EPA/600/R-10/012
March 2010
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Jody P. Lipps
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Anbo Wang
Sarah E. McCall
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on meth-
ods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sedi-
ments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environ-
ment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the arsenic removal treatment
technology demonstration project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park (SBMHP) in Wales, Maine. The
objectives of the project were to evaluate: 1) the effectiveness of an arsenic removal system using Aquatic
Treatment Systems' (ATS) A/P Complex 2002 and A/I Complex 2000 media in removing arsenic (As) to
meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 (ig/L, 2) the reliability of the treatment
system, 3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills, and 4) the capital
and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterizes water in the distribution system and
residuals produced by the treatment process.
The ATS system consisted of two parallel treatment trains, each having four 10-in x 54-in sealed
polyglass columns connected in series to treat up to 7 gal/min (gpm) of water per train. Water supplied
from a developed spring was stored in two 120-gal pressure tanks and then passed through a 25-(im
sediment filter and one oxidation and three adsorption columns in each train. Each oxidation column was
loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media, which consisted of an activated alumina
substrate and metaperiodate complex. Each adsorption column was loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/I Complex
2000 adsorptive media, which consisted of an activated alumina substrate and a proprietary iron complex.
Based on the design flowrate of 7 gpm for each train, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in each column
was 1.6 min and the hydraulic loading rate to each column was 13 gpm/ft2. Because the actual average
flowrate through a treatment train over the entire demonstration study was lower at 6.1 gpm (on average),
the actual EBCT was longer at 1.9 min per column and the hydraulic loading rate was slightly lower at
11.2 gpm/ft2.
Between March 7, 2005, and August 29, 2007, three media runs were evaluated. The system operated an
average of 3.7 hr/day for atotal of 2,564 hr, treating approximately 1,834,990 gal of water. Source water
contained 34.6 to 50.2 (ig/L of arsenic, existing predominately as soluble As(III), averaging 91% of the
soluble arsenic.
During Media Run 1 (March 7 to September 26, 2005) and Media Run 2 (September 27, 2005 to
February 17, 2006), the oxidation columns were loaded with A/P Complex 2002 media and the adsorption
columns were loaded with A/I Complex 2000 media. Oxidation of soluble As(III) was achieved through
reactions with sodium metaperiodate (IO4~) within the oxidation columns, producing soluble As(V) and I"
as end products. The oxidation columns remained effective for soluble As(III) oxidation throughout
Media Runs 1 and 2, typically lowering soluble As(III) concentrations to < 1.5 (ig/L following the
oxidation columns. Up to 124 (ig/L of iodine (as I") was measured in the oxidation and adsorption
columns effluent, most like caused by leaching of metaperiodate, which followed an apparent decreasing
trend. The oxidizing media also showed a significant adsorptive capacity for arsenic, averaging 0.14 (ig
of As/mg of dry media. Complete arsenic breakthrough from the oxidation columns occurred after
processing about 56,000 gal of water per treatment train (or 5,000 bed volumes [BV], 11.2 gal per BV).
Ten-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough following the three adsorption columns occurred after processing
approximately 171,000 gal of water (per train), equivalent to 5,100 BV (i.e. 4.5 ft3 or 33.6 gal per BV) if
considering the three adsorption column as one large column. Complete arsenic breakthrough from the
three adsorption columns took place after processing approximately 213,000 gal of water (or 6,300 BV if
considering the three adsorption column as one large column). Arsenic loadings on the adsorption
columns ranged from 0.18 to 0.28 (ig of As/mg of dry media (averaged 0.23 (ig/mg), compared to the
measured spent media results of 0.17 (ig/mg using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS). The 0.23 (ig/mg result was about 1.6 times of that measured for oxidizing media as mentioned
IV
-------
above, and close to the values observed for the same adsorptive media at another U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) arsenic demonstration site in Susanville, CA.
For Media Run 3, ATS oxidizing media were replaced with Filox-R™ and adsorptive media were replaced
with GFH and CFH-12 (with GFH in Train A and CFH-12 in Train B). Filox-R™ also was effective in
converting soluble As(III) to soluble As(V) throughout the 52-week evaluation period; soluble As(III)
concentrations were typically lowered to < 1.2 (ig/L. Unlike the ATS oxidation media, Filox-R™ had little
to no adsorptive capacity for arsenic. During Media Run 3, the system effluent reached 10 (ig/L of
arsenic after treating approximately 391,000 gal (or 11,600 BV if considering the three adsorption
columns as one large column) in Train A (GFH) and 516,000 gal (or 15,300 BV if considering the three
adsorption columns as one large column) in Train B (CFH).
After Media Run 2, the spent ATS media in one oxidation and three adsorption columns were sampled for
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test and ICP-MS analyses. The spent ATS oxidizing
and adsorptive media passed the TCLP test and could be disposed off at a sanitary landfill. However, the
vendor recycled the spent media into another product, thus saving the disposal cost. Spent GFH and CFH
media were not subject to TCLP before the end of this performance evaluation study.
Comparison of distribution system water sampling results before and after system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration at the three sampling locations during the 11 monthly
sampling events. Arsenic concentrations were reduced from an average baseline level of 35.8 (ig/L to an
average of 1.1 (ig/L for the first three months after system startup. Afterwards, arsenic concentrations
increased to above 10 (ig/L and then to the influent levels due to arsenic breakthrough from the treatment
system. In general, arsenic concentrations in distribution system water mirrored those in treatment system
effluent. Lead and copper levels were low in the distribution system water; however, low pH values
could significantly increase lead and copper levels.
The capital investment cost included $10,790 for equipment, $1,800 for site engineering, and $3,885 for
installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 14 gpm (or 20,160 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was
$1,177/gpm (or $0.82/gpd). The annualized capital cost was $ 1,5 5 5/yr based upon a 7% interest rate and
a 20-year return. The unit capital cost was $0.21/1,000 gal assuming the system operated continuously 24
hr/day, 7 days a week at 14 gpm. At the current use rate of 955,450 gal per year, the unit capital cost
increased to $1.63/1,000 gal.
The O&M costs included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal (for both oxidizing and adsorptive media), electricity consumption, and labor.
The unit O&M cost was driven by the cost to replace the spent media as a function of the media run
length. Supplying water to SBMHP in one year would require $45,382, $4,082, and $2,849 O&M cost
when using ATS A/P Complex 2002/A/I Complex 2000, Filox-R™/GFH, and Filox-R™/CFH-12 media,
respectively. It is apparent that using either Filox-R™/GFH or Filox-R™/CFH-12 media can result in
significant cost savings.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 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 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 11
3.3.3 Residual Solids 11
3.3.4 Distribution System Water 11
3.4 Sampling Logistics 12
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 12
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 12
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 12
3.5 Analytical Procedures 13
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14
4.1 Facility Description 14
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 14
4.1.2 Distribution System 15
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.3 System Installation 20
4.4 System Operation 21
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 21
4.4.2 Media Replacement 24
4.4.3 Residual Management 25
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation 25
4.5 System Performance 26
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 26
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling 45
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 47
4.6 System Cost 50
4.6.1 Capital Cost 50
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 51
VI
-------
5.0 REFERENCES 53
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL RESULTS B-l
APPENDIX C: ARSENIC MASS REMOVAL CALCULATIONS C-l
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 10
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park 14
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Water Supply Pump, System Piping, and Hydropneumatic Tanks 15
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/2200CS System with Series Configuration 19
Figure 4-4. As/2200CS System with Adsorption Columns Shown in Foreground and Sediment Filters
Attached to Wall 22
Figure 4-5. Close-up View of a Sample Tap (TE), a Pressure Gauge, and Copper Piping at End of
Treatment Train A 22
Figure 4-6. Calculated Flowrate of Treatment System 24
Figure 4-7. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train A 30
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Various arsenic Species Across Treatment Train B 31
Figure 4-9. Iodine Concentrations Across Treatment Train during Media Run 2 33
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves during Media Runs 1 and 2 34
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Breakthrough Curves for Media Runs 1 and 2 36
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves during Media Run 3 38
Figure 4-13. Breakthrough Curves for A/P Complex 2002 and Filox-R™ Oxidizing Media 39
Figure 4-14. Breakthrough Curves for A/I Complex 2000, GFH, and CFH-12 Adsorptive Media 39
Figure 4-15. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Across Treatment Trains for Media Runs 2 and 3 41
Figure 4-16. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Trains for Media Runs 1, 2 and 3 42
Figure 4-17. Alkalinity and Sulfate Concentrations across Treatment Trains for Media Runs 1, 2 and 3 43
Figure 4-18. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Entire System for Runs 1 and 2 44
Figure 4-19. Comparison of Total Arsenic Concentrations in Distribution System Water and Treatment
System Effluent 49
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 7
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedules and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Source Water and Historic Distribution System Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of Oxidizing Media 18
Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of Adsorptive Media 18
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of As/1400CS System 21
Table 4-4. Summary of As/2200CS System Operation 23
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results (Media Runs 1, 2
and 3) 27
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements (Runs 1, 2 and 3) 28
vn
-------
Table 4-7. Arsenic Loadings on Oxidation and Adsorption Columns 35
Table 4-8. Comparison of Arsenic Adsorptive Capacity on ATS Media at Three Arsenic Demonstration
Sites 40
Table 4-9. TCLP Results of a Composite Spent Media Sample 45
Table 4-10. Spent Media Total Metal Results for ATS Media in Run 2 46
Table 4-11. Comparison of Calculated and Measured Arsenic Loadings on Spent ATS Media 46
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results 48
Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost 50
Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost 52
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
Cd cadmium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chloride
CMHP Charette Mobile Home Park
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH Granular Ferric Hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IO4" metaperiodate
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWP Maine Drinking Water Program
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
N/A not analyzed
Na sodium
ND not detected
NH3 ammonia
Ni nickel
IX
-------
NO2
NO3
NRMRL
NSF
TCLP
TDS
TO
TOC
U
nitrite
nitrate
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
P phosphorus
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
RSSCT rapid small scale column test
S sulfide
SBMHP Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
total dissolved solids
Task Order
total organic carbon
uranium
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compound
VSWS very small water system
Zn
zinc
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the owner/operator of Spring Brook Mobile
Home Park in Wales, Maine. The owner monitored the treatment system and collected samples from the
treatment system and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period. This
performance evaluation would not have been possible without his efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic (As) at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the demonstration project. Using the information
provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of
the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the water system at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park (SBMHP) in Wales, Maine, 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. The As/1400CS arsenic treatment system from Aquatic Treatment
System, Inc. (ATS) was selected for demonstration at SBMHP in September 2004.
As of November 2009, 39 of the 40 systems were operational and the performance evaluation of 33
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 system 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 costs 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 Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct full-scale arsenic
treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies. The
specific objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M costs of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the ATS system at SBMHP in Wales, ME, from March 7,
2005, through August 29, 2007. The types of data collected included system operation, water quality
(both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and capital and O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Demonstration Sites
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flow rate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
Oig/L)
Fe
(MS/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
70W
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250(e)
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19(a)
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,806(c)
1,312W
1,61 5W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM (E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14(a)
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
I27(c>
466W
1,387W
l,499(c)
7827W
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Amaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50/ARM 200)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
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
fepm)
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
Fe
Oig/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well 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)®
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
69(c>
<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; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; FflX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; 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% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrew from program in 2007. Selected originally to replace Village of Lyman, NE site, which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Amaudville, LA system 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 2 !/> years of operation, the following conclusions were
made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media was effective in oxidizing soluble As(III) to soluble
As(V). Soluble As(III) concentrations were typically lowered to below 1.5 (ig/L. Oxidation
was achieved via reactions with NaIO4. The oxidizing media also showed some adsorptive
capacities (~ 0.14 (ig of As/mg of dry media), which was about 60% of the capacities of the
adsorptive media. Up to 124 (ig/L of iodine (as I") was leached from the oxidizing and
adsorptive media, but the leaching followed an apparent decreasing trend.
• A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media was effective in removing arsenic to below its MCL.
However, the run length to 10 (ig/L breakthrough was short at 5,100 BV (note that one BV
equals 4.5 ft3 when considering all three adsorption columns in a treatment train as one large
column). Complete breakthrough from the system occurred at 6,300 BV, resulting in an
average loading of 0.23 (ig of As/mg of dry media.
• Some aluminum was leached from the oxidation and adsorption columns due to the use of
alumina-based media.
• Filox-R™ used as an replacement for A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media also was effective
in converting soluble As(III) to soluble As(V). Filox-R™, however, did not show any
adsorptive capacity for arsenic.
• GFH and CFH-12 used as replacements for A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media exhibited
significantly longer run lengths than A/I Complex 2000. Breakthrough at 10 (ig/L occurred
at 11,600 and 15,300 BV, respectively, compared to 5,100 BV for A/I Complex 2000.
Simplicity of required system O&Mand operator skill levels:
• Very little attention was needed to operate and maintain the system. The daily demand on the
operator was typically 15 min to visually inspect the system and record operational
parameters.
• Operation of the treatment system did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• The system did not require backwash to operate. As a result, no backwash residual was
produced.
• The only residual produced by the treatment system was spent media, which passed the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test and could be disposed of as anon-
hazardous material. However, the vendor elected to recycle it into another product to save
disposal cost.
Technology Costs:
• Using the system's rated capacity of 14 gal/min (gpm) (or 20,160 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $l,177/gpm (or $0.82/gpd).
-------
Supplying water to SBMHP in one year would require $45,382, $4,082, and $2,849 O&M
cost when using ATS A/P Complex 2002/A/I Complex 2000, Filox-R™/GFH, and Filox-
R™/CFH-12 media, respectively. It is apparent that using either Filox-R™/GFH or Filox-
RTM/CFH-12 meciia can result in significant cost savings.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the ATS treatment system began on March 7, 2005, and ended on August 29, 2007. Table 3-2
summarizes the types of data collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The
overall system performance was evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the
MCL of 10 |o,g/L through the collection of water samples across the treatment train, as described in the
Study Plan (Battelle, 2004). The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled
system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and
repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received by Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to MDWP
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit Issued by MDWP
System Installation and Shakedown
Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
September 14, 2004
November 17, 2004
December 3, 2004
December 20, 2004
December 22, 2004
January 25, 2005
February 15, 2005
February 16, 2005
February 18, 2005
February 18, 2005
March 4, 2005
March 7, 2005
MDWP = Maine Drinking Water Program
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and
Operator Skill
Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 u.g/L of arsenic MCL in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency,
and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for media replacement, electricity usage, and labor
-------
The O&M and operator skill requirements were assessed through quantitative data and qualitative
considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system automation, extent of
preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory, and
general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and safety practices. The
staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking of the capital cost for
equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electrical power use, and labor.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a regular basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer, and hour meter readings on a System Operation Log
Sheet and conducted visual inspections to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred,
the plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who determined if ATS should be contacted for
troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information, including the problems
encountered, course of actions taken, materials and supplies used, and associated cost and labor incurred
on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a biweekly basis, the plant operator measured several
water quality parameters onsite, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-
reduction potential (ORP), and recorded the data on an Onsite Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement, electricity consumption,
and labor. Labor for various activities, such as the routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repairs, and
demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system
O&M included activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections,
and others as recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities
such as performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the
Battelle Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded, but not used for cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected at the wellhead, across the treatment plant, and
from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules and analytes measured during
each sampling event. Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the analytes
and schedules at each sampling location. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample
volumes, containers, preservation, and 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. Source water sample was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation
kit (see Section 3.4.1) during the initial visit to SBMHP on September 16, 2004. Before sampling, the
sample tap was flushed for several minutes; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which could cause
unwanted oxidation. The samples were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedules and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
IN
IN, OA, OB,
TA, TB, TC,
TD, TE, TF,
TT
Two LCR
and one non-
LCR
Residences
Spent Media
from
Oxidation
Columns A
and B, and
Adsorption
Columns A
toF
No. of
Samples
1
5-10
3
8
Frequency
Once
(during
initial site
visit)
Biweekly
Monthly(b)
Once
Analytes
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off site:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
Sb (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, F, NH3,
NO3, NO2, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, alkalinity, turbidity,
TDS, and TOC
Onsite: pH, temperature,
DO, and ORP
Off site:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, I, NO3, S2;
SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and/or alkalinity
Total As, Fe, Mn, Al,
Cu, and Pb, pH and
alkalinity
TCLP and total Al, As,
Ca, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg,
Mn, Ni, P, Si, and Zn
Collection
Date(s)
9/16/04
See Appendix B
See Table 4-12
09/08/06
(a)
Abbreviations corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 3-1. IN = at wellhead, OA and
OB = after oxidation columns, TA to TF = after the corresponding adsorption columns, and TT =
after entire treatment system.
Biweekly sampling except during period of February 14, 2006, to September 18, 2006.
Four baseline sampling events performed before system startup; sampling for distribution system
water discontinued after February 14, 2006.
LCR = lead and copper rule; TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(b)
(c)
-------
SEDIMENT FILTER
i
p
INFLUENT
(DEVELOPED SPRING)
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Spring Brook Mobile Home
Park in Wales, ME
As/1400CS Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 14 gpm
Biweekly
pH, temperature^, DO, ORP,
As (total, participate, and soluble),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, N03, S2-, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
turbidity, and/or alkalinity
1
*
CO
1
LEGEND
(iNj At Wellhead
©After Oxidation Column
(OA-OB)
©After Adsorption Column
(TA-TF)
( TT ) After Entire System
INFLUENT Unit Process
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
10
-------
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, treatment plant
water samples were collected by the plant operator every other week at five to ten locations across the
treatment train, including at the wellhead (IN), after oxidation columns (OA and OB), after adsorption
columns (TA to TF), and after the entire system (TT). Sampling, in general, alternated between events
with and without speciation samples taken.
During Media Run 1, speciation samples were taken from IN, OA, OB, TA and TB during initial
speciation sampling events until the adsorptive capacities of the media in Columns A and B had been
reached. Speciation at TA and TB was then discontinued and speciation at TC and TD began. Speciation
moved onto TE and TF once Columns C and D had reached their capacities. During Media Runs 2 and 3,
speciation samples were taken from IN, OA, OB, and TT (except for two events on October 5 and
November 9, 2005, when samples were taken at TA, and TB instead of TT).
Samples taken during the speciation sampling events were analyzed for total and soluble arsenic
(including As[III] and As[V]), iron, manganese, and aluminum; calcium; and magnisium. Samples taken
during the non-speciation events were analyzed for total arsenic, iron, manganese, and aluminum;
calcium; magnisium; fluoride; nitrate; sulfate; silica; phosphorus; tubidity; and alkalinity. pH,
temperature, DO, and ORP were measured onsite during all sampling events. A number of exceptions
occurred during sampling and are summarized as follows:
• Starting from October 18, 2005, iodine analysis was analyzed for samples taken during all but
one (i.e., November 16, 2005) non-speciation sampling events.
• Starting from November 16, 2005, total arsenic was analyzed for samples taken from all
sampling locations across the treatment train.
• Starting from November 16, 2005, orthophosphate was replaced with total phosphorus as the
analyte. Starting from October 18, 2006, total phosphorus was analyzed for samples taken
during all sampling events.
• Starting from November 30, 2005, SiO2 was analyzed for samples taken during all sampling
events.
• Starting from October 18, 2006, speciation was performed at IN, OA, and OB for arsenic
only.
3.3.3 Residual Solids. Because the system did not require backwash, no backwash residual was
produced during system operations. Therefore, the only residual solid produced from the treatment
process was the spent media. After Media Run 2, 1 gal of spent media samples were collected from each
of the oxidation and adsorption columns on September 8, 2006, and shipped to Battelle's laboratories in
Columbus, Ohio for processing. After being homogenized, approximately 200 g of the spent media from
each container were collected and placed in one container. One aliquot was tested for TCLP; another
aliquot (approximately 100 g) was air-dried, crushed (using a mortar and pestle), acid-digested, and
analyzed for the metals listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to system startup from December 2004 to February
2005, four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from two residences within the
distribution system that were part of the historic sampling network under the Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR) and one residence not part of the LCR sampling network. Following system startup, distribution
11
-------
system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same locations for about one year. Distribution
system sampling was discontinued after February 14, 2006.
The distribution system water samples were taken following an instruction sheet developed by Battelle
according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA,
2002). First draw samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least six
hours to ensure that stagnant water was sampled. The sampler recorded the date and time of last water
use before sampling and the date and time of sample collection for calculation of the stagnation time. The
samples were analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3. Arsenic speciation was not performed for the
distribution water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kits preparation, sample cooler preparation, and
sampling shipping and handling are discussed as follows:
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 EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample
collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in separate Ziploc® bags and packed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each cooler.
The chain-of-custody forms and air bills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample
dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following
week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelie's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-
MS) laboratory. Samples for other water quality parameters were packed in separate coolers and picked
up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, Ohio, Belmont Labs in
Englewood, Ohio, and TCCI Laboratories in New Lexington, Ohio, all of which were contracted by
Battelle for this demonstration study.. Sulfide samples were packed in coolers and shipped via FedEx to
DHL Laboratories in Round Rock, TX. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the
time of preparation through collection, analysis, and final disposition. All samples were archived by the
12
-------
appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly
thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, Belmont Labs, TCCI, and DHL Laboratories. Laboratory quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the
QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of
80%). The quality assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a
QA/QC Summary Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic
Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the Multi-340i probe in the beaker until a stable value
was obtained.
13
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The Spring Brook Mobile Home Park is located at 339 Leeds Junction Rd. Wales, Maine, approximately
15 miles southwest of Augusta, Maine. Prior to and during the EPA arsenic removal technology
demonstration, there were 14 mobile homes at SBMHP. The mobile home park was served by a
developed spring operating at an estimated flowrate, based on pump data, of approximately 14 gpm.
Figure 4-1 shows the pre-existing treatment building located near the entrance of the mobile home park.
The average daily use rate was estimated to be 3,500 gpd according to the Park owner.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Spring Brook
Mobile Home Park
There was no pre-existing treatment at the facility. Water from the spring was pumped directly to two
120-gal hydropneumatic tanks located in the pump house prior to the distribution system. Figure 4-2
shows the two pre-existing pressure tanks and related system piping.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 16, 2004, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained
from the Maine Drinking Water Program (MDWP) are presented in Table 4-1.
14
-------
:r "^
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Water Supply Pump, System Piping, and
Hydropneumatic Tanks (shown in the background)
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 35 to 39 (ig/L. Based on the September 16,
2004, sampling results of Battelle, 33.4 |o,g/L (or 88%) of total arsenic existed as soluble As(III) and
4.6 ng/L (or 12%) as soluble As(V).
pH values of source water ranged between 8.5 and 8.6. The vendor indicated that the A/I Complex 2000
media could effectively remove arsenic as long as the pH values of source water were less than 9.0. As
such, no pH adjustment was planned at this site.
Iron concentrations in raw water were below the method detection limit of 25 (ig/L so pretreatment prior
to the adsorption process was not required. Concentrations of manganese, orthophosphate, and fluoride
also were sufficiently low (i.e., <12 (ig/L, <0.06 mg/L [PO4], and 0.4 mg/L, respectively) and, therefore,
not expected to affect arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media. Silica concentrations were
between 9.8 and 10.7 mg/L, similar to the level measured in the source water at the Charette Mobile
Home Park (CMHP) site in Dummerston, Vermont (Lipps et al., 2007). Because the A/I Complex 2000
media was shown to be rather selective for silica at the CMHP site, the effect of silica on arsenic
adsorption was carefully monitored throughout the study period. Other water quality parameters as
presented in Table 4-1 had sufficiently low concentrations and, therefore, were not expected to affect
arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system consists of a looped distribution line con-
structed primarily of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The connections to the distribution system and
piping within the residences themselves also are believed to be PVC.
15
-------
Table 4-1. Source Water and Historic Distribution System Water Quality Data
Parameter
Unit
Sampling Date
pH
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Sb (total)
Sb (soluble)
Pb (total)
Cu (total)
Na
Ca
Mg
S.U.
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
Mfi/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
W?/L
Mfi/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data(a)
NA
8.5
64
50
N/A
N/A
<0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.5
N/A
19.5
9.8
0.044
N/A
38.0
N/A
35.0
3.0
ND
N/A
11.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.0
17.0
1.9
Battelle
Data
09/16/04
8.6
65
53
0.1
110
<0.7
<0.04
O.01
<0.05
7.6
0.4
18.0
10.7
O.06
37.7
38.0
0.1
33.4
4.6
<25
<25
10.3
9.6
13.5
<10
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.4
N/A
N/A
21.0
18.0
2.0
Historic MDWP
Distribution Water
Data
04/29/99-04/13/04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
N/A
N/A
7-8
N/A
20-21
N/A
N/A
35-39
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
N/A
9-12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND
N/A
ND
0.5
19.9-20.2
17.3-17.4
1.8-1.9
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
N/A = not analyzed
ND = below detection limit
Compliance samples from the distribution system were collected quarterly for bacterial analysis and every
three years for herbicides, pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and inorganics. Under the
EPA LCR, samples were collected from five customer taps within the distribution system every three
years. Tests for gross alpha were conducted every four years.
16
-------
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The ATS As/1400CS adsorption system used A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing mediate oxidize As(III) to
As(V) and A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media to adsorb As(V). The A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing
media consisted of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate and the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive
media consisted of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex.
Because of short run lengths experienced during two consecutive adsorption runs, A/P Complex 2002
oxidizing media was replaced with Filox-R™ and A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media was replaced with
GFH and CFH-12 (one for each treatment train) based on a series of rapid small-scale column tests
(RSSCT) performed under a separate EPA task order. Filox-R™ is a naturally occurring manganese
dioxide commonly known as Pyrolusite. Both GFH and CFH-12 are iron-based media, consisting
primarily of ferric hydroxide and/or ferric oxide. GFH was produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh and
marketed by Siemens. CFH-12 was supplied by Kemira Water Solutions, Inc. Tables 4-2a and 4-2b
present physical and chemical properties of the oxidizing and adsorptive media. All media tested have
NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water.
The ATS As/1400CS system was a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system designed for use at small
water systems with flowrates of around 14 gpm. When the media reached capacity, the spent media
columns were taken by ATS to its shop in Massachusetts. The spent media after being removed and
subjected to the TCLP test was either disposed of or recycled.
The system at SBMHP was configured in series with water being split into two treatment trains. The
system was designed for the lead column to be removed upon exhaustion and each of the two lag columns
to be moved forward one position (i.e., the first lag column became the lead column, and the second lag
column became the first lag column). A new column loaded with virgin media was then placed at the end
of each treatment train. Figure 4-3 shows a schematic diagram of the system.
The major system components/treatment steps of the ATS As/1400CS system are described as follows:
• Pressure Tanks. One each Well-Rite and Well-X-Trol pressure tanks were located at the
inlet of the treatment system. The pre-existing pressure tanks were 120 gal in size,
manufactured by Flexcon Industries in Randolph, Maine and Amtrol in West Warwick,
Rhode Island, respectively. With a total storage capacity of approximately 240 gal, these
pressure tanks served as temporary storage for spring water. The well pump was turned on
when the pressure in the tanks had dropped to below 40 pounds per square inch (psi) and the
well pump was turned off after the tanks had been refilled and the pressure in the tanks had
reached 60 psi.
• Sediment Filters. One 25-(im sediment filter was installed at the head of each treatment
train. The 6-in x 20-in filter was used to remove sediment in the well water and avoid
introducing large particles directly into the oxidation columns.
• Oxidation Columns. Following the sediment filter was one 10 in x 54-in sealed polyglass
columns in each treatment train (by Park International), each loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/P
Complex 2002 oxidizing media. Each oxidation column had a riser tube and a valved head
assembly to control inflow, outflow, and by-pass. Prior to Media Run 3, the A/P Complex
2002 oxidizing media in the oxidation columns were replaced with Filox-R™ (by Matt-Son
Inc, Barrington, IL).
17
-------
Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of Oxidizing Media
Parameter
A/P Complex 2002
Filox-R ™
Physical Properties
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (lb/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
BET Surface Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (Tyler Mesh)
Activated alumina/
metaperiodate complex
Granular solid
White
51
1.5
14-16
0.42
320
<0.1
<5
28 x 48 (<2% fines)
Manganese dioxide
Granular solid
Grey/black
114
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12 x40
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
A1203
NalCM
MnO2
Weight (%)
96.59
3.41
-
—
—
75-85
NA = not available
Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of Adsorptive Media
Parameter
A/I Complex 2000
GFH
CFH-12
Physical Properties
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity (dry)
Hardness (kg/in2)
Effective Size (mm)
BET Surface Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution
Activated
alumina/iron complex
Granular solid
Light brown/orange
51
1.5
14-16
0.42
320
0.1
<5
28 x48(a)(<2% fines)
(3-ferric hydroxide
and ferric hydroxide
Granular solid
Dark brown to Black
71.8
-
-
0.3-2.0
290
-
47
10 x 50(b)
ferric oxide and
ferric hydroxide
Granular solid
Brown/reddish brown
74.9
-
-
0.8-1.8
-
9.7
13-19(16)
10 x 18(b)
Chemical Analysis
Constituents
A12O3
NaIO4
Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2 • 6H2O
Fe(OH)3 and (3-FeOOH
Iron
Water soluble content
Weight (%)
90.89
3.21
5.90
-
-
-
-
-
-
52-57
-
-
-
-
-
-
39^8 (44)
0.5-3.0 (2.0)
NA = not available
(a) Tyler mesh.
(b) U.S. standard mesh.
18
-------
Water It taken
from e > VJtMTS
4h»tft >> NOT IS SCALE
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/2200CS System with Series Configuration
-------
• Adsorption Columns. Following the oxidation column in each treatment train were three 10
in x 54-in sealed polyglass columns (by Park International), each loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/I
Complex 2000 adsorptive media. Similar to the oxidation columns, each adsorption column
had a riser tube and a valved head assembly to control inflow, outflow, and by-pass. Prior to
Media Run 3 on September 8, 2006, the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media were replaced
with GFH and CFH12 in Treatment Trains A and B, respectively.
• Totalizer/Flow Meter. One Model F-1000 paddlewheel totalizer/flow meter (by Blue-White
Industries) was installed on the downstream end of each treatment train to record the flowrate
and volume of water treated through the treatment train.
• Booster Pump and Pressure Tank. One 180-gal Well-Rite pressure tank (by Flexcon
Industries in Randolph, Maine) fitted with a 3/t-hp Goulds booster pump (Model No.
C48A94A06) was installed at the system outlet. The booster pump/pressure tank was used to
"pull" water from the two pressure tanks at the system inlet through the two treatment trains;
provide temporary storage of the treated water; and supply the treated water with the needed
pressure to the distribution system. The on/off of the booster pump was controlled by the
low/high pressure switch set at 40/60 psi on the pressure tank.
• Pressure Gauges. One each BII (0-100 psi) pressure gauge was installed at the system inlet
just prior to the sediment filter, at the head of each column, and at the system outlet. The
pressure gauges were used to monitor the system pressure and pressure drop across the
treatment trains.
• Sampling Taps. Sampling taps made of PVC (by US Plastics) were located prior to the
system and following each oxidation and adsorption tank for water sampling.
The system was constructed using 1-in copper piping and fittings. The design features of the treatment
system are summarized in Table 4-3 and a flow diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule are
presented in Figure 3-1. A photograph of the system installed is shown in Figure 4-4 and a close-up view
of the oxidation and adsorptive media columns is shown in Figure 4-5.
4.3 System Installation
Engineering plans for the system were prepared by ATS. The plans consisting of a schematic and a
written description of the As/1400CS system were submitted to MDWP for approval on February 16,
2005. The approval was granted by MDWP on February 18, 2005.
The system was installed in the existing treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, without any addition or
modifications. Because the system required 20 ft2 of floor space, the park owner made several
improvements to the interior of the building, including adding a concrete floor and extending the wall of
the treatment room inside the building to allow floor space for installation and access to the system.
The As/1400CS system, consisting of factory-packed oxidation and adsorption columns and pre-
assembled system valves, gauges, and sample taps, was delivered to the site on March 2, 2005. System
installation with re-work of some pre-existing system piping began that same day. The sediment filter
was attached to the wall at the head of each treatment train. The media columns were then set into place
and plumbed together using copper piping and connections. The mechanical installation was complete on
March 3, 2005. Before the system was put online, the system piping was flushed and the columns were
filled with water one at a time to check for leaks. Once all columns were filled, the system was operated
for a short period with the treated water discharged to the sump. After it was determined that the system
had been operating properly, the treated water was directed to the distribution system. Upon reset of the
flowmeter/totalizer on each train, the performance evaluation study officially began on March 7, 2005.
20
-------
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of As/1400CS System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Oxidation Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column)
Number of Columns
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ib/column)
Media Volume (ft3/column)
10 D x54H
0.54
2
A/P Complex 2002
76.5
1.5
—
—
1 column per train
Activated alumina/metaperiodate complex
—
—
Adsorption Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/corumn)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ib/column)
Media Volume (ft3/column)
10 D x54H
0.54
6
Series
A/I Complex 2000
76.5
1.5
—
—
3 columns per train, 2 trains in parallel
3 columns in series per train
Activated alumina/iron complex
—
—
Service
Design Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min/column)
Maximum Use Rate (gpd)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput to Breakthrough
(gal/train)
Estimated Media Life (month)
14
13
1.6
3,500
32,754
367,500
7
7 gpm per train
-
Per column, 4.8 min total EBCT for 3
adsorption columns in each train
Based on usage estimate provided by park
Vendor estimated bed volumes to
breakthrough to 10 ug/L from lead column
Vendor estimated throughput to
breakthrough to 10 ug/L from lead column
(1 bed volume = 1.5 ft3 or 1 1.2 gal)
Estimated frequency of media changeout in
lead column based on throughput of 1,750
gpd per train
Backwash
Backwash
-
No system backwash required
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. Three consecutive media runs were performed during the 2!/2-year
performance evaluation study. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and attached as
Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4.
Media Run 1 began on March 7, 2005, and ended on September 26, 2005, operating for a total of 203
days. After changeout of the media in all columns (Section 4.4.2), Media Run 2 began on September 27,
2005, and continued through February 17, 2006 for 143 days. Because of the short run lengths observed
during both media runs, three RSSCTs were conducted onsite as part of an effort to look for alternative
media with longer run lengths. Results of the RSSCTs have been reported by Westerhoff, et al. (2008).
Based upon the cost and projected media run lengths, Filox-R™ was selected to replace ATS A/P
Complex 2002 oxidizing media and GFH and CFH-12 media were selected to replace A/I Complex 2000
adsorptive media in Trains A and B, respectively, for Media Run 3. Media Run 3 began on September 8,
2006 and continued through August 29, 2007, when the performance evaluation study was officially
ended. Media run 3 lasted for 355 days.
21
-------
Figure 4-4. As/2200CS System with Adsorption Columns Shown in
Foreground and Sediment Filters Attached to Wall
Figure 4-5. Close-up View of a Sample Tap (TE), a Pressure Gauge,
and Copper Piping at End of Treatment Train A
22
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of As/2200CS System Operation
Parameter
Operating Duration
Cumulative Operating Time1-3-1 (hr)
Number of Operating Days (day)
Average Daily Operating Time(b) (hr/day)
Throughput (gal)
Throughput (BV per
train)®
Train A
Train B
Combined
Train A
Train B
Daily Use Rate (gpd)
Average Calculated
Flowrate1-0-1 [Range] (gpm)
Average Instantaneous
Flowrate [RangeJ^gpm)
EBCT (min)(e) per
Column [Range!
Average Ap across Trains
[Rangef (psi)
Train A
Train B
Combined
Train A
Train B
Train A
Train B
Train A
Train B
Media Run 1
03/07/05-
09/26/05
795
203
3.9
258,758
262,534
521,292
7,701
7,814
2,568
5.5 [3.1-5.8]
5.6 [2.3-10]
11.3 [6.3-15.6]
5.1 [4.3-5.7]
5.2 [4.6-5.8]
2.0 [1.9-3.6]
2.0 [1.1^.9]
33 [29^10]
34 [31^11]
Media Run 2
09/27/05-
02/17/06
613
143
4.3
197,552
209,072
406,624
5,880
6,222
2,844
5.4 [5.0-6.3]
5.7 [5.2-6.6]
11.1 [10.2-12.9]
4.9 [4.2-5.9]
5.1 [4.4-5.7]
2.1 [1.8-2.2]
2.0 [1.7-2.2]
34 [29^12]
35 [31^12]
Media Run 3
09/08/06-
08/29/07
1,156
355
3.3
390,980
516,094
907,074
11,636
15,359
2,555
5.6 [5.2-6.8]
7.6 [6.6-8.8]
13.2 [11. 8-15. 3]
5.1 [4.5-6.0]
6.0 [4.4-6.9]
2.0 [1.6-2.2]
1.4 [1.3-1.7]
30 [24-35]
29 [23-34]
All Runs
03/07/05-
08/29/07
2,564
701
3.7
847,290
987,700
1,834,990
25,217
29,396
2,618
5. 5 [3. 1-6. 8]
6.6 [2.3-10]
12.1 [6.3-15.6]
5.0 [4.2-6.0]
5.4 [4.4-6.9]
2.0 [1.6-3.6]
1.7 [1.1^.9]
32 [24^12]
33 [23^2]®
(a) Based on booster pump hour meter. Because the booster pump was not setup properly from March 7 to April 5,
2005, the operation time during this period was estimated as described in Section 4.4.1
(b) Calculated based on 4.5 ft3 (or 33.6 gal) of media in each train.
(c) Calculated based on totalizer and booster pump hour meter readings, not including data from March 7 to April 5,
2005 (see Section 4.4.4) or on April 6, 2005 (due to an outlier)..
(d) Average not including data from March 7 to April 5, 2005 (see Section 4.4.4).
(e) Calculated based on 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal) of media per column and average flowrate.
(f) Calculation not including an outlier on January 11, 2007.
From March 7, 2005, through August 29, 2007, the treatment system operated for 2,564 hr (including
795 hr, 613 hr, and 1,156 hr for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively) based on hour meter readings of the
booster pump,. In the beginning of the demonstration study from March 7 to April 5, 2005, a valve near
the booster pump was inadvertently left open, causing the booster pump to run continually (see
Section 4.4.4). The system operating time during this period was estimated based on the total throughput
and average flowrate through Trains A and B from April 6 through the remainder of Run 1. The
operational time represented a utilization rate of approximately 15.4% (on average) over the 701-day
study period with the booster pump operating at an average of 3.7 hr/day.
Total system throughput values during Media Runs 1, 2, and 3 were 521,292, 406,624, and 907,074 gal,
respectively, corresponding to 1,834,990 gal of water processed through the entire course of the study.
Based on the total throughput and total system operating time, daily use rates ranged from 2,555 to 2,844
gpd and averaged 2,618 gpd, compared to the 3,500 gpd maximum use rate provided by the park.
During Media Runs 1 and 2, flows were balanced through Trains A and B, which treated 49.6% and
50.4% of water, respectively, during Media Run 1 and 48.6% and 51.4% of water, respectively, during
Media Run 2. During Media Run 3, a significant flow imbalance was observed between Trains A and B,
which treated 43.1% and 56.9% of water, respectively. Flow resistance through a packed bed is usually
sensitive to the particle size of the media. The higher flowrate observed through Train B was likely due
to the relatively larger particle size of the Kimera CFH-12 media than Siemens GFH media (Table 4-2b).
Calculated flowrates through Trains A and B were based on volume throughputs recorded by the
totalizers installed on Trains A and B and booster pump hour meter readings. Calculated flowrates were
23
-------
not available for the period from March 7 to April 5, 2005, when a valve near the booster pump was
inadvertently left open as discussed above. As shown in Figure 4-6, the calculated flowrates of the
system during the first two runs were very similar, ranging from 6.3 to 15.6 gpm and averaging 11.3 gpm
for Run 1 and from 10.2 to 12.9 gpm and averaging 11.1 gpm for Run 2. The 11.3- and 11.1-gpm
average values are somewhat lower than the design value of 14 gpm. The calculated flowrates during the
third run were slightly higher, ranging from 11.8 to 15.3 gpm and averaging 13.2 gpm (Figure 4-6). The
higher flowrates observed during the third run were thought to be caused by the differences in media
properties. The imbalanced flows between Trains A and B are shown in Figure 4-6. In general, the
calculated flowrates were about 10 to 19% higher than the corresponding instantaneous flowrates from
the flow meters installed on the treatment trains (Table 4-4).
8
f
^ Run 1 ^
o
o
o .
A
A
^ Run 2 ,
o
ae%4<
£•"*
As,. , ,
^*j»^
A Train A
A Tram B
0 Total
I
I
o
o c5^B
° e? °
o "^ ^cP °oo oo(
0 . o
'&S6
^
/A*A^ ^A^^AAAA,
A A^^^^^y^^^ AAA A A^
1
X X X X X X X X X X
Figure 4-6. Calculated Flowrate of Treatment System
EBCT values for all media runs ranged from 1.6 to 4.9 min and averaged 1.9 min per column
(corresponding to a hydraulic loading rate of 11.2 gpm/ft2). The average EBCT was slightly longer than
the design value of 1.6 min per column.
Total pressure loss across each treatment train (four columns in series) averaged 33.5, 34.5, and 29.5 psi
for Runs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average pressure loss across Train A and B was similar, with a
difference less than 3.5%.
4.4.2 Media Replacement. Media changeouts were performed by ATS on September 27, 2005,
after the first media run and by Air & Quality, Inc. on September 8, 2006, after the second media run.
ATS preloaded virgin media into new columns at its warehouse and transported the loaded columns to the
24
-------
site. The columns containing spent media were then removed from the system piping and replaced with
the columns preloaded with virgin media.
Air & Quality, Inc. replaced the ATS media with Filox-R™, GFH, and CFH-12 media using the existing
columns. The ATS media was replaced with 1.5 ft3 of Filox-R™ in each of the two oxidation columns and
4.5 ft3 (1.5 ft3/column) of GFH and CFH-12 in the three adsorption columns in Trains A and B,
respectively. The columns containing Filox-R™ were backwashed at approximately 7 gpm for 15 min
and rinsed at the same rate for 10 min. The water was clear at end of the rinse. The columns containing
GFH were backwashed at approximately 4.5 gpm for 10 min and then rinsed at 6.4 gpm for 10 min. The
backwash water was clear after approximately 5 min of rinse. The columns containing CFH-12 were
backwashed at 4.5 gpm for 10 min and then at 12 gpm for 10 min. They were then rinsed at 6.4 gpm for
5 min. The water ran clear at the end of 5 min.
At 6.4 gpm, the pressure drop was about 4 psi across each Filox-R™ column, 6 psi across all three GFH
columns (or 2 psi per column), and 4 psi across all three CFH-12 columns (or 1.3 psi per column). The
freeboard was 15 in for GFH and 14 in for CFH-12. Spent ATS samples were collected by the operator at
the end of Media Run 2 for the TCLP and metal analyses (Section 3.3.3).
4.4.3 Residual Management. The only residuals produced were spent media (see Section 4.4.2).
The spent ATS media passed the TCLP test and could be disposed of as a non-hazardous material.
However, the vendor elected to recycle it to save disposal cost.
4.4.4 Reliability and Simplicity of Operation. The only operational difficulty encountered
occurred soon after system start-up. The booster pump downstream from the treatment system did not
cycle on and off as expected. In turn, the supply pressure from the downstream pressure tank was not
sufficient to maintain adequate pressure to the distribution system. After troubleshooting, it was
determined that a valve near the booster pump was inadvertently left open during the initial system
installation. Once the valve was closed, the downstream booster pump began to work as designed and the
pressure to the distribution was maintained. Since then, the system operated uninterrupted throughout the
study. Additional discussion regarding system operation and operator skill requirements is provided
below.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The only pretreatment step was the oxidation of As(III) to
As(V) via the oxidizing media installed in the first column of each treatment train. No additional
chemical addition or other pre-or post-treatment steps were used at the site.
System Automation. The As/1400CS adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only the
operation of the supply well pump and booster pump to send water to the two pressure tanks at the system
inlet and through the oxidation and adsorption columns to the pressure tank at the system outlet. The
media columns themselves did not have automated parts and all valves were manually activated. The
inline flowmeter was battery powered so that the only electrical power required was that needed to run the
supply well pump and booster pump. The supply well pump was in place prior to the installation of the
ATS treatment system. The system operation was controlled by the pressure switch in the pressure tank
at the system outlet.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
As/1400CS system were minimal. The operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills
beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply system in place at the site.
The level of operator certification is determined by the type and class of the public drinking water
systems. MDWP's drinking water rules require all community and non-transient, non-community public
25
-------
drinking water and distribution systems to be classified based on potential health risks. Classifications
range from "very small water system (VSWS)" (lowest) to "Class IV" (highest) for treatment systems and
from "VSWS" to "Class IV" for distribution systems, depending on such factors as the system's
complexity, size, and source water. SBMHP is classified as a "VSWS" distribution system and the plant
operator has a matching "VSWS" license.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity
recommended by ATS was to inspect the sediment filters monthly and replace them as necessary. The
treatment system operator visited the site approximately three times per week to check the system for
leaks, and record flow, volume, and pressure readings.
4.5 System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected across the treatment trains
and distribution system. The system ran from March 7, 2005 to August 29, 2007. All columns, including
oxidation columns, were changed out on September 27, 2005, and September 8, 2006, after the first and
second media runs. The system operated for 29 weeks before effluent arsenic concentrations had reached
influent concentrations during the first media run and 21 weeks during the second media run. After the
second run, the owner/operator decided to try GFH and CFH-12 media based on results of three RSSCTs
conducted in January, March, and May of 2006 (Westerhoff, et al, 2008). Filox-R™ was chosen to
replace the ATS A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media for converting As(III) to As(V), prior to entering
adsorption columns. The third media run lasted 52 weeks before effluent arsenic concentrations had
reached approximately 10 (ig/L.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-5 summarizes the arsenic, iron, manganese, and
aluminum results from samples collected across the treatment plant. Table 4-6 summarizes the results of
other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results through the 2!/2
years of system operation. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the treatment system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 53 occasions
during the evaluation period (with duplicates taken on three and speciation performed on 26 of the 53
occasions).
Figures 4-7 and 4-8 contain four bar charts each showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As,
As(III), and As(V) across Treatment Trains A and B, respectively. Total arsenic concentrations in raw
water ranged from 34.6 to 50.2 (ig/L and averaged 39.1 (ig/L (Table 4-5). Soluble As(III) was the
predominating species, with concentrations ranging from 21.9 to 38.7 (ig/L and averaging 28.5 (ig/L.
Soluble As(V) also was present, with concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 17.6 (ig/L and averaging
10.5 (ig/L. Particulate As was low, with concentrations typically less than 1 (ig/L. The influent arsenic
concentrations measured during this 2!/2 year period were consistent with those in the raw water sample
collected prior to the study on September 14, 2004.
Media Runs 1 and 2. During Media Runs 1 and 2, A/P Complex 2002 and A/I Complex 2000 were
loaded in the lead oxidizing columns and the following adsorptive columns, respectively. As shown in
Figures 4-7 and 4-8, the A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media was effective at converting soluble As(III) to
soluble As(V), typically lowering the soluble As(III) concentrations to <1.5 (ig/L. Soluble As(III)
concentrations following the oxidation columns were higher on June 29 and July 27, 2005, and January
31, 2006, ranging from 3.3 to 6.3 (ig/L. The cause of these atypical results is not known.
26
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results
(Media Runs 1, 2 and 3)
Parameter
(Figure, if
any)
As (total)
(Figure 4-10)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
(Figures 4-7
and 4-8)
As (III)
(Figures 4-7
and 4-8)
As(V)
(Figures 4-7
and 4-8)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TA, TC, TE
TB, TD, TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
r\ A r\T3
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN(b)
OA-OB
TA-TF(C)
r-pr-p(d)
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB(e)
TA-TF(C)
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
Media
Run
I.D
Run 1,2,&3
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 3
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1,2,&3
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1 &2
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1,2,&3
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1 &2
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1,2,&3
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1 &2
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1 &2
Run 1 &2
Run 3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Number
of
Samples
52
28
24
9-20
25
25
15
2
26
13
13
1-6
3
1
26
13
13
1-6
3
1
26
13
13
1-6
3
1
26
13
13
1-6
3
1
28
30
2-13
17
14
15
1-6
4
29
30
2-13
18
14
15
1-6
3
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
34.6
0.3
32.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
34.4
0.1
33.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
21.9
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
33.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
6.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
6.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Maximum
50.2
50.2
42.4
58.4
34.2
35.3
35.4
0.1
42.6
45.5
42.0
46.4
17.4
0.1
1.6
0.6
3.0
12.1
0.1
0.1
38.7
6.3
1.2
2.3
2.4
0.1
17.6
45.0
41.5
46.0
15.1
0.1
<25
<25
<25
42.2
<25
<25
<25
<25
21.9
2.5
1.2
2.1
15.2
0.4
0.5
1.9
Average
39.1
Standard
Deviation
3.0
_(a)
0.4
0.5
_(a)
28.5
5.3
_(a)
10.5
5.6
_(a)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
9.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
9.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.4
0.2
0.5
2.5
0.1
0.1
1.1
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results
(Media Runs 1, 2 and 3) (Continued)
Parameter
(Figure, if
any)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF(C)
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
Media
Run
I.D
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Run 1,2, &3
Number
of
Samples
29
30
2-13
18
14
15
1-6
4
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
12.5
<10
<10
Maximum
21.4
67.7
42.6
55.7
<10
65.9
41.1
22.1
Average
10.2
33.4
27.5
22.4
<10
30.2
23.2
15.9
Standard
Deviation
5.0
10.8
10.1
14.7
0.0
12.3
12.3
7.5
(a) Statistics not meaningful for data related to breakthrough; see Figure 4-10 for breakthrough curves.
(b) Calculation does not include an outlier on 12/15/05.
(c) Calculation does not include two outliers on 06/29/05.
(d) Calculation does not include an outlier on 06/15/05.
(e) Calculation does not include an outlier on 03/22/05.
IN = at wellhead; OA and OB = after oxidation columns; TA to TF = after corresponding adsorption columns; TT =
after entire treatment system
One-half of the detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples are included in the calculations.
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
(Runs 1, 2 and 3)
Parameter
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as P04)
Total Phosphorus
(asP)
Silica
Nitrate (as N)
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TD
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TD
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TD
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HR/L
Hg/L
HR/L
Hg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number of
Samples
22
22
6-13
15
16
16
2-7
15
16
16
2-7
15
9
9
2-7
8
31
31
23-30
6
44
45
32-39
19
16
16
Concentration
Minimum
64
58
63
59
0.4
0.4
<0.1
O.I
18
18
16
18
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
<10
<10
<10
<10
9.6
4.5
0.6
0.6
O.05
O.05
Maximum
80
74
147
75
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
39
38
40
24
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
71
72
36
<10
13.3
14.0
13.6
7.9
0.4
0.3
Average
70
68
70
65
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
21
21
22
21
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.05
33
31
10
<10
10.5
9.8
7.6
4.4
0.1
0.1
Standard
Deviation
3.9
2.9
11.3
4.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
5.1
4.7
6.6
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.8
13.4
7.8
0.0
0.6
1.4
2.6
2.3
0.1
0.1
28
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
(Runs 1, 2 and 3) (Continued)
Parameter
Iodine
Temperature
Turbidity
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
TA-TD
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TB
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TD
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
HR/L
Hg/L
°C
°C
°C
°C
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number of
Samples
2-7
15
5
5
1
4
43
43
5-20
16
15
15
2-7
13
43
43
5-20
16
42
42
4-9
16
43
43
5-20
16
24
24
2-12
14
24
24
2-12
14
24
24
2-12
14
Concentration
Minimum
O.05
O.05
1.2
1.6
76.9
5.8
7.5
7.6
7.8
8.6
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
111
117
99
178
37.9
37.2
36.7
35.1
31.4
30.7
30.6
29.3
6.3
5.7
5.5
5.4
Maximum
1.1
0.3
9.8
64.8
80.8
124
14.1
14.7
14.6
14.0
1.2
1.2
0.4
0.7
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.5
4.7
4.3
5.0
3.7
299
315
327
242
58.1
64.0
87.0
52.3
49.8
55.0
74.0
44.5
8.5
9.0
13.0
7.8
Average
0.2
0.1
5.2
17.7
78.9
39.7
10.4
10.3
10.7
10.7
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.7
175
178
176
200
48.9
47.6
47.6
44.4
41.7
40.5
40.5
37.8
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.6
Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.1
4.0
24.0
2.8
56.8
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.7
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.7
34.3
37.1
38.2
14.8
4.9
5.5
10.1
5.3
4.6
5.0
8.7
4.8
0.6
0.8
1.5
0.6
IN = at wellhead; OA and OB = after oxidation columns; TA to TF = after corresponding adsorption
columns; TT = after entire treatment system
One-half of the detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for
calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
29
-------
60 i
i 40 -
30 -
10 -
Run1
Arsenic Species at System Inlet (IN)
Run 2
Run 3
60 -i
c 40 -
30 -
o
•g 20
10 -
Arsenic Species after Oxidation Column, Train A (OA)
Run1
Run 2
Run 3
-" - sV 4 » 4 4
Arsenic Species after Lead Adsorption Column, Train A (TA)
Arsenic Species after Lag Columns 4 System Outlet, TrainA
OJ
O 60 -
50 -
CT
O
1
i so -
o
c
o
O
.2 20 •
as
2
10 -
o -
Run1
J.
Run 2
RO -,
Run 3 DAs (Paniculate)
• soluble As(V)
• soluble As(lll)
•d
3.
I40 "
ro
« 30 -
o
o
120 -
m
V)
10 -
^
Run1
TC
TE
T
i
\ 1 V, 1C,
Run 2
TT
ot 1 I |
p , DAs (partculate)
» soluble As(V)
• soluble As(lli)
TT
Note: TC sample collected only on 06/29/05; TE samples collected only on 07/27/05 and 08/24/05
Figure 4-7. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train A
-------
Arsenic Species at System Inlet (IN)
80 -
IT50 "
"Bs
3,
J 40 -
(5
; Concent
O3
'E 20 -
10 -
ft .
Run1
Run 2
Run3
aAs (particulate
«s
ss
DUb
e As(V)
3ubleAs(iII)
rv -CV Cv -Cv1 ,CV «fV -Cv .CV1 -CO
60 T
o
.a 20
10 -
Arsenic Species after Oxidation Column. Train B (OB)
Run1
Run 2
Run3
Arsenic Species after Lead Adsorption Column, Train B (TB)
Arsenic Species after Lag Columns and System Outlet, Train B
(TO, TF, & TT)
uu
50
0
3.
^40 -
o
I 30 -
c
o
« 20 -
c
5
10 -
n .
Run 1
Run 2
in i
D - aAs (particulate)
«As(V)
• As(ll!)
^, ^^'
5"
"3s
E 40 -
o
I
Iso-
o
E
O
a
1 20 '
-------
Oxidation of soluble As(III) to soluble As(V) by the A/P Complex 2002 media was achieved through
reactions with sodium metaperiodate, a key ingredient loaded on the media for soluble As(III) oxidation
(Table 4-2a). At a pH value between 7.3 to 8.8 (as measured for raw water in Table 4-6), metaperiodate
reacted with H3AsO3, presumably, following Equation 1:
IO4 + 4H3AsO3 -> T + 4HAsO42 + 8H+ (1)
Further, metaperiodate would react with any soluble iron, existing as Fe(II), and soluble manganese,
existing as Mn(II), in raw water following Equations 2 and 3:
I(V + 8Fe2+ + 8H4" -» T + 8Fe3+ + 4H2O (2)
IO4 + 4Mn2+ + 4H2O -> I' + 4MnO2 + 8H+ (3)
Therefore, to oxidize 28.5, <25, and 9.1 ug/L of As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II), respectively, the average
amounts measured in raw water, only 7.1, 3.6 (one half the detection limit used for calculation), and
5.3 ug/L of I" would be produced stoichiometrically and leached into the column effluent. As such, the
total amount of iodide (I") produced would be 16 ug/L, which is lower than the Maine maximum exposure
guideline (MEG) of 340 ug/L for I" (Maine CDC, 2008) and the analytical reporting limit of 100 ug/L for
I" by EPA Method 300.0 by ion chromatography. This observation is consistent with the analytical results
(<100 ug/L of I") reported for the samples collected at the wellhead, after the oxidation columns, and after
the adsorption columns on October 18, 2005.
Total iodine also was analyzed using ICP-MS on five occasions (including one duplicate) during Media
Run 2. At approximately 2,300 BV on October 18, 2005, iodine concentrations following the oxidation
and adsorption columns averaged 62.3 and 124 ug/L (as I), respectively, which were significantly higher
than that measured in raw water (i.e., 9.2 ug/L [as I]). Because only 16 ug/L of total iodine would exist
as I, the iodine present in the column effluent most likely was IO4 or other reaction intermediates. It was
possible that some IO4" leached from the oxidizing media, but the leaching followed an apparent
decreasing trend as shown in Figure 4-9. The iodine concentrations in the treated water were significantly
reduced to less than 22. 7 ug/L [as I] after about 10 weeks into the system operation. The final sampling
event on February 14, 2006, showed only 1.6 ug/L [as I] following the oxidation columns (compared to
1.2 ug/L [as I] in raw water). The iodine leaching also was observed at another ATS arsenic removal
demonstration site in Susanville, CA, where 57.5 and 127 ug/L of iodine [as I] were measured following
the oxidation and adsorption columns even by the end of the media run (Chen et al., 2009).
The ATS system test results for arsenic removal during Media Runs 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 4-10
with total arsenic concentrations plotted against bed volumes of water treated. Bed volume was
calculated based on 1.5 ft3 or 11.2 gal of media per column. The results showed that the oxidizing media
A/P Complex 2002 had some capacity for arsenic removal. For the first sampling event taking place
about 2 to 8 days after the system startup, total arsenic concentrations in the effluent of the oxidation
columns were <0.5 ug/L during both Media Runs 1 and 2. Total arsenic concentrations slowly increased
thereafter and completely broken through the oxidation columns with arsenic concentrations close to
those in raw water at approximately 5,000 BVs for both runs.
Based on the breakthrough curves, arsenic loadings on the oxidation media during Media Runs 1 and 2
ranged from 0.09 to 0.18 ug of As/mg of dry media and averaged 0.14 ug/mg. Arsenic loading was
calculated by dividing the arsenic mass represented by the area under the respective breakthrough curve
by the dry weight of the media in a column. The results of arsenic loading calculations are summarized in
Table 4-7. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix C.
32
-------
8 60
10/15/2005 11/4/2005 11/24/2005 12/14/2005 1/3/2006
Date
1/23/2006 2/12/2006 3/4/2006
Figure 4-9. Iodine Concentrations Across Treatment Train during Media Run 2
During Media Run 1, total arsenic concentrations in the influent water to the first adsorption column of
each treatment train steadily rose from around 0.5 |o,g/L to just below 40 |o,g/L (i.e., the level in raw water)
during the first 4000 to 5,000 BVs of throughput. During this same period of time, arsenic concentrations
in the effluent from the lead adsorption columns were below 0.5 |o,g/L. At 5,000 BVs for Train A and
about 4000 BV s for Train B, the arsenic levels from the lead columns began to increase. The effluent
arsenic levels following the lead adsorption columns reached 10 |o,g/L at 7,100 BVs for Train A (TA) and
5,200 BVs for Train B (TB). Arsenic breakthrough from the lead adsorption columns occurred much
sooner than projected by the vendor (i.e., at 32,700 BV). While a number of water quality factors might
have played a role in the early breakthrough, high pH values (averaging 8.5; see Table 4-6) were thought
to be the major factor. As shown in Figure 4-10, the saturation of the lead adsorption columns occurred at
approximately 10,000 BVs for Train A and 9,000 BVs for Train B. All bed volumes were calculated
based on 1.5 ft3 of media in each column.
At about 10,000 BVs, arsenic concentrations after the first set of lag columns (second set of media
columns) were below 10 jo/L (2.9 and 6.0 |o,g/L at sampling locations TC and TD in Trains A and B,
respectively). By 13,800 BV on June 29, 2005, the concentrations at these two locations increased to
above the influent levels at 58.4 and 54.7 |og/L. (The June 29, 2005, samples taken at TC and TD showed
elevated levels of arsenic, iron, manganese, aluminum, calcium, and magnesium. The cause of the
concentration increase in these metals is not known.) Arsenic concentrations after the second set of lag
columns (third set of media columns) reached 10 |o,g/L at approximately 15,300 BV through both
treatment trains. The treatment train reached complete exhaustion at about 19,000 BV. Again, all bed
volumes were calculated based on 1.5 ft3 of media in each column.
As compared in Figure 4-11, results of Media Runs 1 and 2 were similar, indicating stable performance
for both the oxidizing (C/P Complex 2002) and adsorptive media (C/I Complex 2000). During Media
Run 2, arsenic concentrations after the lead adsorption columns reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 6,800
BV for Train A (TA) and 7,400 BV for Train B (TB). Arsenic concentrations following the first lag
columns reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 11,100 and 11,300 BV in Trains A and B, respectively.
Arsenic concentrations following the second lag columns in each treatment train reached 10 (ig/L at
approximately 15,600 BV.
33
-------
Media Run 1 (03/07/05 to 09/26/05)
(Oxidizing media: A/P Complex 2002; Adsorptive media: A/I Complex 2000)
5 10 15
Bed Volumes of Treated Water (xlOOO)
20
Media Run 2 (9/27/05 to 02/17/06)
(Oxidizing media: A/P Complex 2002; Adsorptive media: A/I Complex 2000)
5 10 15 20
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (xlOOO)
IN
TC
•OA
•TD
OB
• TE/TT — •
— TA --X---TB
• - TF/TT
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves during Media Runs 1 and 2
34
-------
Table 4-7. Arsenic Loadings on Oxidation and Adsorption Columns0
Column
Oxidation
Adsorption
Media
OA
OB
Average
TA (Lead)
TB (Lead)
TC(lstlag)
TD(lstlag)
TE (2nd lag)
TF (2nd lag)
Average
Arsenic Mass Removed (mg)
Runl
4,765
3,149
Run 2
5,412
5,936
4,816
7,658
6,231
5,817
9,357
8,597
9,287
6,383
9,047
8,533
6,901
7,196
7,194
7,683
Run 3
1,040
894
967
29,011
35,905
16,634
21,423
8,918
11,321
Train A: 18,187
Train B: 22,883
Capacity
(jig of As/mg of media)
Run l(b)
0.14
0.09
Run 2(b)
0.16
0.18
0.14
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.28
0.26
0.28
0.19
0.27
0.26
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
Run 3(c)
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.08(d)
0.87(d)
0.62(d)
0.52(d)
0.33(d)
0.27(d)
Train A: 0.67(d)
Train B: 0.55(d)
(a) Detailed calculations provided in Appendix C.
(b) 33. Okg of dry media in each column based on a bulk density of 51 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 5%.
(c) 77.7 kg of Filox in each column based on a bulk density of 1 14 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 0%; 26.9 kg
of GFH based on a bulk density of 79 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 50%; and 41.2 kg of CFH-12 based
on a bulk density of 72 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 16%.
(d) Columns not at full capacity for arsenic at end of evaluation.
Based on the breakthrough curves, all adsorptive columns were exhausted at the end of Media Run 1. At
the end of Media Run 2, the lead (TA and TB) and first lag (TC and TD) columns were exhausted; and
the second lag columns were close to exhaustion. Calculated arsenic loadings on the adsorptive media
ranged between 0.18 and 0.28 (ig of As/mg of dry media and averaged 0.23 (ig/mg, which was 1.6 times
greater than that on the oxidizing media (Table 4-7).
Because of the sharp breakthrough curves and lower than projected adsorptive capacities, the media
changeout did not occur until the treatment train had reached complete exhaustion. Consequently, the
finished water from the system had arsenic levels higher than the MCL for over two months for Media
Run 1 and for about two weeks for Media Run 2. Operating the system in this way (media changeout for
all columns at one time) is equivalent to operating a single vessel system with sample taps along length of
the vessel (or between columns). Under these operating conditions, the Media 1 run length to 10 |o,g/L of
arsenic breakthrough using a media bed volume of 4.5 ft3 (i.e., 1.5 ftVcolumn for three columns; not
including the oxidizing column) was approximately 5,100 BV for Train A and 5,200 BV for Train B.
To take advantage of a series design and improve the economics of the system, the lead tanks should be
replaced when total arsenic breakthrough (i.e., arsenic concentrations in the effluent reach those in the
influent) occurs. Because of early breakthrough during these two runs (which was not expected),
changeout of the lead adsorption columns was not done.
As shown in Figure 4-10, the arsenic breakthrough from the lead and lag columns in both Media Runs 1
and 2 exhibited typical S-shaped curves, which are characteristic for fixed-bed adsorption columns of this
type (Weber, 1972). This type of S-shaped curve may have varying degrees of steepness and position of
breakpoint, the point of operation where the column is in equilibrium with the influent water and where
little additional removal will occur. Factors that may affect the shape of the curve include adsorption
kinetics and arsenic concentrations, pH values, and competitive anions in the influent water.
As shown in Figure 4-10, as the columns became exhausted with arsenic, arsenic concentrations measured
during the subsequent sampling events were higher than those in the respective influent. This
35
-------
Runs 1 and 2 Oxidizing Columns
—•— OA-Run 1
-O— OB-Runl
—*— OA-Run 2
-•-*--OB-Run2
10 15
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (xlOOO)
Runs 1 & 2 Adsorptive Columns
70
60
O)
a so
40 -I
—A— TA-Run 1 TA-Run 2
--A—IB-Run 1 --X---IB-Run 2
—•— TC-Run 1 —0— TC-Run 2
--D—ID-Run 1 -••---ID-Run 2
—•— IE-Run 1 —X— IE-Run 2
-O— -TF-Runl —-+---TF-Run2
IN (average)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (xlOOO)
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Breakthrough Curves for Media Runs 1 and 2
36
-------
phenomenon, known as the chromatographic effect, was caused by the displacement of arsenic by
competing anions with higher selectivity. The chromatographic effect appeared to be present for both the
oxidizing and adsorptive media, but was most apparent with the adsorptive media reaching as high as 58
|o,g/L of arsenic. Among the anions analyzed, silica, sulfate, alkalinity (existing primarily as HCO3" at pH
values between 7.3 and 8.7), and fluoride were present in raw water at significant concentrations (Table 4-
6) that could potentially compete with arsenic for adsorption sites. The effects of these competitive anions
are discussed below on pages 41 to 44.
Media Run 3. After Media Run 2, three RSSCT tests (Westerhoff, 2008) were conducted onsite on
several adsorptive media. Two (i.e., GFH and CFH-12) were chosen to replace the ATS A/I Complex
2000 adsorptive media in Trains A and B adsorption columns, respectively. Filox-R™ was chosen to
replace the ATS A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media. As shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8, Filox-R™ was
effective at oxidizing soluble As(III), reducing its concentrations to <1.2 (ig/L during the 52-week media
run. Quarterly samples collected after the run (from December 5, 2007, to December 3, 2008) continued
to show effective As(III) oxidation, with its concentrations reduced to < 1.1 (ig/L 16 months after the end
of the performance evaluation (see Appendix B).
The breakthrough curves for Media Run 3 are presented in Figure 4-12. Unlike the ATS A/P 2002 media,
Filox-R™ had little to no adsorptive capacity for arsenic. Results of samples taken 10 days after media
changeout showed arsenic concentrations at 32.2 and 33.3 (ig/L after the Filox-R™ oxidation columns,
compared to 36.9 (ig/L in raw water. The breakthrough curves of A/P Complex 2002 and Filox-R™
oxidizing media are compared in Figure 4-13.
During Media Run 3, GFH media was loaded in Train A. Arsenic breakthrough at 10 (igL occurred at
approximately 8,400, 20,200, and >34,800 BV for the lead (TA), first lag (TC), and second lag (TE)
columns, respectively. Similar to the calculations for Media Runs 1 and 2, bed volumes were calculated
based on 1.5 ft3 or 11.2 gal of media per column. The lead adsorption columns did not reach saturation
capacity for arsenic by the end of the evaluation period (Figure 4-12). During the 52-week performance
evaluation, approximately 34,800 BV of water was treated and the effluent of Train A remained below 10
(ig/L. When all three adsorption columns are considered as one large column, breakthrough at 10 |o,g/L
occurred at 11,600 BV (based on 4.5 ft3 of media in three columns).
CFH-12 media was loaded in Train B during Media Run 3 and arsenic breakthrough at 10 (ig/L occurred
at 11,100, 22,400, and 46,000 BV for the lead (TB), first lag (TD), and second lag (TF) columns,
respectively. The lead adsorption columns did not reach saturation capacity for arsenic by the end of the
evaluation period (Figure 4-12). During the 52-week performance evaluation, approximately 46,000 BV
of water was treated and the effluent of Train B was around 10 (ig/L at this time. When all three
adsorption columns are considered as one large column, breakthrough at 10 (ig/L occurred at 15,300 BV
(based on 4.5 ft3 of media in three columns).
The breakthrough curves of the three adsorptive media are compared in Figure 4-14. The two media
(GFH and CFH-12) selected based on the RSSCT results demonstrated significantly improved adsorptive
capacities than the ATS A/I Complex 2000 media. Based on the media capacity calculations presented in
Table 4-7, arsenic loadings on A/I Complex 2000, GFH, and CFH-12 were 0.23, >1.08, and >0.87(ig of
As/mg of dry media, respectively. The adsorptive capacities of GFH and CFH-12 were at least five and
four times, respectively, of the capacity of A/I Complex 2000.
ATS Complex 2000 Adsorptive Capacities. As reported above, ATS Complex 2000 media exhibited
significantly less adsorptive capacities, averaging at 0.23 (ig of As/mg of dry media. These media
adsorptive capacities were compared to those at two other arsenic removal demonstration sites, i.e.,
Susanville, CA and Dummerston, VT, where the ATS media also was used. The system at Susanville,
37
-------
60
O) 50 -
c
O
'*p
2
•4-i
0)
O
c
O
O
O
I
40
30
20
10 •-
Media Run 3 (09/08/06 to 08/29/07)
(Oxidizing media: FiIox-R™; Absorptive media: GFH)
6 12 18 24 30 36
Bed Volumes of Water-Treated (xlOOO)
42
48
O)
Media Run 3 (09/08/06 to 08/29/07)
(Oxidizing media: Filox-R™; Absorptive media: CFH-12)
6 12 18 24 30 36
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (xlOOO)
42
-IN —A-OA/OB -X-TA/TB -O-TC/TD
-TE/TF
48
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-12. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves during Media Run 3
38
-------
70
60 -
g 50 -
c
O
J> 40 -
c
o
O qn J
O JU !
20 -
10
-A/P Complex 2002
-Filox-R
10 15 20 25 30 35
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (xlOOO)
IN (average)
40
45
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-13. Breakthrough Curves for A/P Complex 2002 and Filox-R™ Oxidizing Media
70
-TA-A/I Complex 2000
-TC-A/I Complex 2000
-TEJTT-A/I Complex 2000
-•-TA-GFH
-o-TC-GFH
—*'— TE/TT-GFH
-TB-CFH-12
-TD-CFH-12
-TFAT-CFH-12
40
45
15 20 25 30 35
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (xlOOO)
Note: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-14. Breakthrough Curves for A/I Complex 2000, GFH, and CFH-12
Adsorptive Media
39
-------
CA, had one treatment train consisting of two oxidation columns followed with three adsorption columns
in series (Chen et al., 2009). The system at Dummerston, VT consisted of only three adsorption columns
in series without oxidizing columns due to the presence of predominately soluble As(V) in that source
water (Lipps et al., 2008).
As shown in Table 4-8, A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media at Wales had an average arsenic capacity of
0.14 (ig of As/mg of dry media, which was somewhat lower than that (i.e., 0.19 (ig/mg) observed at
Susanville, CA. The A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media at Wales had adsorptive capacities ranging
from 0.18 to 0.28 (ig/mg and averaging 0.23 (ig/mg, which was similar to those observed at Susanville
(Table 4-8). The Wales source water had a pH value comparable to that of Susanville (i.e., 8.5 vs. 8.4),
but it had higher arsenic and lower silica concentrations.
The adsorptive capacities of A/I Complex 2000 media observed at the Susanville and Wales sites were
about half of those (i.e., 0.46 to 0.50 (ig/mg) observed at Dummerston, VT. The higher adsorptive
capacity observed was believed to have been caused by the lower pH values of the source water, which
averaged 7.7 (compared to 8.4 and 8.5, respectively, at Susanville and Wales). The higher arsenic
concentrations in source water at Dummerston also might have contributed to the higher adsorptive
capacities observed.
Table 4-8. Comparison of Arsenic Adsorptive Capacity on ATS Media
at Three Arsenic Demonstration Sites
Column
Arsenic
Adsorptive
Capacity on
Media
fag/mg)
Average
Influent
Total Arsenic
Concentration
(Hg/L)
Average
Influent
pH
(S.U.)
Average
Influent
Silica
Concentration
(mg/L)
Susanville, CA
OA
OB
TA
TB
TC
0.20
0.18
0.23
NA(a)
NA(a)
31.7
8.4
14.1
Dummerston, VT
TA
TB
TC
TD
TE
TF
0.50
0.46
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
NA(a)
42.2
7.7
12.6
Wales, ME
OA
OB
TA
TB
TC
TD
TE
TF
0.14/0.16(b)
0.09/0. 18(b)
0.23/0. 19(b)
0.19/0.27(b)
0.18/0.26(b)
0.28/0.2 l(b)
0.26/NA(a'b)
0.28/NA(a'b)
39.1
8.5
10.5
(a) Column not exhausted with arsenic.
(b) Runl/Run2.
40
-------
Phosphorus, Silica, Alkalinity, Sulfate, and Fluoride. Among the onions analyzed, phosphorus, silica,
alkalinity (existing primarily as HCO3" at pH values between 7.4 and 8.8), sulfate, and fluoride were
present in significant concentrations in raw water (Table 4-6) that could potentially compete with arsenic
for adsorptive sites.
As shown in Figures 4-15, A/P Complex 2002 (Run 2) and Filox-R (Run 3) oxidizing media possessed
little adsorption capacity for phosphorus. However, phosphorus was removed by the three adsorptive
media evaluated and did not reach complete breakthrough by the end of Media Runs 2 and 3. Total
phosphorus (as P) was not measured during Media Run 1, therefore, Figure 4-15 only presents the data
from Media Runs 2 and 3.
60
«50 H
•3.
|40
o
§30
o
o
v>
D
o20 -
r-
Q.
in
o
Media
Run 2
0
12/14/05
Media Run 3
— * —
— £ —
— 9 —
- o-
IN
OA
OB
TA
TB
03/24/06 07/02/06
04/28/07
08/06/07
10/10/06 01/18/07
Date
Figure 4-15. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Across Treatment Trains for Media Runs 2 and 3
As shown in Figure 4-16, silica was consistently removed by all three adsorptive media evaluated, and did
not reach complete breakthrough from the A/I Complex 2000 or CFH-12 media bed by the end of
respectively media runs. During Media Runs 1 and 2; at approximately 18,500 BV, well after the arsenic
adsorptive capacities had been exhausted, the ATS A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media continued to
remove silica. Filox-R™, however, showed little capacity for silica.
For the other potentially competitive anions such as alkalinity and sulfate, the oxidizing and adsorptive
media showed little or no removal capacity as shown in Figure 4-17. The ATS A/I Complex 2000
adsorptive media, however, did remove some fluoride initially from about 0.5 mg/L to < 0.1 mg/L.
Fluoride completely broke through the lead adsorption columns at around 2,000 BV during both Media
Runs 1 and 2, and exhibited similar characteristics of the chromatographic effect observed for arsenic. In
Media Run 3, only one fluoride measurement was conducted at the beginning of the run. The results
showed no fluoride capacity on Filox-R, nor on GFH or CFH-12.
41
-------
ATS Media Run 1 (03/09/05 to 09/26/05|
ATS Media Run 2 (9/27/05 to 02/17/06|
to
18
24
30
Bed Volumes (A103)
GFH Media Run 3 (09/08/06-08/31/07)
Bed Volumes (A103)
•IN
Bed Volumes (A103)
Kemlron Media Run 3 (09/08/06 to 08/29/07)
Bed Volumes (A103)
OA/OB
TA/TB
TC/TD
TE/TF/TT
NOTE: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure 4-16. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Trains for Media Runs 1, 2 and 3
-------
Alkalinity
100
90 -
3 80
c,
E
— 70 -
O
I 60
01
£ 50 -
O
o
21 40 -
'c
I 30 -
20 -
10 -
—•—IN -
x OB -
-*— OA
•*— TT
Media Run 1
0
02/17/05
Media Run 2
Media Run 3
05/28/05
09/05/05
12/14/05
03/24/06
Date
Sulfate
07/02/06
10/10/06
01/18/07
04/28/07
ffl
30 -
4)
O
O
°20
01
10
Media Run 3
02/17/05 05/28/05 09/05/05 12/14/05 03/24/06
Date
07/02/06
10/10/06
01/18/07
04/28/07
Figure 4-17. Alkalinity and Sulfate Concentrations Across Treatment Trains for
Media Runs 1, 2 and 3
43
-------
Aluminum. Total aluminum concentrations in source water averaged 10.2 (ig/L with aluminum existing
mainly in the particulate form. During Media Runs 1 and 2, aluminum, existing primarily in the soluble
form, was found in the treated water following the ATS A/P Complex 2002 oxidation columns about 20
to 30 (ig/L higher than those in raw water, indicating leaching of aluminum from the A/P Complex 2002
media. Initially, the aluminum concentrations following the oxidation columns were consistently higher
than those following the adsorption columns (Figure 4-18), suggesting removal of some aluminum by the
adsorptive media. After about 7,000 BV in Media Run 1 and 14,000 BV in Media Run 2, this trend
discontinued and the aluminum concentrations were about the same. Even with the increase in aluminum
concentration following the treatment trains, the concentrations were still below the secondary drinking
water standard for aluminum of 50 to 200 (ig/L.
Leaching of aluminum continued throughout Media Runs 1 and 2. Aluminum was analyzed for two
sampling events during Media Run 3 and, as expected, no aluminum leaching was evident.
Aluminum
70
60 -
U)
•— 50
C
o
(0
C 40 -\
u
o
c
o
o
| 30
c
E
— 20
<
10 -
0
Media Run 1
2/17/05 5/28/05 9/5/05 12/14/05 3/24/06 7/2/06
Date
Figure 4-18. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Entire System for Runs 1 and 2
Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations, both total and dissolved, were consistently less than the
method detection limit of 25 |o,g/L in source water and across the treatment trains (Table 4-5). Manganese
concentrations in source water also were low, ranging from 6.4 to 21.9 (ig/L and averaging 9.5 (ig/L.
Manganese concentrations in the treated water following the adsorption columns typically were below the
detection limit (<0.1 (ig/L) with an average of 0.3 (ig/L (Table 4-5), indicating complete removal of
manganese by the oxidizing and adsorptive media.
44
-------
Other Water Quality Parameters. The results for DO and ORP remained rather consistent throughout the
treatment trains, appearing unaffected by the three adsorptive media evaluated. Total hardness ranged
from 35.1 to 87.0 mg/L (as CaCO3), and remained constant across the treatment train. Nitrate
concentration also remained relatively constant throughout the treatment train.
4.5.2 Spent Media Sampling. After the second media changeout on September 8, 2006, spent
ATS media samples were collected from each oxidation and adsorption column for metals and TCLP
analysis (Section 3.3.3).
TCLP. The TCLP results are presented in Table 4-9. The results indicated that the spent ATS media
were non-hazardous and could be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Barium was the only metal detected
by the TCLP test at a maximum concentration of 0.64 mg/L, which is well below the limit of 100 mg/L of
Ba. All other Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals were at concentrations less than
the respective method detection limits.
Table 4-9. TCLP Results of a Composite Spent Media Sample
Analyte
Media Run
Sampling Location
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Run 2
Run 2
Run 2
Run 2
Run 2
Run 2
Run 2
Run 2
Concentration (mg/L)
OA
0.10
0.64
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
OB
0.10
0.55
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
TA
0.10
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
TB
0.10
0.33
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
TC
0.10
0.32
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
TD
0.10
0.32
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
TE
0.10
0.31
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
TF
0.10
0.31
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.10
0.01
Metals. The ICP-MS results of the spent ATS media are presented in Table 4-10. As expected, the spent
ATS media contained mostly aluminum. The average aluminum composition in the spent A/P Complex
2002 oxidizing media was 44.4%, equivalent to 83.9% A12O3. The A12O3 content is lower than the 96.6%
specified by ATS (Table 4-2a). Although leaching of aluminum was observed from the oxidizing media,
leaching itself would not have accounted for the difference between the analytical and vendor-specified
values. The average aluminum composition in the spent A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media was 44.9%,
equivalent to 84.9% A12O3, which, again, is lower than the 91% specified by ATS (Table 4-2b). The
average iron composition in the spent A/I Complex 2000 media was 0.64%, equivalent to 4.5% of
Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2-6H2O, which is close to the specified value of 5.9%. Average calcium composition was
0.9%.
The average arsenic loadings on the spent A/P Complex 2002 and A/I Complex 2000 media were both
0.16 (ig of As/mg of dry media (Table 4-10).
The first set of spent media samples were collected on September 8, 2006, approximately seven months
after the end of Media Run 2. Since the oxidation and adsorption columns had reached or were close to
exhaustion by the end of Media Run 2, it is safe to assume that the additional seven months of system
operation would not load additional arsenic on the media. The arsenic loadings measured on the spent
media, therefore, should be comparable to those calculated based on the breakthrough curves of Media
Run 2.
45
-------
Table 4-10. Spent Media Total Metal Results for ATS Media in Run 2
Sampling
Location
Al
As
Ca
Cd
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mn
Ni
P
Si
Zn
Concentration (jig/g)
OA
442,186
165
10,753
<0.5
329
718
0.4
1,686
1,001
3.3
552
1,202
<76.9
OB
445,724
160
10,269
<0.5
106
383
<0.5
1,612
503
1.3
516
442
<49.3
TA
445,193
162
8,551
<0.5
3.7
6,040
0.4
1,298
39.8
1.5
531
453
<46.1
TB
492,665
189
9,269
<0.5
2.7
8,285
<0.5
1,379
49.6
1.3
626
1,509
<48.4
TC
454,016
171
7,801
<0.4
4.0
7,224
<0.4
1,203
56.5
1.2
553
111
<43.9
TD
449,204
156
9,353
<0.5
2.7
6,508
<0.5
1,176
53.3
1.4
521
1,145
<50.9
TE
429,402
157
7,559
<0.4
6.3
4,992
3.3
1,121
43.9
1.2
466
1,047
<41.8
TF
426,037
154
7,109
<0.5
1.5
5,069
<0.5
1,112
37.5
1.0
488
1,608
<52.6
The arsenic loadings measured by ICP-MS are compared to those calculated based on the breakthrough
curves in Table 4-11. For the A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media, the measured and calculated values
were comparable, both averaging at 0.17 (ig of As/mg of dry media. For the A/I Complex 2000
adsorptive media, the measured values averaged at 0.17 (ig of As/mg of dry media, compared to 0.23 (ig
of As/mg of dry media based on the breakthrough curves. The calculated values are thought to be more
reliable, due to the nature of sampling and analysis of the spent media and associated experimental errors.
Table 4-11. Comparison of Calculated and Measured Arsenic Loadings
on Spent ATS Media
Column
OA
OB
TA
TB
TC
TD
TE
TF
Media Run 2
Breakthrough
Curve
(Table 4-7(a))
Spent Media
(Table 4-10(b))
fig As/mg of dry media
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.27
0.26
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.15
Recovery
(%)
106
89
84
70
65
76
73
68
NA = not analyzed.
(a) Calculations account for 5% moisture content of A/P
Complex 2002 and A/I Complex 2000, 50% moisture
content of GFH, and 16% moisture content of CFH-12.
Moisture content of Filox was unavailable and assumed to
be 0%.
(b) Averages of duplicate analyses.
(c) Average based on two samples (duplicate analysis) of spent
media from TC-TD combined.
46
-------
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Distribution system water samples were collected to
determine if water treated by the arsenic removal system would impact the lead, copper, and arsenic
levels and some other water quality parameters in the distribution system. Prior to the
installation/operation of the treatment system, baseline distribution system water samples were collected
from two LCR and one non-LCR residences on December 15, 2004; January 10, 2005; February 2, 2005;
and February 23, 2005. Following the treatment startup, distribution water sampling continued on a
monthly basis at the same three locations for 11 months from April 4, 2005, to February 14, 2006. The
results of the distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-12.
As expected, prior to the installation of the treatment system, arsenic concentrations in the distribution
system were similar to those measured in raw water, ranging from 29.9 to 40.0 (ig/L and averaging 35.8
(ig/L. After system startup, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system were reduced significantly to
less than 2.4 (ig/L (or 1.1 (ig/L on average) during the first three months of system operation. Afterwards,
arsenic concentrations increased to above the MCL and then to the influent levels following arsenic
breakthrough. Figure 4-19 compares arsenic concentrations measured in the distribution system water
and in the system effluent. In general, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water mirrored
those in the system effluent.
As shown in Figure 4-19, during the initial period of system operation after virgin media were freshly
installed, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system water were somewhat higher than those
measured in treatment system effluent. Therefore, some dissolution and/or resuspension of arsenic might
have occurred in the distribution system initially.
Similar to those in raw water, iron concentrations were low in the distribution system water, with all, but
two measurements (on January 4, 2006), lower than the detection limit of 25 (ig/L. Manganese
concentrations also were low, with all, but one measurement (on October 5, 2005), lower than 8.4 (ig/L.
Before system startup, manganese concentrations averaged 2.8 |og/L. After system startup, manganese
concentrations averaged 1.9 |o,g/L (calculation not including the outlier on October 5, 2005). Manganese
levels appeared to decrease slightly after the system startup.
With the exception of samples collected on October 5, 2005, pH values also remained relatively constant
throughout the distribution system. Changeout of the ATS media occurred on September 27, 2005. The
virgin media were somewhat acidic, causing lower pH values in the system effluent and the distribution
system water for a short period of time. The pH values of the October 5, 2005, samples ranged between
6.4 and 6.5. The samples collected on November 2, 2005, had pH values ranging between 7.5 and 7.6,
which were closer to the average pH value of 7.8 in the distribution system water.
Lead levels ranged from <0.1 to 1.0 |o,g/L and averaged 0.4 |o,g/L in the baseline samples and ranged from
<0.1 to 1.5 ng/L and averaged 0.6 |o,g/L in the samples collected after system startup (excluding the
October 5, 2005, sample when the lead level spiked to 4.9 |og/L at the DS 2 sampling location). All lead
measurements were below the lead action level of 15 |o,g/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 6.7 to
55.1 |og/L and averaged 22.8 |o,g/L in the baseline samples and ranged from 0.9 to 208 |o,g/L and averaged
37.8 |o,g/L in the samples taken after system startup (excluding the October 5, 2005, sample with 519 |o,g/L
of copper at the DS1 sampling location). All copper concentrations measured were below the copper
action level of 1,300 |o,g/L. Lead and copper concentrations in the distribution system water were
sensitive to pH and generally higher than those before system startup. The alkalinity values remained
fairly constant throughout the distribution system.
47
-------
Table 4-12. Distribution System Sampling Results
No. of
Sampling
Events
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Address
Sample Type
Flushed / 1st Draw
Sampling Date
Unit
12/15/2004
1/10/2005
2/2/2005
2/23/2005
4/5/2005
5/4/2005
6/15/2005
7/13/2005
8/9/2005
9/7/2005
10/5/2005
11/2/2005
12/7/2005
1/4/2006
2/14/2006
DS1
285 Leeds Junction Rd.
Non-LCR Residence
1st Draw
stagnation
Time
hrs
7.8
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.0
8.4
7.7
7.3
7.4
6.7
7.1
6.3
7.5
10.0
7.0
X
O.
S.U.
7.4
8.1
7.9
7.6
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.5
8.0
8.2
6.4
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.4
_g>
|E
"<5
j£
<
mg/L
57
65
71
73
63
68
66
66
67
64
50
58
61
62
64
in
<
WL
36.1
30.6
39.6
35.4
1.5
0.8
0.7
10.4
29.0
50.2
2.3
1.8
0.9
0.5
22.0
|E
"<5
J£
<
mg/L
57
66
70
71
66
70
66
66
75(b|
64
50
58
59
65
63
in
<
|Jg/L
35.9
31.3
39.5
36.6
2.4
0.6
2.0
11.1
32.2
50.4
1.5
2.9
1.2
0.3
26.6
-------
Media Run 1 (03/07/05 to 09/26/05)
(Oxidizing media: A/PComplex 2002; Adsorptive media: A/I Complex 2000)
60
CT
"5)50 -
.2 40 -
k.
*J
I 30 -
c
O
0 20 -
o
'E
Si 10 -
MCL(10|jg/L)
-a—*-
5 10 15
Bed Volumes of Treated Water (xlOOO)
Media Run 2 (9/27/05 to 02/17/06)
(Oxidizing media: A/P Complex 2002; Adsorptive media: A/I Complex 2000)
20
60
O)
50
•240
$30
O
o
,20 -
10
MCL(10|jg/L)
-O-
5 10 15
Bed Volumes of Water Treated (xlOOO)
20
•TE/TT -••-•-TF/TT
0 DS1
0 DS2
A DS3
Note: Bed volumes based upon BV of 1.5 ft for each column
Figure 4-19. Comparison of Total Arsenic Concentrations in Distribution System Water and
Treatment System Effluent
49
-------
Aluminum concentrations in all baseline samples were below the detection limit of 10 (ig/L. After system
startup, aluminum concentrations were as high as 39.7 (ig/L, similar to those observed in the treatment
system effluent. As mentioned previously, because both A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media and A/I
Complex 2000 adsorptive media are alumina-based, some aluminum leached into the system effluent and
the distribution system water.
4.6
System Cost
The cost of the treatment system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design
capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking capital cost for the
equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
replacement parts, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. The cost associated with
improvements to the building and any other infrastructure was not included in the capital cost. These
activities were funded separately by the facility.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation was
$16,475 (see Table 4-13). The equipment cost was $10,790 (or 65% of the total capital investment),
which included $4,000 for the treatment system mechanical hardware, $960 for 3 ft3 of the A/P Complex
2002 oxidizing media (i.e., $320/ft3 or $6.27/lb), $2,880 for 9 ft3 of the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive
media (i.e., $320/ft3 or $6.27/lb), $900 for the pressure tank and booster pump, and $2,050 for the
vendor's labor and shipping cost.
Table 4-13. Summary of Capital Investment Cost
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Oxidation/Adsorption Columns
A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media (ft3)
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media (ft3)
25-jim Sediment Filters
Pressure Tank and Booster Pump
Piping and Valves
Flow Totalizers/Meters
Hour Meters
Procurement, Assembly, Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
8
3
9
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
—
$960
$960
$2,880
$750
$900
$1,110
$1,120
$60
$1,600
$450
$10,790
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
65%
Engineering Cost
Design/Scope of System (hr)
Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses
Engineering Total
10
1
—
$1,500
$300
$1,800
—
—
11%
Installation Cost
Plumbing/Electrical Supplies/Parts
Vendor Installation Labor (hr)
Mechanical Subcontractor Labor (hr)
Electrical Subcontractor Labor (hr)
Vendor Travel (day)
Subcontractor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
10
10
3
2
—
—
-
$700
$1,300
$850
$225
$710
$100
$3,885
$16,475
—
—
—
24%
100%
50
-------
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the
piping connections to the entry and distribution tie-in points, design of the additional pressure tank and
booster pump, and assembling and submission of the engineering plans for the permit application
(Section 4.3). The engineering cost was $1,800, or 11% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost of labor and materials to unload and install the treatment system,
pressure tank, and booster pump, complete the piping installation and tie-ins, and perform the system
start-up and shakedown (Section 4.3). The installation was performed by ATS. The installation cost was
$3,885, or 24% of the total capital investment.
The total capital cost of $16,475 was normalized to $l,177/gpm ($0.82/gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 14 gpm (or 20,160 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an annualized
cost of $l,555/yr using a capital recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-year
return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/week at the design flowrate of 14 gpm
to produce 7,400,000 gal of water per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.21/1,000 gal. However, the
system operated only an average of 3.7 hr/day with daily throughput of 2,618 gpd (Table 4-4) and annual
throughput of 955,450. At this reduced rate of operation, the unit capital cost increased to $1.63/1,000 gal
of water treated.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the As/1400CS treatment system
included only incremental cost associated with the treatment system, such as media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor, as presented in Table 4-14.
In general, for a three-column system operating in series, the media in the lead column is ideally replaced
when the effluent arsenic concentration following the lead column equals the raw water concentration, but
before the arsenic concentration following the final lag column reaches the 10-(ig/L MCL. Once the lead
column is exhausted, the first and second lag columns are moved up to the lead and first lag positions,
respectively, and a column containing new media is placed in the final lag position. This method allows
the media's capacity for arsenic to be fully utilized before its replacement. If the media exhibits a sharp
adsorption front (with a typical S-shaped breakthrough curve) and if the anticipated run length is
relatively short, it is more cost-effective to wait until the first two, or all three columns, in the treatment
train need to be replaced.
Two media replacements were conducted during the performance evaluation study: one on September 27,
2005, after Media Run 1 and the other on September 8, 2006, after Media Run 2. The cost to change out
two ATS oxidation columns and six ATS adsorption columns was $7,569 (including $1,365 for labor,
travel, and delivery) for the first changeout and $6,148 (including $3,693 for GFH and $2,455 for CFH-
12) for the second changeout (see cost breakdowns in Table 4-14). The changeout cost of the ATS media
reflected the cost savings resulting from recycling of the exhausted media (rather than disposing of it at a
landfill that would have a disposal cost).
By averaging the media replacement cost (i.e., $7,565, $3,693, and $2,455) over the life of the media (i.e.,
when the treatment system/treatment train effluent reached 10 (ig/L), the media replacement cost per
1,000 gal of water treated was $22.05, $9.44 and $4.76/1,000 gal of water treated.
Additional electricity use associated with the hour meters on the booster pump and well pump and a new
booster pump following the treatment system was minimal. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor
activities consumed about 45 min/week as noted in Section 4.4.4. Depending on how the system
performs and if any additional troubleshooting is required, the labor incurred will vary. The estimated
labor cost for operating and maintaining a ATS, GFH, and CFH-12 system was $0.83, $1.00, and
$0.76/1,000 gal of water treated.
51
-------
Table 4-14. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Runs 1 and 2(a)
ATS Trains: 343,300
(350,000)
Run 3
GFH Train: 391,000
CFH-12 Train: 516,100
Remarks
To 10-ug/L As breakthrough
from third adsorption column
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media ($/ft3)
Media Volume (ft3)
Total Media
Replacement ($)
Labor ($)
Travel and Delivery ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and
Disposal ($71,000 gal)
A/P Complex 2002: $517
A/I Complex 2000: $517
A/P Complex 2002: 3.0
A/I Complex 2000: 9.0
A/P Complex 2002: $1,551
A/I Complex 2000: $4,653
Total: $6,204
$520
$845
$7,569
$22.05
($21.63)
Filox-R™: $210
GFH: $595
CFH-12: $320
Filox-R™: 3.0
GFH: 4.5
CFH-12: 4.5
Filox-R™: $630
GFH: $2,678
CFH-12: $1,440
Total: $4,748
$1,000
$400
GFH Train: $3,693
CFH-12 Train: $2,455
GFH Train: $9.44
CFH-12 Train: $4.76
For replacement media
Amounts of media in two
oxidation and six adsorption
columns
Per vendor invoices
Per vendor invoices
Per vendor invoices
Per vendor invoices
Based upon media run length
at 10-|ag/L arsenic
breakthrough from third
adsorption column
Chemical Usage
Chemical ($)
0.0
No additional chemical
required
Electricity
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical cost assumed
negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor
(hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M cost
($71,000 gal)
0.75
$286(b)
$0.83
($0.82)
$22.88
($22.45)
0.75
GFH Train: $390(c)
CFH-12 Train: 390(c)
GFH Train: $1.00
CFH-12 Train: $0.76
GFH Train: $10.44
CFH-12 Train: $5.52
15 mm/day, 3 day /week
$20/hr
To 10-ug/L As breakthrough
from third adsorption column
(a) Values for Run 2 (that differ from Run 1) are in parentheses.
(b) 19 weeks to reach 10 ug/L at system effluent.
(c) 52 weeks to reach just <10 ug/L at system effluent.
As shown in Table 4-14, the unit O&M cost is driven by the cost to replace the spent media as a function
of the media run length. Therefore, supplying water to SBMHP for one year would require $45,382,
$4,082, and $2,849 O&M cost when using ATS A/P Complex 2002/A/I Complex 2000, Filox-R™/GFH,
and Filox-R™/CFH-12 media, respectively. The study results indicate that using either Filox-R™/GFH
or Filox-R™/CFH-12 media can result in significant cost savings.
52
-------
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.
Chen, A.S.C., J.P. Lipps, S.E. McCall, and L. Wang. 2009. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Richmond Elementary School in
Susanville, CA. Final Performance Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-09/067. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L.Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA,90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, S.E. McCall, and L. Wang. 2008. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Adsorptive Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT. Final Performance
Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-08/081. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Maine CDC. 2008. Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEGs) for Drinking Water. Department of Human
Services, Environmental and Occupational Health Program, Center for Disease Control and
Prevention.
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.
Weber, W. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. Wiley-Interscience, New
York.
Westerhoff,.P., T. Benn, A.S.C. Chen, L. Wang, L.J. Cumming. 2008. Assessing Arsenic Removal by
Metal (Hydr)Oxide Adsorptive Media Using Rapid Small Scale Column Tests. EPA/600/R-
08/051. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
53
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Date
03/07/05
03/08/05
03/09/05
03/10/05
03/11/05
03/12/05
03/13/05
03/14/05
03/15/05
03/16/05
03/17/05
03/18/05
03/19/05
03/20/05
03/21/05
03/22/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
03/25/05
03/26/05
03/27/05
03/28/05
03/29/05
03/30/05
04/01/05
04/02/05
04/03/05
04/04/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
04/07/05
04/08/05
04/10/05
Booster Pump Hour Meter
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
4.3
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Daily System Operational Data (Continued)
Week
No.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
04/11/05
04/12/05
04/13/05
04/14/05
04/15/05
04/18/05
04/19/05
04/20/05
04/21/05
04/24/05
04/25/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
05/06/05
05/08/05
05/10/05
05/12/05
05/13/05
05/16/05
05/17/05
05/19/05
05/20/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
05/31/05
06/01/05
06/02/05
06/08/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
06/12/05
06/15/05
06/18/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
46.4
48.6
54.2
57.0
58.7
74.2
78.0
84.0
87.8
100.6
106.3
137.8
142.0
148.5
163.6
170.9
177.7
178.9
190.4
193.0
202.1
204.5
227.7
230.9
247.6
250.1
255.6
279.3
281.5
284.6
294.8
305.7
317.7
Operational
Hours
hr
3.3
2.2
5.6
2.8
1.7
15.5
3.8
6.0
3.8
12.8
5.7
31.5
4.2
6.5
15.1
7.3
6.8
1.2
11.5
2.6
9.1
2.4
23.2
3.2
16.7
2.5
5.5
23.7
2.2
3.1
10.2
10.9
12.0
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.35
5.68
5.19
5.23
5.07
5.42
5.01
5.28
4.96
5.16
5.14
5.27
5.21
4.88
4.91
4.90
4.25
5.01
4.96
5.01
5.14
4.81
4.58
4.88
4.84
5.08
5.05
5.38
5.27
5.16
5.21
5.13
5.10
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
47,400
48,118
49,994
50,969
51,512
56,596
57,826
58,929
60,166
64,289
66,153
76,529
77,895
80,034
85,038
87,516
89,777
90,183
94,018
94,879
97,874
98,663
106,414
107,484
113,096
113,961
115,791
123,612
124,322
125,374
128,721
132,261
136,265
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
4,225
4,289
4,456
4,543
4,591
5,044
5,154
5,252
5,362
5,730
5,896
6,821
6,943
7,133
7,579
7,800
8,002
8,038
8,380
8,456
8,723
8,793
9,484
9,580
10,080
10,157
10,320
11,017
11,080
11,174
11,472
11,788
12,145
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.44
5.79
5.30
5.30
5.07
5.49
5.14
5.42
5.08
5.27
5.27
5.40
5.35
4.93
4.97
4.96
4.82
5.07
5.01
5.07
5.32
4.85
4.64
4.93
4.86
5.13
5.15
5.46
5.32
5.20
5.25
5.21
5.21
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
48,203
48,931
50,840
51,833
52,386
57,558
58,816
59,964
61,246
65,495
67,413
77,956
79,342
81,512
86,587
89,088
91,376
91,805
95,677
96,555
99,578
100,381
108,223
109,304
114,974
115,848
117,697
125,611
126,330
127,395
130,785
134,370
138,422
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
4,296
4,361
4,531
4,620
4,669
5,130
5,242
5,344
5,459
5,837
6,008
6,948
7,071
7,265
7,717
7,940
8,144
8,182
8,527
8,606
8,875
8,947
9,646
9,742
10,247
10,325
10,490
11,195
11,259
11,354
11,656
11,976
12,337
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
95,603
97,049
100,834
102,802
103,898
114,154
116,642
118,893
121,412
129,784
133,566
154,485
157,237
161,546
171,625
176,604
181,153
181,988
189,695
191,434
197,452
199,044
214,637
216,788
228,070
229,809
233,488
249,223
250,652
252,769
259,506
266,631
274,687
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
4,260
4,325
4,493
4,581
4,630
5,087
5,198
5,298
5,411
5,784
5,952
6,884
7,007
7,199
7,648
7,870
8,073
8,110
8,453
8,531
8,799
8,870
9,565
9,661
10,164
10,241
10,405
11,106
11,170
11,264
11,564
11,882
12,241
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
11.2
11.0
11.3
11.7
10.7
11.0
10.9
6.3
11.0
10.9
11.1
11.1
10.9
11.0
11.1
11.4
11.1
11.6
11.2
11.1
11.0
11.1
11.2
11.2
11.3
11.6
11.1
11.1
10.8
11.4
11.0
10.9
11.2
(a) Bed Volume = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Daily System Operational Data (Continued)
Week
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Date
06/22/05
06/24/05
06/29/05
07/06/05
07/07/05
07/08/05
07/13/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/19/05
07/22/05
07/27/05
08/01/05
08/08/05
08/09/05
08/12/05
08/18/05
08/20/05
08/23/05
08/30/05
09/06/05
09/09/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
336.9
348.3
370.8
403.7
409.0
418.3
438.4
443.6
447.5
465.0
475.1
493.6
507.6
532.7
534.9
544.2
565.6
577.9
583.7
606.6
629.4
637.8
Operational
Hours
hr
19.2
11.4
22.5
32.9
5.3
9.3
20.1
5.2
3.9
17.5
10.1
18.5
14.0
25.1
2.2
9.3
21.4
12.3
5.8
22.9
22.8
8.4
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.12
4.80
5.07
5.10
5.53
5.07
5.29
5.21
5.04
5.10
5.13
4.95
4.95
5.05
4.97
5.18
5.24
5.14
5.31
5.10
5.25
5.16
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
142,571
146,227
153,568
164,281
166,018
168,976
175,659
177,369
178,686
184,403
187,745
193,897
198,613
207,163
207,890
211,033
218,229
222,369
224,295
232,034
239,858
242,801
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
12,707
13,033
13,687
14,642
14,797
15,060
15,656
15,808
15,926
16,435
16,733
17,281
17,702
18,464
18,529
18,809
19,450
19,819
19,991
20,680
21,378
21,640
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.20
4.81
5.10
5.14
5.44
5.12
5.31
5.27
5.09
5.19
5.19
5.04
5.04
5.12
4.99
5.26
5.27
5.08
5.33
5.19
5.32
5.23
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
144,805
148,499
155,922
166,753
168,512
171,505
178,264
179,997
181,329
187,111
190,489
196,705
201,477
210,114
210,847
214,021
221,265
225,445
227,398
235,225
243,155
246,138
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
12,906
13,235
13,897
14,862
15,019
15,286
15,888
16,043
16,161
16,677
16,978
17,532
17,957
18,727
18,792
19,075
19,721
20,093
20,267
20,965
21,672
21,937
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
287,376
294,726
309,490
331,034
334,530
340,481
353,923
357,366
360,015
371,514
378,234
390,602
400,090
417,277
418,737
425,054
439,494
447,814
451,693
467,259
483,013
488,939
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
12,806
13,134
13,792
14,752
14,908
15,173
15,772
15,925
16,043
16,556
16,855
17,407
17,829
18,595
18,660
18,942
19,585
19,956
20,129
20,823
21,525
21,789
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
11.0
10.7
10.9
10.9
11.0
10.7
11.1
11.0
11.3
11.0
11.1
11.1
11.3
11.4
11.1
11.3
11.2
11.3
11.1
11.3
11.5
11.8
(a) Bed Volume = 1.5 ff = 11.22 gal
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Daily System Operational Data (Continued)
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date
09/27/05
10/05/05
10/09/05
10/11/05
10/16/05
10/18/05
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
1 1/02/05
1 1/06/05
1 1/07/05
1 1/09/05
11/12/05
11/13/05
11/16/05
11/18/05
1 1/20/05
1 1/24/05
1 1/26/05
11/27/05
1 1/30/05
12/02/05
12/03/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/11/05
12/13/05
12/15/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/24/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
699.7
723.8
738.7
744.6
766.4
771.5
785.3
792.4
801.5
805.4
830.4
847.0
851.6
859.9
872.6
876.3
893.2
902.4
910.2
926.4
935.7
940.2
951.1
960.2
963.8
978.0
983.3
1,000.5
1,011.6
1,017.5
1,039.1
1,042.3
1,044.2
1,050.8
Operational
Hours
hr
-
24.1
14.9
5.9
21.8
5.1
13.8
7.1
9.1
3.9
25.0
16.6
4.6
8.3
12.7
3.7
16.9
9.2
7.8
16.2
9.3
4.5
10.9
9.1
3.6
14.2
5.3
17.2
11.1
5.9
21.6
3.2
1.9
6.6
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
-
5.18
5.21
5.15
4.96
5.32
4.57
5.04
5.37
5.18
4.91
5.02
5.23
5.91
4.81
5.03
5.09
5.16
4.96
4.87
4.88
4.85
5.04
4.88
5.01
4.91
5.12
5.42
4.90
5.13
5.01
4.65
4.54
4.98
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
0
9,066
14,138
16,163
23,618
25,384
30,067
32,468
35,613
36,961
45,363
50,864
52,374
55,167
59,340
60,519
65,858
68,896
71,468
76,672
79,572
81,009
84,441
87,405
88,621
93,238
94,998
100,549
103,987
105,908
112,824
113,825
114,429
116,550
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
0
808
1,260
1,441
2,105
2,262
2,680
2,894
3,174
3,294
4,043
4,533
4,668
4,917
5,289
5,394
5,870
6,140
6,370
6,834
7,092
7,220
7,526
7,790
7,898
8,310
8,467
8,962
9,268
9,439
10,056
10,145
10,199
10,388
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
-
5.42
5.44
5.32
5.12
5.36
4.76
5.25
5.57
5.38
4.64
5.18
5.43
5.07
5.01
5.20
5.18
5.29
5.07
5.03
5.05
5.02
5.29
5.09
5.20
5.12
5.33
5.65
5.10
5.37
5.24
4.79
4.76
5.18
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
0
9,529
14,916
17,073
24,958
26,818
31,754
34,330
37,675
39,106
48,023
53,848
55,439
58,399
62,835
64,084
69,687
72,903
75,621
81,116
84,176
85,717
89,381
92,550
93,860
98,782
100,664
106,519
110,156
112,210
119,618
120,702
121,348
123,610
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
0
849
1,329
1,522
2,224
2,390
2,830
3,060
3,358
3,485
4,280
4,799
4,941
5,205
5,600
5,712
6,211
6,498
6,740
7,230
7,502
7,640
7,966
8,249
8,365
8,804
8,972
9,494
9,818
10,001
10,661
10,758
10,815
11,017
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
0
18,595
29,054
33,236
48,576
52,202
61,821
66,798
73,288
76,067
93,386
104,712
107,813
113,566
122,175
124,603
135,545
141,799
147,089
157,788
163,748
166,726
173,822
179,955
182,481
192,020
195,662
207,068
214,143
218,118
232,442
234,527
235,777
240,160
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
0
829
1,295
1,481
2,165
2,326
2,755
2,977
3,266
3,390
4,162
4,666
4,805
5,061
5,445
5,553
6,040
6,319
6,555
7,032
7,297
7,430
7,746
8,019
8,132
8,557
8,719
9,228
9,543
9,720
10,358
10,451
10,507
10,702
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
-
12.9
11.7
11.8
11.7
11.8
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
11.5
11.4
11.2
11.6
11.3
10.9
10.8
11.3
11.3
11.0
10.7
11.0
10.9
11.2
11.7
11.2
11.5
11.1
10.6
11.2
11.1
10.9
11.0
11.1
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Daily System Operational Data (Continued)
Week
No.
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
Date
12/30/05
12/31/05
01/01/06
01/02/06
01/04/06
01/06/06
01/07/06
01/11/06
01/13/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/21/06
01/22/06
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/30/06
02/01/06
02/05/06
02/14/06
02/17/06
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
Hr
1,079.9
1,083.1
1,089.6
1,093.1
1,103.0
1,112.4
1,115.5
1,135.7
1,144.2
1,162.2
1,168.4
1,170.3
1,177.1
1,181.8
1,184.3
1,195.5
1,198.1
1,204.0
1,221.4
1,232.7
1,254.0
1,299.7
1,312.6
Operational
Hours
hr
29.1
3.2
6.5
3.5
9.9
9.4
3.1
20.2
8.5
18.0
6.2
1.9
6.8
4.7
2.5
11.2
2.6
5.9
17.4
11.3
21.3
45.7
12.9
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.93
4.42
5.13
5.21
4.85
4.82
4.85
4.82
4.73
4.36
4.17
4.54
4.86
4.82
4.80
4.65
4.85
4.76
4.48
4.69
4.65
4.36
4.71
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
125,796
126,812
128,860
129,961
133,046
135,983
136,963
143,298
146,095
151,507
153,444
154,065
156,142
157,632
158,381
161,772
162,644
164,484
169,826
173,311
179,834
193,692
197,552
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes*8'
Treated
BV
11,212
11,302
11,485
11,583
11,858
12,120
12,207
12,772
13,021
13,503
13,676
13,731
13,916
14,049
14,116
14,418
14,496
14,660
15,136
15,447
16,028
17,263
17,607
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.07
4.68
5.32
5.35
5.01
5.01
5.03
5.04
4.93
4.66
4.43
4.75
5.08
5.01
4.95
4.79
5.04
4.96
4.70
4.86
4.80
4.63
4.92
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
133,432
134,512
136,682
137,827
141,132
144,259
145,304
152,008
154,980
160,732
162,784
163,451
165,625
167,215
168,011
171,561
172,477
174,430
180,084
183,768
190,552
205,032
209,072
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
11,892
11,989
12,182
12,284
12,579
12,857
12,950
13,548
13,813
14,325
14,508
14,568
14,762
14,903
14,974
15,291
15,372
15,546
16,050
16,379
16,983
18,274
18,634
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
259,228
261,324
265,542
267,788
274,178
280,242
282,267
295,306
301,075
312,239
316,228
317,516
321,767
324,847
326,392
333,333
335,121
338,914
349,910
357,079
370,386
398,724
406,624
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes*8'
Treated
BV
11,552
11,645
11,833
11,934
12,218
12,489
12,579
13,160
13,417
13,914
14,092
14,150
14,339
14,476
14,545
14,854
14,934
15,103
15,593
15,913
16,506
17,768
18,121
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
10.9
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.8
10.8
10.9
10.8
11.3
10.3
10.7
11.3
10.4
10.9
10.3
10.3
11.5
10.7
10.5
10.6
10.4
10.3
10.2
(a) Bed Volume = 1.5 ff = 11.22 gal
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Daily System Operational Data (Continued)
Week
No.
1
3
7
8
10
11
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
Date
09/07/06
09/18/06
09/20/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/25/06
11/08/06
11/09/06
11/15/06
12/13/06
12/31/06
01/03/07
01/11/07
01/13/07
01/16/07
01/20/07
01/22/07
01/28/07
01/31/07
02/02/07
02/05/07
02/12/07
02/13/07
02/15/07
02/23/07
02/28/07
03/02/07
03/10/07
03/15/07
03/28/07
04/04/07
04/11/07
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
2,371.0
2,411.9
2,420.1
2,519.3
2,523.3
2,542.0
2,574.0
2,577.4
2,591.3
2,709.2
2,760.4
2,769.8
2,795.8
2,802.3
2,809.8
2,820.5
2,827.0
2,840.2
2,848.2
2,852.8
2,859.6
2,874.5
2,877.7
2,882.9
2,904.0
2,923.2
2,931.7
2,960.5
2,977.7
3,020.0
3,041.7
3,061.5
Operational
Hours
hr
0.0
40.9
8.2
99.2
4.0
18.7
32.0
3.4
13.9
117.9
51.2
9.4
26.0
6.5
7.5
10.7
6.5
13.2
8.0
4.6
6.8
14.9
3.2
5.2
21.1
19.2
8.5
28.8
17.2
42.3
21.7
19.8
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
0.00
5.52
5.77
5.36
5.41
5.12
5.04
5.04
5.09
4.73
5.01
4.69
4.56
4.86
4.88
5.03
5.18
5.26
5.32
5.29
4.96
4.68
5.13
5.12
5.37
5.10
5.01
4.93
4.49
4.97
4.92
5.23
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
0
16,645
19,839
55,513
56,929
63,774
75,116
76,334
81,248
120,270
136,423
139,340
147,458
149,507
151,862
155,189
157,500
162,189
164,987
166,626
169,019
174,254
175,376
177,188
184,447
190,876
193,719
203,411
209,149
222,506
229,724
236,254
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
0
1,484
1,768
4,948
5,074
5,684
6,695
6,803
7,241
10,719
12,159
12,419
13,142
13,325
13,535
13,831
14,037
14,455
14,705
14,851
15,064
15,531
15,631
15,792
16,439
17,012
17,266
18,129
18,641
19,831
20,475
21,057
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
0.00
6.42
6.54
6.15
6.20
6.02
5.92
5.90
6.18
5.58
5.85
5.51
4.35
5.70
5.77
5.83
6.16
6.38
6.54
5.82
5.98
5.72
6.32
6.14
6.35
6.07
6.07
5.91
5.64
5.99
5.79
6.21
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
0
21,559
25,913
72,556
74,212
83,367
98,487
100,058
106,629
155,853
176,423
180,163
190,500
193,129
196,201
200,501
203,746
210,482
214,411
216,805
220,261
227,856
229,492
232,093
242,328
250,943
254,713
267,876
275,619
293,705
303,411
311,942
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
0
1,921
2,309
6,467
6,614
7,430
8,778
8,918
9,503
13,891
15,724
16,057
16,979
17,213
17,487
17,870
18,159
18,760
19,110
19,323
19,631
20,308
20,454
20,686
21,598
22,366
22,702
23,875
24,565
26,177
27,042
27,802
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
0
38,204
45,751
128,069
131,141
147,141
173,603
176,392
187,877
276,123
312,846
319,503
337,958
342,636
348,063
355,690
361,246
372,671
379,398
383,431
389,280
402,110
404,868
409,281
426,775
441,819
448,432
471,287
484,768
516,211
533,135
548,196
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
0
1,702
2,039
5,707
5,844
6,557
7,736
7,861
8,372
12,305
13,941
14,238
15,061
15,269
15,511
15,851
16,098
16,607
16,907
17,087
17,348
17,919
18,042
18,239
19,018
19,689
19,984
21,002
21,603
23,004
23,758
24,429
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
0.0
15.6
15.3
13.8
12.8
14.3
13.8
13.7
13.8
12.5
12.0
11.8
11.8
12.0
12.1
11.9
14.2
14.4
14.0
14.6
14.3
14.4
14.4
14.1
13.8
13.1
13.0
13.2
13.1
12.4
13.0
12.7
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Daily System Operational Data (Continued)
Week
No.
33
34
36
37
38
40
42
44
48
50
52
Date
04/16/07
04/20/07
04/25/07
04/28/07
05/09/07
05/14/07
05/23/07
06/06/07
06/19/07
07/02/07
07/31/07
08/16/07
08/29/07
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
3,076.1
3,088.8
3,106.4
3,115.1
3,145.5
3,159.4
3,183.2
3,226.9
3,277.0
3,328.7
3,436.8
3,486.9
3,526.6
Operational
Hours
hr
14.6
12.7
17.6
8.7
30.4
13.9
23.8
43.7
50.1
51.7
108.1
50.1
39.7
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
6.02
4.95
5.27
5.25
4.59
5.41
5.39
4.81
5.10
5.38
5.43
4.85
5.33
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
241,115
245,474
251,358
254,271
264,469
269,213
277,336
291,955
308,509
325,631
361,373
377,978
390,980
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes*8'
Treated
BV
21,490
21,878
22,403
22,662
23,571
23,994
24,718
26,021
27,496
29,022
32,208
33,688
34,847
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
6.86
5.88
6.25
6.18
5.46
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
318,290
323,991
331,715
335,558
349,139
355.361
366,084
385,381
477.012
516,094
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes(a)
Treated
BV
28,368
28,876
29,565
29,907
31,118
31,672
32,628
34,348
36,295
38,310
42,514
44,468
45,998
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
559,405
569,465
583,073
589,829
613,608
624,574
643,420
677,336
715,741
755,464
838,385
876,909
907,074
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes*8'
Treated
BV
24,929
25,377
25,984
26,285
27,344
27,833
28,673
30,184
31,896
33,666
37,361
39,078
40,422
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
12.8
13.2
12.9
12.9
13.0
13.1
13.2
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.7
(a) Bed Volume =
Red font indicates
1.5 ft3 =11.22 gal
estimated values due to broken flow meter/totalizer. Multiplied volume in Train A by 1.32 to estimate Train B volume.
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiOJ
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10A3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/09/05
IN
-
74
0.6
39
<5
<0.05
<0.05
11.5
0.1
8.4
7.5
4.7
185
47.3
40.7
6.5
41.5
41.6
<0.1
26.5
15.1
<25
<25
7.3
7.2
11.2
<10
OA
-
70
0.4
38
-
<0.05
<0.05
4.5
<0.1
7.6
7.6
4.3
184
43.7
37.8
5.9
0.3
<0.1
0.2
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
1.5
<0.1
21.2
18.0
OB
-
67
0.5
38
-
<0.05
<0.05
5.3
<0.1
7.7
7.7
4.3
187
43.2
37.4
5.7
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
2.5
0.1
21.0
18.1
TA
0.7
65
<0.1
39
-
<0.05
<0.05
0.9
<0.1
7.6
8.1
5.0
210
43.3
37.5
5.8
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
1.2
<0.1
11.4
<10
TB
0.7
69
<0.1
40
-
<0.05
<0.05
1.3
<0.1
7.6
8.0
4.5
194
42.2
36.8
5.5
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.2
10.3
<10
03/22/05
IN
-
68
0.5
20
-
<0.05
<0.05
10.8
0.2
8.4
11.5
2.8
189
54.3
46.6
7.7
36.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.5
-
<10
-
OA
-
69
0.8
24
-
<0.05
<0.05
6.1
<0.1
8.1
11.4
3.5
196
49.8
42.7
7.1
4.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
24.6
-
OB
-
69
0.7
20
-
<0.05
<0.05
7.2
<0.1
8.1
11.4
2.7
198
53.1
45.7
7.4
19.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.5
-
36.2
-
TA
2.0
67
0.6
21
-
<0.05
<0.05
3.2
0.2
7.8
11.2
2.3
194
50.8
43.4
7.3
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
16.2
-
TB
2.0
67
0.6
21
-
<0.05
<0.05
3.4
<0.1
7.7
11.2
2.5
194
50.3
43.0
7.2
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
16.2
-
TT
2.0
59
<0.1
23
-
0.11
<0.05
0.6
<0.1
7.5
11.2
2.6
196
48.4
41.2
7.2
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.5
-
<10
-
04/05/05
IN
-
-
-
-
<5
-
-
-
-
8.5
9.5
2.4
126
53.7
46.5
7.2
36.5
36.4
0.1
23.2
13.1
<25
<25
8.5
7.9
10.0
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
8.5
2.4
138
51.5
44.7
6.8
27.5
27.8
<0.1
0.3
27.5
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
38.1
33.8
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
7.9
2.6
129
44.1
37.3
6.8
34.2
34.1
<0.1
0.3
33.8
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
37.0
35.6
TA
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
8.5
1.8
133
45.7
38.1
7.5
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
20.6
17.3
TB
3.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
7.8
1.8
130
40.0
33.7
6.3
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
21.3
18.9
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB =
After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B),
TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10A3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L<"
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
04/19/05
IN
-
72
0.5
22
-
<0.05
<0.05
10.9
0.5
8.7
10.7
1.5
178
37.9
31.4
6.4
37.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.3
-
14.6
-
OA
-
72
0.5
22
-
<0.05
<0.05
8.9
0.2
8.4
10.6
1.1
182
41.8
34.0
7.8
39.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
33.9
-
OB
-
72
0.5
22
-
<0.05
<0.05
9.0
0.1
8.6
10.9
1.4
179
37.3
30.9
6.4
36.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
28.9
-
TA
5.2
72
0.6
22
-
<0.05
<0.05
6.1
0.3
8.3
11.0
1.0
185
36.7
31.0
5.7
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.6
-
TB
5.2
69
0.6
22
-
<0.05
<0.05
6.6
0.3
8.2
11.1
1.5
184
37.1
31.0
6.1
4.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
21.4
-
TT
5.2
72
0.6
23
-
<0.05
<0.05
2.8
0.3
7.9
11.0
1.1
195
35.1
29.3
5.9
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
11.8
-
05/04/05
IN
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
;
-
8.3
9.6
1.9
197
48.5
41.4
7.0
34.9
36.7
<0.1
21.9
14.8
<25
<25
8.4
8.2
<10
<10
OA
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
;
-
8.4
9.1
1.4
195
48.1
41.2
6.9
34.7
36.5
<0.1
0.4
36.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
26.1
23.3
OB
-
-
:
-
-
;
-
:
-
8.5
9.4
2.0
194
49.0
42.0
7.0
34.9
35.3
<0.1
0.2
35.1
<25
<25
0.4
0.4
22.5
20.4
TA
6.9
-
;
-
-
;
-
;
-
8.2
9.5
1.6
194
48.3
41.2
7.1
8.8
9.4
<0.1
0.2
9.2
<25
<25
0.3
0.4
20.4
19.6
TB
7.1
-
;
-
-
;
-
;
-
8.2
9.4
1.5
193
49.9
42.6
7.3
22.8
23.2
<0.1
0.2
23.0-
<25
<25
0.3
0.5
31.6
20.6
05/17/05
IN
-
70
69
0.6
0.5
18
18
<5
0.07
0.43
<0.05
<0.05
10.8
10.9
0.3
0.5
8.5
9.6
4.0
200
49.1
48.9
41.3
7.7
35.8
35.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.6
8.8
-
21.4
21.3
-
OA
-
72
70
0.6
0.6
19
18
-
0.18
0.21
<0.05
<0.05
9.1
9.2
0.1
0.2
8.1
9.3
1.6
190
50.2
49.5
42.7
7.6
35.9
36.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
36.2
36.1
-
OB
-
69
58
0.5
0.5
18
18
-
0.09
0.17
<0.05
<0.05
10.2
9.5
0.2
0.2
8.4
9.4
1.5
188
48.9
49.7
41.4
7.5
35.9
35.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
0.1
-
34.8
33.2
-
TA
8.5
68
66
0.6
0.6
16
18
-
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
7.3
7.4
<0.1
0.4
8.4
9.4
1.7
181
48.7
48.8
41.2
7.5
24.2
25.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
<0.1
-
32.0
37.1
-
TB
8.6
68
69
0.6
0.6
18
18
-
1.11
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
8.4
8.1
0.2
0.2
8.3
9.4
1.5
185
48.8
49.1
41.2
7.6
33.2
32.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
33.3
35.0
-
TT
8.5
66
66
0.7
0.7
18
18
-
0.06
0.11
<0.05
<0.05
4.2
4.1
0.1
0.1
7.0
9.5
2.0
195
47.5
52.3
40.2
7.3
0.2
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
55.7
25.1
-
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB =
After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B),
TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10A3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
06/01/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.0
10.5
3.6
174
51.1
44.2
6.9
39.9
39.6
0.3
25.1
14.5
<25
<25
10.8
9.8
16.3
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
10.5
3.5
229
51.5
43.5
7.9
45.3
45.3
<0.1
0.8
44.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
33.0
26.7
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
10.5
3.7
212
50.4
42.6
7.8
45.8
45.5
0.4
0.4
45.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
33.2
24.9
TA
10.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
11.3
3.8
177
48.5
40.7
7.8
42.6
42.6
<0.1
0.4
42.2
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
33.3
41.1
TB
10.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
11.3
3.3
195
50.8
43.4
7.4
46.6
46.4
0.2
0.4
46.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
31.3
24.5
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
47.2
40.2
7.0
2.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
30.4
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
48.7
41.9
6.8
6.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
29.9
-
06/15/05
IN
-
66
0.5
19
-
0.1
<0.05
10.7
0.5
8.2
10.7
0.9
209
50.8
42.6
8.2
42.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
13.1
-
10.5
-
OA
-
74
0.5
19
-
0.1
<0.05
9.8
<0.1
8.4
10.7
0.8
209
49.4
41.2
8.2
41.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
32.6
-
OB
-
68
0.5
19
-
0.1
<0.05
10.0
0.2
8.4
10.7
0.7
208
54.0
45.0
9.0
44.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
32.5
-
TA
11.8
66
0.5
19
-
0.1
<0.05
8.7
0.2
8.4
10.9
0.8
203
49.9
41.7
8.2
49.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
30.5
-
TB
12.0
66
0.5
19
-
0.1
<0.05
9.3
0.2
8.4
10.9
0.9
201
51.1
42.7
8.4
46.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
31.3
-
TT
11.9
66
0.6
20
-
0.1
<0.05
5.5
<0.1
8.1
11.0
0.9
204
47.0
40.0
7.0
0.3
-
-
-
-
42.2
-
0.3
-
29.0
-
06/29/05
IN
-
-
-
-
<5
-
-
-
-
8.2
12.9
2.1
190
53.7
45.7
8.0
42.3
42.6
<0.1
34.4
8.2
<25
<25
16.1
15.2
12.5
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
11.9
1.4
189
53.5
45.3
8.1
39.2
39.4
<0.1
6.3
33.1
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
32.0
29.1
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
11.6
1.4
186
52.0
44.2
7.8
38.9
39.4
<0.1
5.1
34.3
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
30.6
28.8
TC
13.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
12.5
1.2
185
87.0
74.0
13.0
58.4
46.3
12.1
2.0
44.3
80.4
<25
10.1
<0.1
138
27.9
TD
13.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
12.9
1.3
182
84.3
71.9
12.4
54.7
44.3
10.4
2.3
42.0
87.1
<25
10.0
<0.1
132
27.8
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After
First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B),
TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
BV3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
7/13/2005
IN
-
66
0.5
-
20
<5
0.1
<0.05
9.8
0.2
8.7
13.5
1.1
178
58.1
49.8
8.4
50.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
21.9
-
18.0
-
OA
-
66
0.5
-
20
0.2
<0.05
9.1
0.1
8.7
13.6
1.1
179
64.0
55.0
9.0
50.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
50.9
-
OB
-
66
0.5
-
21
0.3
<0.05
9.5
0.1
8.6
12.7
1.1
177
54.7
47.2
7.5
41.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.1
-
37.4
-
TC
-
66
0.5
-
21
0.2
<0.05
7.5
<0.1
8.3
13.6
2.1
179
47.1
40.5
6.6
44.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
34.7
-
TD
-
66
0.5
-
21
0.2
<0.05
7.6
<0.1
8.0
13.7
1.0
176
48.8
42.0
6.8
47.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
35.7
-
TT
15.8
66
0.5
-
21
<0.05
<0.05
6.3
<0.1
7.4
13.5
1.1
179
48.7
42.0
6.7
12.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
38.7
-
7/27/2005
IN
-
-
-
-
-
<5
-
-
-
8.5
13.7
3.8
184
46.6
39.7
6.9
36.5
38.3
<0.1
38.0
0.2
<25
<25
11.8
11.7
11.8
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
13.0
2.4
180
47.0
40.1
6.9
38.2
38.4
<0.1
3.3
35.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
36.1
33.0
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
12.6
3.0
181
47.5
40.7
6.8
37.8
37.7
<0.1
3.7
33.9
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
34.7
30.9
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45.6
39.2
6.4
42.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
34.0
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.0
39.5
6.5
43.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
36.9
-
TE
17.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
13.4
2.6
183
46.9
40.2
6.8
25.0
26.0
<0.1
0.4
25.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
41.1
37.7
TF
17.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
13.7
2.7
183
46.9
40.2
6.7
26.2
26.9
<0.1
0.4
26.6
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
40.9
38.0
TT
17.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
13.7
2.0
183
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8/9/2005
IN
-
66
0.5
-
20.6
<5
<0.05
<0.05
10.7
0.2
8.5
14.1
2.1
148
39.3
32.2
7.0
37.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
10.8
-
14.7
-
OA
-
65
0.5
-
20.4
<0.05
<0.05
10
0.2
8.2
14.0
1.6
168
39.2
31.9
7.3
37.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
39.5
-
OB
-
67
0.5
-
20.6
<0.05
<0.05
10.0
0.1
8.6
14.7
1.3
167
38.9
32.1
6.8
35.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
39.1
-
TC
18.5
67
0.5
-
20.7
0.1
<0.05
8.8
<0.1
8.6
14.1
0.6
170
39.5
32.6
6.8
44.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
41.8
-
TD
18.8
66
0.5
-
20.7
0.1
<0.05
8.8
<0.1
8.6
14.0
0.9
170
39.6
33.4
6.2
42.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
42.6
-
TT
-
63
0.5
-
20.6
0.1
<0.05
7.8
0.1
8.5
13.9
1.1
178
37.4
31.0
6.4
35.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
47.1
-
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB =
After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B),
TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Iodine (AAL)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
BV3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
8/24/2005
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
<5
-
-
-
7.3
13.6
1.5
177
42.3
35.7
6.6
38.5
37.0
1.5
36.5
0.5
<25
<25
11.0
11.1
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
8.3
13.5
0.9
173
37.2
30.7
6.5
36.4
36.6
<0.1
1.3
35.2
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
36.6
32.6
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
8.5
13.7
0.8
173
37.5
31.1
6.4
37.2
37.3
<0.1
0.8
36.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
33.5
32.2
TE
20.0
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
8.5
14.4
1.0
173
36.7
30.6
6.1
41.7
41.2
0.4
0.8
40.4
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
37.0
36.0
TF
20.2
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
8.5
14.6
0.7
175
37.1
30.8
6.3
43.6
43.5
0.1
0.7
42.8
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
38.0
37.7
10/5/2005(c)
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
8.6
11.9
1.2
147
48.0
41.4
6.6
41.8
41.7
0.1
38.7
3.0
<25
<25
9.9
10.1
11.2
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
8.0
12.7
1.7
179
43.9
37.8
6.1
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
18.6
15.7
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
7.9
12.5
1.3
182
43.8
37.9
6.0
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
17.3
16.0
TA
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
7.7
13.3
1.2
193
43.6
37.5
6.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TB
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
7.6
13.0
1.0
195
44.9
38.7
6.2
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<10
<10
TT
0.8
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
7.8
14.0
1.4
211
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10/18/2005
IN
-
72
0.5
9.2
<0.1
19
<5
0.2
<0.05
9.7
0.3
8.5
10.6
3.9
177
48.7
41.7
6.9
39.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
9.2
-
<10
-
OA
-
72
0.6
59.7
<0.1
19
<0.05
<0.05
4.7
0.1
8.2
10.6
1.3
187
41.3
34.9
6.3
3.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
29.5
-
OB
-
66
0.6
64.8
<0.1
19
0.1
<0.05
4.9
<0.1
8.1
10.6
1.7
182
41.3
34.8
6.5
3.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
32.7
-
TA
2.3
66
0.5
76.9
<0.1
19
0.1
<0.05
3.0
<0.1
7.8
10.7
1.3
188
39.7
33.7
6.0
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
16.3
-
TB
2.4
66
0.5
80.8
<0.1
19
0.3
<0.05
3.1
0.2
8.0
10.6
1.7
189
40.6
34.6
6.1
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.2
-
TT
2.3
65
<0.1
124
<0.1
22
0.3
<0.05
0.6
<0.1
7.9
10.8
1.4
200
40.0
33.8
6.1
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
(a) TA = as CaCO3 (b) as PO4 (c) Media changeout of all 8 tanks on 9/26/05. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation
Column (Train B), After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption
Column in Series (Train A),
TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series
(Train B),
TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate
(asN)
Total P
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total
Hardness
Ca
Hardness
Mg
Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
BV3
mg/L<"
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L«
mg/L<"
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/9/2005
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
;
;
8.7
9.9
4.0
187
51.1
44.8
6.3
39.6
39.1
0.5
25.2
14.0
<25
<25
6.5
6.4
<10
<10
OA
-
;
-
-
-
-
0.1
;
;
8.6
9.6
1.9
186
50.6
44.1
6.6
42.0
42.3
<0.1
1.0
41.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
64.5
61.1
OB
-
;
-
-
-
-
0.1
;
;
8.3
9.6
2.0
192
49.8
43.4
6.4
39.9
39.4
0.5
0.8
38.5
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
67.7
65.9
TA
4.9
;
-
-
-
-
<0.03
;
;
8.2
9.6
1.8
203
48.8
42.6
6.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
24.8
26.1
TB
5.2
;
-
-
-
-
<0.03
;
;
8.4
9.4
1.7
205
49.3
42.9
6.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
22.2
24.6
TT
5.1
;
-
-
-
-
;
;
;
8.1
9.9
1.6
215
-
;
;
;
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
11/16/2005
IN
-
64
64
0.5
0.5
20
20
<5
<5
<0.05
<0.05
0.05
0.04
9.9
9.8
0.1
0.2
7.3
8.7
3.1
180
52.2
50.9
45.5
44.3
6.7
6.6
36.2
35.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
8.1
7.9
-
<10
-
OA
-
66
66
0.5
0.5
20
20
-
<0.05
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
8.5
8.7
«(M
8.2
8.8
1.7
179
50.7
49.6
44.4
43.2
6.3
6.4
37.6
37.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
«(M
-
38.2
38.0
-
OB
-
66
66
0.5
0.5
20
20
<0.05
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
8.5
8.8
«ai
8.3
8.6
1.8
180
49.7
43.1
43.3
36.6
6.4
6.5
36.7
36.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.2
-
41.0
40.0
-
TA
5.9
;
-
-
-
;
5.7
;
8.3
8.6
1.7
188
-
;
;
1.9
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TB
6.2
;
-
-
-
;
6.4
;
8.2
8.7
1.6
188
-
;
;
1.2
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
;
-
-
-
;
4.3
;
-
-
-
-
-
;
;
1.3
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
;
-
-
-
;
4.3
;
-
-
-
-
-
;
;
<0.1
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
;
-
-
-
;
3.3
;
-
-
-
-
-
;
;
<0.1
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
;
-
-
-
;
3.2
;
-
-
-
-
-
;
;
0.2
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TT
6.0
61
62
0.6
0.6
21
21
<0.05
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
3.3
3.3
0.1
8.1
8.7
1.8
200
49.6
47.8
43.2
41.6
6.4
6.2
«ai
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
0.1
-
13.5
13.2
-
11/30/2005
IN
-
;
-
-
-
;
10.4
;
8.5
9.5
2.2
175
-
;
;
37.8
36.6
1.1
23.4
13.3
<25
<25
7.3
6.9
<10
<10
OA
-
;
-
-
-
:
9.3
;
8.7
9.6
1.9
176
-
;
;
39.9
40.0
<0.1
1.0
39.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
45.4
44.3
OB
-
;
-
-
-
;
9.4
;
8.7
9.5
1.5
177
-
;
;
39.4
38.8
0.6
0.6
38.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
49.0
45.9
TA
7.5
;
-
-
-
:
7.2
;
8.6
9.6
1.8
183
-
;
;
19.4
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TB
8.0
;
-
-
-
;
7.2
;
8.5
9.6
1.6
187
-
;
;
12.1
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
;
-
-
-
;
4.9
;
-
-
-
-
-
;
;
<0.1
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
;
-
-
-
;
4.7
;
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
;
-
-
-
;
3.7
;
-
-
-
-
-
;
;
<0.1
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
;
-
-
-
;
3.5
;
-
-
-
-
-
;
;
<0.1
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
-
-
-
TT
7.7
;
-
-
-
;
3.5
;
8.1
9.7
1.5
198
-
-
;
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
19.3
18.9
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption Column in
Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption
Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as
P04)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
BV3
mg/L«
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L«
mg/L«
mg/L«
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/14/2005
IN
-
68
0.4
9.8
18
<5
<0.05
0.2
11.2
0.5
8.1
9.0
3.0
192
52.1
44.9
7.2
46.5
-
-
-
-
27.8
-
6.9
-
10.6
-
OA
-
67
0.4
14.7
18
<0.05
0.2
9.9
0.3
8.3
8.6
2.7
190
52.2
45.1
7.1
47.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
36.0
-
OB
-
67
0.4
14.7
18
<0.05
0.2
10
0.7
8.4
8.7
2.8
183
52.4
45.3
7.1
47.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
38.0
-
TA
9.4
-
-
-
-
;
-
8.7
-
8.3
8.9
2.5
193
-
-
-
47.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
10.0
-
-
-
-
;
-
8.5
-
8.1
8.9
2.5
195
-
-
-
30.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
6.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
5.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
4.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
9.7
65
0.5
22.7
19
<0.05
<0.03
4.8
-
8.2
9.5
1.5
203
37.7
32.3
5.4
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
19.9
-
1/4/2006
IN
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
10.6
-
8.3
9.8
3.5
195
-
-
-
39.2
39.8
<0.1
25.5
14.3
<25
<25
6.4
6.1
10.3
4.8
OA
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
9.7
-
8.4
9.7
3.7
188
-
-
-
39.0
39.7
<0.1
1.2
38.4
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
37.4
34.7
OB
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
9.7
-
8.3
9.8
3.8
185
-
-
-
39.6
39.5
<0.1
1.0
38.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
39.1
36.4
TA
11.9
-
-
-
-
:
-
8.8
-
8.3
9.7
3.7
186
-
-
-
40.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
30.2
-
TB
12.6
-
-
-
-
:
-
8.8
-
8.2
10.0
3.3
184
-
-
-
39.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
25.6
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
7.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
6.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
31.7
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
5.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
29.6
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
5.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
12.2
-
-
-
-
;
-
5.4
-
8.0
10.5
3.7
195
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
26.1
22.1
(a) as CaCO3 (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B),
After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A),
TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B),
TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Cd
oo
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
BV3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L("
mg/L<"
mg/L("
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
1/19/2006
IN
-
68
67
0.4
0.4
3.1
2.9
18.5
18.5
<0.05
<0.05
0.1
0.1
10.3
10.2
0.4
0.3
8.7
9.8
4.1
182
44.2
43.6
36.7
36.6
7.5
7.0
39.4
39.9
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
7.3
7.0
-
10.0
<10
-
OA
-
67
66
0.4
0.4
5.4
4.9
18.4
18.4
<0.05
<0.05
0.1
0.1
10.0
10.0
0.1
0.1
8.8
9.1
1.5
181
44.3
44.3
36.9
37.2
7.5
7.0
38.5
39.7
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
35.9
37.6
-
OB
-
65
67
0.4
0.4
4.9
4.6
18.3
18.5
<0.05
<0.05
0.1
0.1
9.9
9.9
0.2
0.3
8.8
9.0
1.7
182
44.8
43.6
37.2
36.8
7.6
6.8
39.8
39.1
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
38.1
37.8
-
TA
13.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
14.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
14.2
65
66
0.5
0.5
6.1
5.8
18.6
18.7
<0.05
<0.05
<0.03
<0.03
5.8
6.0
0.6
0.4
8.3
10.5
1.9
191
43.9
42.8
37.0
36.1
6.9
6.7
2.0
2.2
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
29.9
30.5
-
1/31/2006
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
8.7
9.6
1.8
207
-
-
-
34.6
40.2
<0.1
27.2
12.9
<25
<25
9.0
8.8
11.5
4.8
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
8.7
9.3
2.0
228
-
-
-
40.1
41.9
<0.1
2.3
39.6
<25
<25
0.4
0.1
25.8
22.7
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
8.7
9.1
2.2
225
-
-
-
40.5
42.4
<0.1
2.3
40.2
<25
<25
0.3
<0.1
25.3
21.7
TA
15.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
16.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
16.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
-
8.5
9.4
1.6
242
-
-
-
15.9
17.4
<0.1
2.4
15.1
<25
<25
0.2
-
23.0
17.4
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train
TB = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B),
TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
A),
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Iodine (ICPMS)
Sulfate
Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
BV3
mg/L(a)
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
M9/L
mg/L
mg/L(b)
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
mg/L(a)
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
2/14/2006
IN
-
71
0.5
1.2
19.8
<5
<0.05
0.1
10.5
1.2
8.6
8.2
2.7
184
54.9
46.4
8.5
38.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
8.1
-
11.5
-
OA
-
67
0.5
1.7
19.5
-
<0.05
0.1
10.3
1.2
8.6
8.1
1.7
188
54.0
45.7
8.3
39.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
35.0
-
OB
-
71
0.5
1.6
19.5
-
<0.05
0.1
10.1
1.2
8.5
8.4
1.6
186
55.1
46.7
8.4
39.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
35.9
-
TA
17.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
18.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
47.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
34.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
17.8
75
0.5
-
19.8
-
<0.05
-
7.9
0.7
8.4
8.6
2.0
194
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4/18/2006
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38.8
37.6
1.2
24.6
13.0
<25
<25
8.5
7.7
12.9
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.7
38.8
<0.1
0.4
38.4
<25
<25
0.3
0.3
30.2
30.0
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38.6
39.0
<0.1
0.4
38.6
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
30.2
30.5
7/26/2006
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
42.6
41.4
1.2
6.0
36.7
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
34.8
33.2
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
39.9
41.0
<0.1
6.3
33.6
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
33.2
32.6
(a) as CaCO3. (b) as PO4. IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption
Column in
Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second
Adsorption
Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the
Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
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)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
BV3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
09/18/06
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
36.9
38.7
<0.1
37.8
0.9
<25
<25
9.6
9.8
<10
<10
OA
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.2
-
-
-
-
32.2
33.7
<0.1
<0.1
33.6
<25
<25
<0.1
0.1
15.2
14.1
OB
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
33.3
35.6
<0.1
<0.1
35.5
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
13.9
12.5
TA
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
1.9
-
-
-
-
-
5.3
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.8
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.0
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
1.7
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
2.1
1.91
<10
<10
10/04/06
IN
-
69
0.6
19
<0.05
32.0
10.6
0.4
46.5
39.3
7.2
38.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
11.2
-
<10
-
OA
-
69
0.6
20
<0.05
33.2
10.3
0.3
46.2
39.0
7.2
35.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
OB
-
69
0.6
19
<0.05
33.7
10.4
0.3
45.8
38.9
6.9
36.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
<10
-
TA
3.5
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
-
-
-
-
2.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
6.3
-
-
-
-
1.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.2
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.9
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.0
-
-
-
-
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
4.0
59
0.6
24
<0.05
<10
2.5
0.3
43.6
37.1
6.5
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.8
-
<10
-
Cd
o
IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column
(Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE =
Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption Column in Series
After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
BV3
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
10/18/06
IN
-
-
41.0
10.5
-
-
-
-
42.6
41.9
0.6
24.3
17.6
OA
-
-
37.6
10.6
-
-
-
-
39.7
40.0
<0.1
0.4
39.6
OB
-
-
37.9
10.2
-
-
-
-
41.0
42.0
<0.1
0.5
41.5
TA
5.1
-
IU
7.6
-
-
-
-
4.8
TB
6.6
-
I U
7.9
-
-
-
-
6.9
TC
-
-
IU
4.7
-
-
-
-
0.3
TD
-
-
I U
5.8
-
-
-
-
0.2
TE
-
-
IU
2.3
-
-
-
-
0.2
TF
-
-
IU
3.8
-
-
-
-
0.1
11/08/06
IN
-
71
23.4
10.3
8.4
9.9
1.4
186
39.3
OA
-
67
23.9
9.8
8.7
10.3
0.9
183
38.3
OB
-
71
23.1
10.5
8.7
10.1
0.9
180
38.5
TA
6.7
67
I U
7.8
8.7
10.3
1.0
181
6.7
TB
8.8
65
I U
7.0
8.5
10.4
0.9
182
6.1
TC
-
67
IU
4.8
-
-
-
-
0.4
TD
-
65
IU
4.6
-
-
-
-
0.2
TE
-
69
IU
2.5
-
-
-
-
0.3
TF
-
63
I U
3.5
-
-
-
-
0.2
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
BV3
mg/L
l-ig/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
11/15/06
IN
-
-
34.2
10 1
8.6
10.9
2.0
179
42.3
40.8
1.5
24.8
16.0
OA
-
-
33.0
96
8.7
11.1
2.2
174
41.7
39.2
2.5
0.3
38.9
OB
-
-
32.3
99
8.7
11.2
1.8
170
39.4
39.9
<0.1
0.3
39.6
TA
7.2
-
<10
83
8.7
10.9
1.5
171
7.8
TB
9.5
-
14.0
74
8.3
11.2
1.5
173
7.1
TC
-
-
<10
52
0.3
TD
-
-
<10
4 7
0.2
TE
-
-
<10
2 7
0.3
TF
-
-
<10
2 9
0.2
11/29/06
IN
-
76
34.6
98
34.9
OA
-
70
35.1
9 7
34.6
OB
-
72
36.4
9 7
35.5
TA
9.0
68
15.3
8 1
11.1
TB
11.7
78
15.9
76
11.0
TC
-
70
<10
65
0.4
TD
-
66
<10
55
0.4
TE
-
68
<10
40
0.5
TF
-
147
<10
39
0.3
IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption
Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in
Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
BV3
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
12/13/06
IN
-
-
31.3
10.1
8.8
9.0
4.0
171
41.3
41.5
<0.1
26.6
14.9
-
OA
-
-
26.3
9.9
8.6
9.2
3.9
176
40.9
40.9
<0.1
0.5
40.4
-
OB
-
-
28.5
9.9
8.8
9.0
3.4
185
40.5
40.5
<0.1
0.5
40.0
-
TA
10.7
-
11.6
8.7
8.8
9.1
3.7
186
18.7
-
TB
13.9
-
I U
8.1
8.8
9.0
3.3
183
18.2
-
TC
-
-
IU
7.5
-
-
-
1.9
-
TD
-
-
I U
6.2
-
-
-
3.0
-
TE
-
-
IU
5.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
TF
-
-
IU
5.2
-
-
-
0.4
-
01/03/07
IN
-
71
31.7
10.2
8.6
8.4
150
39.5
-
OA
-
71
31.3
10.2
8.6
8.1
157
37.5
<25
OB
-
69
28.4
10.1
8.7
8.1
150
37.3
<25
TA
12.4
71
12.0
9.1
8.7
8.1
157
16.3
<25
TB
16.0
67
IU
8.0
8.6
8.2
156
15.8
<25
TC
-
71
IU
8.4
8.6
8.1
152
1.4
<25
TD
-
71
IU
6.7
8.4
8.1
158
1.7
<25
TE
-
69
I U
6.0
-
-
-
<0.1
<25
TF
-
67
IU
5.4
-
-
-
<0.1
<25
Cd
to
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
BV3
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
01/16/07
IN
-
-
<10
10.5
8.7
10.1
1.9
151
37.1
37.4
<0.1
24.1
13.3
OA
-
-
<10
10.2
8.7
9.8
1.6
147
37.8
36.8
1.0
0.3
36.5
OB
-
-
<10
10.4
8.7
10.1
1.6
146
35.8
36.6
<0.1
0.3
36.3
TA
13.5
-
<10
9.9
8.7
10.7
2.2
147
17.0
TB
17.5
-
<10
8.6
8.7
10.7
1.9
146
17.0
TC
-
-
<10
8.5
8.7
10.7
1.9
146
2.3
TD
-
-
<10
6.6
8.6
10.3
1.7
149
2.6
TE
-
-
<10
6.6
8.5
10.6
1.8
149
0.3
TF
-
-
<10
5.2
8.3
10.9
1.5
154
0.3
01/31/07
IN
-
80
33.1
9.9
8.7
9.0
2.3
165
37.1
OA
-
70
32.6
10.0
8.7
9.4
2.1
158
37.3
OB
-
70
29.4
10.0
8.7
9.3
2.0
156
37.0
TA
14.7
73
13.7
9.4
-
-
-
-
19.2
TB
19.1
70
12.4
9.3
-
-
-
-
22.7
TC
-
73
<10
9.0
-
-
-
-
4.3
TD
-
70
<10
7.9
-
-
-
-
6.0
TE
-
85
<10
7.0
8.7
9.0
1.9
157
1.1
TF
-
70
<10
5.8
8.4
8.9
1.8
161
1.1
IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption
Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in
Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
BV3
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
02/13/07
IN
-
-
41.5
10.6
8.0
8.8
2.4
164
38.9
41.0
<0.1
27.3
13.7
OA
-
-
41.7
10.8
8.6
8.8
2.3
163
39.2
39.8
<0.1
0.5
39.3
OB
-
-
43.2
11.0
8.7
8.9
2.7
164
38.4
39.6
<0.1
0.5
39.1
TA
15.6
-
26.3
10.3
-
-
-
-
19.8
TB
20.5
-
27.5
9.5
-
-
-
-
22.1
TC
-
-
<10
9.6
-
-
-
-
4.1
TD
-
-
<10
7.7
-
-
-
-
5.6
TE
-
-
<10
7.6
8.6
9.0
2.4
163
0.4
TF
-
-
<10
6.1
8.5
9
2.2
168
0.5
02/28/07
IN
-
73
44.9
11.5
8.6
8.6
2.1
156
38.9
OA
-
73
43.7
11.4
8.2
8.6
1.7
154
37.9
OB
-
70
43.7
11.3
8.6
9.0
2.1
158
38.5
TA
17.0
70
31.9
10.9
-
-
-
-
25.0
TB
22.4
70
29.6
10.5
-
-
-
-
26.6
TC
-
68
13.8
10.6
-
-
-
-
7.9
TD
-
68
14.2
9.6
-
-
-
-
10.9
TE
-
70
<10
9.3
8.6
9.0
1.9
162
1.3
TF
-
63
<10
8.1
8.5
8.9
1.9
163
1.4
Cd
OJ
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (1 1 1)
As(V)
BV3
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
03/14/07
IN
-
-
39.3
102
8.7
10.3
2.1
149
39.4
40.2
<0.1
25.9
14.3
OA
-
-
38.2
100
8.7
9.9
1.9
159
39.2
40.2
<0.1
<0.1
40.2
OB
-
-
38.7
102
8.7
9.8
1.5
144
37.5
39.4
<0.1
<0.1
39.4
TA
18.5
-
26.9
100
-
-
-
-
24.8
TB
24.5
-
25.1
9 7
-
-
-
-
25.7
TC
-
-
<10
96
-
-
-
-
8.2
TD
-
-
<10
84
-
-
-
-
9.9
TE
-
-
<10
86
8.7
9.7
1.8
147
0.4
TF
-
-
<10
70
8.6
9.9
1.8
147
1.4
03/28/07
IN
-
70
32.9
96
8.7
8.0
1.6
164
41.2
OA
-
68
32.8
99
8.7
8.7
1.3
153
40.5
OB
-
70
32.0
95
8.8
8.4
1.3
150
40.1
TA
19.8
65
19.4
94
-
-
-
-
26.1
TB
26.2
65
17.6
90
-
-
-
-
26.4
TC
-
65
<10
88
-
-
-
-
9.5
TD
-
65
<10
75
-
-
-
-
11.1
TE
-
65
<10
79
8.7
8.3
1.6
150
0.6
TF
-
68
<10
60
8.7
8.2
1.6
151
1.7
IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption
Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in
Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
T h'ri't
urrjiuiTy
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
A ( rf 111
MS ^pamcuiaiej
As (III)
Ao f\/\
Unit
BV3
ng/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
IN
-
45.2
10.0
8.1
8.2
4.4
150
40.6
41 5
<0 1
26 7
148
OA
-
45.0
10.1
8.7
8.8
4.0
149
41.6
40 8
0 8
0 1
40 7
OB
-
47.7
9.8
8.8
9.2
3.9
149
40.4
41 1
<0 1
0 4
40 7
0
TA
21.1
36.3
9.7
-
-
-
-
27.8
4/11/07
TB
27.8
32.0
9.0
-
-
-
-
26.8
TC
-
17.6
9.7
-
-
-
-
11.0
TD
-
15.4
7.9
-
-
-
-
12.4
TE
-
<10
8.7
8.8
8.7
3.9
150
1.6
TF
-
<10
6.7
8.7
9
3.5
153
3.2
IN
-
35.6
10.5
8.8
9.6
1.5
139
41.8
OA
-
34.1
10.7
8.8
9.7
2.8
158
38.9
OB
-
31.4
10.8
8.8
9.7
1.1
162
38.9
C
TA
22.4
25.7
10.2
-
-
-
-
29.1
4/25/07
TB
29.6
21.5
10.4
-
-
-
-
28.9
TC
-
10.2
10.1
-
-
-
-
13.2
TD
-
<10
9.3
-
-
-
-
15.0
TE
-
<10
10.0
8.8
9.7
0.9
165
2.3
TF
-
<10
8.7
8.7
10
1.0
171
4.7
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
AC rt" I t 1
MS (pamcuiaiej
As (III)
Ac AA
Unit
BV3
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
IN
-
<10
10.6
8.7
10.4
3.5
156
38.3
37 5
0 8
34 5
3 0
OA
-
<10
10.2
8.7
10.2
3.9
149
41.8
39 9
1 9
1 2
38 7
OB
-
<10
10.6
8.7
10.1
3.4
145
41.9
38 9
3 0
1 1
37 8
(
TA
23.6
<10
10.7
-
-
-
-
9.6
35/09/0"
TB
31.1
<10
9.4
-
-
-
-
25.6
7
TC
-
<10
10.2
-
-
-
-
12.3
TD
-
<10
8.7
-
-
-
-
12.9
TE
-
<10
9.5
8.7
11.1
2.7
144
2.8
TF
-
<10
7.6
8.6
10.9
3.3
139
4.3
IN
-
37.1
10.6
8.8
10.5
1.3
123
37.9
OA
-
37.2
10.9
8.8
10.3
1.1
122
37.9
OB
-
36.3
10.6
8.8
10.3
1.1
123
38.4
TA
24.7
27.5
10.5
-
-
-
-
28.0
35/23/0'
TB
32.6
25.4
9.9
-
-
-
-
28.6
TC
-
14.6
10.3
-
-
-
-
13.3
TD
-
10.6
9.1
-
-
-
-
14.0
TE
-
<10
9.7
8.8
10.9
1.0
127
2.5
TF
-
<10
9.6
8.8
10.1
1.0
127
2.5
IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption
Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in
Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
„ , .. . , ,
\P /
As (III)
Ac A A
Unit
BV3
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
im/l
nn/l
im/l
nn/l
IN
-
32.0
10.5
8.7
10.0
2.3
162
37.0
35 3
1 6
25 2
101
OA
-
30.9
10.3
8.3
10.5
2.5
159
34.7
34 9
<0 1
<0 1
34 8
OB
-
32.2
10.3
8.8
10.6
2.4
159
34.7
34 1
0 5
<0 1
34 0
(
TA
26.0
24.7
10.7
-
-
-
-
24.5
36/06/07
TB
34.3
19.8
9.9
-
-
-
-
24.6
TC
-
11.5
10.1
-
-
-
-
12.5
TD
-
<10
8.6
-
-
-
-
12.6
TE
-
<10
9.7
8.7
10.6
2.8
158
2.7
TF
-
<10
7.6
8.4
14.1
7.1
159
4.1
IN
-
28.1
10.7
8.6
12.0
3.7
151
42.0
OA
-
28.0
10.5
8.7
11.6
3.3
149
41.6
OB
-
27.1
10.5
8.8
11.5
2.7
148
41.0
TA
27.5
23.8
10.7
-
-
-
-
34.2
D6/19/0"
TB
36.3
21.2
10.4
-
-
-
-
35.3
7
TC
-
14.7
10.3
-
-
-
-
20.7
TD
-
12.7
9.9
-
-
-
-
24.7
TE
-
<10
9.9
8.8
11.9
3.1
148
7.0
TF
-
<10
9.4
8.7
11.4
2.9
152
11.6
Cd
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Total P (as P)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
A ( rt' 111
\P /
As (III)
Ao AA
Unit
BV3
ng/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
IN
-
22.6
133
8.2
10.6
1.1
155
36.4
36 0
0 4
27 0
9 0
OA
-
18.7
140
8.8
10.5
1.1
150
35.7
36 5
<0 1
0 3
36 2
OB
-
20.3
135
8.6
10.5
0.9
147
36.3
37 1
<0 1
0 3
36 8
(
TA
29.0
13.4
136
-
-
-
-
27.7
37/02/07
TB
38.3
<10
133
-
-
-
-
26.9
TC
-
<10
130
-
-
-
-
16.2
TD
-
<10
12 0
-
-
-
-
17.1
TE
-
<10
130
8.8
11.0
1.3
146
5.3
TF
-
<10
11 2
8.7
11.2
1.2
146
7.8
IN
-
31.4
104
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.4
OA
-
32.3
98
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.3
OB
-
31.7
103
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.4
0
TA
30.9
26.0
100
-
-
-
-
30.7
7/18/07
TB
40.8
21.3
96
-
-
-
-
30.6
TC
-
14.1
98
-
-
-
-
18.7
TD
-
10.4
86
-
-
-
-
18.6
TE
-
<10
8 7
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.6
TF
-
<10
8 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.0
IN = At Wellhead, OA= After Oxidation Column (Train A), OB = After Oxidation Column (Train B), TA = After First Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TB = After First Adsorption
Column in Series (Train B), TC = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TD = After Second Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TE = After Third Adsorption Column in
Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B), TT = After the Entire System
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Wales, ME (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Total P (as P)
Silica (asSiO2)
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
BV3
u.g/L
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
07/31/07
IN
-
21.6
10.1
8.6
12.5
1.4
111
34.9
34.4
0.6
33.2
1.2
OA
-
22.7
10.2
8.7
12.5
1.3
117
36.7
35.9
0.8
0.1
35.8
OB
-
23.2
10.3
8.8
12.0
0.8
118
35.2
34.7
0.5
<0.1
34.6
TA
32.2
16.9
10.4
-
-
-
-
27.2
TB
42.5
13.4
9.8
-
-
-
-
26.1
TC
-
<10
10.5
-
-
-
-
16.7
TD
-
<10
9.4
-
-
-
-
15.4
TE
-
<10
10.0
8.8
12.5
0.9
104
6.1
TF
-
<10
8.6
8.7
12.5
0.7
99
7.6
08/14/07
IN
-
32.8
10.2
8.7
11.7
1.6
285
42.3
OA
-
31.5
10.1
8.6
11.9
1.4
315
40.7
OB
-
31.3
10.0
8.7
12.1
1.6
305
41.5
TA
33.6
26.3
9.4
-
-
-
-
31.6
TB
44.4
24.1
9.4
-
-
-
-
30.8
TC
-
17.5
9.8
-
-
-
-
19.2
TD
-
13.3
8.9
-
-
-
-
20.1
TE
-
<10
9.3
8.7
12.0
1.3
308
7.7
TF
-
<10
8.2
8.7
11.8
1.3
315
10.2
08/29/07
IN
-
36.7
10.6
8.7
12.5
0.9
299
41.9
41.6
0.3
33.6
8.0
OA
-
36.9
10.2
8.5
12.3
1.2
307
39.9
39.4
0.5
0.3
39.1
OB
-
36.6
10.4
8.7
12.5
1.0
311
40.4
40.1
0.3
0.2
39.9
TA
34.8
30.2
10.5
-
-
-
-
28.5
-
-
-
-
TB
46.0
24.4
10.3
-
-
-
-
27.2
-
-
-
-
TC
-
19.4
10.2
-
-
-
-
17.3
-
-
-
-
TD
-
13.5
9.9
-
-
-
-
17.2
-
-
-
-
TE
-
<10
10.2
8.7
13.7
1.1
319
6.5
-
-
-
-
TF
-
<10
9.0
8.7
12.8
0.9
327
9.0
-
-
-
-
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Unit
LJgL
LJgL
LJgL
LJgL
MgL
12/5/2007
OA
40.7
1.6
39.1
0.2
38.9
TT
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
3/25/2008
OA
40.2
1.5
38.7
0.8
37.9
TT
9.4
0.1
9.4
0.9
8.5
6/17/2008
OA
45.8
0.6
45.2
1.1
44.1
TT
0.6
<0.1
0.6
0.5
0.1
9/24/2008
OA
38.7
<0.1
40.7
0.1
40.6
TT
5.2
0.1
5.1
0.1
5.0
12/3/2008
OB
40.3
<0.1
40.7
0.3
40.4
TT
7.1
<0.1
7.2
0.3
6.9
-------
APPENDIX C
ARSENIC MASS REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
-------
Calculations of arsenic loadings were based on the respective breakthrough curves obtained during the
performance evaluation studies. Each arsenic loading value was calculated by dividing the respective
arsenic mass represented by the shaded area (see Figure C-l) by the dry weight of the media, i.e., 1.5 ft3
in a column.
ATS Media Run 1
10 12
Bed Volumes (*103)
14
16
18
20
NOTE: Breakthrough curves based upon BV of 1.5 ft3 for each column
Figure C-l. Arsenic Mass Removed by ATS and Kemlron Media during Runs 1 and 3
The following tables present the calculations of arsenic loadings for each of the oxidation and adsorption
columns in each train during the each of the three media runs.
C-l
-------
Media Runs 1 and 2 Train A (ATS Media)
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,000
1,600
1,600
Concentration (ug/L)
Raw
41.5
36.2
36.5
37.6
After
Oxidation
Column A
0.3
4.7
27.5
37.6
Difference
41.1
31.5
9.0
0.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Oxidation Column A
Mass
Removed
(wO00
-
3,083,155
1,375,953
305,767
4,764,875
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,300
2,000
Concentration (ug/L)
Raw
41.8
39.6
39.6
After
Oxidation
Column A
0.4
3.0
39.6
Difference
41.1
36.3
0.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Oxidation Column A
Mass
Removed
(Ug)(b)
-
3,780,050
1,632,034
5,412,084
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,300
1,600
1,600
1,800
1,500
1,800
Concentration (jig/L)
After
Oxidation
Column A
0.3
4.7
27.5
39.0
34.7
35.9
45.3
After
Adsorption
Column A
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
8.8
24.2
42.6
Difference
0.1
4.6
27.3
38.5
25.9
11.7
2.7
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column A
Mass
Removed
(wO00
.
129,739
1,083,776
2,235,500
2,461,428
1,197,589
550,381
7,658,413
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,100
900
1,700
2,000
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Oxidation
Column A
3.0
42
37.8
39.9
36.2
After
Adsorption
Column A
0.3
0.1
1.9
19.4
36.2
Difference
2.7
41.9
25.9
20.5
0.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column A
Mass
Removed
(US)""
-
1,988,762
1,486,794
2,035,902
870,588
6,382,046
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,800
1,500
1,800
1,600
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Adsorption
Column A
0.2
8.8
24.2
42.6
49.1
After
Adsorption
Column C
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.9
30.0
Difference
0.1
8.7
24.1
39.7
19.1
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column C
Mass
Removed
(ug)(b)
-
336,344
1,044,705
2,438,495
1,997,681
5,817,225
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,700
2,000
2,500
2,000
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Adsorption
Column A
1.9
19.4
47.0
40.3
45.4
After
Adsorption
Column C
1.3
0.1
0.6
17.0
37.5
Difference
0.6
19.3
46.4
23.3
7.9
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column C
Mass
Removed
(ug)(b)
-
718,341
2,790,128
3,699,998
1,324,992
8,533,459
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,600
3,900
1,700
1,200
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Adsorption
Column C
2.9
30.0
44.1
42.5
44.1
After
Adsorption
Column E
0.1
0.3
12.7
25.0
35.4
Difference
2.8
29.7
31.4
17.5
8.7
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column E
Mass
Removed
(wO00
-
1,104,160
5,059,814
1,765,170
667,592
8,596,736
Total Run 1 26,837,249
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,500
2,000
2,100
1,500
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Adsorption
Column C
0.6
17.1
37.5
46.0
47.3
After
Adsorption
Column E
0.1
0.1
2.7
18.6
34.1
Difference
0.5
17.0
34.8
27.4
13.2
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column E(c)
Mass
Removed
(ug)(b)
-
928,981
2,199,827
2,773,565
1,293,141
7,195,514
Total Run 2
27,523,103
C-2
-------
Media Runs 1 and 2 Train B (ATS Media)
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,000
1,600
1,200
Concentration (u,g/L)
Raw
41.5
36.2
36.5
37.6
After
Oxidation
Column B
0.5
19.9
34.2
36.6
Difference
41.0
16.3
2.3
1.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Oxidation Column B
Mass
Removed
(wO00
-
2,433,399
631,919
84,086
3,149,404
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,300
2,800
Concentration (u,g/L)
Raw
41.8
39.6
39.6
After
Oxidation
Column B
0.3
3.5
39.6
Difference
41.5
36.1
0.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Oxidation Column B
Mass
Removed
(HS)(b)
-
3,789,818
2,146,318
5,936,136
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,300
1,600
1,200
1,800
1,500
Concentration (jig/L)
After
Oxidation
Column B
0.5
19.9
34.2
36.6
34.9
35.1
After
Adsorption
Column B
0.2
0.1
0.2
4.4
22.8
32.5
Difference
0.3
19.8
34.0
32.2
12.1
2.6
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column B
Mass
Removed
(Hg)(b)
-
554,841
1,827,810
1,686,817
1,693,187
468,206
6,230,861
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,800
900
1,700
2,000
2,500
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Oxidation
Column B
3.5
39.9
36.6
39.4
47.5
39.6
After
Adsorption
Column B
0.2
0.1
1.2
12.1
30.5
39.6
Difference
3.3
39.8
35.4
27.3
17.0
0.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column B
Mass
Removed
(Hg)(b)
-
2,562,501
1,437,107
2,263,316
1,881,319
902,439
9,046,682
Runl
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,200
1,800
1,500
1,800
1,600
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Adsorption
Column B
0.2
4.4
22.8
32.5
46.6
46.9
After
Adsorption
Column D
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
6.0
30.0
Difference
0.1
4.3
22.7
32.0
40.6
16.9
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column D
Mass
Removed
(ns)(b)
-
112,115
1,031,965
3,484,475
2,774,840
1,953,514
9,356,909
Runl
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,800
1,600
3,900
1,700
1,200
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Adsorption
Column D
0.5
6.0
30.3
47.7
43.0
42.5
After
Adsorption
Column F
0.1
0.1
0.3
12.7
26.2
35.4
Difference
0.4
5.9
29.7
35.0
16.8
7.1
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column F
Mass
Removed
(wO00
-
240,791
1,209,480
5,357,937
1,869,853
608,987
9,287,048
Total Run 1 28,024,222
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,700
2,000
2,500
2,000
2,100
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Adsorption
Column B
1.2
12.1
30.5
39.7
44.0
44.6
After
Adsorption
Column D
0.1
0.1
0.3
15.8
35.8
43.9
Difference
1.1
12.0
30.2
23.9
8.2
0.7
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column D
Mass
Removed
(ng)(b)
-
476,488
1,792,137
2,871,878
1,363,213
396,861
6,900,577
Run 2
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,500
2,000
2,100
1,500
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Adsorption
Column D
0.3
15.8
35.8
43.9
44.2
After
Adsorption
Column F
0.1
0.4
1.6
13.8
30.6
Difference
0.2
15.4
34.2
30.1
13.6
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column F
-------
Train A: Filox/GFH
Media Run 3 (GFH and CFH-12 Media)
Train B: Filox/CFH-12
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
3,500
1,600
1,600
Concentration (u,g/L)
Raw
36.9
38.5
42.6
39.3
After
Oxidation
Column A
32.2
35.6
39.7
38.3
Difference
4.7
2.9
2.9
1.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Oxidation Column A
Mass
Removed
(HS)(b)
-
564,820
197,050
132,499
894,369
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
3,500
1,600
1,600
500
1,800
1,700
1,700
1,100
1,200
900
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,300
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,300
1,300
1,700
1,900
1,300
1,400
1,200
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Oxidation
Column
A
32.2
35.6
39.7
38.3
41.7
34.6
40.9
39.9
37.8
37.3
39.2
37.9
39.2
40.5
41.6
38.9
41.8
37.9
34.7
41.6
35.7
41.3
36.7
40.7
39.9
After
Adsorption
Column A
0.2
2.4
4.8
6.7
7.8
11.1
18.7
16.8
17.0
19.2
19.8
25.0
24.8
26.1
27.8
29.1
9.6
28.0
24.5
34.2
27.7
30.7
27.2
31.6
28.5
Difference
32.0
33.2
34.9
31.6
33.9
23.5
22.2
23.1
20.8
18.1
19.4
12.9
14.4
14.4
13.8
9.8
32.2
9.9
10.2
7.4
8.0
10.6
9.5
8.1
11.4
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column A(c)
Mass
Removed
(ng)(b)
-
4,845,564
2,313,640
2,259,282
695,409
2,193,881
1,649,658
1,635,219
1,025,383
991,196
716,642
960,195
811,558
856,149
778,433
1,302,909
1,070,186
983,340
554,841
485,830
555,902
750,404
554,841
523,202
496,872
29,010,536
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
4,500
2,100
2,200
700
2,200
Concentration (u,g/L)
Raw
36.9
38.5
42.6
39.3
42.3
35.5
After
Oxidation
Column B
33.3
36.2
41.0
38.5
39.4
35.5
Difference
3.6
2.3
1.6
0.8
2.9
0.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Oxidation Column B
Mass
Removed
(ns)(b)
-
563,759
173,905
112,115
54,996
135,472
1,040,247
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
4,500
2,100
2,200
700
2,200
2,200
2,100
1,500
1,600
1,400
1,900
1,900
1,900
1,600
1,800
1,500
1,500
1,800
1,800
2,100
2,500
1,700
1,900
1600
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Oxidation
Column B
33.3
36.2
41.0
38.5
39.4
35.5
40.5
38.8
35.8
37.0
38.4
38.5
37.5
40.1
40.4
38.9
41.9
38.4
34.7
41.0
36.3
42.4
35.2
41.5
40.4
After
Adsorption
Column B
0.1
1.9
6.9
6.1
7.1
11.0
18.2
16.2
17.0
22.7
22.1
26.6
25.7
26.4
26.8
28.9
25.6
28.6
24.6
35.3
26.9
30.6
26.1
30.8
27.2
Difference
33.2
34.3
34.1
32.4
32.3
24.5
22.3
22.6
18.8
14.3
16.3
11.9
11.8
13.7
13.5
10.0
16.3
9.8
10.1
5.7
9.4
11.8
9.1
10.7
13.2
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column B'C'
Mass
Removed
(wO00
-
6,449,782
3,050,030
3,106,512
961,681
2,653,382
2,186,237
2,002,140
1,318,622
1,124,545
909,658
1,137,710
956,160
898,192
1,028,780
924,097
837,675
831,305
760,597
603,891
673,325
1,125,394
754,439
798,817
811,982
35,904,954
C-4
-------
Media Run 3 (GFH and CFH-12 Media)
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,000
1,600
1,600
500
1,800
1,700
1,700
1,100
1,200
900
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,300
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,300
1,300
1,700
1,900
1,300
1,400
1,200
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Adsorption
Column A
0.2
2.4
4.8
6.7
7.8
11.1
18.7
16.8
17.0
19.2
19.8
25.0
24.8
26.1
27.8
29.1
9.6
28.0
24.5
34.2
27.7
30.7
27.2
31.6
28.5
After
Adsorption
Column C
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
1.9
1.5
2.3
4.3
4.1
7.9
8.2
9.5
11.0
13.2
12.3
13.3
12.5
20.7
16.2
18.7
16.7
19.2
17.3
Difference
0.1
2.2
4.4
6.3
7.5
10.6
16.8
15.3
14.7
14.9
15.7
17.1
16.6
16.6
16.8
15.9
-2.7
14.7
12.0
13.5
11.5
12.0
10.5
12.4
11.2
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column C(c)
Mass
Removed
Otg)(b)
-
97,676
224,229
363,524
146,514
691,799
989,073
1,158,731
700,717
754,226
584,780
975,058
1,001,813
986,949
921,974
902,651
336,344
280,287
737,027
920,487
1,008,608
948,091
621,090
680,757
601,343
16,633,749
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,600
2,100
2,200
700
2,200
2,200
2,100
1,500
1,600
1,400
1,900
1,900
1,900
1,600
1,800
1,500
1,500
1,800
1,800
2,100
2,500
1,700
1,900
1600
Concentration (u,g/L)
After
Adsorption
Column B
0.1
1.9
6.9
6.1
7.1
11.0
18.2
16.2
17.0
22.7
22.1
26.6
25.7
26.4
26.8
28.9
25.6
28.6
24.6
35.3
26.9
30.6
26.1
30.8
27.2
After
Adsorption
Column D
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
3.0
1.8
2.6
6.0
5.6
10.9
9.9
11.1
12.4
15.0
12.9
14.0
12.6
24.7
17.1
18.6
15.4
20.1
17.2
Difference
0.1
1.8
6.7
5.9
6.9
10.6
15.2
14.4
14.4
16.7
16.5
15.7
15.8
15.3
14.4
13.9
12.7
14.6
12.0
10.6
9.8
11.0
10.7
10.7
10.0
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column D(c)
Mass
Removed
(wO00
.
104,895
379,024
588,602
190,255
817,503
1,205,233
1,319,896
917,302
1,056,596
986,949
1,299,087
1,270,846
1,254,708
1,009,033
1,081,652
847,231
869,526
1,016,677
863,793
909,658
1,104,160
783,317
863,368
703,265
21,442,579
C-5
-------
Run 3 (GFH and CFH-12 Media)
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
1,700
1,700
1,100
1,200
900
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,300
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,300
1,300
1,700
1,900
1,300
1,400
1,200
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Adsorption
Column C
0.5
1.9
1.5
2.3
4.3
4.1
7.9
8.2
9.5
11.0
13.2
12.3
13.3
12.5
20.7
16.2
18.7
16.7
19.2
17.3
After
Adsorption
Column E
.04
0.4
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.4
1.3
0.4
0.6
1.6
2.3
2.8
2.5
2.7
7.0
5.3
7.6
6.1
7.7
6.5
Difference
0.1
1.5
1.4
2.0
3.2
3.7
6.6
7.8
8.9
9.4
10.9
9.5
10.8
9.8
13.7
10.9
11.1
10.6
11.5
10.8
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column E
Mass
Removed
(wO00
-
57,756
104,683
79,415
132,499
131,862
306,192
428,074
496,447
519,805
505,153
560,361
474,152
887,575
992,470
568,643
848,292
599,007
656,975
568,218
8,917,580
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0
2,200
2,100
1,500
1,600
1,400
1,900
1,900
1,900
1,600
1,800
1,500
1,500
1,800
1,800
2,100
2,500
1,700
1,900
1600
Concentration (ug/L)
After
Adsorption
Column D
0.4
3.0
1.8
2.6
6.0
5.6
10.9
9.9
11.1
12.4
15.0
12.9
14.0
12.6
24.7
17.1
18.6
15.4
20.1
17.2
After
Adsorption
Column F
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.5
1.4
1.4
1.7
3.2
4.7
4.3
2.5
4.1
11.6
7.8
9.0
7.6
10.2
9.0
Difference
0.1
2.6
1.7
2.3
4.9
5.1
9.5
8.5
9.4
9.2
10.3
8.6
11.5
8.5
13.1
9.3
9. .6
7.8
9.9
8.2
Total Arsenic Removed by Adsorption Column F(c)
Mass
Removed
(us)""
-
126,129
191,742
127,403
244,614
297,274
589,027
726,198
631,919
722,163
745,308
601,980
768,241
764,419
825,572
998,840
1,003,299
628,097
714,094
614,932
11,321,252
Total Run 3
54,561,865 Total Run 3
68,668,785
(a) 1 BV = 1.5 ft3 = 11.22 gal = 42.46771 L
(b) Mass Removed (ug) = average difference in concentration (ug/L) x Volume Treated (BV) x 42.4677 (L/BV)
(c) Column did not reach capacity before end of evaluation.
ATS Media in each column = 33,034,091 mg based on a bulk density of 51 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 5%.
Filox Media in each column = 77,727,272 mg based on a bulk density of 114 lb/ft3. Moisture content not available.
GFH Media in each column = 26,913,818 mg based on a bulk density of 79 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 50%.
CFH-12 Media in each column = 41,236,363 mg based on a bulk density of 72 lb/ft3 and a moisture content of 16%.
C-6
------- |