EPA/600/R-06/090
September 2006
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Jody P. Lipps
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, 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 is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments 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 environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; 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
-------
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.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the first six months
of the arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at the Spring Brook Mobile Home
Park in Wales, ME. The objectives of the project are to evaluate the effectiveness of an Aquatic
Treatment System, Inc. (ATS) As/1400CS arsenic removal system in removing arsenic to meet the new
arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 |o,g/L, the reliability of the treatment system, the
required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator's skills, and the capital and O&M costs
of the technology. The project also characterizes the water in the distribution system and process
residuals produced by the treatment process.
The ATS system consisted of two parallel treatment trains, each consisting of one 25-(im sediment filter,
one 10-in-diameter, 54-in-tall oxidation column, and three 10-in-diameter, 54-in-tall adsorption columns
connected in series. The columns were constructed of sealed polyglass and loaded with 1.5 ft3 each of
either A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media (consisting of activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate) or
A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media (consisting of activated alumina and a proprietary iron complex).
Based on a design flow rate of 7 gal/min (gpm) through each train, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in
each column was 1.6 min (or 4.8 min for three columns in series) and the hydraulic loading rate to each
column was 13 gpm/ft2.
Between March 3 and September 9, 2005, the system operated an average of 3.4 hr/day for a total of 638
hrs, treating approximately 480,000 gal of water. This volume throughput was equivalent to 21,400 bed
volumes (BVs) based on the 1.5-ft3 bed volume in a lead adsorption column or 7,143 BVs based on the
4.5-ft3 combined bed volume in the three adsorption columns. The oxidation columns were effective at
converting As(III), the predominating arsenic species, to As(V) throughout the six month period, typically
lowering the As(III) concentrations from an average of 29.4 ± 6.7 to <1 (ig/L. The oxidation of As(III) to
As(V) was achieved presumably through reaction with sodium metaperiodate. Iodide (I") analysis in the
treated water was not conducted during the first six months of the study. Subsequent samples collected
during the continuation of this study show elevated iodide concentrations as high as 124 (ig/L following
the oxidizing and adsorption columns. The oxidation columns also showed some adsorptive capacity for
arsenic (i.e., 0.14 (ig/mg of media), initially removing arsenic to <1 (ig/L. By about 5,000 BVs (based on
the 1.5-ft3 bed volume in an oxidation column), arsenic had completely broken through the oxidation
columns.
Arsenic concentrations after the lead columns reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 6,000 BVs (based on the
1.5-ft3 bed volume in the lead adsorption column) from Train A and just under 5,000 BVs from Train B,
and reached complete breakthrough at approximately 10,000 BVs and 9,000 BVs, respectively, from each
train. Arsenic breakthrough from the lead columns occurred much sooner than projected (at 32,700 BVs)
by the vendor. High pH values of the source water (ranging from 8.0 to 8.7) was thought to be the major
factor for early arsenic breakthrough from the adsorption columns. Arsenic concentrations after the
second set of lag columns reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 15,000 BVs through both treatment trains,
and reached complete breakthrough at about 19,000 BVs. The adsorptive capacity of the media was
estimated to be 0.2 (ig of arsenic/mg of media.
Several anions, including silica, sulfate, alkalinity, and fluoride were present in raw water at
concentrations significant to potentially compete with arsenic for adsorption sites. Silica was consistently
removed from 10.8 mg/L to 0.6-5.5 mg/L by (and did not reach complete breakthrough from), the
oxidation and adsorption columns throughout the first six months of system operation. Even after the
arsenic removal capacity was completely spent, the oxidation columns and the lead adsorption columns
continued to show some capacity for silica removal. Of the other competitive anions, both media showed
little or no removal capacity for sulfate or alkalinity. The treatment system removed fluoride from about
-------
0.5 to < 0.1 mg/L initially, but fluoride completely broke through the oxidation and lead adsorption
columns within 2,000 BVs.
Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in the soluble form) in the treated water following the
oxidation columns were about 20 to 30 |o,g/L higher than those in raw water, indicating leaching of
aluminum from the oxidizing media. However, the concentrations were below the secondary drinking
water standard for aluminum of 50 to 200 |o,g/L.
Comparison of distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the As/1400CS system
showed a significant decrease in the average arsenic concentration at each of the three sampling locations
during the first three months of system operation. During this period, arsenic concentrations were below
2.0 (ig/L at all sampling locations. After the third month of operation, as arsenic began to break through
the treatment system, the concentrations at the distribution locations also increased, exceeding the
10 (ig/L target value. Neither lead nor copper concentrations appeared to have been affected by the
operation of the system and remained well below the action levels of 15 (ig/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L
for copper.
The capital investment cost of $16,475 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 $l,177/gpm of design flow (or $0.82/gpd).
O&M cost 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.
Incremental cost for electricity consumption was negligible. Although media replacement and disposal
was not performed during the first six months of operation, the estimated cost was $2,465, $4,015, and
$5,565 for changing out two, four, or six columns, respectively. Cost curves were constructed one each
for replacing two, four, or six columns at a time to estimate media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water
treated as a function of the media working capacity.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
APPENDICES viii
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 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 Sample Collection 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 9
3.3.3 Residual Solid Sample Collection 9
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 12
4.1.2 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 13
4.3 Permitting and System Installation 17
4.4 System Operation 21
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 21
4.4.2 Residual Management 21
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability, and Simplicity 22
4.5 System Performance 22
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 22
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling 31
4.6 System Cost 36
4.6.1 Capital Cost 36
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 36
5.0 REFERENCES 40
vn
-------
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDICES
Operational Data
Analytical Data Results
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park 12
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Water Supply Pump, System Piping, and Hydropneumatic Tanks
(shown in the background) 13
Figure 4-3. Schematic of As/1400CS Adsorption System (Provided by ATS) 16
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 19
Figure 4-5. As/1400CS Arsenic Adsorption System with Adsorption and Oxidization Columns
Shown in Foreground, 25-(im Sediment Filters Attached to Wall, and Hydropneumatic
Tanks in Background 20
Figure 4-6. Close-Up View of a Sample Tap (OA), a Pressure Gauge, and Copper Piping at
Head of a Column 20
Figure 4-7. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train A 27
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train B 28
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Train A (BVs Based on 1.5 ft3 of
Media Volume in One Column) 29
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Train B (BVs Based on 1.5 ft3 of
Media Volume in One Column) 29
Figure 4-11. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train A 32
Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train B 32
Figure 4-13. Fluoride, Alkalinity, and Sulfate Concentrations Across Both Treatment Trains 33
Figure 4-14. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Treatment Train A 34
Figure 4-15. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Treatment Train B 34
Figure 4-16. Media Replacement Cost Curves 38
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data 14
Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorption Media 15
Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/P Complex 2002 Oxidation Media 15
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of As/1400CS System 18
Table 4-4. Summary of As/1400CS System Operation 21
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results 23
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements 25
Table 4-7. Distribution System Sampling Results 35
Table 4-8. Capital Investment for As/1400CS Treatment System 37
Table 4-9. Summary of O&M Cost 38
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems, Inc.
BV bed volume(s)
C/F coagulation/filtration
Ca calcium
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWP Maine Drinking Water Program
MEI Magnesium Electron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
N/A not analyzed
Na sodium
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NSF NSF International
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SBMHP Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
VOC volatile organic compound
VSWV very small water systems
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance 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 the first round of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on
their water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 sites from a list of 115 to be the host sites for the
demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the Round 1 demonstration program. Using the
information provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water
programs of the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of February 2006, 11
of the 12 systems have been operational and the performance evaluations of two systems have been
completed.
Upon additional congressional funding, EPA published another announcement in the Federal Register
soliciting water utilities interested in participating in the Round 2 demonstration program. Among the
32 water systems selected by EPA in June 2003 was the Spring Brook Mobile Home Park (SBMHP)
facility in Wales, ME.
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, two sites have decided to withdraw 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 the SBMHP site in September 2004.
-------
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 3 AM systems), 13 coagulation/
filtration (C/F) systems, 2 ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including 9
under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and 8 AM units at the
OIT site), and 1 process modification to an existing conventional C/F system. Table 1-1 summarizes the
locations, technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including
arsenic, iron, and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. The technology selection and system design for the
12 Round 1 demonstration sites have been reported in an EPA report (Wang et al., 2004) posted on an
EPA Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm).
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 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.
Determine the capital and O&M costs of the technologies.
Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the ATS system operation at SBMHP in Wales, ME, during
the first six months from March 7 through September 9, 2005. The types of data collected included
system operational data, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
and capital and preliminary O&M cost data.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(HS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
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
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)
AM (ARM 200)
AM(E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70w
10
100
22
375
300
10
150
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(b)
1,312
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
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 to a
C/F System
STS
Kinetico
USFilter
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14w
13W
16W
20(a)
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146(a)
127
466W
l,387(b)
l,499(b)
7827W
546
l,470(b)
3,078(b)
l,344(b)
l,325(b)
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Lyman, NE
Arnaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Village of Lyman
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Indian Health Services
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
350
385
150
40
100
320
145
450
90W
50
37
20
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
<25
2,068(b)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.5
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
(Continued)
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(ug/L)| PH
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(C)
C/F (Electromedia II)
AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenX) and POU AM1"
IX (A520)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kenetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69W
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III)
(b) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II)
(c) Including 9 residential units
(d) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to lower flowrate of 40 gpm
(e) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to lower flowrate of 30 gpm
(f) Including 8 under-the-sink units
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of system 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:
The A/P Complex 2002 oxidation media effectively converted As(III) to As(V)
throughout the six-month period, typically lowering the As(III) concentrations from
an average value of 29.4 to < 1 (ig/L. The oxidation columns also showed some
capacity for arsenic removal with an estimated arsenic loading of 0.14 |o,g of
arsenic/mg of media.
Breakthrough of arsenic at 10 (ig/L through the lead columns of A/I Complex 2000
adsorptive media occurred at 6,000 BVs from Train A and just under 5,000 BVs from
Train B. Arsenic reached complete breakthrough after the lead columns at
approximately 10,000 BVs and 9,000 BVs, respectively. The adsorptive capacity
was estimated to be 0.2 jog of As/mg of media.
Because of the unexpected short media life, the media was not changed out until
breakthrough from the entire three columns. Considering the three columns (in
series) as one large vessel, the treatment trains had a BV capacity to 10 (ig/L arsenic
breakthrough of 5,300 BVs (Train A) and 5,200 BVs (Train B). Thus, the
performance of the total system was similar to the performance for the first lead
column of each treatment train.
It is presumed that high pH values of source water (ranging from 8.0 to 8.7) might
have contributed to early arsenic breakthrough from the adsorption columns, even
though they were within the effective range (i.e., < 9.0) indicated by the vendor.
The presence of competing anions also might have contributed to the early arsenic
breakthrough. The media was shown to have high capacity for silica, which
continued to be removed even after the arsenic removal capacity was completely
exhausted.
Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in the soluble form) following the
oxidation columns were about 20 to 30 |o,g/L higher than those in raw water,
indicating leaching of aluminum from the oxidizing media. The concentrations
detected were below its secondary drinking water standard.
Simplicity of required system O&M and operator skill levels:
The daily demand on the operator was typically 15 min to visually inspect the system
and record operational parameters. Due to the small size of the system, operational
parameters were recorded only three days per week.
Operation of the As/1400CS did not require additional skills beyond those necessary
to operate the existing water supply equipment.
-------
Process residuals produced by the technology:
Because the system did not require backwash to operate, no backwash residuals were
produced.
The only residuals produced by the operation of the As/1400CS treatment system is
spent media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of operation;
therefore, no residual waste was produced during this period.
Technology Cost:
Using the system's rated capacity of 14 gpm (or 20,160 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $l,177/gpm (or $0.82/gpd) of design flowrate.
Although media replacement and disposal did not take place during the first six
months of operation, the cost to change-out two, four, or six oxidizing and/or
adsorption columns was estimated to be $2,465, $4,015, and $5,565, respectively.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 General Project Approach
Following the pre-demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the ATS treatment system began on March 7, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected
and/or considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the system
was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L; this was
monitored through the collection of biweekly and monthly water samples across the treatment train. The
reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and
extent of repair and replacement. The unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by
the plant operator on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration 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
Initial System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
September 16, 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
Simplicity of
Operation and
Operator Skill
Capital and
O&M Costs
Residual
Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 M-g/L of arsenic in effluent
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs to include labor hours, problem description, description of
materials, and cost of materials
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and labor hours
-Task analysis of preventive maintenance to include labor hours per month and number and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of safety requirements and chemical processes
-Capital costs including equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M costs including chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
-Quantity of the residuals generated by the process
-Characteristics of the aqueous and solid residuals
-------
Required O&M and operator skill levels were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data and
qualitative considerations, including any pre-treatment and/or post-treatment requirements, level of
system automation, operator skill requirements, task analysis of the preventive maintenance activities,
frequency of chemical and/or media handling and inventory requirements, and general knowledge needed
for safety requirements and chemical processes. The staffing requirements on 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
O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, electrical
power use, and labor hours. The capital costs for the Round 1 sites has been reported in an EPA report
(Chen et al, 2004) posted on an EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/resource.htm).
Data on O&M costs were limited to electricity and labor hours because media replacement did not take
place during the six months of operation.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection following
the instructions provided by Battelle. 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 on a regular basis. If any problems occurred, the
plant operator would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who then would determine if ATS should be
contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator recorded all relevant information on the Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet. The plant operator measured water quality parameters, biweekly, including
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and recorded the data
on a Weekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the ATS system consisted of cost for equipment, site engineering, and system
installation and startup. The O&M cost consisted of cost for the media replacement and spent media
disposal, electricity consumption, and labor. Labor hours for various activities, such as the routine system
O&M, system troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an
Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine O&M included activities such as completing field logs,
ordering supplies, performing system inspection, and others as recommended by the equipment vendor.
The demonstration-related work included activities such as performing field measurements, collecting and
shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle Study Lead. The demonstration-related activities
were recorded but not included in the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, treatment plant, and
distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedule and analytes measured during each
sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for arsenic speciation, 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).
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial visit to the SBMHP site, one set of source
water samples was collected for detailed water quality analyses. The source water also was speciated for
particulate and soluble As, iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and As(III) and As(V). The
sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation,
which might cause unwanted oxidation. Arsenic speciation kits and containers for water quality samples
were prepared as described in Section 3.4.
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedule and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solid
Sample
Locations*3'
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN),
After Oxidation
Column (OA and
OB),
After Adsorption
Column (TA to
TF), and
After Entire
System (TT)
Two LCR and
One Non-LCR
Residences
Spent Media from
Oxidation and
Adsorption
Columns
No. of
Samples
1
5-7
3
8
Frequency
Once
during the
initial site
visit
Biweekly
Monthly(b)
Once
Analytes
As (total, paniculate, and
soluble), As(III), As(V), Fe
(total and soluble), Mn
(total and soluble), Al (total
and soluble), Na, Ca, Mg,
V, Sb, Cl, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, TOC, alkalinity,
andpH
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP.
Off-site: As (total, particu-
late, and soluble), As(III),
As(V), Fe (total and solu-
ble), Mn (total and solu-
ble), Al (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, S2; SO4,
SiO2, PO4, turbidity, and/or
alkalinity
pH, alkalinity, As, Fe, Mn,
Pb, and Cu
TCLP metals
Date(s) Samples
Collected
09/16/04
03/09/05, 03/22/05,
04/05/05, 04/19/05,
05/04/05, 05/17/05,
06/01/05, 06/15/05,
06/29/05, 07/13/05,
07/27/05, 08/09/05,
08/24/05
Baseline
sampling(b):
12/15/04, 01/10/05,
02/02/05, 02/23/05,
Monthly sampling:
04/05/05, 05/04/05,
06/15/05, 07/13/05,
08/09/05
To be determined
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-4
(b) Four baseline sampling events performed before system became operational
Bold font indicates that speciation was performed.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance evaluation study,
samples were collected by the plant operator every other week at five to seven locations across the
treatment train, including at the wellhead [IN], after the oxidation columns [OA and OB], and after the
adsorption columns [TA to TF]. Speciation was performed for As, Fe, Mn, and Al during every other
sampling event (approximately once per month). On-site measurements for pH, temperature, DO, and
ORP also were performed during each sampling event.
3.3.3 Residual Solid Sample Collection. Because the system did not require backwash, no backwash
residuals were produced during system operations. Additionally, because media replacement did not take
place during the first six months of operation, there were no spent media samples collected.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water Sample Collection. 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 arsenic, lead, and copper levels. From December 2004 to February 2005, prior to the
startup of the treatment system, four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three
-------
locations within the distribution system. Following the startup of the arsenic adsorption system,
distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations.
The three homes selected for the sampling included two LCR residences that were included in the Lead
and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling in the past and one non-LCR residence. The samples were collected
following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Rule 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 6 hrs 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. Analytes for the baseline samples coincided with the monthly distribution system
water samples as described 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
sample shipping and handling are discussed as follows.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Arsenic speciation kits 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. All sample bottles were new and contained appropriate
preservatives. Each sample bottle was taped with a pre-printed, colored-coded, and waterproof label.
The sample label consisted of sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection, sampler
initials, sampling location, where the sample was to be sent to, analysis required, and preservative. The
sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for a specific water facility, the sampling date, a two-letter code
for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for the specific analysis to be performed. The
sampling locations were color-coded for easy identification. Pre-labeled bottles were placed in one of the
plastic bags (each corresponding to a specific sampling location) in a sample cooler. When arsenic
speciation samples were to be collected, an appropriate number of arsenic speciation kits also were
included in the cooler. When appropriate, the sample cooler was also packed with bottles for the three
distribution system sampling locations.
In addition, a packet containing all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as latex gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid Federal Express air bills, ice packs, and bubble wrap, also
was placed in the cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and prepaid UPS air bills had already been
completed with the required information except for the operator's signature. The sample coolers were
shipped via UPS to the facility approximately one week prior to the scheduled sampling date.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, sample
custodians verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample label identifications were checked against the chain-of-custody forms and the samples were
logged into the laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies, if noted, were addressed by the field sample
custodian, and the Battelle Study Lead was notified.
Samples for water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories were packed in coolers at
Battelle and picked up by a courier from either American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) (Columbus,
OH) or TCCI Laboratories (New Lexington, OH). The samples for arsenic speciation analyses were
10
-------
stored at Battelle's inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) Laboratory. The chain-of-
custody forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final
disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the
required hold time, and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures are described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle,
2004). Field measurements of pH, temperature, and DO/ORP were conducted by the plant operator using
a WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated prior to use following the procedures provided
in the user's manual. The plant operator collected a water sample in a 400-mL plastic beaker and placed
the Multi 340i probe in the beaker until a stable, measured value was reached.
Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the guidelines provided in
the QAPP (Battelle, 2004). Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limit (MDL),
and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP, i.e., relative percent difference (RPD) of 20%,
percent recovery of 80-120%, 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 and to be shared with the other 27 demonstration sites included in the Round 2 arsenic
study.
11
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Facility Description
The SBMHP water system in Wales, ME, supplies water to 14 mobile homes. The water treatment
building, shown in Figure 4-1, is located at 339 Leeds Junction Rd., Wales, ME. The water source is
groundwater from a developed spring with a flowrate, based on pump data, of approximately 14 gal/min
(gpm). The average daily use rate was estimated to be 3,500 gal/day (gpd) according to the Park owner.
The pre-existing water system included only a supply pump (Figure 4-2) and two 120-gal pressure tanks
to provide storage and required pressure to the distribution system.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
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.
The MDWP test data showed the total arsenic concentrations of source water to range from 35 to 39 (ig/L.
The September 16, 2004, sampling results of Battelle found the total arsenic concentration in source water
to be 37.7 (ig/L, of which 33.4 (ig/L (or about 90%) was As(III).
The pH value measured by the facility was 8.5 and by Battelle 8.6, both of which are higher than the
range of 6.5 to 8.0 typically desired for the arsenic adsorptive media. Because 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, pH adjustment was not added.
12
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Water Supply Pump, System Piping, and
Hydropneumatic Tanks (shown in the background)
The concentrations of iron (<25 |o,g/L) and other ions in raw water were sufficiently low, therefore, pre-
treatment prior to the adsorption process was not required. The concentrations of orthophosphate, silica,
and fluoride also were sufficiently low (i.e., <0.06, 10.7, and 0.4 mg/L, respectively) and, therefore, were
not expected to affect the arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media.
4.1.2 Distribution System. The distribution system consists of a looped distribution line constructed
primarily of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The connections to the distribution system and piping within
the residences themselves also are believed to be PVC.
Compliance samples from the distribution system are collected quarterly for bacterial analysis and every
three years for herbicides, pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and inorganics. LCR samples
are collected from customer taps at five residences every three years. Tests for gross alpha are conducted
every four years.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The ATS As/1400CS adsorption system uses A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media to oxidize As(III) and
A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media to adsorb As(V). The A/P Complex 2002 media consists of
activated alumina and sodium metaperiodate and A/I Complex 2000 media consists of activated alumina
and a proprietary iron complex. Tables 4-2a and 4-2b present physical and chemical properties of the
adsorptive and oxidizing media. Both media have NSF International (NSF) Standard 61 listing for use in
drinking water.
The ATS As/1400CS system is a fixed-bed downflow adsorption system designed for use at small water
systems with flowrates of around 14 gpm. When the media reaches its capacity, the spent media may be
removed and disposed of after being subjected to the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)test.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Source Water Quality Data
Parameter
Units
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 (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
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
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
^g/L
W?/L
HB/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
O.04
<0.01
O.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
MDWP
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
N/A= not analyzed
for demonstration site selection.
ND= below detection limit
The system at SBMHP has two parallel treatment trains, each operating in series. The system design is
based on change-out of the lead column in each treatment train upon exhaustion and each of the lag
columns to be moved forward one position (i.e., the first lag column becomes the lead column, and the
second lag column becomes the first lag column). A new column loaded with virgin media is then placed
at the end of each treatment train. This configuration maximizes the usage of the media capacity before
its replacement. Figure 4-3 presents a schematic diagram of the ATS As/1400CS adsorption system with
the major system components discussed as follows:
14
-------
Table 4-2a. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorption Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
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 (Tyler mesh)
Value
Activated alumina/iron complex
Granular solid
Light brown/orange
55
1.5
14-16
0.42
220
<0.1
<5
28x48(<2%fines)
Ch emical An alysis
Constituents
A12O3(%)
NaIO4(%)
Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2 6H2O (%)
Weight (Dry)
90.89
3.21
5.90
Table 4-2b. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/P Complex 2002 Oxidation Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
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)
Value
Activated alumina/metaperiodate complex
Granular solid
White
52
1.5
14-16
0.42
220
<0.1
<5
28x48(<2%fines)
Ch emical An alysis
Constituents
A1203(%)
NaIO4(%)
Weight (Dry)
96.59
3.41
Source: ATS
15
-------
As/1400CS Duplex Arsenic Removal System
for
Springbrook Mobile Home Park, Wales Maine
Water is taken
from existing
pressure tank(s)
// !
/ 1 Treatment Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Tan
Train "B" ^-*. ^< ^-* >v
o o o
N/O Pressure Tank & Booster Pump
Synj/3Q/_Key
Ball Valve
Drain
Pressure Gauge
check Valve
Flow Rate Meter Totalizer
7 gpm Flow Restrlctor
Sample Port
Chlorination Tap
N/O Normally Open
N/C Normally Closed
Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic
Adsorption Adsorption Adsorption
Worker Guard
Column Column
10"x54" 10"x54"
10"x54"
Notes:
1) Trains A and B are duplicate parallel treatment trains.
2) All treatment tanks have a head assembly that can be adjusted for inflow, outflow and by-pass
3) Each 10" X 54" tank has 1.5 cubic feet of media.
4) The System is mode with 1" I.D. fittings and connections.
O ATS 2004
122804
design by TJB/A TS
Schematic is NOT IS SCALE
As 14001::-, wnlns wk4
Figure 4-3. Schematic of As/1400CS Adsorption System (Provided by ATS)
-------
Two pre-existing 120-gal pressure tanks with a total storage capacity of
approximately 240 gal. Located at the system inlet, the pressure tanks served as a
temporary storage for well water. The well pump was turned on and off based on the
low and high pressure settings of 40 and 60, respectively, with the pressure tanks.
Two 25-um sediment filters. One filter was installed at the head of each treatment
train to remove sediment and avoid introducing large particles directly into the
treatment columns.
Eight 10-in-diameter, 54-in-high sealed polyglass columns (by Park
International). Each treatment train had four media columns with the first loaded
with 1.5 ft3 of the oxidizing media and the remaining three with 1.5 ft3 (per column)
of the adsorptive media. Each column was equipped with a riser tube and a valved
head assembly to control inflow, outflow, and bypass.
One totalizer/flow meter (Model F-1000 by Blue-White Industries). One each
totalizer/flow meter was installed on the downstream end of the treatment train to
record the flowrate and volume of water treated through the train.
One 120-gal Well-Rite pressure tank (by Flexcon Industries in Randolph, MA)
fitted with a Yi-hp Goulds booster pump (Model No. C48A94A06). Located at the
system outlet, the booster pump/pressure tank assembly was used to 1) "pull" water
from the two pressure tanks at the system inlet through the one oxidation and three
adsorption columns in each treatment train, 2) provide temporary storage of the
treated water, and 3) supply the treated water with the needed pressure to the
distribution system. Upon the demand in the distribution system, the pressure tank
was gradually emptied and the corresponding pressure in the tank was gradually
reduced. The booster pump was triggered when the pressure in the pressure tank had
reduced to 40 psi. After refilling the tank with the treated water, the booster pump
was turned off as the pressure in the tank had reached the high pressure setting of
60 psi.
Pressure gauges located at the system inlet just prior to the tee to the two treatment
trains, at the head of each column, after the two treatment trains combined, and at the
pressure tank at the system outlet. The pressure gauges were used to monitor the
system pressure and pressure drop across the treatment train.
Sampling taps. Sample collection ports (US Plastics) made of PVC were located
prior to the system and following each oxidation and adsorption tank.
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 4-4. A photograph of the system installed at the SBMHP site is shown in Figure 4-5
and a close-up view of one of the oxidizing media columns is shown in Figure 4-6.
4.3 Permitting and System Installation
Engineering plans for the system were prepared by ATS and submitted to MDWP for approval on
February 16, 2005. The plans included a schematic of the As/1400CS system along with a written
description of the system. The approval was granted by MDWP on February 18, 2005.
17
-------
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 (Ibs)
Media Volume (ft3)
10 D x54H
0.54
2
A/P Complex 2002
78
1.5
-
-
1 column per train, 2 trains in parallel
-
Per column
Per column
Adsorption Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ibs)
Media Volume (ft3)
10 D x54H
0.54
6
Series
A/I Complex 2000
83
1.5
-
-
3 columns per train, 2 trains in parallel
3 columns in series per train
-
Per column
Per column
Service
System Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min/oxidation column)
EBCT (mm/adsorption column)
Average Use Rate (gpd)
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Throughput To Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated Media Life (months)
14
13
1.6
1.6
3,500
32,754
367,500
7
7 gpm per train, 2 trains in parallel
-
Per column
4.8-min total EBCT for 3 adsorption columns in
each train
Based on usage estimate provided by park owner
Bed volumes to breakthrough at 10 |ag/L from
lead column based on throughput of 1,750 gpd
per train
Vendor-provided estimate to breakthrough at
10 |ag/L from lead column based on 1.5 ft3
(1 1.2 gal) of media in lead column
Estimated frequency of media change-out in lead
column based on throughput of 1,750 gpd per
train
The system was installed in the pre-existing treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, without any
addition. Because the system required only 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 floorspace for installation and access to the system.
The As/1400CS system, consisting of the factory-packed oxidation and adsorption columns and
preassembled valves, gauges, and sample taps, was delivered to the site on March 2, 2005. ATS began
the system installation that same day with activities such as re-working and updating some of the entry
and exit piping, attaching the sediment filters on the wall, and placing and plumbing together the media
columns using copper piping and connections. The mechanical installation was completed 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 being discharged to the sump. After it was determined that the system had
been operating properly, the treated water was directed to the distribution. The flowmeter/totalizer on
each train was reset at this time. The performance evaluation officially began on March 7, 2005.
18
-------
INFLUENT
(DEVELOPED SPRING)
Spring Brook Mobile Home
Park in Wales, ME
As/1400CS Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 14 gpm
1
SEDIMENT FILTER
1 UN P -
*
SEDIMENT FILTER
^, temperature^, DO«, ORP<»,
As (total, partioulate, and soluble),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NO3, S2', SO4, SiO4, PO4,
turbidity, and/or alkalinity
LEGEND
At Wellhead
After Oxidation Column
(OA-OB)
After Adsorption Column
(TA-TF)
TT ) After Entire System
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations
19
-------
Figure 4-5. As/1400CS Arsenic Adsorption System with Adsorption and Oxidization
Columns Shown in Foreground, 25-um Sediment Filters Attached to Wall, and
Hydropneumatic Tanks in Background
Figure 4-6. Close-Up View of a Sample Tap (OA), a Pressure Gauge,
and Copper Piping at Head of a Column
20
-------
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and attached
as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. From March 7, 2005, through September
9, 2005, the treatment system operated for 638 hrs based on the hour meter readings of the booster pump.
The operational time represented a utilization rate of approximately 14% over the 27-week study period
with the booster pump operating an average of 3.4 hr/day. The total system throughput from March 7,
through September 9, 2005 was approximately 480,000 gal (or 240,000 per train). This corresponds to
21,400 bed volumes (BVs) of water processed through each train (1 BV = 1.5 ft3 [or 11.2 gal]).
Considering the three adsorption columns of each treatment train as one vessel (i.e., 1 BV = 4.5 ft3 [or
33.6 gal]), the volume of water treated by each train would be equivalent to 7,143 BVs. The average
flowrates through Trains A and B were 5.1 and 5.2 gpm, respectively (compared to the design flowrate of
7 gal per train), with an average empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 2.2 min per column or approximately
6.6 min per train (compared to the design EBCT of 1.6 min per column or 4.8 min per train). Based on
the average flowrate and average daily operating time, the average daily use rate was about 2,120 gpd,
which was about 60% of the average water usage estimated by the Park owner.
Table 4-4. Summary of As/1400CS System Operation
Parameter
Total Operating Time (hrs) -
From March 7, 2005 to September 9, 2005
Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day)
Throughput (gal for both trains)
Throughput (B V per tank in one train)(a)
Throughput (B V per train)(c)
Range of Flowrate (gpm per train)
Average Flowrate (gpm per train)
Average Daily Use Rate (gpd)
Average EBCT (min)(a)
Average Pressure Loss across Each Column (psi)
Value
638
3.4
480,000
21,400(b)
7,143
4.3-5.8
5.2
2,120
2.2
5
(a) Calculated based on 1.5 ft3 (or 11.2 gal) of media in lead column.
(b) Arsenic breakthrough at 10 u.g/L from lead columns at 5,000-
6,000 BVs, from the first set of lag columns at 11,000 BVs, and
from the second set of lag columns at 15,000 BVs. Columns not
replaced/rebedded during this study period.
(c) Calculated based on 4.5 ft3 (or 33.6 gal) of media in each train.
The pressure loss across each column ranged from 2 to 9 psi and averaged 5 psi. The total pressure loss
across each treatment train (4 columns in series) averaged 19 psi. The average influent pressure at the
head of the system from the existing pressure tanks was 45 psi, and the average pressure following the
last column in each treatment train was 26 psi. The booster pump and pressure tank installed after the
system provided pressure to feed the distribution system, and the average pressure after this tank was
44 psi, which was set to match the pressure from the existing pressure tanks.
4.4.2 Residual Management. The only residuals produced by the operation of the As/1400CS
treatment system would be spent media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of
operation; therefore, no residual waste was produced during this period. Because the system did not
require backwash to operate, no backwash residuals were produced.
21
-------
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability, and Simplicity. The only operational difficulty was
encountered occurred soon after the system start-up. The booster pump downstream of 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 system was maintained. Since then, the system had been operating
uninterrupted throughout this study. Additional discussion regarding system operation and operator skill
requirements are provided below.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The only pre-treatment step was the oxidation of As(III) to
As(V) via the oxidation 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 Controls. The As/1400CS adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only the operation
of the supply well pump and booster pump to send water though the oxidation and adsorption columns
and the distribution system. The media columns themselves required no automated parts and all valves
were manually activated. The inline flowmeters were battery powered so that the only electrical power
required was that needed to run the supply well pump and booster pump. The system operation was
controlled by the pressure switch in the booster tank.
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
drinking water and distribution systems to be classified based on potential health risks. Classifications
range from "very small water systems (VSWS)" (lowest) to "Class IV" (highest) for treatment systems
and from "VSWS" to "Class IV" for distribution systems, depending on factors such 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.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skill requirements to operate the
As/1400CS system were minimal. The operation of the treatment system did not require additional
skills beyond those necessary to operate the existing water supply system in place at the site.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity
recommended by ATS was to inspect the sediment filters monthly and replace as necessary. The park
owner/operator visited the site about 2 to 3 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 from the raw and treated
water from the treatment and distribution systems.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-5 summarizes the arsenic, iron, manganese, and aluminum
results from samples collected throughout 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 first six
months of system operation. The results of the treatment plant sampling are discussed below.
22
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Soluble Al
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
TT
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
Number of
Samples
14(a)
14(a)
2-9
7
7
7
1-4
7
7
1-4
7
7
1-4
14(a)
14(a)
2-9
7
7
7
1-4
14(a)
14(a)
2-9
7
7
7
1-4
14(a)
14(a)
2-9
7
7
7
1-4
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
34.9
Maximum
50.2
Average
39.0
Standard
Deviation
4.1
(b)
<0.1
1.50
0.30
0.5
(b)
21.9
38.0
29.4
6.7
(b)
0.2
15.1
9.5
6.7
(b)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
7.3
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
7.2
<0.1
<0.1
<10
21.0
11.4
<10
<10
18.0
<10
<25
<25
87.1
42.2
<25
<25
<25
21.9
9.5
10.1
0.5
15.2
0.4
0.5
21.4
50.9
42.6
55.7
<10
35.6
41.1
<25
<25
17.0
16.7
<25
<25
<25
11.0
0.6
0.8
0.2
10.2
0.1
0.1
12.7
33.3
29.8
30.3
<10
27.7
25.5
0.0
0.0
17.5
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
1.8
2.4
0.2
2.8
0.1
0.1
5.5
6.2
9.2
18.3
0.0
5.9
11.8
(a) Including two duplicate samples.
(b) Statistics not provided; see Figures 4-9 and 4-10 for As breakthrough curves.
Note 1: One-half of the detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than the detection limit for
calculations. Duplicate samples included in the calculations.
Note 2: Two outlying total aluminum values, 138 |ag/L at location TC and 132 |ag/L at location TD, measured
on June 29, 2005, excluded from this summary table.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the As/1400CS adsorption system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 14 occasions
during the first six months of system operation (including one event with duplicate samples taken), with
field speciation performed on 7 of the 14 occasions.
23
-------
24
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Nitrate
(asN)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Dissolved
Oxygen
ORP
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
IN
OA-OB
TA-TF
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number of
Samples
8
8
2-7
8
8
2-7
8
8
2-7
8
8
2-7
8
8
6
8
8
2-7
8
8
2-7
13
13
3-8
13
13
3-8
13
13
3-8
13
13
3-8
14
14
2-9
14
14
2-9
14
14
2-9
Concentration/Unit
Minimum
66
58
59
0.5
0.4
0.1
18
18
16
0.05
0.05
0.05
9.8
Maximum
74
74
72
0.6
0.8
0.7
39
38
40
0.05
0.05
0.05
11.5
Average
69
68
67
0.50
0.54
0.50
22
22
22
0.05
0.05
0.05
10.8
Standard
Deviation
3.0
3.8
1.8
0.05
0.10
0.18
7.0
6.3
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
(b)
O.05
O.05
O.05
0.1
O.I
O.I
8.0(c)
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
126
129
130
37.9
37.2
36.7
31.4
30.7
30.6
6.4
5.7
5.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.4
8.7
8.7
8.6
14.1
14.7
14.6
4.7
4.3
5.0
209
229
210
58.1
64.0
87.0
49.8
55.0
71.9
8.4
9.0
13.0
0.10
0.10
0.14
0.3
0.1
0.2
8.3
8.3
8.2
11.3
11.0
11.6
2.5
2.0
1.9
180
184
181
48.7
47.7
48.2
41.4
40.5
40.9
7.3
7.3
7.2
0.13
0.09
0.26
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
2.1
2.0
2.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
21.9
20.7
17.4
5.8
6.2
10.9
5.4
5.7
9.3
0.6
0.8
1.6
(a) Including two duplicate samples.
(b) See Figures 4-13 and 4-14 for plots of silica concentrations.
(c) Not including one outlier at pH 7.3.
Note: One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
25
-------
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. (Note that the data for sampling
locations TE and TT, as well as TF and TT, were plotted together since these locations represent treated
water following the final adsorption column in each train.)
Total As concentrations in raw water ranged from 34.9 to 50.2 (ig/L and averaged 39.0 (ig/L (Table 4-5).
As(III) was the predominating species, ranging from 21.9 to 38.0 (ig/L and averaging 29.4 (ig/L. As(V)
also was present in source water, ranging from 0.2 to 15.1 (ig/L and averaging 9.5 (ig/L. Particulate As
was low with concentrations typically less than 1 |o,g/L. The arsenic concentrations measured during this
six-month period were consistent with those in raw water sampled on September 16, 2004 (Table 4-1).
The oxidation of As(III) to As(V) within the oxidation columns was achieved through reaction with the
A/P Complex 2002 oxidizing media (Table 4-2b). The key ingredient in the oxidizing media is
metaperiodate, which at pH values between 8.0 to 8.7 reacts with H3AsO3 to form F£AsO42 , presumably,
according to the following reaction:
IO4" + 4H3AsO3 -> F + 4HAsO42" + 8H+
Iodide (I") analysis in the treated water was not conducted during the first six months of the
demonstration. (Note: Subsequent samples collected during the continuation of the study showed that
the iodide concentration in the treated water following the oxidizing and adsorption columns did increase,
going from <10 (ig/L in source water to as high as 124 (ig/L in the treated water.)
As shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8, the oxidation columns were effective at converting As(III) to As(V),
typically lowering the As(III) concentrations to < 1 (ig/L. As(III) concentrations were higher following
the oxidation columns on June 29 and July 27, 2005, ranging from 3.3 to 6.3 (ig/L. The cause of this
bounce in As(III) concentration is not known.
The ATS system test results for arsenic removal are shown in Figures 4-9 (Train A, OA-TE) and 4-10
(Train B, OB-TF) with total arsenic concentrations plotted against the bed volumes of water treated.
(Note: BVs were calculated based on 1.5 ft3 or 11.2 gal of media in the lead column in each train). The
results showed that the oxidizing media had some capacity for arsenic removal. For the first sampling
event taking place 2 days after the system startup, total arsenic concentrations in the effluent of both of
the oxidation columns were <0.5 |o,g/L. Total arsenic concentrations slowly increased thereafter to where,
at 5,000 BVs, arsenic had completely broken through the oxidation columns and the arsenic
concentrations were close to those in raw water. Based on the breakthrough curve data, the arsenic
loading on the oxidation media was calculated to be 0.14 |o,g of As/mg of media.
During the first 4000 to 5,000 BVs of throughput, the total arsenic levels of the influent water to the first
adsorption columns of each train steadily rose from around 0.5 |o,g/L to near 40 |og/L (i.e., the level in raw
water). During this same period of time, the arsenic levels of the effluent from the first adsorptive media
columns were near 1 |o,g/L. At 5,000 BVs for Train A and about 4000 BV s for Train B, the arsenic levels
from the two columns began to increase. The effluent arsenic levels from these columns reached 10 |o,g/L
at 7,000 BVs for Train A (TA) and 6,000 BVs Train B (TB). Assuming that the arsenic level to the two
lead columns during the first 1,000 BVs was essentially less than the method detection limit, the actual
number of BVs treated by these lead columns to 10 |o,g/L breakthrough was 6,000 BVs for Train A and
5,000 BVs for Train B. Figures 4-9 and 4-10 also show total breakthrough of these lead columns, where
effluent and influent arsenic levels are the same, occurred at approximately 10,000 BVs for Train A and
9,000 BVs for Train B.
26
-------
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN)
Arsenic Species after Lead Adsorption Column, Train A (TA)
60
3.
O 40
13
c
0 30
§
< 20
As(particulate)
DAs(V)
As(lll)
I 1
3/9/2005 4/5/2005
5/4/2005
Arsenic Species
on (M9/L)
S S
I 30-
O
O
< 20-
10-
0 -
6/1/2005 6/29/2005
Date
after Oxidation Column
7/27/2005
Train
^m
8/24/2005
A(OA)
70-
60-
J 50
O 40-
2
0)
g
o
< 20-
10 -
0 -
3/9/2005 4/5/2005
As
(particulate)
DAs(V)
DAs(lll)
50
1
§ 30
C
o
C/)
< 20
10
5/4/2005 6/1/2005 6/29/2005
Arsenic Species
particulate
OAs(V)
OAs(lll)
after Lag
Date
Columns in
Train
(TC)
B
As (particulate)
DAs(V)
DA^CNh
7/27/2005
8/24/2005
A (TC and TE)
(TE)
3/9/2005 4/5/2005 5/4/2005 6/1/2005 6/29/2005 7/27/2005 8/24/2005
Date
3/9/2005 4/5/2005 5/4/2005 6/1/2005 6/29/2005 7/27/2005 8/24/2005
Date
Note: No samples collected at location TA on 06/29/05, 07/27/05, or 08/24/05; 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
-------
3 '
3.
Arsenic Species at the Inlet (IN)
31912005 4/5/2005 5/4/2005 6/1/2005 6/29/2005 7/27/2005 8/24/2005
Date
Arsenic Species after Lead Adsorption Column, Train B (TB)
3/9/2005 4/5/2005 5/4/2005 6/1/2005 6/29/2005 7/27/2005 8/24/2005
Date
to
oo
Arsenic Species after Oxidation Column, Train B (OB)
Arsenic Species after Lag Columns in Train B (TD and TF)
70 -i
60
j' 50
B)
concentration
< 20
10
0
As (participate)
DAs(V)
DAs(lll)
3/9/2005 4/5/2005 5/4/2005 6/1/2005 6/29/2005 7/27/2005 8/24/2005
Date
60
3" 50
O 40
1
0 30
g
U
< 20
10
0
participate
DAs(V)
DAs(lll)
(TD)
(TF^
(TF)
3/9/2005 4/5/2005 5/4/2005 6/1/2005 6/29/2005 7/27/2005 8/24/2005
Date
Note: No samples collected at location TB on 06/29/05, 07/27/05, or 08/24/05; TD sample collected only on 06/29/05; TF samples collected only on 07/27/05 and 08/24/05
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Train B
-------
60
50 -
O) 40
IN -«-OA -H-TA -«-TC -A-TE/TT
10 12 14 16 18 20
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Train A (BVs Based
on 1.5 ft3 of Media Volume in One Column)
60
50 -
O) 40
-OB -X-TB -«-TD -A-TF/TT
8 10
Bed Volumes (x10J
Figure 4-10. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Train B (BVs
Based on 1.5 ft3 of Media Volume in One Column)
29
-------
At about 10,000 BVs, the arsenic concentrations after the first set of lag columns (second set of media
columns) were below 10 |o/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, its concentrations at these two locations had increased to
above the influent levels at 58.4 and 54.7 |o,g/L. (Note that 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 no known.) Arsenic concentrations after the second set of
lag columns (third set of media columns) reached 10 |o,g/L at approximately 15,000 BVs through both
treatment trains. It reached complete breakthrough at about 19,000 BVs.
Because of the sharp breakthrough curves of all of the columns and lower than projected capacities, the
media change-out did not occur until total breakthrough of the third and last column of each treatment
train. Consequently, the finished water from the system had arsenic levels higher than the MCL for over
two months. Because the MCL official compliance date was January 2006, the system was technically
not out of compliance. Operating the system in this way (media change-out of 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 this operating condition, the media capacity to 10 |o,g/L of arsenic breakthrough using a
media bed volume of the three columns, Train A had a bed volume capacity of approximately 5,300 BVs
and Train B around 5,200 BVs. Thus, the performance of the total system was similar to the performance
of the first lead column of each treatment train.
To take advantage of the series design and improve the economics of the system, the lead tanks are
removed when total arsenic breakthrough (arsenic effluent equal arsenic influent) occurs. Because of
early breakthrough during this first run (which was not expected), this change-out was not done. While a
number of water quality factors might have played a role in the early breakthrough, the high pH values of
8.5-8.6 were thought to be the major factor.
Based on the breakthrough curves shown in Figures 4-9 and 4-10, the arsenic loading on the adsorption
media was estimated to be between 0.20 to 0.21 jog of As/mg of media in the lead columns. The arsenic
loadings on the first set of lag columns were 0.15 and 0.22 |o,g of As/mg of media. For the second set of
lag columns, the arsenic loadings were estimated to be 0.22 |o,g of As/mg of media. The estimate for the
first set of lag columns (Column TC in Figure 4-9 and Column TD in Figure 4-10) might be somewhat
skewed, as there were few data points collected prior to breakthrough in these columns, resulting in an
abrupt jump in As concentration rather than a smooth curve (Figure 4-9 and 4-10).
The arsenic breakthrough from the lead and lag columns in both treatment trains 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 Figures 4-9 and 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
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
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. As shown in Figures 4-1 1 and 4-12, silica was
30
-------
consistently removed by, and did not reach complete breakthrough from, the oxidation and adsorption
columns throughout the first six months of system operation. At 12,000 BVs, well after the arsenic
removal capacity was completely spent, the oxidation columns and the lead adsorption columns continued
to show some capacity for silica removal. Of the other competitive anions, both media showed little or no
removal capacity for sulfate or alkalinity, but did remove fluoride from about 0.5 mg/L to < 0.1 mg/L
initially (Figure 4-13). Fluoride completely broke through the oxidation and lead adsorption columns at
700 and 2,000 BVs, respectively, and exhibited similar characteristics of the chromatographic effect
observed for arsenic.
Aluminum. Total aluminum concentrations in source water averaged 12.7 |o,g/L with aluminum existing
mainly in particulate form. Concentrations of aluminum, primarily in soluble form, in the treated water
following the oxidation columns were about 20 to 30 |o,g/L higher than those in raw water, indicating
leaching of aluminum from both the oxidizing media. Initially, the aluminum concentrations following
the oxidation columns were consistently higher than those following the adsorption columns (Figures
4-14 and 4-15), suggesting that the adsorptive media was removing some of the aluminum introduced by
the oxidation media. After about 5,000 BVs, this trend discontinued and the aluminum concentrations
follow both media were about the same. This observation indicated that aluminum leaching occurred
primarily from the oxidation columns, but not from adsorption columns. Even with the increase in
aluminum concentration following the treatment system, the concentrations were still below the
secondary drinking water standard for aluminum of 50 to 200 |o,g/L. Leaching of aluminum continued
throughout the study period.
Iron and Manganese. With the exception of only a few data points, iron concentrations, both total and
dissolved, were less than the detection limit of 25 |o,g/L in the source water and across the treatment trains
(Table 4-5). Manganese concentrations in source water were also low, ranging from 7.3 to 21.9 |o,g/L and
averaging 11.0 |og/L. Manganese concentrations in the treated water following the oxidation columns
typically were below the detection limit (<0.1 ng/L), indicating complete removal of manganese by
oxidizing and adsorptive media.
Other Water Quality Parameters. The results for DO and ORP remained fairly consistent throughout the
treatment train, appearing unaffected by the As/1400CS system. Orthophosphate (as PO4) was less than
the detection limit (<0.05 mg/L) for all samples. Total hardness ranged from 36.7 to 87.0 mg/L as
CaCO3, and remained constant across the treatment train.
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution water samples were collected at two LCR and one non-LCR residences on
December 15, 2004; January 10, 2005; February 2, 2005; and February 23, 2005. Following the
installation of the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same
three sampling locations. The results of the distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-7.
As expected, prior to the installation of the arsenic adsorption system, arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system were similar to those measured in raw water, ranging from 29.9 to 40.0 |o,g/L. After
the treatment system was installed and put into service, arsenic concentrations in the distribution system
decreased significantly and closely mirrored those measured after the treatment system. As the arsenic
concentrations increased after the last set of adsorption columns, the concentrations in the distribution
system correspondingly increased.
Similar to those in raw water, iron and manganese concentrations were low in the distribution system.
Lead and copper values were also low and did not appear to be affected by the treatment system. The pH
and alkalinity also remained fairly constant throughout the distribution sampling.
31
-------
O)
20-
18-
16 -
14-
§ 12
0)
u
8
CM
O
10 -
6-
2 -
0-
20-
18-
16 -
14 -
O)
§ 12
10 -
6-
2 -
0-
-OA
-X-TA
-TT
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-11. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train A
-OB -K-TB
-TT
8 10 12
BedVolumes(x103)
14
16
18
20
Figure 4-12. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Train B
32
-------
Fluoride
10 12 14 16
Bed Volumes (A103)
18 20
Alkalinity
"3) 60
-IN -B-OAandOB -*-TAandTB -*-TT
8 10 12 14 16
Bed Volumes (A103)
Sulfate
£ 20-
"5
in
-IN -B-OAandOB -x-TAandTB -*-TT
8 10 12
Bed Volumes (A103)
14 16 18 20
Figure 4-13. Fluoride, Alkalinity, and Sulfate Concentrations Across Both Treatment Trains
33
-------
60
50 -
IN -B-OA -H-TA -»-TC -A-TE
2 4 6 8 10 12
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-14. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Treatment Train A
60
50 -
-IN -m-OB -X-TB -^TD -A-TF
O) 40
BedVolumes(x103)
Figure 4-15. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Treatment Train B
34
-------
Table 4-7. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Location
Treatment
Effluent
Sampling Event
Sampling Date
(pg/
CaCO3)
mg/
(a) Baseline sampling prior to system installation
DS = Distribution sampling
NS = Not sampled
Lead action level =15 ug/L; copper action level =1.3
mg/L
-------
The aluminum concentrations in all baseline samples were below the detection limit of 10 (ig/L. After the
system was installed, the aluminum concentrations were as high as 39.7 (ig/L, similar to the
concentrations observed after the treatment system. As mentioned previously, since the A/P Complex
2002 oxidaion media and the A/I Complex 2000 adsorption media are alumina-based, it can be expected
that the media would contribute some aluminum to the water during treatment. The high pH values
probably played a role as aluminum is more soluble at higher pH values than near neutral pH values.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of the capital cost for the
equipment, site engineering, and installation, and the O&M cost for 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 not included in the scope of the
demonstration project and 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 4-8). The equipment cost was $10,790 (or 65% of the total capital investment), which
included $4,900 for the treatment system mechanical hardware, $960 for 3 ft3 of the A/P Complex 2002
oxidizing media (i.e., $320/ft3 or $6.15/lb), $2,880 for 9 ft3 of the A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media (i.e.,
$320/ft3 or $5.82/lb), and $2,050 for the vendor's labor and freight.
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
4.3.1). 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 4.3.3). The installation, which was performed by ATS, cost $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/year 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. In fact, the
system operated an average of 3.4 hr/day at just over 10 gpm (Table 4-4), producing approximately
480,000 gal of water during the six-month period. At this reduced rate of operation, the unit capital cost
increased to $1.62/1,000 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 4-9. For this
demonstration study, the treatment system was allowed to continue to operate until the system reached
complete arsenic breakthrough. Therefore, the media was not replaced during the six-month period.
Based on the vendor quote, it would cost $1,550 for replacement of media, spent media disposal, and
shipping to replace two adsorption or oxidation columns and $915 for labor and travel. Assuming that the
labor and travel cost was fixed, it would cost $2,465, $4,015, and $5,565 for replacing two, four, or six
columns, respectively (Table 4-9). By averaging the one-time media replacement cost over the life of the
36
-------
Table 4-8. Capital Investment for As/1400CS Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Oxidizing Media Columns
A/P Complex 2002 Oxidizing Media (ft3)
Adsorptive Media Columns
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media (ft3)
25-um Sediment Filters
Pressure Tank and Booster Pump
Piping and Valves
Flow Totalizer/Meter
Hour Meter
Procurement, Assembly, Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
2
3
6
9
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
-
$240
$960
$720
$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 Supplies/Parts
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
1
10
10
3
2
-
-
-
$500
$200
$1,300
$850
$225
$710
$100
$3,885
$16,475
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24%
100%
media, the cost per 1,000 gal of water treated was plotted as a function of the media run length in BVs or
the system throughput in gallons (see Figure 4-16). Because the oxidation column might not be replaced
at the same time as the adsorptive media, the unit replacement cost can be estimated separately from the
cost curve for 2 columns. Note that the media BVs were calculated based on the quantity of media in one
column (i.e., 1.5 ft3 or 11.2 gal of media). When converting from BVs to the system throughput, the
media run length was multiplied by 22.4 gal/BV to account for two treatment trains.
The arsenic breakthrough curves of the A/I Complex 2000 media exhibited a sharp adsorption front, as
shown in Figures 4-9 and 4-10. When the effluent from the third adsorption column in each train reached
10 ng/L breakthrough after treating about 336,000 gal (or 15,000 BVs) of water, the adsorptive media in
the first two columns had completely exhausted its arsenic adsorptive capacity. Should the four columns
be changed-out at this time, the media replacement cost would be $4,015, corresponding to $11.95/
1,000 gal. However, the subsequent service run with the third columns being moved up to the lead
position and followed by two virgin columns being placed in the lag positions, the run length for the
entire train would be shorter than the initial run (i.e., less than 15,000 BVs) due to the partially exhausted
lead columns. Therefore, it would require more frequent change-out and a higher unit replacement cost.
To reduce the change-out frequency and the associated scheduling and coordinating effort, it might be
more cost-effective and convenient, in the long run, to replace the media in all six columns altogether. In
37
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
480,000
Assumptions
Through September 9, 2005
Media Replacement and Disposal
Number of Columns Replaced
Media Replacement and Disposal ($)
Labor and Travel ($)
Subtotal ($)
Media Replacement and Disposal Cost
($71,000 gal)
2
1,550
915
2,465
4
3,100
915
4,015
6
4,650
915
5,565
See Figure 4-15
$755/column or $5 17/ft3 of media
Same cost for changing out of 2, 4,
or 6 columns
Chemical Supply
Chemical Supply ($71,000 gal)
0.00
No chemical addition performed
Electricity Consumption
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical cost negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M Cost ($71,000 gal)
1
540
1.13
20 min/day, 3 day/week
27 hr x $20/hr, labor rate = $20/hr
-
Adsorptive media replacement + oxidizing media replacement +1.13
g.
8
$50.00
$40.00 -
$30.00 -
$20.00
$10.00 -
$0.00
112
\
System Throughput (x1,000 gal)
224 336 448
560
Replacement of 6 Columns
Replacement of 4 Columns
- - - Replacement of 2 Columns
\
\
672
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Media Working Capacity (x1,000 Bed Volumes)
Note: 1 Bed Volume = 1.5 cubic feet = 11.2 gal (one train only)
25
30
Figure 4-16. Media Replacement Cost Curves
38
-------
this case, the replacement cost would increase to $5,565 or $16.56/1,000 gal for six columns. Less
change-out frequency could save labor, travel, and administrative cost.
No chemical cost was incurred. Comparison of electrical bills before and after system installation and
startup did not indicate any noticeable increase in power consumption. Therefore, the electrical cost
associated with the system operation was negligible. The routine, non-demonstration-related labor
activities consumed about 20 min/day, 3 day/week as noted in Section 4.4.4. Therefore, the estimated
labor cost was $1.13/1,000 gal of water treated (Table 4-9).
39
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Aquatic Treatment Systems. 2005. Operations & Maintenance Manual, As/1400CS Duplex Arsenic
Removal System, SpringbrookMobile Home Park, Wales, ME. March.
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
September 17.
Battelle. 2005. Final System Performance Evaluation Study Plan: U.S. EPA Demonstration of Arsenic
Removal Technology at Wales, Maine. Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order
No. 0029 for U.S. EPA NRMRL. January 6.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. 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. EPA NRMRL, 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 (March): 103-113.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed.
Register, 66:14:6975. January 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting
Guidance for Public Water Systems. Prepared by U.S. EPA's Office of Water. EPA/816/R-
02/009. February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. March 25.
Wang, L., W. Condit, and A. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA Arsenic
Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round I. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
Weber, W. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. Wiley-Interscience, New
York.
40
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Summary of Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Date
3/7/2005
3/8/2005
3/9/2005
3/1 0/2005
3/11/2005
3/1 2/2005
3/1 3/2005
3/1 4/2005
3/1 5/2005
3/1 6/2005
3/1 7/2005
3/1 8/2005
3/1 9/2005
3/20/2005
3/21/2005
3/22/2005
3/23/2005
3/24/2005
3/25/2005
3/26/2005
3/27/2005
3/28/2005
3/29/2005
3/30/2005
3/31/2005
4/1/2005
4/2/2005
4/3/2005
4/4/2005
4/5/2005
4/6/2005
4/7/2005
4/8/2005
4/9/2005
4/1 0/2005
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
4.3
4.8
5.3
5.8
6.3
6.9
7.8
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.8
10.5
10.6
11.8
11.9
12.5
15.1
16.5
17.1
18.2
19.5
NM
22.1
22.5
24.7
25.2
25.5
27.3
31.2
34
NM
43.1
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
NM
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.90
0.50
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.90
0.70
0.10
1.20
0.10
0.60
2.60
1.40
0.60
1.10
1.30
NM
2.60
0.40
2.20
0.50
0.30
1.80
3.90
2.80
NM
9.10
Treatment Train A
Flowrate
gpm
NM
2.12
0.57
0.91
1.41
0.63
6.21
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.44
0.00
1.33
1.64
5.29
3.04
2.48
3.31
2.38
4.06
2.69
2.58
3.46
3.93
NM
5.20
5.16
4.71
5.12
4.90
5.21
5.01
5.35
NM
5.38
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
4438
5963
7250
8571
10061
11250
13150
13659
14866
16057
16867
17871
18964
20228
21610
22557
24239
25158
26483
28197
29395
30453
31584
32801
NM
35536
36048
38038
39017
39950
41049
42371
43319
NM
46305
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
396
531
646
764
897
1003
1172
1217
1325
1431
1503
1593
1690
1803
1926
2010
2160
2242
2360
2513
2620
2714
2815
2923
NM
3167
3213
3390
3477
3561
3659
3776
3861
NM
4127
Treatment Train B
Flowrate
gpm
NM
2.20
0.54
1.01
1.70
0.60
6.35
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.43
0.00
1.32
1.82
5.42
3.47
2.80
3.42
2.40
4.13
2.81
2.72
3.65
4.07
NM
5.33
5.72
4.96
5.24
4.98
5.48
5.19
5.46
NM
5.48
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
4464
5981
7266
8590
10082
11301
13190
13696
14910
16109
16922
17936
19040
20312
21723
22694
24415
25351
26705
28450
29689
30129
31950
33208
NM
35060
36557
38610
39621
40175
41734
43086
44053
NM
47089
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
398
533
648
766
899
1007
1176
1221
1329
1436
1508
1599
1697
1810
1936
2023
2176
2259
2380
2536
2646
2685
2848
2960
NM
3125
3258
3441
3531
3581
3720
3840
3926
NM
4197
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
8902
11944
14516
17161
20143
22551
26340
27355
29776
32166
33789
35807
38004
40540
43333
45251
48654
50509
53188
56647
59084
60582
63534
66009
NM
70596
72605
76648
78638
80125
82783
85457
87372
NM
93394
Total
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
397
532
647
765
898
1005
1174
1219
1327
1433
1506
1596
1694
1807
1931
2017
2168
2251
2370
2524
2633
2700
2831
2942
NM
3146
3236
3416
3504
3571
3689
3808
3894
NM
4162
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.4
11.4
NM
11.0
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Summary of Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
6
7
8
9
10
Date
4/11/2005
4/1 2/2005
4/1 3/2005
4/1 4/2005
4/1 5/2005
4/1 6/2005
4/1 7/2005
4/1 8/2005
4/1 9/2005
4/20/2005
4/21/2005
4/22/2005
4/23/2005
4/24/2005
4/25/2005
4/26/2005
4/27/2005
4/28/2005
4/29/2005
4/30/2005
5/1/2005
5/2/2005
5/3/2005
5/4/2005
5/5/2005
5/6/2005
5/7/2005
5/8/2005
5/9/2005
5/1 0/2005
5/11/2005
5/1 2/2005
5/1 3/2005
5/1 4/2005
5/1 5/2005
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
46.4
48.6
54.2
57
58.7
NM
NM
74.2
78
84
87.8
NM
NM
100.6
106.3
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
137.8
142
NM
148.5
NM
163.6
NM
170.9
NM
177.7
178.9
NM
NM
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
3.30
2.20
5.60
2.80
1.70
NM
NM
15.50
3.80
6.00
3.80
NM
NM
12.80
5.70
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
31.50
4.20
NM
6.50
NM
15.10
NM
7.30
NM
6.80
1.20
NM
NM
Treatment Train A
Flowrate
gpm
5.35
5.68
5.19
5.23
5.07
NM
NM
5.42
5.01
5.28
4.96
NM
NM
5.16
5.14
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.27
5.21
NM
4.88
NM
4.91
NM
4.90
NM
4.25
5.01
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
47400
48118
49994
50969
51512
NM
NM
56596
57826
58929
60166
NM
NM
64289
66153
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
76529
77895
NM
80034
NM
85038
NM
87516
NM
89777
90183
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
4225
4289
4456
4543
4591
NM
NM
5044
5154
5252
5362
NM
NM
5730
5896
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6821
6943
NM
7133
NM
7579
NM
7800
NM
8002
8038
NM
NM
Treatment Train B
Flowrate
gpm
5.44
5.79
5.30
5.30
5.07
NM
NM
5.49
5.14
5.42
5.08
NM
NM
5.27
5.27
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.40
5.35
NM
4.93
NM
4.97
NM
4.96
NM
4.82
5.07
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
48203
48931
50840
51833
52386
NM
NM
57558
58816
59964
61246
NM
NM
65495
67413
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
77956
79342
NM
81512
NM
86587
NM
89088
NM
91376
91805
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
4296
4361
4531
4620
4669
NM
NM
5130
5242
5344
5459
NM
NM
5837
6008
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6948
7071
NM
7265
NM
7717
NM
7940
NM
8144
8182
NM
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
95603
97049
1 00834
1 02802
1 03898
NM
NM
114154
116642
1 1 8893
121412
NM
NM
129784
133566
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
154485
157237
NM
161546
NM
171625
NM
176604
NM
181153
181988
NM
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
4260
4325
4493
4581
4630
NM
NM
5087
5198
5298
5411
NM
NM
5784
5952
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6884
7007
NM
7199
NM
7648
NM
7870
NM
8073
8110
NM
NM
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
11.2
11.0
11.3
11.7
10.7
NM
NM
11.0
10.9
6.3
11.0
NM
NM
10.9
11.1
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.1
10.9
NM
11.0
NM
11.1
NM
11.4
NM
11.1
11.6
NM
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Summary of Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
11
12
13
14
15
Date
5/1 6/2005
5/1 7/2005
5/1 8/2005
5/1 9/2005
5/20/2005
5/21/2005
5/22/2005
5/23/2005
5/24/2005
5/25/2005
5/26/2005
5/27/2005
5/28/2005
5/29/2005
5/30/2005
5/31/2005
6/1/2005
6/2/2005
6/3/2005
6/4/2005
6/5/2005
6/6/2005
6/7/2005
6/8/2005
6/9/2005
6/10/2005
6/11/2005
6/12/2005
6/13/2005
6/1 4/2005
6/1 5/2005
6/16/2005
6/17/2005
6/1 8/2005
6/19/2005
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
190.4
193
NM
202.1
204.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
227.7
230.9
NM
NM
NM
247.6
250.1
255.6
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
279.3
281.5
284.6
NM
294.8
NM
NM
305.7
NM
NM
317.7
NM
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
11.50
2.60
NM
9.10
2.40
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
23.20
3.20
NM
NM
NM
16.70
2.50
5.50
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
23.70
2.20
3.10
NM
10.20
NM
NM
10.90
NM
NM
12.00
NM
Treatment Train A
Flowrate
gpm
4.96
5.01
NM
5.14
4.81
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.58
4.88
NM
NM
NM
4.84
5.08
5.05
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.38
5.27
5.16
NM
5.21
NM
NM
5.13
NM
NM
5.10
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
94018
94879
NM
97874
98663
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
106414
107484
NM
NM
NM
113096
113961
115791
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
123612
1 24322
1 25374
NM
1 28721
NM
NM
132261
NM
NM
136265
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
8380
8456
NM
8723
8793
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
9484
9580
NM
NM
NM
10080
10157
10320
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11017
11080
11174
NM
11472
NM
NM
11788
NM
NM
12145
NM
Treatment Train B
Flowrate
gpm
5.01
5.07
NM
5.32
4.85
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.64
4.93
NM
NM
NM
4.86
5.13
5.15
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.46
5.32
5.20
NM
5.25
NM
NM
5.21
NM
NM
5.21
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
95677
96555
NM
99578
1 00381
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
1 08223
1 09304
NM
NM
NM
1 1 4974
115848
117697
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
125611
126330
127395
NM
130785
NM
NM
1 34370
NM
NM
1 38422
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
8527
8606
NM
8875
8947
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
9646
9742
NM
NM
NM
10247
10325
10490
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11195
11259
11354
NM
11656
NM
NM
11976
NM
NM
12337
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
1 89695
1 91 434
NM
1 97452
1 99044
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
214637
216788
NM
NM
NM
228070
229809
233488
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
249223
250652
252769
NM
259506
NM
NM
266631
NM
NM
274687
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
8453
8531
NM
8799
8870
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
9565
9661
NM
NM
NM
10164
10241
10405
NM
NM
NM
NM
-
11106
11170
11264
NM
11564
NM
NM
11882
NM
NM
12241
NM
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
11.2
11.1
NM
11.0
11.1
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.2
11.2
NM
NM
NM
11.3
11.6
11.1
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.1
10.8
11.4
NM
11.0
NM
NM
10.9
NM
NM
11.2
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Summary of Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
16
17
18
19
20
Date
6/20/2005
6/21/2005
6/22/2005
6/23/2005
6/24/2005
6/25/2005
6/26/2005
6/27/2005
6/28/2005
6/29/2005
6/30/2005
7/1/2005
7/2/2005
7/3/2005
7/4/2005
7/5/2005
7/6/2005
7/7/2005
7/8/2005
7/9/2005
7/1 0/2005
7/11/2005
7/1 2/2005
7/1 3/2005
7/1 4/2005
7/1 5/2005
7/16/2005
7/17/2005
7/18/2005
7/19/2005
7/20/2005
7/21/2005
7/22/2005
7/23/2005
7/24/2005
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
NM
NM
336.9
NM
348.3
NM
NM
NM
NM
370.8
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
403.7
409
418.3
NM
NM
NM
NM
438.4
443.6
447.5
NM
NM
NM
465
NM
NM
475.1
NM
NM
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
NM
NM
19.20
NM
11.40
NM
NM
NM
NM
22.50
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
32.90
5.30
9.30
NM
NM
NM
NM
20.10
5.20
3.90
NM
NM
NM
17.50
NM
NM
10.10
NM
NM
Treatment Train A
Flowrate
gpm
NM
NM
5.12
NM
4.80
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.07
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.10
5.53
5.07
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.29
5.21
5.04
NM
NM
NM
5.10
NM
NM
5.13
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
142571
NM
146227
NM
NM
NM
NM
153568
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
164281
166018
168976
NM
NM
NM
NM
175659
177369
178686
NM
NM
NM
184403
NM
NM
187745
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
NM
12707
NM
13033
NM
NM
NM
NM
13687
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
14642
14797
15060
NM
NM
NM
NM
15656
15808
15926
NM
NM
NM
16435
NM
NM
16733
NM
NM
Treatment Train B
Flowrate
gpm
NM
NM
5.20
NM
4.81
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.10
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.14
5.44
5.12
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.31
5.27
5.09
NM
NM
NM
5.19
NM
NM
5.19
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
144805
NM
1 48499
NM
NM
NM
NM
1 55922
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
166753
168512
1 71 505
NM
NM
NM
NM
1 78264
1 78997
1 81 329
NM
NM
NM
187111
NM
NM
1 90489
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
NM
12906
NM
13235
NM
NM
NM
NM
13897
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
14862
15019
15286
NM
NM
NM
NM
15888
15953
16161
NM
NM
NM
16677
NM
NM
16978
NM
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
287376
NM
294726
NM
NM
NM
NM
309490
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
331034
334530
340481
NM
NM
NM
NM
353923
356366
360015
NM
NM
NM
371514
NM
NM
378234
NM
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
NM
12806
NM
13134
NM
NM
NM
NM
13792
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
14752
14908
15173
NM
NM
NM
NM
15772
15881
16043
NM
NM
NM
16556
NM
NM
16855
NM
NM
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NM
NM
11.0
NM
10.7
NM
NM
NM
NM
10.9
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
10.9
11.0
10.7
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.1
7.8
15.6
NM
NM
NM
11.0
NM
NM
11.1
NM
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Summary of Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
21
22
23
24
25
Date
7/25/2005
7/26/2005
7/27/2005
7/28/2005
7/29/2005
7/30/2005
7/31/2005
8/1/2005
8/2/2005
8/3/2005
8/4/2005
8/5/2005
8/6/2005
8/7/2005
8/8/2005
8/9/2005
8/10/2005
8/11/2005
8/1 2/2005
8/1 3/2005
8/1 4/2005
8/1 5/2005
8/1 6/2005
8/1 7/2005
8/1 8/2005
8/1 9/2005
8/20/2005
8/21/2005
8/22/2005
8/23/2005
8/24/2005
8/25/2005
8/26/2005
8/27/2005
8/28/2005
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
NM
NM
493.6
NM
NM
NM
NM
507.6
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
532.7
534.9
NM
NM
544.2
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
565.6
NM
577.9
NM
NM
583.7
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
NM
NM
18.50
NM
NM
NM
NM
14.00
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
25.10
2.20
NM
NM
9.30
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
21.40
NM
12.30
NM
NM
5.80
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Treatment Train A
Flowrate
gpm
NM
NM
4.95
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.95
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.05
4.97
NM
NM
5.18
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.24
NM
5.14
NM
NM
5.31
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
1 93897
NM
NM
NM
NM
198613
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
2071 63
207890
NM
NM
211033
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
21 8229
NM
222369
NM
NM
224295
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
NM
17281
NM
NM
NM
NM
17702
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
18464
18529
NM
NM
18809
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
19450
NM
19819
NM
NM
19991
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Treatment Train B
Flowrate
gpm
NM
NM
5.04
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.04
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.12
4.99
NM
NM
5.26
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.27
NM
5.08
NM
NM
5.33
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
196705
NM
NM
NM
NM
201 477
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
210114
21 0847
NM
NM
214021
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
221 265
NM
225445
NM
NM
227398
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
NM
17532
NM
NM
NM
NM
17957
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
18727
18792
NM
NM
19075
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
19721
NM
20093
NM
NM
20267
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
390602
NM
NM
NM
NM
400090
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
41 7277
41 8737
NM
NM
425054
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
439494
NM
447814
NM
NM
451693
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
NM
17407
NM
NM
NM
NM
17829
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
18595
18660
NM
NM
18942
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
19585
NM
19956
NM
NM
20129
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NM
NM
11.1
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.3
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.4
11.1
NM
NM
11.3
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.2
NM
11.3
NM
NM
11.1
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration at SBMHP in Wales, ME - Summary of Daily System Operational Data
Week
No.
26
27
Date
8/29/2005
8/30/2005
8/31/2005
9/1/2005
9/2/2005
9/3/2005
9/4/2005
9/5/2005
9/6/2005
9/7/2005
9/8/2005
9/9/2005
9/1 0/2005
9/11/2005
Booster Pump
Hour Meter
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
NM
606.6
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
629.4
NM
NM
637.8
NM
NM
Avg
Operation
Time
hr
NM
22.90
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
22.80
NM
NM
8.40
NM
NM
Treatment Train A
Flowrate
gpm
NM
5.10
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.25
NM
NM
5.16
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
232034
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
239858
NM
NM
242801
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
20680
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
21378
NM
NM
21640
NM
NM
Treatment Train B
Flowrate
gpm
NM
5.19
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.32
NM
NM
5.23
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
235225
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
243155
NM
NM
246138
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
20965
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
21672
NM
NM
21937
NM
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
467259
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
48301 3
NM
NM
488939
NM
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed Volume
Treated
BV
NM
20823
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
21525
NM
NM
21789
NM
NM
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
NM
11.3
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
11.5
NM
NM
11.8
NM
NM
NOTES:
1 bed volume = 1.5 ft
NM= not measured
NA= not available
.3 _
= 11.22 gallons
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
-------
Analytical Results
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
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
10A3
mg/L">
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
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
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),
-------
Analytical Results
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
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
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<"
mg/L(a)
mg/L<"
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
-------
Analytical Results
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
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
10A3
mg/L«
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(b>
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L<"
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
-------
Analytical Results
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
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
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
07/13/05
IN
-
66
0.5
20
<5
0.06
<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
-
0.18
<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
-
0.26
<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
-
0.18
<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
-
0.24
<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
-
07/27/05
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
17.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45.6
39.2
6.4
42.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
34.0
-
TD
17.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
(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
-------
Analytical Results
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
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
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("
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
08/09/05
IN
-
66
0.5
21
<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
-
<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
21
-
<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
21
-
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
21
-
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
18.7
63
0.5
21
-
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
-
08/24/05
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
20.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
(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), TF. = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train A), TF = After Third Adsorption Column in Series (Train B),
TT = After the Entire System
------- |