (TA)
40-
35-
_ 30 -
ฃ 20-
o 15
O
10-
5-
D As (particulate)
As(lll)
DAs(V)
F=l
n
04/15/05 06/15/05 08/08/05 10/17/05 11/29/05 01/24/06 03/21/06 05/17/06 06/12/06 07/12/06
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Lag Vessel B (TB)
30 -
5
'25-
ฃ 20-
o 15 H
O
D As (particulate)
As(lll)
DAs(V)
n
04/15/05 06/15/05 08/08/05 10/17/05 11/29/05 01/24/06 03/21/06 05/17/06 06/12/06 07/12/06
Date
Figure 4-11. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, TA, and TB Sampling Locations
28
-------
The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the system was the arsenic concentration in the
treated water. Figure 4-12 shows the arsenic breakthrough curves plotted against the amount of water
treated with the number of bed volumes to arsenic breakthrough at 10 (ig/L from the lead and lag vessels
specified. Bed volumes following the lead vessel were calculated based on the amount of media in the
lead vessel only; however, bed volumes following the lag vessel, or the entire system, were calculated
based on the combined media volume in both the lead and lag vessels since water exiting the lag had been
treated by this entire media volume. Initially, the lead vessel (Vessel A) removed the majority of arsenic
from source water until its capacity was gradually diminished. Afterwards, the lag vessel (Vessel B)
served as a polishing unit, removing arsenic to less than 10 (ig/L throughout most of Run 1. Both
breakthrough curves in Figure 4-12 gradually increased overtime.
Total Arsenic
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Volume of Water Treated (1,000 gal)
3,500
4,000
-At Wellhead (IN)
- Run 2 After Lead Vessel B (TB)
Run 1 After Lead Vessel A (TA)
Run 2 After Lag Vessel (TA)
Run 1 After Lag Vessel B (TB)
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Runs 1 and 2
Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L from the lead vessel occurred at approximately 19,810 BV, which was
31.6% of the vendor estimated working capacity, i.e., 62,690 BV, based on 5 ft3 of media in the lead
vessel (Table 4-3). One potential contributing factor to the earlier than expected breakthrough was the
shorter EBCT (i.e., 2.9 min versus the design value of 3.7 min), which was caused by the higher flowrate
of 13 gpm.
Another factor that might have contributed to the shorter media life was the presence of competing
anions, such as phosphorous and silica, in raw water with concentrations up to 99.2 (ig/L (as P) for
phosphorous and 31.7 mg/L (as SiO2) for silica. As shown in Figure 4-13, phosphorous was effectively
removed to below its detection limit of 10 (ig/L by both vessels until 13,700 BV (-1,000,000 gal) when
detectable concentrations (11.0 (ig/L [as P]) of phosphorous were measured in the system effluent.
29
-------
Breakthrough curves for both lead and lag vessels show a gradual increase of phosphorous in the effluent
over time. During the first nine months of operation, water samples were analyzed for orthophosphate (as
P) and a similar trend was observed. Orthophosphate was effectively removed to below its detection limit
of 0.05 mg/L by the lead vessel up to about 19,500 BV. Coincidentally, as breakthrough of arsenic
approached 10 ug/L, orthophosphate also began to break through. After the breakthrough, detectable
concentrations of 0.1 mg/L were measured following the lead vessel, but were reduced to below its
detection limit following the lag vessel. Sampling of orthophosphate was then discontinued due to
laboratory issues. To a lesser extent, silica also might compete with arsenic for available adsorptive sites,
as evidenced by the reduced silica concentrations observed during the first sampling event on April 15,
2005, October 4, 2005, and after the media change-out on September 19, 2006.
Total Phosphorus
120
100 -
HI
o
c
o
o
Q.
80
60
ฃ 40 -
20 -
-Run 1
-Run 2
750
1,250
1,750 2,250 2,750
Volume water Treated (1,000 gal)
3,250
3,750
-At Wellhead (IN)
Run 2 - After Lead Vessel (TB)
- Run 1 - After Lead Vessel A (TA)
Run 2 - After Lag Vessel (TA)
Run 1 - After Lag Vessel B (TB)
Figure 4-13. Total Phosphorous Breakthrough Curves for Runs 1 and 2
Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L following Vessel B, or the entire system, occurred at 25,710 BV (1
BV = 10 ft3), which was 30% higher than the 19,810 BV observed following the lead tank. The average
EBCT of the system was 5.8 min, which was twice as long as that for the lead tank only. The longer
EBCT benefited arsenic adsorption, extending the media run length for 30%. At this time, Vessel A had
an approximate arsenic effluent concentration of 22.8 ug/L, which was approaching the influent
concentration of 33.5 ug/L on September 5, 2006. Approximately 2,085,000 gal of water was processed
through the system before media change-out of the lead vessel was necessary.
The benefit of the lead/lag system is that the media in the lead vessel can be more fully utilized, ideally to
or near its full capacity, before it is to be replaced. The lag vessel is used as a polishing unit to bring the
concentrations to below the MCL. The first run treated more BV of water due to the use of virgin media
30
-------
in both vessels. For Run 2, the lead vessel had already been partially exhausted; therefore, fewer BV (i.e.,
18,370 vs. 25,710) was treated before arsenic concentrations following the lag vessel reached 10 (ig/L.
The frequency of lead vessel change-out would be somewhere between 18,370 and 25,710 BV.
On September 6, 2006, the media in Vessel A was changed out and piping modifications were started to
make the vessels switchable. The modifications were not completed until September 20, 2006, however,
due to unavailability of a valve. Since then, Run 2 was carried out with the partially exhausted Vessel B
in the lead position and the newly rebedded Vessel A in the lag position. Results of initial sampling on
October 2, 2006, showed 10.5 (ig/L of total arsenic following Vessel B (the lead vessel) and 1.0 (ig/L
following Vessel A (the lag vessel). After approximately 1,374,000 gal of water had been treated by the
system, the effluent of the system reached 10 (ig/L on August 6, 2007. Sampling was discontinued and
the performance evaluation was completed.
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in raw water were below its detection limit of 25 (ig/L
(Table 4-6). Total iron concentrations across the treatment train also were below the detection limit,
except for two measurements: one at 72.5 (ig/L at the TB location on September 6, 2005 and one at 37.7
(ig/L at the TA location on June 12, 2006. Total manganese levels ranged from 0.6 to 16.7 (ig/L and
averaged 3.3 (ig/L in raw water. Manganese existed in both soluble and particulate forms. Total
manganese concentrations in the effluent from the adsorption vessels showed a decreasing trend, with an
average of 1.2 and 0.6 (ig/L measured after the lead and lag vessels, respectively, during Run 1 and 3.0
and 0.4 (ig/L measured on September 19, 2006 after the lead and lag vessels, respectively, during Run 2.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-7, pH values of raw water measured at the IN
sample location varied from 6.8 to 7.5 and averaged 7.1. Although not monitored during the
demonstration, the pH of the water after aeration was higher than that before aeration as measured during
the initial site visit (Table 4-1). The higher pH values might have caused some arsenic to desorb into the
backwash wastewater when the aerated water was used to backwash the media.
Alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from 33 to 88 mg/L. The results indicate that the adsorptive media
had little or no effect on alkalinity in the treated water. Total hardness ranged from 17.8 to 42.8 mg/L (as
CaCO3) and averaged 28.4 mg/L (as CaCO3). Total hardness as well as calcium and magnesium hardness
remained constant throughout the treatment train.
Sulfate concentrations ranged from 4.5 to 9.0 mg/L in raw water, and remained constant throughout the
treatment train. Fluoride levels ranged from less than the reporting limit of 0.1 to 1.5 mg/L in all samples.
The results indicate that the adsorptive media did not affect the amount of fluoride in the treated water.
DO levels ranged from 3.2 to 8.0 mg/L; ORP readings ranged from 168 to 307 mV across all sampling
locations. The water pumped from the 800-ft-deep bedrocks appear to be fairly oxidizing.
4.5.2 Backwash Wastewater Sampling. Backwash was performed using the treated water drawn
from the 2,000-gal hydropneumatic tank. As shown in Appendix B, the treated water sampled on August
22, 2005, contained no more than 0.3 |o,g/L of total arsenic. In contrast, the wastewater samples collected
during lead and lag vessel backwashing on the same date contained 30.2 and 3.6 (ig/L of soluble arsenic,
respectively, indicating desorption. More arsenic was leached from the lead than the lag vessel, likely
due to the higher arsenic loading in the lead vessel. Arsenic desorption may be caused by the slightly
higher pH of the treated water following aeration for radon removal. The arsenic concentration and pH
value of the water from the 2,000-gal hydropneumatic tank were not measured during the study, but the
initial site visit samples showed a pH of 7.5 in the aerated water (Table 4-1). Turbidity readings from
Vessel A were higher than those from Vessel B, most likely because the lead vessel had removed the
31
-------
majority of participates from raw water. The analytical results from the backwash wastewater samples
collected are summarized in Table 4-8.
The backwash wastewater sampling procedure was modified during the second backwash event to include
the collection of composite samples for total As, Fe, and Mn and TSS. This modified procedure involved
diverting a portion of backwash wastewater from the backwash discharge line to a 32-gal plastic container
over the duration of backwash for each vessel and collecting a composite sample from the container after
the content had been well mixed. The composite samples also were filtered using 0.45-(im filters and
analyzed for soluble As, Fe, and Mn.
For the second backwash on August 7, 2006, the treated water used for backwashing contained 10.6 |o,g/L
of total arsenic. The backwash wastewater from Vessel A contained a much higher total arsenic level
(i.e., 133 (ig/L) with the majority (i.e., 77%) present as particulate. The particulate arsenic likely was
associated with media fines, since as much as 5,430 |o,g/L of particulate iron also was present in the
backwash wastewater. More arsenic and iron were removed from the lead than the lag vessel, apparently
caused by the higher arsenic loading in the lead vessel.
Table 4-8. Backwash Wastewater Sampling Results
Sampling Event
Analyte
PH
Turbidity
TDS
TSS
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Unit
S.U.
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
tig/L
tig/L
tig/L
tig/L
tig/L
tig/L
tig/L
Backwash Vessel #1
Date
08/22/05
7.1
58
90
NA
NA
30.2
NA
NA
<25
NA
1.3
08/07/06
7.6
NA
84
123
133
30.8
102
5,430
<25
1,288
9.7
Backwash Vessel #2
Date
08/22/05
7.2
19
80
NA
NA
3.6
NA
NA
<25
NA
0.3
08/07/06
7.5
NA
154
16
13.0
15.8
0.1
242
<25
25.8
3.1
TDS = total dissolved solids, TSS = total suspended solids,
NA = not analyzed
As expected, TSS values were higher for Vessel A (i.e., 123 mg/L) than for Vessel B (i.e., 16 mg/L).
Assuming that an average of 320 gal backwash was produced from each vessel at an average flowrate of
16 gpm and duration of 20 min, Vessel A would generate about 0.33 Ib of solids (including 3.6 x 10"4 Ib
of arsenic, 0.01 Ib of iron, and 3.4 x 10"3 Ib of manganese) and Vessel B would generate 0.04 Ib of solids
(including 3.5 x 1Q"5 Ib of arsenic, 6.5 x 1Q"4 Ib of iron, and 6.9 x 10"5 Ib of manganese), for each
backwash cycle.
4.5.3 Spent Media. The treatment system was shut down on September 6, 2006, and spent media
samples were collected from Vessel A, and analyzed as discussed in Section 3.3.4. Total metals and
TCLP results are presented in Tables 4-9 and 4-10, respectively.
The ICP-MS results of the spent media indicated that the media contained mostly iron at 459 mg/g (as
Fe), or 730 mg/g (as FeOOH), which is less than the 90.1% (by weight) specified by Bayer AG (Table 4-
2). Phosphorus and silicon, both detected in source water, were removed by the media, increasing the
32
-------
respective loadings from the virgin media levels of 0.009 and 0.03%, as specified by Bayer AG, to 0.34
and 0.06%. This confirms the trends seen in the phosphorous and silica concentrations in the effluent
from the system. The spent media also appeared to have removed some amounts of Cu and Pb from
source water, as evidenced by the decreasing loadings from the top to the bottom of Vessel A. The spent
media also contained trace levels of Ca, Mg, and Mn (Table 4-9).
Table 4-9. Average Spent Media Total Metal Analysis
Analyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorous
Silicon
Zinc
Vessel A (mg/g)
Top
0.42
3.5
O.0005
2.1
0.24
456
0.002
1.1
1.9
0.11
3.4
0.20
16.2
Middle
0.44
2.4
O.0005
2.1
0.05
466
0.001
1.1
1.8
0.11
3.4
0.72
15.7
Bottom
0.32
2.2
O.0005
2.1
0.02
457
0.0007
1.1
1.7
0.11
3.4
0.95
15.5
Arsenic concentration on the spent media based on the ICP-MS analysis averaged 2.7 mg/g. The
calculated adsorptive capacity based on the influent and effluent curves (Figure 4-12) was 2.6 mg/g. This
calculation was based upon a media dry weight of 129.3 Ib, assuming a bulk density of 28.1 lb/ft3 and a
moisture content of 8%. The calculated adsorptive capacity was very close to the loading analyzed by
ICP-MS. The calculated adsorptive capacity on the media in Tank B was 1.6 mg/g, which further
supported the decision to rebed only Tank A due to the remaining capacity of the media in Vessel B.
The results of the TCLP test indicate that only barium was detected at 0.39 mg/L (Table 4-10) for the
sample tested by Belmont Labs. The rest of the analytes were detected below the respective quantitation
limits. The TCLP results indicate that the spent media was non-hazardous and might be disposed of at a
sanitary landfill.
Table 4-10. TCLP Results of Spent Media
Analyte
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Belmont
Laboratory
(mg/L)
<0.10
0.39
O.010
O.010
O.050
O.0020
<0.10
O.010
Advanced
Chemistry
Labs, Inc.
(mg/L)
O.10
<2.00
O.10
O.20
O.50
O.002
O.10
O.50
33
-------
4.5.4 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected four times at three residences on
January 10, January 25, February 7, and March 21, 2005. Following the installation of the treatment
system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis for 15 months. The results of the
distribution system sampling are summarized on Table 4-11.
Baseline arsenic concentrations before treatment ranged from 23.7 to 34.2 (ig/L and averaged 30 (ig/L for
all three locations. One month after the performance evaluation began, arsenic concentrations were
reduced to an average of 2.3 (ig/L. During the demonstration, arsenic concentrations in the distribution
locations mirrored those in the system effluent.
Lead concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 3.0 (ig/L, with none of the samples exceeding the action level of
15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 6.1 to 133 (ig/L, with no samples exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L
action level. The system did not seem to affect the Pb or Cu concentrations in the distribution system.
Measured pH ranged from 6.6 to 8.2 and averaged 7.4. Alkalinity levels ranged from 44 to 67 mg/L (as
CaCO3) with one outlier at 116 measured at DS3 on June 13, 2006. Iron was not detected in any of the
samples; manganese concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 3.3 (ig/L. The arsenic treatment system did not
seem 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, electrical
power use, and labor.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation of the
Goffstown treatment system was $34,210 (see Table 4-12). The equipment cost was $22,431 (or 66% of
the total capital investment), which included $17,171 for the skid-mounted APU-GOFF-LL unit, $3,000
for the AD-33 media ($300/ft3 or $10.68/lb to fill two vessels), $1,000 for shipping, and $1,260 for labor.
The engineering cost included the cost for preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment system,
mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and equipment
layout to be used as part of the permit application submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The engineering cost was
$4,860, or 14% of the total capital investment.
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 was performed by AdEdge and its local
contractor, Thursty Water Systems. The installation cost was $6,910, or 20% of the total capital
investment.
The total capital cost of $34,210 was normalized to the system's rated capacity of 10 gpm (14,400 gpd),
which resulted in $3,421/gpm of design capacity ($2.38/gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $3,229/year 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 10 gpm to produce 5,256,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would
be $0.61/1,000 gal. Because the system operated an average of 5.3 hr/day at 13 gpm (see Table 4-4),
producing 1,508,900 gal of water during the first year of operation (see Appendix A), the unit capital cost
increased to $2.13/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of use.
34
-------
Table 4-11. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
No.
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
01/10/05
01/25/05
02/07/05
03/21/05
05/16/05
06/13/05
07/11/05
08/08/05
09/06/05
10/05/05
12/05/05
12/12/05
01/09/06
02/06/06
03/06/06
04/03/06
05/02/06
06/13/06
07/10/06
Treated
Water
(K
-------
Table 4-12. Capital Investment Cost for APU-GOFF-LL System
Description
EC
APU Skid-Mounted System (Unit)
AD-33Media(ft3)
Shipping
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment
luipment Cost
1
10
$17,171
$3,000
$1,000
$1,260
$22,431
66%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor 1
Engineering Total | -
$4,860
$4,860
14%
Installation Cost
Material
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
$2,520
$1,950
$1,440
$1,000
$6,910
$34,210
20%
100%
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included the cost for such items as
media replacement and disposal, electricity consumption, and labor (Table 4-13). As discussed in Section
4.4, the spent media was replaced on September 6, 2006, after processing approximately 2,085,000 gal.
The media replacement cost represented the majority of the O&M cost and was $4,199 to change out the
lead vessel. This media change-out cost included the cost for media, freight, labor, travel, spent media
analysis, and media disposal fee. By averaging the media replacement cost of $4,199 over the media life,
the unit cost per 1,000 gal of water treated is plotted as a function of the media life, as shown in Figure 4-
14. The media life in BV was calculated by dividing the system throughput (gal) by 5 ft3 (or 37.4 gal) of
media. The arsenic concentration in the system effluent exceeded the MCL at 2,085,000 gal or 55,750
BV, so the corresponding media replacement cost was $2.01/1,000 gal (Table 4-13).
Comparison of electrical bills supplied by the utility prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate a noticeable 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
only 30 min per week, as noted in Section 4.4.5. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $0.33/1,000 gal
of water treated.
36
-------
Table 4-13. Operation and Maintenance Cost for APU-GOFF-LL System
Cost Category
Volume processed (kgal)
Value
2,085
Assumptions
For Run 1
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
Media replacement ($)
Underbedding ($)
Freight ($)
Subcontractor labor ($)
Vendor Labor ($)
Media disposal fee ($)
Spent Media Analysis ($)
Subtotal
Media replacement and disposal
($71,000 gal)
1,500
154
250
1,050
800
200
245
4,199
2.01
Vendor invoice; $300/ft3 for 5 ft3 in
lead vessel
Vendor invoice; for 4 ft3
Vendor invoice
Vendor invoice
Vendor invoice
Vendor invoice
Vendor invoice for one TCLP test
Vendor invoice
Based upon lead vessel media run
length at 10-|ag/L arsenic
breakthrough from lag vessel
Electricity Cost
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor Cost
Average weekly labor (hr)
Labor ($71, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
0.5
0.33
$2.34
30 minutes/per week
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
Based upon lead vessel media run
length at 10-|ag/L arsenic
breakthrough from lag vessel
O&M cost
Media replacement cost
;.- $5.00 -
$0.00
10
20
30
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
Note: One bed volume equals 5 ft3 (37.4 gal) in lead vessel
Figure 4-14. Media Replacement and Operation and Maintenance Cost
37
-------
Section 5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. 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 Goffstown, New Hampshire. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185,
Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFRPart 141.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
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.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 1 of 8)
Week
No.
0
1
-)
3
4
5
6
Day of
Week
Fn
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fn
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fn
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fn
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fn
Sat
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fn
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Date
04/15/05
04/16/05
04/17/05
04/1 8/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
04/21/05
04/22/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
04/25/05
04/26/05
04/27/05
04/28/05
04/29/05
04/30/05
05/01/05
05/02/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
05/05/05
05/06/05
05/07/05
05/08/05
05/09/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/14/05
05/15/05
05/16/05
05/17/05
05/1 8/05
05/19/05
05/20/05
05/21/05
05/24/05
05/26/05
05/28/05
Hour
Meter
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Actual
Run
Time
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
14.5
14.7
12.9
14.0
13.4
12.7
12.2
13.7
14.4
12.9
12.1
12.9
14.2
12.6
13.5
14.0
13.8
13.6
14.2
13.2
14.1
14.2
13.1
12.0
13.0
13.9
13.5
12.5
14.1
11.8
12.2
11.6
13.1
14.0
12.0
14.4
12.7
14.2
13.2
12.8
Totalizer
gal
729
2,400
8,636
14,409
17,852
22,950
26,486
30,662
34,429
41,213
45,208
48,661
53,304
56,709
60,806
63,839
67,553
73,158
76,389
79,933
83,394
87,494
90,585
95,033
101,056
103,347
108,162
112,010
116,385
119,747
124,653
129,439
134,866
138,653
142,048
147,816
151,782
165,420
174,087
181,578
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
19
64
231
385
477
614
708
820
921
1,102
1,209
1,301
1,425
1,516
1,626
1,707
1,806
1,956
2,042
2,137
2,230
2,339
2,422
2,541
2,702
2,763
2,892
2,995
3,112
3,202
3,333
3,461
3,606
3,707
3,798
3,952
4,058
4,423
4,655
4,855
Usage
gal
729
1,671
6,236
5,773
,443
,098
,536
,176
,767
,784
,995
3,453
4,643
3,405
4,097
3,033
,714
,605
,231
,544
,461
,100
,091
4,448
6,023
2,291
4,815
3,848
4,375
3,362
4,906
4,786
5,427
3,787
3,395
5,768
3,966
13,638
8,667
7,491
Calc.
Run
Time
hr
1
2
8
7
4
7
5
5
4
9
6
4
5
5
5
4
4
7
4
4
4
5
4
6
8
3
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
7
5
16
11
10
Average
Flowrate
gpm
15
15
13
14
13
13
12
14
14
13
12
13
14
13
14
14
14
14
14
13
14
14
13
12
13
14
14
13
14
12
12
12
13
14
12
14
13
14
13
13
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
1
3
11
18
22
29
33
39
43
52
57
62
67
72
77
80
85
92
95
100
104
109
113
119
127
129
135
140
146
150
157
164
171
175
180
187
192
208
219
229
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
14.5
14.3
13.1
14.3
13.5
13.2
12.5
14.1
14.7
13.2
12.4
13.3
14.6
12.9
13.8
14.4
14.3
13.9
14.5
13.6
14.6
14.6
13.4
12.3
13.3
14.1
13.8
12.9
14.5
12.2
12.5
12.1
13.3
14.6
12.5
14.6
13.1
14.6
13.6
13.1
Totalizer
gal
781
2,443
8,800
14,673
18,160
23,344
26,948
31,205
35,053
41,996
46,089
49,619
54,372
57,855
62,045
65,152
68,949
74,701
78,013
81,647
85,185
89,369
92,546
97,101
103,288
105,633
110,580
114,537
119,024
122,474
127,522
132,442
138,019
141,910
145,393
151,816
155,403
169,430
178,334
186,037
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
10
33
118
196
243
312
360
417
469
561
616
663
727
773
829
871
922
999
1,043
1,092
1,139
1,195
1,237
1,298
1,381
1,412
1,478
1,531
1,591
1,637
1,705
1,771
1,845
1,897
1,944
2,030
2,078
2,265
2,384
2,487
Pressure
Inlet
psig
29
29
28.5
28
28
27
26.5
28
29
28
26
28
30
27.5
28
29
29
28
30
28
29.5
30
28
26
28
29
28
27
29
26
26
26
28
29
27
29.5
27
30
28
27.5
Outlet
psig
12
12
10.5
10.5
10.5
10
10.2
10.5
12
10.5
10
10.2
10.5
10.2
10.2
10.5
10.1
10
11
10.2
12
11
10.5
10
10.2
11
10.2
10
10.5
10
10.2
10
10
10.5
10.5
10.5
10
11
10.5
10
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
17
17
18
17.5
17.5
17
16.3
17.5
17
17.5
16
17.8
19.5
17.3
17.8
18.5
18.9
18
19
17.8
17.5
19
17.5
16
17.8
18
17.8
17
18.5
16
15.8
16
18
18.5
16.5
19
17
19
17.5
17.5
AP
Vessel
A
psi
3
3
3
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
6
5
5.5
5 5
6
5 5
6
5 5
5.8
5.9
5.8
4.8
5
6
5.9
5.9
5.5
4
4.9
4
5.5
5.9
4
5 5
5.2
6
5.5
5
Vesse
IB
psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 2 of 8)
Week
No.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Day of
Week
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Fn
Sun
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Fn
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Thu
Sat
Date
05/31/05
06/02/05
06/04/05
06/07/05
06/09/05
06/11/05
06/13/05
06/15/05
06/17/05
06/19/05
06/21/05
06/23/05
06/25/05
06/27/05
06/29/05
07/02/05
07/05/05
07/07/05
07/09/05
07/1 1/05
07/13/05
07/16/05
07/19/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/25/05
07/27/05
07/30/05
08/02/05
08/04/05
08/06/05
08/08/05
08/10/05
08/13/05
08/16/05
08/18/05
08/20/05
08/22/05
08/25/05
08/27/05
Hour
Meter
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.1
27.7
41.6
51.1
61.2
72.0
82.0
92.2
102.8
115.7
128.5
145.8
162.7
170.8
180.1
191.2
205.6
220.7
239.2
256.5
260.8
273.5
287.5
302.6
321.1
330.5
339.0
352.3
365.1
381.1
398.0
407.4
419.3
434.4
454.4
466.7
Actual
Run
Time
hr
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.1
10.6
13.9
9.5
10.1
10.8
10.0
10.2
10.6
12.9
12.8
17.3
16.9
8.1
9.3
11.1
14.4
15.1
18.5
17.3
4.3
12.7
14.0
15.1
18.5
9.4
8.5
13.3
12.8
16.0
16.9
9.4
11.9
15.1
20.0
12.3
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
12.7
13.4
12.9
12.9
13.1
11.3
14.2
12.5
14.0
13.0
14.1
10.6
11.9
11.9
13.2
11.2
13.1
14.2
13.3
10.5
12.8
12.5
13.6
12.6
12.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.3
13.8
13.8
13.0
10.9
13.8
12.9
12.7
12.7
11.4
12.2
12.5
Totalizer
gal
194,778
201,319
208,865
222 922
232,467
240,924
251,737
259,252
267,354
276,090
284,086
291,792
300,045
309,679
319,412
333,008
346,365
352,860
360,369
369,084
379,796
391,514
405,781
418,948
422,402
431,780
442,514
454,274
468,418
475,728
482,427
492,367
502,021
514,382
527,347
534,860
544,045
554,938
569,985
579,564
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
5,208
5,383
5,585
5,960
6,216
6,442
6,731
6,932
7,149
7,382
7,596
7,802
8,023
8,280
8,540
8,904
9,261
9,435
9,636
9,869
10,155
10,468
10,850
11,202
11,294
11,545
11,832
12,146
12,525
12,720
12,899
13,165
13,423
13,754
14,100
14,301
14,547
14,838
15,240
15,496
Usage
gal
13,200
6,541
7,546
14,057
9,545
8,457
10,813
7,515
8,102
8,736
7,996
7,706
8,253
9,634
9,733
13,596
13,357
6,495
7,509
8,715
10,712
11,718
14,267
13,167
3,454
9,378
10,734
11,760
14,144
7,310
6,699
9,940
9,654
12,361
12,965
7,513
9,185
10,893
15,047
9,579
Calc.
Run
Time
hr
17
8
10
18
12
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
Average
Flowrate
gpm
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
246
254
264
282
294
305
319
328
338
349
359
369
380
393
406
423
440
448
457
468
483
498
516
534
538
551
565
580
598
608
616
629
642
658
675
684
696
711
731
744
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
13.2
14.
13.
13.
13.
11.
14.
13.
14.
13.3
14.6
10.8
12.2
12.4
13.5
11.6
13.4
14.5
13.7
10.8
13.2
12.9
14.3
13.0
12.8
12.7
12.7
12.4
13.5
14.3
14.4
13.4
11.4
14.2
13.4
13.4
13.3
11.8
12.5
13.0
Totalizer
gal
199,630
206,421
214,270
228,822
238,609
247,479
258,394
266,104
274,389
283,328
291,510
299,426
307,887
317,810
327,822
341,786
355,498
362,168
369,876
378,857
389,916
402,013
416,782
430,405
433,976
443,686
454,794
466,970
468,418
475,728
482,427
506,476
516,496
529,330
542,800
550,528
560,103
571,433
569,985
579,564
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
2,669
2,760
2,865
3,059
3,190
3,309
3,454
3,558
3,668
3,788
3,897
4,003
4,116
4,249
4,383
4,569
4,753
4,842
4,945
5,065
5,213
5,375
5,572
5,754
5,802
5,932
6,080
6,243
6,262
6,360
6,450
6,771
6,905
7,077
7,257
7,360
7,488
7,639
7,620
7,748
Pressure
Inlet
psig
27
29
27
27
27
25
28
27.5
28
28
29
25
26
26
28
25
28
29
28
24
28
27
29
27
27
26.5
27
26
28
28
29
28
25
28
28
28
27
27
26
26
Outlet
psig
10
10.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.5
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
17
18.5
17
17
17
15
18
17.5
18
18
18.5
15
16
16
18
15
18
18.5
18
15
18
17
19
17
17
16.5
17
16
18
18
19
18
15
18
18
18
17
17
16
16
AP
Vessel
A
psi
4
5 5
3
4
5
3
5.5
5
5
5
5.5
3
4
5
4
3
5
5
5
3
5
4.5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5
5.5
4.5
5.5
5 5
5
5 5
5
5
5
4.5
4
4
Vesse
IB
psi
NA
NA
NA
4
4.5
3.5
5
4
5
4.5
5
3.2
3.5
4
4.5
3.5
4.5
5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4
5
4.5
4
3.5
4.5
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4.4
4.5
4.5
3.5
4
4
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 3 of 8)
Week
No.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
Day of
Week
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sun
Mon
Thu
Sat
Wed
Fn
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Date
08/30/05
08/31/05
09/03/05
09/06/05
09/08/05
09/10/05
09/12/05
09/14/05
09/17/05
09/20/05
09/22/05
09/24/05
09/27/05
09/29/05
10/01/05
10/04/05
10/06/05
10/08/05
10/11/05
10/13/05
10/16/05
10/17/05
10/20/05
10/22/05
10/26/05
10/28/06
1 0/29/05
11/01/05
11/03/05
11/05/05
11/08/05
11/10/05
11/12/05
11/15/05
11/17/05
11/19/05
11/29/05
12/01/05
12/03/05
12/06/05
Hour
Meter
hr
484.1
494.2
504.6
524.4
536.6
548.2
566.4
576.4
589.0
605.8
615.6
623.9
639.8
649.2
657.3
673.4
684.0
692.6
707.1
717.1
729.8
734.7
748.0
755.3
775.7
783.9
788.1
801.8
810.9
818.5
833.0
841.3
849.1
863.6
872.3
881.1
927.8
936.0
943.8
958.9
Actual
Run
Time
hr
17.4
10.1
10.4
19.8
12.2
11.6
18.2
10.0
12.6
16.8
9.8
8.3
15.9
9.4
8.1
16.1
10.6
8.6
14.5
10.0
12.7
4.9
13.3
7.3
20.4
8.2
4.2
13.7
9.1
7.6
14.5
8.3
7.8
14.5
8.7
8.8
46.7
8.2
7.8
15.1
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
13.1
11.5
13.3
13.1
13.7
13.3
11.8
14.1
11.8
13.5
13.7
14.4
13.5
14.0
13.1
13.2
13.5
13.4
13.8
13.4
12.4
14.2
13.1
14.0
12.8
12.9
13.5
12.3
12.8
14.5
13.7
13.9
12.5
13.7
13.3
12.5
13.3
13.9
14.3
13.3
Totalizer
gal
592,924
601,017
609,281
624,840
633,600
642,626
655,624
663,515
673,593
686,774
694,629
701,298
713,955
721,566
728,269
740,939
749,348
756,339
767,896
775,977
786,345
790,252
801,173
807,298
823,567
830,344
833,875
844,940
852,379
858,619
870,311
877,042
883,569
895,236
902,353
909,568
947,229
953,985
960,426
972,598
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
15,854
16,070
16,291
16,707
16,941
17,183
17,530
17,741
18,011
18,363
18,573
18,751
19,090
19,293
19,472
19,811
20,036
20,223
20,532
20,748
21,025
21,130
21,422
21,586
22,021
22,202
22,296
22,592
22,791
22,958
23,270
23,450
23,625
23,937
24,127
24,320
25,327
25,508
25,680
26,005
Usage
gal
13,360
8,093
8,264
15,559
8,760
9,026
12,998
7,891
10,078
13,181
7,855
6,669
12,657
7,611
6,703
12,670
8,409
6,991
11,557
8,081
10,368
3,907
10,921
6,125
16,269
6,777
3,531
11,065
7,439
6,240
11,692
6,731
6,527
11,667
7,117
7,215
37,661
6,756
6,441
12,172
Calc.
Run
Time
hr
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
Average
Flowrate
gpm
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
761
771
782
801
814
825
843
853
866
883
893
901
917
926
934
950
961
970
984
994
1,007
1,012
1,025
1,032
1,053
1,061
1,065
1,079
1,088
1,096
1,110
1,118
1,126
1,141
1,149
1,158
1,205
1,213
1,221
1,236
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
13.6
12.0
13.6
13.7
14.0
13.5
12.2
14.1
12.3
13.8
14.0
14.7
14.0
14.5
13.5
13.7
13.9
13.7
14.3
13.8
12.8
14.7
13.3
14.2
13.2
13.6
13.8
12.7
13.2
14.8
13.9
14.5
12.8
14.0
13.9
12.7
13.5
14.2
14.5
13.9
Totalizer
gal
610,682
619,048
627,572
642,834
652,694
662,004
675,452
683,600
694,005
707,606
715,716
722,600
735,641
743,477
750,364
763,41 1
772,077
779,286
791,183
799,492
810,170
814,192
825,406
831,683
848,380
855,338
858,959
870,314
877,951
884,350
896,367
903,268
909,984
921,929
929,240
936,638
975,234
982,174
988,779
1,001,285
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
8,164
8,276
8,390
8,594
8,726
8,850
9,030
9,139
9,278
9,460
9,568
9,660
9,835
9,940
10,032
10,206
10,322
10,418
10,577
10,688
10,831
10,885
11,035
11,119
11,342
11,435
11,483
11,635
11,737
11,823
11,984
12,076
12,166
12,325
12,423
12,522
13,038
13,131
13,219
13,386
Pressure
Inlet
psig
28
25
27
27.5
28
27
25
28
25
28
28
29
28
28
27
28
28
27
28
28
26
28
27
28
26
28
28
26
27
29
28
29
27
28
28
27
28
28
29
29
Outlet
psig
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.1
10
10
10
10
10.1
10
9.5
10
10
10.5
10
10
10.1
10
10
11
10
10.5
10
10
10.5
10
10
10
10.5
10.5
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
18
15
17
17.5
18
17
15
18
15
18
18
19
18
17.9
17
18
18
17
17.9
18
16.5
18
17
17.5
16
18
17.9
16
17
18
18
18.5
17
18
17.5
17
18
18
18.5
18.5
AP
Vessel
A
psi
5
3
5
5
5
5
4.2
5
4.5
5
5
5
5
5
4.5
5
3
5
5
4
3.5
5 5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5
4.5
3.5
5
5
4.5
5
5
5
4.5
3
5
5
5
5
Vesse
IB
psi
4.8
3.5
4.2
4
4.5
4.3
3.5
6
4
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.7
4.9
4
4.2
3.8
4.1
5
4.5
4
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.2
4.5
4.2
3.9
4.5
5
4.9
5
4
4.5
4.5
3.9
4
4.8
4.5
4.75
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 4 of 8)
Week
No.
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Day of
Week
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Mon
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Wed
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Date
12/08/05
12/10/05
12/12/05
12/14/05
12/17/05
12/19/05
12/22/05
12/24/05
01/02/06
01/04/06
01/07/06
01/10/06
01/12/06
01/14/06
01/17/06
01/19/06
01/21/06
01/24/06
01/26/06
01/28/06
01/31/06
02/02/06
02/04/06
02/07/06
02/09/06
02/11/06
02/15/06
02/16/06
02/18/06
02/21/06
02/23/06
02/25/06
02/28/06
03/02/06
03/04/06
03/07/06
03/09/06
03/11/06
03/14/06
03/16/06
Hour
Meter
hr
967.2
975.7
985.8
994.3
1,006.7
1,018.3
1,031.1
1,039.3
1,081.7
1,091.4
1,104.0
1,119.0
1,126.7
1,134.9
1,151.1
1,159.2
1,166.7
1,181.9
1,189.7
1,196.5
1,210.4
1,218.5
1,224.9
1,239.6
1,247.4
1,255.4
1,274.3
1,277.8
1,285.3
1,300.1
1,307.0
1,314.7
1,327.7
1,335.6
1,344.2
1,359.0
1,367.3
1,377.1
1,394.2
1,402.5
Actual
Run
Time
hr
8.3
8.5
10.1
8.5
12.4
11.6
12.8
8.2
42.4
9.7
12.6
15.0
7.7
8.2
16.2
8.1
7.5
15.2
7.8
6.8
13.9
8.1
6.4
14.7
7.8
8.0
18.9
3.5
7.5
14.8
6.9
7.7
13.0
7.9
8.6
14.8
8.3
9.8
17.1
8.3
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
12.7
12.6
13.4
14.3
12.9
13.8
14.7
12.3
13.9
12.1
13.6
13.2
13.7
14.3
12.9
12.9
13.3
12.2
13.2
14.2
12.9
14.1
14.0
12.7
13.5
13.0
13.3
14.1
13.5
13.3
12.9
12.2
14.5
12.9
13.3
13.9
12.5
13.9
14.4
13.0
Totalizer
gal
979,500
986,453
994,546
1,001,530
1,011,637
1,020,899
1,031,450
1,038,125
1,072,161
1,080,027
1,090,449
1,102,558
1,108,877
1,115,650
1,128,542
1,135,229
1,141,500
1,153,665
1,160,111
1,165,778
1,176,000
1,183,000
1,189,000
1,201,000
1,207,000
1,214,000
1,229,000
1,232,000
1,238,000
1,250,000
1,256,000
1,262,000
1,273,000
1,280,000
1,287,000
1,299,000
1,305,000
1,313,000
1,327,000
1,334,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
26,190
26,376
26,592
26,779
27,049
27,297
27,579
27,757
28,667
28,878
29,156
29,480
29,649
29,830
30,175
30,354
30,521
30,847
31,019
31,171
31,444
31,631
31,791
32,112
32,273
32,460
32,861
32,941
33,102
33,422
33,583
33,743
34,037
34,225
34,412
34,733
34,893
35,107
35,481
35,668
Usage
gal
6,902
6,953
8,093
6,984
10,107
9,262
10,551
6,675
34,036
7,866
10,422
12,109
6,319
6,773
12,892
6,687
6,271
12,165
6,446
5,667
10,222
7,000
6,000
12,000
6,000
7,000
15,000
3,000
6,000
12,000
6,000
6,000
11,000
7,000
7,000
12,000
6,000
8,000
14,000
7,000
Calc.
Run
Time
hr
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
Average
Flowrate
gpm
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
14
12
14
16
14
13
15
13
14
13
14
14
13
14
15
14
14
12
14
14
14
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
1,244
1,253
1,263
1,271
1,284
1,295
1,308
1,316
1,359
1,368
1,381
1,396
1,404
1,412
1,428
1,436
1,444
1,459
1,467
1,474
1,487
1,496
1,502
1,517
1,524
1,532
1,551
1,555
1,562
1,577
1,584
1,592
1,605
1,613
1,621
1,636
1,644
1,654
1,671
1,680
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
13.0
12.9
13.8
14.8
13.4
14.2
14.9
12.8
14.2
13.1
13.9
13.5
14.3
14.8
13.1
13.5
13.6
12.6
13.8
14.5
13.6
14.3
14.2
13.1
13.9
13.3
13.9
14.6
13.8
13.6
13.4
12.5
14.8
13.6
13.5
14.5
12.9
14.2
14.6
13.3
Totalizer
gal
1,008,375
1,015,431
1,023,702
1,030,881
1,041,261
1,050,753
1,061,542
1,068,399
1,103,339
1,111,420
1,122,084
1,134,476
1,140,941
1,147,882
1,161,075
1,167,928
1,174,322
1,186,793
1,193,400
1,199,208
1,210,000
1,217,000
1,223,000
1,235,000
1,242,000
1,248,000
1,264,000
1,267,000
1,273,000
1,286,000
1,292,000
1,298,000
1,309,000
1,316,000
1,323,000
1,335,000
1,342,000
1,350,000
1,364,000
1,371,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
13,481
13,575
13,686
13,782
13,921
14,048
14,192
14,283
14,751
14,859
15,001
15,167
15,253
15,346
15,522
15,614
15,699
15,866
15,955
16,032
16,176
16,270
16,350
16,511
16,604
16,684
16,898
16,939
17,019
17,193
17,273
17,353
17,500
17,594
17,687
17,848
17,941
18,048
18,235
18,329
Pressure
Inlet
psig
28
27
28
30
27
29
30
25
29
26
28
28
28
28
26
26.5
27
26
28
28.2
28
28
28
26
28
26
28
29
28
26
26
25
28
26
26
28
25
28
28
26
Outlet
psig
10
10
10
11
9.5
10
11
9
10
10
10
10
10.5
10
10
9
10
9
10
10.2
10
10
10
9
10
10
11
10.5
10
9
9
8
11
9
10
10
8
10
10
9
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
18
17
18
19
17.5
19
19
16
19
16
18
18
17.5
18
16
17.5
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
16
17
18.5
18
17
17
17
17
17
16
18
17
18
18
17
AP
Vessel
A
psi
4.5
4.5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5 5
4.9
5
4.1
4.5
4
5
5
5.1
4.5
5
5
4.5
5
3.5
5
4
4
3
4
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5
4.5
Vesse
IB
psi
4.8
4
4
5
4.5
5
5
3.75
5
4
4.8
4.5
5
4.5
4
4.9
3.5
4
4.5
4.2
5
4.9
4.9
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
4.5
3.5
5
4.5
4
5
4.5
4.5
5
4.5
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 5 of 8)
Week
No.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Day of
Week
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Wed
Thu
Sat
Tue
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Mon
Wed
Sat
Date
03/18/06
03/21/06
03/23/06
03/25/06
03/28/06
03/30/06
04/01/06
04/04/06
04/06/06
04/08/06
04/11/06
04/13/06
04/15/06
04/18/06
04/20/06
04/22/06
04/25/06
04/27/06
04/29/06
05/02/06
05/04/06
05/06/06
05/09/06
05/11/06
05/13/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
05/20/06
05/23/06
05/24/06
05/27/06
05/30/06
06/01/06
06/03/06
06/06/06
06/08/06
06/10/06
06/12/06
06/14/06
06/17/06
Hour
Meter
hr
1,410.5
1,424.7
1,435.3
1,444.3
1,459.7
1,469.2
1,479.2
1,494.4
1,502.2
1,509.7
1,525.3
1,533.9
1,542.7
1,561.3
1,572.0
1,583.7
1,599.7
1,607.3
1,618.0
1,636.1
1,645.8
1,654.9
1,708.2
1,717.7
1,726.4
1,747.7
1,752.6
1,761.7
1,778.4
1,786.7
1,812.7
1,844.3
1,857.7
1,867.9
1,885.7
1,895.0
1,907.1
1,917.7
1,929.3
1,944.3
Actual
Run
Time
hr
8.0
14.2
10.6
9.0
15.4
9.5
10.0
15.2
7.8
7.5
15.6
8.6
8.8
18.6
10.7
11.7
16.0
7.6
10.7
18.1
9.7
9.1
53.3
9.5
8.7
21.3
4.9
9.1
16.7
8.3
26.0
31.6
13.4
10.2
17.8
9.3
12.1
10.6
11.6
15.0
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
12.1
13.6
13.2
13.4
12.7
12.8
12.6
13.9
13.4
13.2
12.5
13.4
13.3
13.7
12.9
11.6
13.1
13.4
12.7
12.7
13.6
14.3
14.6
13.2
14.1
13.4
11.8
13.1
10.0
12.0
11.8
13.5
13.3
11.9
12.6
12.3
12.7
12.6
12.9
13.2
Totalizer
gal
1,340,000
1,352,000
1,360,000
1,368,000
1,380,000
1,388,000
1,396,000
1,408,000
1,414,000
1,420,000
1,433,000
1,440,000
1,447,000
1,461,000
1,470,000
1,478,000
1,491,000
1,497,000
1,506,000
1,520,000
1,527,000
1,535,000
1,553,000
1,560,000
1,567,000
1,584,000
1,588,000
1,595,000
1,609,000
1,615,000
1,634,000
1,652,000
1,661,000
1,669,000
1,683,000
1,690,000
1,699,000
1,708,000
1,717,000
1,728,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
35,829
36,150
36,364
36,578
36,898
37,112
37,326
37,647
37,807
37,968
38,316
38,503
38,690
39,064
39,305
39,519
39,866
40,027
40,267
40,642
40,829
41,043
41,524
41,711
41,898
42,353
42,460
42,647
43,021
43,182
43,690
44,171
44,412
44,626
45,000
45,187
45,428
45,668
45,909
46,203
Usage
gal
6,000
12,000
8,000
8,000
12,000
8,000
8,000
12,000
6,000
6,000
13,000
7,000
7,000
14,000
9,000
8,000
13,000
6,000
9,000
14,000
7,000
8,000
18,000
7,000
7,000
17,000
4,000
7,000
14,000
6,000
19,000
18,000
9,000
8,000
14,000
7,000
9,000
9,000
9,000
11,000
Calc.
Run
Time
hr
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
_
Average
Flowrate
gpm
13
14
13
15
13
14
13
13
13
13
14
14
13
13
14
11
14
13
14
13
12
15
6
12
13
13
14
13
14
12
12
9
11
13
13
13
12
14
13
12
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
1,688
1,702
1,712
1,721
1,737
1,746
1,756
1,771
1,779
1,787
1,802
1,811
1,820
1,838
1,849
1,861
1,877
1,884
1,895
1,913
1,923
1,932
1,985
1,995
2,003
2,025
2,030
2,039
2,055
2,064
2,090
2,121
2,135
2,145
2,163
2,172
2,184
2,195
2,206
2,221
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
12.5
14.1
13.5
13.8
13.3
13.6
13.0
14.1
13.8
13.5
12.9
13.7
13.7
14.1
13.5
12.1
13.7
13.7
13.1
12.9
13.8
14.5
14.7
13.7
14.4
13.8
12.1
13.5
10.4
12.4
12.1
13.9
13.7
12.2
13.0
12.6
13.1
12.9
13.1
13.5
Totalizer
gal
1,378,000
1,390,000
1,399,000
1,406,000
1,419,000
1,427,000
1,435,000
1,447,000
1,454,000
1,460,000
1,473,000
1,480,000
1,488,000
1,502,000
1,511,000
1,520,000
1,533,000
1,540,000
1,548,000
1,562,000
1,570,000
1,578,000
1,597,000
1,604,000
1,612,000
1,629,000
1,633,000
1,641,000
1,654,000
1,661,000
1,680,000
1,699,000
1,709,000
1,717,000
1,731,000
1,739,000
1,748,000
1,757,000
1,766,000
1,778,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
18,422
18,583
18,703
18,797
18,971
19,078
19,184
19,345
19,439
19,519
19,693
19,786
19,893
20,080
20,201
20,321
20,495
20,588
20,695
20,882
20,989
21,096
21,350
21,444
21,551
21,778
21,832
21,939
22,112
22,206
22,460
22,714
22,848
22,955
23,142
23,249
23,369
23,489
23,610
23,770
Pressure
Inlet
psig
25
28
27
28
26
27
25
28
26
26
26
26
26
28
26
26
27
27
26
26
28
29
29
29
28
27
24
26
21
24
24
36
28
25
26
27
26
26
27
27
Outlet
psig
8
10
10
9
8
9
8
10
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
9
8
8
9
10
10
9
10
8
7
8
6
8
6
8
9
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
17
18
17
19
18
18
17
18
17
18
18
18
18
20
18
19
19
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
18
19
17
18
15
16
18
28
19
18
18
19
18
18
19
19
AP
Vessel
A
psi
4
4
4
4
4
3.5
4
5
3.5
3
3
5
4.5
5
5
5.9
5
5
5
4.5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
4.5
1
3
3
10
5
5.7
5
5
5
5
5
5
Vesse
IB
psi
4
5
4
4
4.5
4.5
4
5
4.5
3.5
4
4.5
4
4
4.5
3.5
4.5
4.9
4
4
5
5
4.5
4.5
5
4.5
4.5
4
2.5
4
3.5
5
4.9
3.9
4.2
4.5
3.5
4
4.5
4
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 6 of 8)
Week
No.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Day of
Week
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sun
Tue
Thu
Sat
Wed
Fn
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Wed
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Tue
Thu
Sat
Wed
Sat
Tue
Sat
Wed
Sat
Date
06/20/06
06/22/06
06/24/06
06/27/06
06/29/06
07/02/06
07/04/06
07/06/06
07/08/06
07/12/06
07/14/06
07/15/06
07/18/06
07/20/06
07/22/06
07/25/06
07/27/06
07/29/06
08/02/06
08/05/06
08/08/06
08/10/06
08/12/06
08/15/06
08/17/06
08/19/06
08/23/06
08/26/06
08/29/06
08/31/06
09/02/06
09/05/06
09/07/06
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 7 of 8)
Week
No.
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
90
91
93
95
96
97
99
101
102
Day of
Week
Tue
Sat
Tue
Sat
Tue
Sat
Tue
Sun
Tue
Sat
Tue
Sat
Wed
Sat
Tue
Sat
Tue
Sat
Wed
Sat
Mon
Sat
Wed
Sat
Tue
Sat
Tue
Sun
Tue
Sat
Tue
Sat
Wed
Sat
Wed
Sat
Wed
Sat
Tue
Sat
Date
10/03/06
10/07/06
10/10/06
10/14/06
10/17/06
10/21/06
10/24/06
10/29/06
10/31/06
11/04/06
11/07/06
11/11/06
11/15/06
11/18/06
11/21/06
11/25/06
12/05/06
12/09/06
12/13/06
12/16/06
12/18/06
12/23/06
01/03/07
01/06/07
01/09/07
01/13/07
01/23/07
01/28/07
02/06/07
02/10/07
02/13/07
02/17/07
02/21/07
02/24/07
03/07/07
03/10/07
03/21/07
03/24/07
03/27/07
03/31/07
Hour
Meter
hr
2,590.3
2,613.4
2,630.7
2,649.4
2,666.4
2,685.0
2,700.9
2,724.7
2,735.8
2,755.4
2,770.6
2,790.8
2,812.2
2,825.8
2,842.5
2,863.8
2,915.5
2,934.6
2,958.2
2,972.5
2,984.6
3,011.0
3,071.6
3,084.3
3,104.1
3,121.8
3,175.1
3,199.2
3,246.8
3,265.3
3,284.2
3,304.5
3,329.5
3,341.4
3,398.0
3,411.1
3,467.2
3,480.5
3,497.0
3,514.3
Actual
Run
Time
hr
15.7
23.1
17.3
18.7
17.0
18.6
15.9
23.8
11.1
19.6
15.2
20.2
21.4
13.6
16.7
21.3
51.7
19.1
23.6
14.3
12.1
26.4
60.6
12.7
19.8
17.7
53.3
24.1
47.6
18.5
18.9
20.3
25.0
11.9
56.6
13.1
56.1
13.3
16.5
17.3
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
11.9
13.1
12.9
13.5
13.1
13.1
13.1
11.7
13.1
13.2
13.8
12.3
13.5
11.7
12.6
12.8
13.0
13.1
13.0
12.4
13.6
10.2
13.1
12.7
13.7
11.7
12.3
11.0
13.4
11.7
14.2
10.6
13.0
12.9
12.5
12.3
13.2
12.0
13.4
13.6
Totalizer
gal
109,000
127,000
140,000
155,000
168,000
183,000
195,000
214,000
222,000
236,000
249,000
265,000
281,000
292,000
304,000
321,000
361,000
376,000
393,000
404,000
414,900
435,000
481,000
491,000
506,000
520,000
561,000
579,000
616,000
630,000
645,000
659,000
677,000
687,000
730,000
741,000
784,000
795,000
807,000
821,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
1,457
1,698
1,872
2,072
2,246
2,447
2,607
2,861
2,968
3,155
3,329
3,543
3,757
3,904
4,064
4,291
4,826
5,027
5,254
5,401
5,547
5,816
6,430
6,564
6,765
6,952
7,500
7,741
8,235
8,422
8,623
8,810
9,051
9,184
9,759
9,906
10,481
10,628
10,789
10,976
Usage
gal
12,000
18,000
13,000
15,000
13,000
15,000
12,000
19,000
8,000
14,000
13,000
16,000
16,000
11,000
12,000
17,000
40,000
15,000
17,000
11,000
10,900
20,100
46,000
10,000
15,000
14,000
41,000
18,000
37,000
14,000
15,000
14,000
18,000
10,000
43,000
11,000
43,000
11,000
12,000
14,000
Calc.
Run
Time
hr
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Flowrate
gpm
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
14
13
12
13
12
13
13
13
12
13
15
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
11
12
14
13
14
13
14
12
13
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
2,867
2,890
2,908
2,926
2,943
2,962
2,978
3,002
3,013
3,032
3,048
3,068
3,089
3,103
3,120
3,141
3,193
3,212
3,235
3,250
3,262
3,288
3,349
3,361
3,381
3,399
3,452
3,476
3,524
3,542
3,561
3,582
3,607
3,618
3,675
3,688
3,744
3,758
3,774
3,791
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
12.4
13.7
13.5
13.9
13.7
13.2
13.8
12.3
13.8
13.6
14.3
12.9
14.6
12.2
13.5
13.7
13.6
13.7
13.8
13.0
14.3
10.7
13.7
13.4
14.6
13.2
12.7
11.5
13.7
12.2
14.6
10.9
13.6
13.5
12.9
13.0
13.8
12.6
13.8
14.2
Totalizer
gal
113,000
131,000
145,000
161,000
175,000
190,000
203,000
223,000
232,000
246,000
258,000
276,000
294,000
305,000
318,000
335,000
377,000
393,000
412,000
423,000
433,000
455,000
503,000
514,000
530,000
544,000
587,000
607,000
645,000
660,000
675,000
691,000
709,000
719,000
765,000
776,000
821,000
832,000
845,000
859,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
3,021
3,503
3,877
4,305
4,679
5,080
5,428
5,963
6,203
6,578
6,898
7,380
7,861
8,155
8,503
8,957
10,080
10,508
11,016
11,310
11,578
12,166
13,449
13,743
14,171
14,545
15,695
16,230
17,246
17,647
18,048
18,476
18,957
19,225
20,455
20,749
21,952
22,246
22,594
22,968
Pressure
Inlet
psig
24
26
25
26
26
25
24
24
26
27
26
25
26
24
26
26
26
25
25
20
22
18
22
20
22
21
24
21
28
22
28
20
25
25
24
23
26
24
25
27
Outlet
psig
11
11
12
13
13
12
11
11
12
14
13
12
11
11
11
13
11
12
12
8
8
6
8
6
8
7
11
8
13
10
11
8
12
11
11
10
12
11
12
12
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
13
15
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
13
13
13
15
13
15
13
15
13
13
12
14
12
14
14
14
14
13
13
15
12
17
12
13
14
13
13
14
13
13
15
AP
Vessel
A
psi
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
4
6
7
6.5
6
6
6
7
6
6.5
4.5
6
5 5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Vesse
IB
psi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Goffstown, NH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 8 of 8)
We
ek
No.
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Day of
Week
Tue
Tue
Wed
Mon
Sun
Sat
Tue
Sat
Wed
Tue
Thu
Thu
Sun
Mon
Wed
Sat
Sat
Sat
Sat
Sat
Sat
Mon
Date
04/03/07
04/10/07
04/1 8/07
04/23/07
04/29/07
05/05/07
05/08/07
05/12/07
05/16/07
05/22/07
05/24/07
05/31/07
06/03/07
06/11/07
06/13/07
06/16/07
06/23/07
06/30/07
07/07/07
07/14/07
07/21/07
08/06/07
Hour
Meter
hr
3,535.8
3,575.6
3,623.9
3,654.5
3,686.8
3,719.8
3,744.3
3,767.0
3,798.3
3,831.7
3,842.5
3,892.0
3,909.2
3,955.0
3,968.5
3,983.7
4,029.9
4,080.2
4,126.4
4,159.5
4,192.2
4,282.0
Actual
Run
Time
hr
21.5
39.8
48.3
30.6
32.3
33.0
24.5
22.7
31.3
33.4
10.8
49.5
17.2
45.8
13.5
28.7
61.4
96.5
96.5
79.3
65.8
122.5
Vessel A Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
11.6
12.7
13.6
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
10.7
10.4
12.7
13.2
13.0
11.9
11.7
11.5
10.2
13.7
12.2
12.9
12.2
11.7
13.6
Totalizer
gal
837,000
867,000
903,000
926,000
949,000
974,000
991,000
1,008,000
1,028,000
1,053,000
1,061,000
1,094,000
1,107,000
1,140,000
1,150,000
1,162,000
1,193,000
1,228,000
1,260,000
1,285,000
1,309,000
1,374,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
11,190
11,591
12,072
12,380
12,687
13,021
13,249
13,476
13,743
14,078
14,184
14,626
14,799
15,241
15,374
15,535
15,949
16,417
16,845
17,179
17,500
18,369
Usage
gal
16,000
30,000
36,000
23,000
23,000
25,000
17,000
17,000
20,000
25,000
8,000
33,000
13,000
33,000
10,000
22,000
43,000
66,000
67,000
57,000
49,000
89,000
Calc.
Run
Time
hr
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Flowrate
gpm
12
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
11
12
12
11
13
12
12
13
12
11
12
12
12
12
Cum.
Run
Time
hr
3,813
3,853
3,901
3,932
3,964
3,997
4,021
4,044
4,075
4,109
4,120
4,169
4,186
4,232
4,246
4,261
4,307
4,357
4,403
4,437
4,469
4,559
Vessel B Flow Meter
Flowrate
gpm
12.1
13.5
14.2
12.6
12.3
12.4
11.7
11.3
10.7
13.2
13.7
13.7
12.3
12.4
12.1
10.9
14.5
12.5
13.6
13.0
12.5
14.0
Totalizer
gal
876,000
907,000
944,000
968,000
993,000
1,020,000
1,037,000
1,055,000
1,077,000
1,102,000
1,111,000
1,147,000
1,160,000
1,195,000
1,206,000
1,218,000
1,252,000
1,288,000
1,322,000
1,348,000
1,372,000
1,444,000
Cum.
Bed
Volume
BV
23,422
24,251
25,241
25,882
26,551
27,273
27,727
28,209
28,797
29,465
29,706
30,668
31,016
31,952
32,246
32,567
33,476
34,439
35,348
36,043
36,684
38,610
Pressure
Inlet
psig
22
25
27
22
23
23
22
21
20
26
27
28
23
23
22
20
28
25
26
24
23
28
Outlet
psig
9
11
12
8
10
10
8
8
7
11
12
11
8
9
8
7
12
10
11
10
9
12
AP
Inlet -
Outlet
psi
13
14
15
14
13
13
14
13
13
15
15
17
15
14
14
13
16
15
15
14
14
16
AP
Vessel
A
psi
5
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
6.5
7
8
6
7
6.5
5.5
7.5
7
8
7
7.5
7.5
Vesse
IB
psi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1) Differential pressure gauge (AP) on Vessel B stuck on 12 psi after backwash; replaced during media change-out.
(2) Media change-out in Vessel A on 09/06/06; Vessel A is lead vessel.
(3) Piping modification complete on 09/20/06; Vessel B is lead vessel.
>
oo
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 1 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature'1'
D0(1)
ORP(1)
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)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
"g/L
Hg/L
"g/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
04/15/05
IN
-
52
0.3
6.4
0.1
0.3
25.9
0.3
7.1
13.0
6.3
215
26.4
17.3
9.1
29.4
29.4
<0.1
0.7
28.8
<25
<25
16.7
1.4
TA
0.0
54
0.4
6.8
0.1
<0.05
19.1
<0.1
7.4
13.1
7.2
201
32.2
23.0
9.2
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
1.5
1.5
TB
0.0
56
0.4
7.4
<0.05
<0.05
8.9
0.2
7.3
13.1
5.8
202
28.8
24.7
4.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
1.0
1.0
05/02/05
IN
-
60
0.4
6.3
0.1
<0.05
25.2
0.1
7.1
13.4
5.0
212
-
-
-
31.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.2
-
TA
2.0
60
0.5
6.5
0.1
<0.05
25.0
<0.1
7.3
13.1
5.6
205
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TB
2.0
60
0.4
6.6
0.4
<0.05
23.7
<0.1
7.3
13.2
5.0
204
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
05/16/05
IN
-
48
0.4
7.0
0.1
0.2
25.4
<0.1
7.1
12.1
6.5
212
-
-
-
32.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
TA
3.5
56
0.5
8.0
0.1
<0.05
25.8
0.3
7.3
12.7
6.2
210
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TB
3.5
54
0.6
8.0
0.1
<0.05
25.4
0.1
7.4
12.7
5.9
214
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
05/31/05
IN
-
67
0.6
7.0
0.1
<0.05
24.8
0.2
6.9
12.5
6.1
213
-
-
-
31.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
TA
5.2
63
0.5
7.0
0.1
<0.05
25.4
0.2
7.1
12.4
5.4
198
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
TB
5.3
58
0.5
7.0
0.4
<0.05
25.3
0.2
7.3
12.4
6.4
228
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
06/15/05
IN
-
63
0.5
7.0
0.1
<0.05
25.5
0.1
6.9
13.9
4.8
219
35.9
27.2
8.7
34.0
33.7
0.3
0.7
33.0
<25
<25
15.5
1.1
TA
6.9
57
0.5
6.0
<0.05
<0.05
26.4
0.1
7.2
14.1
4.8
215
37.7
28.7
9.0
1.7
1.7
<0.1
0.6
1.0
<25
<25
0.2
1.0
TB
7.1
57
0.5
6.0
<0.05
<0.05
26.6
0.1
7.3
14.5
5.4
210
37.1
25.7
11.5
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.3
(1) Water quality measurements were collected the Friday after the samples were collected.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 2 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature*1'
D0(1)
ORP(1)
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)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
06/27/05
IN
-
33
0.3
5.0
4.7
<0.05
25.1
0.2
7.1
13.9
5.2
218
-
-
-
27.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.3
-
TA
8.3
41
0.3
5.0
1.1
<0.05
25.0
0.2
7.3
13.3
5.1
217
-
-
-
3.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
TB
8.5
41
0.3
6.0
5.1
<0.05
24.4
2.7
7.4
13.5
5.3
215
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
07/12/05
IN
-
55
0.4
6.0
0.2
<0.05
25.2
0.2
7.2
13.3
4.8
205
-
-
-
33.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.4
-
TA
9.9
55
0.3
6.0
0.1
<0.05
25.0
0.2
7.3
12.9
3.7
221
-
-
-
3.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TB
10.1
55
0.3
6.0
0.1
<0.05
25.2
0.3
7.4
13.2
4.9
222
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
07/25/05
IN
-
39
0.3
5.0
0.3
0.2
24.4
<0.1
7.2
15.2
5.1
168
-
-
-
27.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
TA
11.5
40
0.3
5.0
0.7
<0.05
23.7
0.1
7.4
16.5
5.4
183
-
-
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
TB
11.9
41
0.3
6.0
0.2
<0.05
23.9
0.4
7.5
16.8
5.4
194
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
08/08/05
IN
-
58
0.5
6.0
0.1
0.3
25.5
0.4
7.1
12.9
5.3
174
23.5
15.4
8.1
30.6
30.7
<0.1
0.6
30.1
<25
<25
1.9
1.2
TA
13.2
41
0.3
5.0
0.1
<0.05
25.6
0.2
7.3
13.7
4.5
189
23.6
15.9
7.8
4.7
4.9
<0.1
0.6
4.3
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
TB
13.5
41
0.2
5.0
0.1
<0.05
24.6
0.3
7.4
14.8
6.2
213
23.5
15.7
7.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
08/22/05
IN
-
44
0.3
5.3
0.7
0.1
25.3
0.1
7.0
15.9
6.1
212
-
-
-
30.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.4
-
TA
14.8
45
0.3
5.5
0.9
<0.05
24.8
<0.1
7.3
15.5
5.5
207
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
TB
15.3
46
0.3
5.6
0.6
<0.05
24.5
0.2
7.4
15.9
5.3
203
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
(1) Water quality measurements were collected the Friday after the samples were collected.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 3 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature'1'
D0(1)
ORP(1)
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
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)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
"g/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
09/06/05
IN
-
55
0.3
5.4
0.1
0.3
-
25.3
0.6
7.5
13.9
6.2
195
-
-
-
29.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.4
-
TA
16.7
53
0.3
6.0
0.1
0.2
-
24.9
0.5
7.4
14.6
4.9
196
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
TB
17.2
50
0.4
5.7
0.1
<0.05
-
25.0
0.5
7.5
14.9
6.4
196
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
72. 5/
80.4(2)
-
0.6
-
09/20/05131
IN
-
42/
43
0.3/
0.3
4.7/
4.8
0.1/
0.1
0.3/
0.3
-
24.5/
24.3
0.1/
0.1
7.2
14.6
6.3
203
-
-
-
24.1/
25.9
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
1.7/
4.1
-
TA
18.4
44/
44
0.3/
0.3
5.0/
4.8
0.1/
0.1
<0.05/
0.1
-
24.4/
24.2
0.8/
0.9
7.3
14.5
4.7
212
-
-
-
8.5/
9.5
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
0.4/
0.4
-
TB
18.9
44/
44
0.3/
0.3
5.0/
4.8
0.1/
0.2
<0.05/
<0.05
-
23.8/
24.2
0.4/
0.3
7.4
15.1
5.7
213
-
-
-
0.7/
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
<0.1/
<0.1
-
10/04/05
IN
-
44
0.3
4.9
0.1
0.1
-
31.7
0.3
7.0
12.0
6.3
201
-
-
-
28.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
TA
19.8
43
0.3
4.7
0.2
0.1
-
25.6
0.2
7.1
12.6
6.2
215
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TB
20.4
44
0.2
4.6
0.1
<0.05
-
24.3
0.4
7.2
13.0
6.2
230
-
-
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10/17/05
IN
-
88
0.2
4.6
0.1
0.1
77.3
24.2
0.1
7.1
12.1
6.2
208
21.5
14.1
7.4
25.0
26.0
<0.1
0.6
25.3
<25
<25
2.7
1.1
TA
21.1
44
0.2
4.6
0.1
0.1
35.4
23.8
0.3
7.2
12.5
6.3
198
23.9
16.5
7.5
11.3
10.4
0.9
0.5
9.9
<25
<25
0.7
0.8
TB
21.8
41
0.2
4.8
0.1
<0.05
<10
23.4
0.1
7.2
12.6
6.0
194
26.3
18.3
8.0
0.5
0.8
<0.1
0.2
0.5
<25
<25
0.2
0.8
11/01/05
IN
-
46
0.3
4.9
0.1
<0.05
74.9
24.8
0.5
7.3
11.4
4.4
208
-
-
-
28.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.4
-
TA
22.6
47
0.4
5.1
0.1
<0.05
47.2
25.6
0.1
7.3
11.7
4.3
214
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
TB
23.3
46
0.4
4.9
0.1
<0.05
<10
25.8
0.1
7.3
11.7
4.2
211
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
(1) Water quality measurements were
(2) Rerun Result;
collected the Friday after the samples were collected;
(3) Duplicate collected.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 4 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature*1'
D0(1)
ORP(1)
Total Hardness
fas CaCCM
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)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
s.u.
ฐc
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
11/15/05
IN
-
44
0.3
5.4
0.1
0.1
47.9
24.9
0.2
6.8
11.1
6.1
204
22.1
14.6
7.5
27.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.6
-
TA
23.9
44
0.3
5.9
0.1
0.1
20.5
25.2
0.3
7.1
11.0
5.9
206
24.9
16.8
8.1
10.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
TB
24.7
44
0.3
6.1
0.2
<0.05
<10
24.5
0.2
7.1
10.8
6.1
204
24.8
16.8
8.0
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
11/29/05
IN
-
39
0.2
4.5
0.1
0.1
82.4
24.9
0.1
6.9
10.2
6.2
212
21.3
14.8
6.6
26.4
25.4
1.1
<0.1
25.3
<25
<25
1.9
0.9
TA
25.3
37
0.2
4.5
0.1
0.1
40.0
25.6
0.1
7.1
10.9
5.3
211
22.9
15.4
7.5
12.3
11.9
0.5
<0.1
11.8
<25
<25
0.9
0.9
TB
26.1
39
0.2
4.6
0.1
<0.06
<10
25.7
<0.1
7.1
10.9
5.1
209
23.2
15.9
7.4
0.8
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
0.9
<25
<25
0.4
0.7
12/12/05121
IN
-
45/
45
0.2/
0.2
4.9/
4.9
0.1/
0.1
0.1/
0.1
79.4/
78.2
27.0/
25.9
0.1/
0.9
6.9
10.6
7.6
197
22.7/
23.1
14.0/
144
8.7/
8.7
27.8/
27.7
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
1.5/
1.5
-
TA
26.6
44/
44
0.2/
0.2
4.8/
4.9
0.1/
0.1
0.1/
0.1
56.4/
56.1
26.1/
25.7
0.9/
1.5
7.1
10.4
7.6
197
22.9/
22.7
14.5/
144
8.4/
8.3
12.9/
13.1
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
1.0/
1.1
-
TB
27.4
46/
45
0.2/
0.2
4.8/
4.8
0.1/
0.1
<0.05/
<0.05
11.07
11.7
25.57
25.4
1.57
0.7
7.2
10.4
7.1
199
22.47
22.4
14.57
145
7.97
7.9
1.37
1.3
-
-
-
-
<257
<25
-
0.67
0.6
-
01/10/06
IN
-
51
0.3
5.5
0.1
<0.05
45.4
25.8
0.5
7.0
11.4
6.7
213
34.6
25.8
8.8
34.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.1
-
TA
29.5
48
0.3
5.4
0.1
<0.05
43.5
25.9
1.5
7.1
12.0
6.5
209
32.4
23.2
9.2
15.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
TB
30.3
44
0.3
4.9
0.1
<0.05
15.9
25.8
1.0
7.1
12.2
6.8
209
25.3
17.8
7.5
2.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
01/24/06
IN
-
44
0.2
5.1
0.1
0.1
59.9
25.1
0.4
7.0
10.5
8.0
244
26.8
17.9
8.9
26.3
27.2
<0.1
0.3
26.9
<25
<25
1.1
1.0
TA
30.8
45
0.2
5.2
0.1
0.1
42.2
25.3
1.9
7.0
10.9
7.6
247
29.3
19.6
9.8
14.1
14.2
<0.1
0.3
13.9
<25
<25
1.1
1.1
TB
31.7
47
0.3
5.3
0.1
<0.05
<10
25.0
1.1
7.1
10.9
7.2
245
30.0
20.3
9.7
2.2
2.2
<0.1
0.4
1.8
<25
<25
0.7
0.7
(1) Water quality measurements were collected the Friday after the samples were collected;
(2) Duplicate collected.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 5 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature'1'
D0(1)
ORP(1)
Total Hardness
(as CaCCM
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)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
02/07/06
IN
-
42
0.2
5.1
<0.05
71.9
25.9
1.8
6.9
10.5
6.6
228
30.6
21.0
9.7
31.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
TA
32.1
47
0.3
5.5
<0.05
52.8
26.4
2.9
7.0
10.3
5.7
234
33.1
22.8
10.3
14.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
TB
33.0
42
0.3
5.0
<0.05
18.0
26.4
2.6
7.1
9.6
6.8
233
29.1
19.8
9.3
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
02/21/06121
IN
-
58/
58
0.5/
0.5
7.0/
7.0
0.1/
<0.05
28.4/
33.4
25.0/
25.0
0.8/
0.8
6.8
10.0
7.3
211
42. 8/
42.8
31.77
31.2
11.17
11.6
32.67
32.7
-
-
-
-
<257
<25
-
3.17
3.6
-
TA
33.4
567
56
0.57
0.5
6.07
10.0
<0.057
<0.05
48.97
49.0
25.67
25.9
0.97
0.9
6.9
10.8
6.9
222
39.77
40.9
27.17
27.8
12.67
13.1
13.07
13.2
-
-
-
-
<257
<25
-
1.47
1.6
-
TB
34.4
467
48
0.47
0.4
6.07
6.0
<0.057
<0.05
17.37
14.2
26.97
26.4
0.57
0.5
6.9
9.7
7.1
226
30.87
30.4
21.37
21.0
9.57
9.4
2.47
2.3
-
-
-
-
<257
<25
-
0.87
0.7
-
03/07/06
IN
-
37
0.3
5.0
0.1
79.5
23.4
3.5
7.1
10.0
7.5
230
23.4
14.6
8.8
24.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.4
-
TA
34.7
36
0.3
5.0
0.1
68.1
24.0
3.2
7.2
11.3
6.7
232
24.1
15.7
8.4
17.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.0
-
TB
35.7
37
0.3
5.1
0.1
28.5
23.9
3.6
7.2
11.1
6.9
228
24.9
16.7
8.2
3.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.7
-
03/21/06
IN
-
34
0.2
4.9
0.1
69.0
24.9
2.6
7.0
11.6
6.0
205
17.8
12.8
5.0
35.9
34.5
1.3
0.9
33.6
<25
<25
1.7
1.0
TA
36.2
34
0.2
4.9
0.1
57.2
25.1
2
7.1
11.1
6.5
202
18.5
13.7
4.7
20.7
14.6
6.1
0.3
14.2
<25
<25
0.8
1.2
TB
37.2
35
0.2
5.0
0.1
23.2
24.8
1.9
7.1
10.9
6.0
307
20.1
13.9
6.1
4.3
4.2
0.1
0.2
4.0
<25
<25
0.6
0.9
04/04/06
IN
-
48
0.4
6.1
<0.05
53.3
23.9
1.3
7.0
11.4
5.5
191
30.0
21.6
8.4
32.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
TA
37.6
51
0.4
6.3
<0.05
56.1
24.4
1.2
7.2
11.4
5.3
199
32.6
22.9
9.7
17.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.2
-
TB
38.7
47
0.4
6.0
<0.05
35.2
25.7
1.1
7.2
11.4
6.5
208
30.9
21.9
8.9
5.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
(1) Water quality measurements were collected the Friday after the samples were collected;
(2) Duplicate collected.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 6 of 9)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature*1-1
D0(1)
ORP(1)
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)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
"g/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
04/18/06
IN
-
37
0.2
5.0
0.1
99.2
24.7
0.2
7.0
11.9
6.5
198
28.9
19.5
9.4
25.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.5
-
TA
39.1
39
0.2
5.0
0.1
89.1
24.5
0.2
7.3
11.9
6.3
206
31.3
22.6
8.7
22.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
TB
40.2
41
0.2
5.0
0.1
54.1
23.6
0.5
7.3
11.7
6.2
215
32.0
23.4
8.6
5.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
05/02/06121
IN
-
45/
46
0.3/
0.3
5.0/
5.0
0.1/
0.1
66.2/
61.1
25.8/
25.8
0.2/
0.2
7.2
11.6
7.3
240
35.1/
35.0
25.4/
25.2
9.7/
9.8
32. 4/
31.0
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
6.4/
1.9
-
TA
40.6
45/
45
0.3/
0.3
5.0/
5.0
0.1/
0.1
64.8/
64.3
26.4/
25.5
0.2/
0.2
7.3
12.2
6.7
247
35.2/
34.6
25.1/
24.6
10.0/
9.9
20.7/
20.3
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
1.0/
1.0
-
TB
41.8
42/
42
0.2/
0.3
5.0/
5.0
0.1/
0.1
46. 4/
46.8
25. 4/
25.0
0.4/
0.3
7.3
12.5
7.2
249
32 .31
33.0
23. 6/
24.2
8.7/
8.8
6.4/
6.6
-
-
-
-
<25/
<25
-
0.7/
0.7
-
05/17/06
IN
-
41
1.5
7.0
0.1
78.4
26.4
0.5
7.1
12.9
7.2
202
34.6
25.2
9.4
30.7
31.7
<0.1
0.2
31.4
<25
<25
3.8
1.3
TA
42.4
47
0.3
5.0
0.1
62.2
26.0
0.6
7.3
12.5
7.1
210
40.5
29.9
10.6
17.4
18.9
<0.1
0.1
18.8
<25
<25
1.2
1.1
TB
43.6
48
0.3
5.0
0.1
45.6
25.9
0.3
7.4
12.5
7.1
212
43.0
31.8
11.2
5.8
6.0
<0.1
0.1
5.9
<25
<25
0.8
0.7
05/30/06
IN
-
35
<0.1
5.0
0.1
88.4
25.7
2.4
7.1
13.4
6.2
233
27.0
14.2
12.8
37.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.7
-
TA
44.2
36
0.1
6.0
0.2
70.4
23.6
1.7
7.2
13.2
6.5
237
32.7
20.1
12.5
27.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.8
-
TB
45.4
50
0.2
6.0
0.1
45.9
22.3
1.0
7.4
13.6
6.5
231
38.0
25.6
12.4
7.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
(1) Water quality measurements were collected the Friday after the samples were collected;
(2) Duplicate collected.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 7 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature'1'
D0(1)
ORP(1)
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)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
06/12/06
IN
-
41
0.3
5.0
0.2
87.4
26.2
0.3
7.2
13.8
4.9
302
27.1
18.7
8.4
31.9
30.3
1.6
0.5
29.8
<25
<25
3.2
2.5
TA
45.7
42
0.3
5.0
0.1
71.5
26.1
0.3
7.4
13.3
4.5
210
28.2
20.4
7.8
22.2
23.1
<0.1
0.2
23.0
37.7
<25
1.8
1.6
TB
47.0
40
0.3
5.0
0.1
61.1
26.4
0.7
7.5
13.6
3.9
215
29.0
21.3
7.7
7.8
8.6
<0.1
<0.1
8.5
<25
<25
0.7
0.7
06/27/06
IN
-
34
0.3
5.0
0.4
81.6
26.7
0.4
7.2
14.0
6.2
200
24.7
15.9
8.7
24.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.0
-
TA
47.4
39
0.2
5.0
0.1
66.7
27.1
0.5
7.3
13.6
6.3
204
25.2
17.1
8.1
22.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.6
-
TB
48.8
40
0.2
5.0
0.1
55.5
27.2
1.3
7.4
14.3
6.1
205
26.3
18.1
8.1
8.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
07/12/06
IN
-
38
0.3
5.0
0.1
83.2
24.6
0.5
7.1
13.9
7.1
215
21.9
13.9
8.0
24.8
26.7
<0.1
0.6
26.1
<25
<25
3.4
3.6
TA
49.0
38
0.3
5.0
0.1
68.0
24.3
0.6
7.2
13.6
7.1
223
21.4
14.2
7.2
23.0
24.3
<0.1
0.2
24.0
<25
<25
1.9
1.4
TB
50.5
38
0.3
5.0
0.1
56.5
23.7
0.4
7.3
14.1
7.4
225
25.9
18.9
7.1
9.4
9.7
<0.1
0.1
9.6
<25
105
1.2
0.8
07/25/06
IN
-
40
0.3
5.0
0.1
98.1
25.1
1.0
7.1
14.5
6.9
248
24.1
16.3
7.8
24.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
2.1
-
TA
51.0
41
0.3
5.0
0.2
66.6
24.4
0.5
7.3
14.0
5.6
245
24.0
16.5
7.5
27.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.8
-
TB
52.5
41
0.3
5.0
0.1
66.8
24.9
2.5
7.4
14.9
5.4
234
24.1
16.9
7.2
13.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.6
-
08/08/06
IN
-
41
0.3
5.0
0.1
94.3
25.4
0.3
7.4
14.2
7.3
204
27.7
17.9
9.8
27.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
6.7
-
TA
52.7
41
0.3
5.0
0.1
83.6
25.5
0.3
7.4
14.0
7.1
204
28.3
19.0
9.3
24.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
3.9
-
TB
54.3
41
0.3
5.0
0.1
73.9
24.7
0.8
7.4
14.5
6.9
204
28.5
19.5
9.0
10.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
1.1
-
(1) Water quality measurements were collected the Friday after the samples were collected.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 8 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH(1)
Temperature'1'
D0(1)
ORP(1)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
As (total)
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
ฐC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
08/23/06121
IN
-
447
42
0.7/
0.7
8.0/
9.0
0.1/
0.1
72. 1/
52.9
25.4/
24.9
0.2/
0.2
7.4
13.2
6.3
222
30.4/
32.2
21.87
23.7
8.67
8.5
31.97
32.6
<257
<25
3.27
3.0
TA
54.4
467
46
0.77
0.7
8.07
8.0
0.17
0.1
57.87
58.0
24.67
24.8
0.27
0.2
7.3
13.8
6.3
223
30.87
30.4
22.27
21.8
8.67
8.6
24.37
24.2
<257
<25
3.47
3.3
TB
56.1
46
0.7
8.0
0.1
70.2
25.6
0.2
7.4
14.2
6.1
220
30.5
21.8
8.7
11.2
<25
2.0
09/05/06131
IN
-
48
0.3
5.0
0.1
74.2
24.0
0.4
7.4
13.2
3.7
185
-
-
-
33.5
<25
5.2
TA
55.7
48
0.3
5.0
0.1
60.8
24.0
0.6
7.4
13.7
3.2
200
-
-
-
22.8
<25
1.4
TB
57.5
49
0.3
5.0
0.1
50.7
23.8
0.5
7.3
14.3
5.3
205
-
-
-
9.9
<25
1.5
09/1 9/061"1
IN
-
62
0.6
6.0
<0.05
16.3
25.1
0.2
7.1
12.9
5.7
167
-
-
-
31.7
<25
2.4
TA
1.6
48
0.4
6.0
<0.05
<10
24.4
0.3
7.3
13.2
4.2
160
-
-
-
<0.1
<25
0.4
TB
1.6
48
0.4
6.0
0.1
27.6
19.7
0.8
7.2
13.5
4.5
160
-
-
-
7.1
<25
3.0
10/02/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
65.5
25.0
-
7.1
11.9
6.2
197
-
-
-
32.5
-
-
TA
2.9
-
-
-
-
<10
24.1
-
7.4
12.1
5.2
206
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
TB
3.0
-
-
-
-
58.2
25.3
-
7.4
12.3
5.6
196
-
-
-
10.5
-
-
11/07/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
79.6
25.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.3
-
-
TA
6.7
-
-
-
-
<10
24.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
TB
6.9
-
-
-
-
53.9
24.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.8
-
-
(1) Water quality measurements were collected the Friday after the samples were collected;
(2) Duplicate collected;<3) Media change-out out from Vessel A on 09/06/06;(
(3) Piping modification complete
Vessel B is now lead vessel on 09/20/06.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 9 of 9)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
As (total)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
12/05/06
IN
-
59.4
23.9
28.2
TA
9.7
<10
23.7
1.6
TB
10.1
42.9
24.4
14.7
01/03/07
IN
-
40.0
25.0
33.8
TA
12.9
12.0
24.5
2.6
TB
13.4
51.5
25.4
15.3
02/07/07
IN
-
44.4
23.1
34.5
TA
16.5
23.1
22.9
4.3
TB
17.2
60.5
23.3
17.0
03/07/07
IN
-
34.8
24.1
30.2
TA
19.5
20.5
24.9
4.0
TB
20.5
48.5
24.4
14.4
04/02/07
IN
-
-
-
32.3
TA
22.4
-
-
7.0
TB
23.4
-
-
21.6
Cd
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Goffstown, NH (Page 9 of 9 continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Total Phosphorous (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
As (total)
xlO3
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
06/11/07
IN
-
65.8
25.0
28.3
TA
30.5
44.4
25.1
8.2
TB
32.0
61.5
25.3
22.6
08/06/07
IN
-
80.4
25.7
32.1
TA
36.7
49.9
25.1
9.8
TB
38.6
57.3
24.9
24.1
------- |