EPA/600/R-06/094
October 2006
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Point of Use Reverse Osmosis
EPA Demonstration Project at Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Gary M. Lewis
Lili Wang
Abraham S.C. Chen
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
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
-------
ABSTRACT
The treatment system at Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID, consisted of one Point of Use
(POU) reverse osmosis (RO) unit each at nine participating residences to remove arsenic, nitrate, and
uranium from source water. Softening of source water was performed as pretreatment to meet the feed
water quality requirements for the RO units. Six Point of Entry (POE) softeners and nine POU RO units
were provided by Kinetico. Each POU RO unit consisted of a 20-(im pre-filter, a RO module with a 1.7-
in-diameter by 11-in-tall, thin film composite, semi-permeable membrane element, a 3-gal storage tank,
and a MACguard post-filter. The RO units were capable of producing up to 35.5 gal/day (gpd) of
permeate water and had a feed water to permeate water ratio of 2.7 to 1, a 37% recovery rating. The RO
units automatically shut down the production after 500 gal of permeate water have been processed and
resume operation only after the replacement of pre- and post-filters.
The POU RO units began regular operation on July 15, 2005. The types of data collected included
volume of permeate water produced, quality of feed, permeate, and reject water, required system
operation and maintenance (O&M), and capital and O&M cost. Through the period of July 15, 2005, to
January 17, 2006, one residence used 242 gal of water from the RO tap; another residence used 500 gal of
water and the pre- and post-filters had to be replaced before the unit resumed operation. The rest of seven
units were not tracked for water usage, but had not reached the 500-gal level.
Arsenic speciation results indicated that As(V) was the predominant species in raw water, ranging from
49.5 to 56.4 (ig/L. Only a trace amount of As(III) existed, ranging from 1.7 to 2.9 and averaging 2.2
(ig/L. As expected, the softeners did not remove any arsenic, but reduced the water hardness from 232-
247 mg/L (as CaCO3) to an average of 0.5 mg/L (as CaCO3). Total arsenic concentrations in the
permeate water were less than 0.1 (ig/L for all samples except for two at 5.1 and 8.7 (ig/L. Based on the
average arsenic concentrations in the feed and permeate water, the RO units achieved higher than 99%
removal efficiency for arsenic.
Nitrate was consistently removed by the RO units from an average of 10.1 mg/L (as N) in raw water to an
average of 0.8 mg/L (as N) in the permeate water, representing a 94% reduction. Uranium was removed
from 24.3 to 31.0 (ig/L in raw water to below 0.1 (ig/L in the permeate water. In addition, the RO units
achieved 100% removal for iron, 99% for vanadium, 96% for silica, and 97% for total dissolved solids
(TDS). pH values also were reduced to 6.5-6.7, due to the reduction of alkalinity by the RO units.
Regeneration brine waste from the softener and reject water from the RO units were discharged to the
septic tank at each residence. The RO reject water contained 56 to 92 (ig/L of arsenic, 11 to 16 mg/L (as
N) of nitrate, 27 to 42 (ig/L of uranium, and 892 to 1,060 mg/L of TDS. The mass balance across the RO
unit was calculated for total arsenic and nitrate for each sampling event. During the first six months, the
mass balance ranged from 66% to 114% for total arsenic and from 83% to 99% for nitrate.
Operational problems encountered during the reporting period included water pulsing from the faucet,
incorrect outlet elbow installation, water quality monitor malfunction, and a loose wire on the TDS
monitor indicator light. These problems were corrected promptly by the vendor and have not re-occurred;
any cost incurred was covered under warranty.
The capital investment for this project was $31,877.50, including $21,732.50 for equipment and $10,145
for installation. Each water softener cost $2,395, including $1,585 for equipment and $810 for
installation. Each RO unit cost $1,220, including $1,025 for equipment and $195 for installation. O&M
cost per household during a six-month period was near $144 or $24/month, which included salt usage and
RO filter replacement. Neither electricity nor labor cost was incurred because the water softener and the
RO unit did not consume electricity and did not require a treatment-level certified operator.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vi
TABLES vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 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 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 7
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.3 Reject Water Sample Collection 7
3.4 Sampling Logistics 9
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 9
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 9
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 9
3.5 Analytical Procedures 9
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
4.1 Facility Description 11
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 12
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality 14
4.1.3 Wastewater Disposal 14
4.2 Treatment Process Description 14
4.2.1 Water Softener 14
4.2.2 RO Plus Deluxe Unit 15
4.3 System Permitting Installation 18
4.3.1 Permitting 18
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 19
4.4 System Operation 19
4.4.1 Permeate Water Production 19
4.4.2 Reject Water Production 20
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 21
4.5 System Performance 22
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 22
4.5.2 Reject Water Sampling 29
4.5.3 Mass Balance Calculation 31
4.6 System Costs 33
4.6.1 Capital Cost 33
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 33
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
.35
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Central Pump House at the Sunset Ranch Development Site 11
Figure 4-2. Plumbing from Well and Sample Tap at the Sunset Ranch Development Site 12
Figure 4-3. Schematic of Kinetico's POE Water Softener and POU RO Unit 15
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for the Sunset Ranch Development 16
Figure 4-5. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener 17
Figure 4-6. Under-the-Sink RO Plus Deluxe Unit 19
Figure 4-7. RO Totalizer Readings at Rl Residence 21
Figure 4-8. Total Arsenic Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 23
Figure 4-9. Nitrate Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 24
Figure 4-10. Uranium Concentrations at Rl Residence 24
Figure 4-11. Vanadium Concentrations atRl Residence 25
Figure 4-12. TDS Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 25
Figure 4-13. pH Levels atRl Residence 26
Figure 4-14. Total Silica Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 29
Figure 4-15. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance at Rl Residence 32
Figure 4-16. Monthly Nitrate (asN) Mass Balance atRl Residence 32
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 Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 6
Table 3 -3. Sampling and Analysis Schedule for the Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID 8
Table 4-1. Sunset Ranch Development Water Quality Data (Well 3370032) 13
Table 4-2. Water Softener Systems at Participating Sunset Ranch Development Homes 15
Table 4-3. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener Performance Specifications 18
Table 4-4. Kinetico RO Plus Deluxe Unit Performance Specifications 20
Table 4-5. Summary of Kinetico Service Report 21
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Nitrate, Uranium, Vanadium, and TDS Results at Sunset Ranch
Development 23
Table 4-7. Speciation Sampling Results atRl Residence 26
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements at Sunset Ranch Development 28
Table 4-9. Reject Water Sampling Results 30
Table 4-10. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance 31
Table 4-11. Monthly Nitrate (as N) Mass Balance 31
Table 4-12. Summary of Capital Investment 33
Table 4-13. Summary of O&M Cost 34
VI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
IX ion exchange
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MDWCA Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
mg/L milligrams per liter
|o,g/L micrograms per liter
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NA not applicable
ND not detected
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NO2 nitrite
NO nitrate
vn
-------
NSF NSF International
NTU nephlemetric turbidity units
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PO4 orthophosphate
POC point of contact
POE point of entry
POU point of use
psi pounds per square inch
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
STS Severn Trent Services
TDS total dissolved solids
TO Task Order
TOC total organic carbon
U uranium
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compound
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the president and homeowners of the Sunset
Ranch Development in Homedale, ID. They assisted in monitoring the system's performance and
collected samples regularly from nine point-of-use reverse osmosis units throughout this study period.
This performance evaluation study would not have been possible without their support and dedication.
IX
-------
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 estab-
lished 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 sites to be the host sites for the
demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for the demonstration at each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical
reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were selected for the Round 1 demonstration program. Using the
information provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water
programs of the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of July 2006, 11 of the
12 systems have been operational and the performance evaluations of two systems have been completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID, was one of them.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 potential host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. In December 2004, the point-of-use (POU) reverse osmosis (RO)
treatment technology from Kinetico was selected for demonstration at the Sunset Ranch Development site
in Homedale, ID.
-------
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 (including 3 AM systems at the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site), 13
coagulation/ filtration systems, 2 ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 POU units (including 9 residential RO
units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and 8 AM units at the OIT site), and 1 system modification.
Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors, system flowrates, and key source water
quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) at the 40 demonstration sites. An overview of the
technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1 sites has been provided in an EPA report
(Wang et al., 2004). The capital costs of the 12 Round 1 systems have been discussed in a separate EPA
report (Chen et al., 2004). Both reports are posted on the EPA's Web site at 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 results gathered during the first six months of Kinetico's POU RO system
operation from July 15, 2005, through January 17, 2006, at the Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale,
ID. The types of data collected included system operational data, water quality data, 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
Oig/L)
Fe
Oig/L)
pH
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Queen Anne's County, MD
Buckeye Lake, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company Public
Water System
Orchard Highlands
Rollinsford
Charette Mobile Home Park
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
70«?
10
100
22
375
300
10
150
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,312(b)
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
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
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)
System Modification
STS
Kinetico
USFilter
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14w
13W
16W
20W
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466W
l,387(b)
1,499W
7827W
546W
1,470W
3,078(b)
l,344(b)
1,325W
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
Sells, 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 MDWCA
Nambe Pueblo
Town of Taos
Rimrock
Tohono O'odham Nation
Valley Vista
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
90(e>
50
37
20
35W
19(a)
56(a)
45
23W
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
STMGID
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service
District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POURO(C)
C/F (Electromedia II)
AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenX)
IX (A520)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kenetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75 gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69(b)
<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
MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association; STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
AM = adsorptive media; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; IX = ion exchange; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; STS = Severn Trent Services; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
(a) Arsenic exists mostly as As(III).
(b) Iron exists mostly as Fe(II).
(c) Consisted of nine 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.
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
Nine residential POU RO units were installed at Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID, on July 1,
2005, and were put into use on July 15, 2005. Water softening was performed as a pretreatment to
prevent scaling of the RO membranes. Based on the information collected during the first six months of
operation, the following preliminary conclusions were made relating to the overall project objectives.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems
The RO units effectively reduced total arsenic from 56.1 (ig/L (on average) in raw water to
less than 0.1 (ig/L in the permeate water for all but two samples (i.e., 5.1 and 8.7 (ig/L),
achieving over 99% removal efficiency for arsenic.
The RO units effectively reduced nitrate from 8.7-11.6 mg/L (as N) in raw water to an
average of 0.8 mg/L (as N) in the permeate water, achieving 92% removal for nitrate.
Uranium was completely removed by the RO units to below 0.1 (ig/L.
The RO units also achieved 97% removal for total dissolved solids (TDS), 100% for iron,
99% for vanadium, and 96% for silica. pH values were reduced to 6.5-6.7 due to the
reduction of alkalinity by the RO units.
Although not effective at removing arsenic or nitrate, the water softeners reduced hardness in
raw water from 232-247 mg/L (as CaCO3) to an average of 0.5 mg/L (as CaCO3) to meet the
RO feed water quality requirements.
Process residuals produced by the technology
The water softener regeneration wastewater and the RO reject water were discharged to the
septic system at individual homes. The RO reject water contained 56 to 92 (ig/L of arsenic,
11 to 16 mg/L (as N) of nitrate, 27 to 42 (ig/L of uranium, and 892 to 1,060 mg/L of TDS.
Required system operation and maintenance
The point of entry (POE) water softeners and POU RO units were designed for residential
use; therefore, the skill requirements to operate both systems were minimal. Each home
required the addition of salt to the water softener periodically and replacement of pre- and
post-filters for the RO unit every six to 12 months.
Capital and O&M cost
For home installation of a water softener and a RO unit, total equipment ($2,610) and
installation ($1,005) cost amounted to $3,615. If the cost of materials and vendor travel was
added, the total cost for each household system was near $4,000.
Only one homeowner used 500 gal of treated water during this six month reporting period.
For this homeowner with the largest water usage, the six month O&M cost for salt usage
($57.50) and filter replacement ($86.50) was $144, or $24 per month.
-------
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 POE/POU systems began on July 15, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and/or
considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was evaluated
based on its ability to consistently meet the target MCL of 10 (ig/L for arsenic and 10 mg/L (as N) for
nitrate. The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the unscheduled system downtime and
frequency and extent of repair and replacement activities. The unscheduled downtime and repair
information were recorded by a designated homeowner on a Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to IDEQ
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit issued by IDEQ
Initial System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
December 1, 2004
February 10, 2005
February 2 1,2005
February 28, 2005
March 15, 2005
April 1, 2005
May 24, 2005
June 10, 2005
June 18, 2005
June 20, 2005
July 1, 2005
July 15, 2005
IDEQ = Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
O&M and Operator Skill
Requirements
System Cost
Residual Management
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 |j,g/L of arsenic and 10
-Unscheduled downtime for system
-Frequency and extent of repairs to include labor hours,
description of materials, and cost of materials
mg/L of nitrate in effluent
problem description,
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for data collection and system operation
-Task analysis of preventative 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 cost for equipment and installation
-O&M cost for salt supply and filter replacement
-Quantity of the residuals generated by the process
-Characteristics of the aqueous and solid residuals
-------
The system O&M and operator skill levels required 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 handling and inventory requirements, and general
knowledge needed for safety requirements and chemical processes. The staffing requirements to maintain
the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The routine O&M activities for the water softeners and RO units included visual inspections of the
systems for leaks or faults and checking for the salt tank levels for the softeners and the TDS monitors for
the RO units. The Residence 1 (Rl) homeowner, who also is the President of the Sunset Ranch
Development and designated point of contact (POC) for this demonstration project, recorded weekly flow
totalizer readings on the RO permeate line. If any problems occurred at any residences, homeowner Rl
would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who would then determine if Kinetico should be contacted for
troubleshooting. Homeowner Rl recorded all relevant information on the Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet. Monthly, homeowner Rl measured pH and temperature using a hand-held meter and recorded the
data on an On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The O&M cost consisted of cost for salt usage for regeneration of the water softeners and replacement of
pre- and post-RO filter cartridges. Labor cost was not included because the treatments systems were
maintained by individual homeowners. Electricity was not required because the treatment systems were
non-electrical and operated by water pressure.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected monthly at the wellhead and after the water
softener and after the RO unit at each of the nine participating homes, and from the reject water discharge
line at the Rl residence. Table 3-3 summarizes the sampling and analysis schedule for 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 site visit on December 1, 2004, one set
of source water samples was collected from the wellhead for detailed water quality analyses (Table 3-3).
The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid
agitation, which might cause unwanted oxidation. An arsenic speciation kit and sample bottles with
appropriate preservatives were used for sample collection.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection. During the system performance study,
homeowner Rl collected monthly water samples at the wellhead (IN), after the water softener (WS), and
after the RO unit (RO) at each of the nine participating homes. The samples were analyzed for the
analytes listed for the monthly treatment system water samples. On-site arsenic speciation also was
performed at the IN and Rl residence's WS and RO sampling locations on a quarterly basis. The samples
were speciated and analyzed for the analytes listed for the quarterly treatment system water samples
(Table 3-3).
3.3.3 Reject Water Sample Collection. Reject water samples were collected monthly at the Rl
residence by the homeowner from a sampling tap on the reject water discharge line leading from
the RO unit to the home septic system. For each sampling event, an unfiltered sample from the RO reject
water line was collected in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene (HOPE) bottle for
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling and Analysis Schedule for Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
System
Water
Reject Water
Sampling
Locations
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN)(a)
After Water Softener
at Nine Homes
(WS1-WS9)
After RO units at
Nine Homes (RO1-
RO9)
At Wellhead (IN)(a)
After Water Softener
at Rl residence
(WS1)
After RO unit at Rl
residence (RO1)
RO Reject Water
Discharge Line at
Rl residence (RW1)
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
19
3
1
Frequency
Once
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthly
Analytes
On-site: pH,
temperature, DO, and
ORP
Off-site: As (total,
soluble, paniculate),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, F, Cl,
NH3 NO2, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, PO4, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site: pH and
temperature (Wellhead
and Rl residence only)
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Ca,
Mg, F, NO3, SO4,
SiO2,PO4, TDS,
turbidity and alkalinity
(total U and V at
Wellhead and Rl
residence only)
On-site: pH and
temperature (Wellhead
and Rl residence only)
Off-site: As (total,
soluble, paniculate),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
and V (total and
soluble)
Off-site: As (total
and/or soluble), Fe
(total and/or soluble),
Mn (total and/or
soluble), U (total
and/or soluble), NO3,
SO4, TDS, turbidity,
andpH
Sampling Date
12/01/05
07/20/05, 08/24/05,
09/20/05, 10/19/05,
11/16/05, 12/14/05,
01/17/06
09/20/05, 12/14/05
07/20/05, 08/24/05,
09/20/05, 10/19/05,
11/16/05, 12/14/05,
01/17/06
(a) One wellhead sample taken monthly at pump house.
-------
water quality analyses, and a 60-mL sample filtered on-site with 0.45-iJm filters in a 125-mL HDPE
bottle preserved with nitric acid for metal analyses. Analytes for the reject water samples are listed in
Table 3-3.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kit 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 uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As (III) (Edwards et al, 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a cooler was prepared with an
appropriate number and type of sample bottles, filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample bottles were
new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-printed, colored-
coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection, collector's
name, site location, where to send the sample, 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 designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary).
The labeled bottles then were grouped separately into ziplock bags according to the sampling locations
and placed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid and addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were packed in the cool-
ers. The chain-of-custody forms and prepaid FedEx air bills were completed with the required
information, except for the operator's signature and the sample date and time. After preparation, sample
coolers were sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. 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 noted by the sample custodians were addressed with the plant operator by the
Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS Laboratory. Samples for other water quality
analyses were packed in coolers at Battelle and picked up by a courier from Battelle's subcontract
laboratories, including American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH. The chain-of-custody
forms remained with the samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All
samples were archived by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold
time, and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by the Battelle ICP-MS Laboratory, AAL, DHL, and TCCI Laboratories. Field measurements
of pH were conducted by homeowner Rl using a WTW Multi 340i hand-held meter, which was
calibrated for pH prior to use following the procedures provided in the user's manual. Homeowner Rl
-------
collected a water sample in a clean plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable
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 separately.
10
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section describes the existing facility and arsenic treatment technology installed at Sunset Ranch
Development in Homedale, ID; it presents the results of the first six months (from July 15, 2005, to
January 17, 2006) of the performance evaluation of the POU RO units and discusses the system
reliability, O&M requirements, and system cost.
4.1
Facility Description
Homedale is located in Owyhee County, Idaho, approximately 40 miles west of Boise at the intersection
of U.S. Highway 95 and Idaho Route 19. The Sunset Ranch Development, composed often homes, is
located approximately three miles west of Homedale, on Route 19 atNorthside Road. Nine homes are
participating in the EPA demonstration; one homeowner has opted to use a private well.
The residents of the Sunset Ranch Development are served by a 10-in-diameter well (No. 3370032)
installed to a depth of 130 ft below ground surface (bgs) with a screen interval from 50 to 130 ft bgs. The
static water level was measured at 46 ft bgs on December 14, 2004. The well is equipped with a 15-
horsepower (hp) submersible pump, providing a flowrate of approximately 20 gal/min (gpm). Figure 4-1
shows the exterior of the central well house, and Figure 4-2 shows the plumbing and sample tap within
the well house. There is no centralized water treatment system currently in place.
Figure 4-1. Central Pump House at Sunset Ranch Development Site
11
-------
Figure 4-2. Plumbing from Well and Sample Tap at Sunset Ranch Development Site
Water from the well is stored in a pressure tank located in the community pump house (Figure 4-2). The
tank maintains pressure to the individual homes. When water is consumed and the tank pressure
decreases to a pre-set level, the well pump is activated by a pressure switch. The pump continues to run
until the tank pressure returns to a specified level.
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected from the well on December 1,
2004, by a Battelle staff member who traveled to the site to attend an introductory meeting. The sample
tap was flushed for 15 min prior to sample collection. The source water was speciated on-site for total
arsenic (As), soluble As (including As [III] and As[V]), and particulate As. Special care was taken to
avoid agitaion, which could cause unwanted oxidation of the water. After collection, the samples were
packed in a cooler with double-bagged wet ice for overnight shipment to Battelle.
The analytical results from the source water sampling event are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to
the data submitted by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and to data provided by the
vendor. The treatment process consists of POE water softeners and POU RO units for arsenic, nitrate,
and uranium removal. Results of the source water analyses and implications for water treatment are
discussed below.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 51.6 to 80 |o,g/L (Table 4-1). Based on
the December 1, 2004, sampling results obtained by Battelle, the total arsenic concentration in the raw
source water was 51.6 |o,g/L with most present as As(V) (46.8 |og/L). A small amount of arsenic also
existed as As(III) (2.9 |o,g/L) and particulate As (i.e., 1.9 ng/L). Because arsenic was present primarily as
As(V), oxidation of the water prior to the water softeners and POU RO units was not required.
12
-------
Table 4-1. Sunset Ranch Development Water Quality Data (Well 3370032)
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U(total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
-
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
HB/L
ug/L
HB/L
ug/L
HB/L
ug/L
HB/L
ug/L
ug/L
HB/L
ug/L
tig/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Kinetico
Source Water
Data
-
7.6
NA
NA
NA
300
298
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.7
0.94
195
66.3
<0.5
65.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
<30
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
125
91.5
17
Facility
Source Water
Data
-
7.3
NA
NA
NA
252
NA
NA
692
NA
11.5
NA
NA
19.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
80.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
330
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
102
NA
NA
Battelle
Source Water
Data
12/01/04
7.5
12.7
5.4
249
305
310
0.8
698
1.8
8.9
<0.01
0.05
21.0
0.9
210
65.5
O.06
51.6
49.7
1.9
2.9
46.8
134
<25
2.1
1.5
29.3
30.1
30.3
31.2
132
98.2
15.7
Battelle
Treated Water
Data(a)
12/01/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
0.10
0.1
48
NA
1.1
<0.01
0.05
<1.0
0.10
4.0
7.9
O.06
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA
0.1
NA
O.I
NA
0.7
NA
16.5
0.02
0.006
(a) Sample taken at a cold water tap at Rl residence with water already treated by the undersink RO unit.
NA = not available.
ND = not detectable.
TOC = total organic carbon.
TDS = total dissolved solids.
13
-------
Nitrate and Uranium. Nitrate concentrations in source water ranged from 8.9 to 11.5 mg/L (as N).
Uranium concentration was 30.1 |og/L, existing primarily in the soluble form. Both nitrate and uranium
were monitored monthly during the one-year performance evaluation study to determine if their
concentrations in the treated water would be reduced to less than their respective MCL's of 10 mg/L and
30 ng/L.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations in source water ranged
from 692 to 698 mg/L, which were composed primarily of calcium (91.5 to 98.2 mg/L), magnesium (15.7
to 17.0 mg/L), sodium (102 to 132 mg/L), sulfate (195 to 210 mg/L), silica (65.5 to 66.3 mg/L), nitrate
(8.9 to 11.5 mg/L), chloride (19.0 to 21.7 mg/L), and fluoride (0.90 to 0.94 mg/L). Other ions present in
source water included iron (134 to 330 ug/L) and vanadium (30.3-31.2 ug/L). Because relatively high
concentrations of vanadium were measured, its concentrations were monitored monthly during the one-
year performance evaluation study.
Hardness ranged from 298 to 310 mg/L (as CaCO3) in the source water samples collected by Battelle and
Kinetico. Softening of this water prior to the RO system was recommended by the vendor to prevent
scaling of the RO membrane.
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality. As noted above, although there is no centralized treatment system
in place at Sunset Ranch Development, several homeowners have installed a softener and/or a RO unit. A
sample was collected from the kitchen tap after the water had been treated by a softener and a RO unit at
the Rl residence on December 1, 2004. The total arsenic and nitrate concentrations in the treated water
sample were less than 0.1 ug/L and 1.1 mg/L (as N), respectively. Other cations and anions also were
removed to low levels as shown in Table 4-1.
4.1.3 Wastewater Disposal. The individual homes within the Sunset Ranch Development employ
septic tank systems for waste disposal. No centralized waste disposal system is in place. Regeneration
wastewater from the softeners and the reject water from the RO units were discharged to the septic system
at each home.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The treatment train for the Sunset Ranch Development site included a POE water softener and a POU RO
unit at each of the nine participating homes. This POE/POU combination at each home was a
modification to the originally proposed approach that would use a centralized water softening system in
the pump house for all participating homes. The POE approach was preferred because it utilized the
existing septic system at each residence for the regeneration waste disposal, thus eliminating the need to
construct a septic system at the pump house.
RO processes typically are used to remove dissolved salts and other dissolved materials from drinking
water. Softening was performed as a pretreatment to prevent scaling of the RO membranes using either a
new or an existing water softener (Table 4-2). Figure 4-3 is a schematic of the treatment train. Figure 4-4
presents a process flowchart, including sample locations, frequency, and analytes.
4.2.1 Water Softener. A Kinetico's Model 2060s water softener consisted of two 8-in-diameter
by 40-in-tall polyethylene wrapped resin tanks and one 12-in-diameter by 40-in-tall or 18-in-diameter by
35-in-tall brine tank (Figure 4-5). Each resin tank contained 0.7 ft3 of non-solvent cation resin. The water
softener was equipped with a built-in water meter and did not require electricity to operate. The system
was configured for alternating flow between the two resin tanks at a maximum flowrate of 12 gpm. After
processing 625 gal of water, water production was switched to the standby tank while the exhausted tank
was being regenerated. Regeneration used approximately 3.6 Ib of salt and 35 gal of softened water and
14
-------
Table 4-2. Water Softener Systems at Participating Sunset
Ranch Development Homes
Residence ID
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
Water Softener
Culligan
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Mark 100 (existing)
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
Model 30 (existing)
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
model unknown (existing)
Raw Water from
To Home
Well >60 psi
Backwash Waste
"*" to Septic
2060S/or Existing
Softener
Typical (9) Homes
Reject
Waste to
Septic
Sample
RO
Typical (9) Homes
-> Sample
Sample
Sample
Figure 4-3. Schematic of Kinetico's POE Water Softener and POU RO Unit
took 45 min to complete. The two pre-existing Kinetico units at the R4 and R9 residences also were
regenerated based on volume throughput. The regeneration of the Culligan system at the Rl residence
was based on a time setting, which is set to regenerate twice a week. The Model 2060s water softener has
been tested and listed under NSF International (NSF) Standard 44; the key performance specifications of
the unit are summarized in Table 4-3.
4.2.2 RO Plus Deluxe Unit. The softened water was further treated prior to the kitchen tap by a
RO unit for arsenic, nitrate, and uranium removal. The RO Plus Deluxe unit from Kinetico consisted of a
pre-filter cartridge, a RO module, a storage tank, and a post-filter cartridge (Figure 4-6).
Pre-Filter Cartridge - Prior to entering the RO module, water passed through a 20-|om pre-
filter to remove particles.
RO Module - After passing through the pre-filter, water was forced through a 1.7-in-
diameter by 11-in-tall thin film composite, semi-permeable membrane element where most
soluble minerals and chemicals were removed. The RO unit could produce up to 35.5 gpd of
permeate water. While yielding permeate water, the RO unit also produced reject water,
which included water rejected by the RO membrane and rinse water used to rinse the RO
15
-------
Quarterly
pH(a), temperature1^),
As (total, soluble, particulate),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), -
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble)
pH(a), temperature1^),
As (total, soluble, particulate),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble)
(Rl Only)
pH(a), temperature1^),
As (total, soluble, particulate),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble)
(Rl Only)
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
INFLUENT
(WELL 3370032)
Sunset Ranch Development
Homedale, ID
POE Model 2060s Water Softener
(design flow: 12 gpm)
and POU RO Plus Deluxe Unit
(design flow: 35 gpd)
Monthly
pH(a), temperature1^),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
-U (total), V (total),
Ca, Mg, NO3, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
IDS, turbidity, alkalinity
WATER SOFTENER
1
J3
00
f
1
LEGEND
C IN ) At Wellhead
(ws) After Water Softener
( RO ) After Reverse Osmosis
(RW) Reject Water
WATER TT ..D
SOFTENER Unit Process
^_
pH(a), temperature^),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
-U (total), V (total),
Ca, Mg, N03, F, S04, SiO2, PO4,
IDS, turbidity, alkalinity
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
SYSTEM
REJECT
WATER
As (total and/or soluble),
Fe (total and/or soluble),
Mn (total and/or soluble),
U (total and/or soluble),
NO3, SO4, IDS, turbidity, and pH
TO SEPTIC
pH(a), temperature^),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
-U (total), V (total),
Ca, Mg, NO3, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
IDS, turbidity, alkalinity
KITCHEN TAP
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Sunset Ranch Development
16
-------
Figure 4-5. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener
membrane. The reject water represented approximately 63% of the volume reaching the RO
unit was discharged to the home septic system. The RO unit was rated as 2.7:1, that is, for
every 2.7 gal of feed water, 1 gal of permeate water and 1.7 gal of reject water (including
approximately 400 mL of permeate water to flush the membrane) were produced. The
volume of reject water produced daily was dependent on the volume of water consumed at
the kitchen tap.
Storage Tank - Permeate water was stored in a 3-gal QuickFlo storage tank, which used
water pressure to ensure a constant flow at the tap.
Post-Filter - The water then flowed from the storage tank to a Metered Automatic Cartridge
Guard Filter (MACguard), which contained activated carbon to remove any volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and unpleasant taste and odor. The MACguard Filter was equipped with
an automatic shut-off, which discontinued water production after 500 gal of water had been
processed. The water production will resume only after the pre- and post-filters have been
replaced.
In addition to the above-mentioned system components, the system also was equipped with a
PureMometer Filter Life Indicator to alert the user for the remaining capacity of the filter cartridge.
Further, a TDS monitor installed at the kitchen tap measured TDS levels in the treated water. A green
light on the monitor indicated that a proper amount of reject water was generated and a yellow light
indicated that it was not. A non-standard Kent Model C-700 TP water meter was installed between the
RO module and the storage tank at the Rl residence to track the permeate production. The RO Plus
Deluxe system has been tested and listed under NSF Standard 58 for the reduction of arsenic, barium,
17
-------
Table 4-3. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener Performance Specifications
Parameter
Value
System Components
No. of Media Vessels
Media Vessel Size (in)
Media Vessel Construction
Tank Volume (ft3)
Media Type
Media Volume (ft3)
Bed Depth (in)
Free Board Depth (in)
Riser Tube (in)
Upper Distributor (in)
Lower Distributor (in)
Regeneration Control
Regeneration Type
2
8-in D x 40-in H
Wrapped polyethylene
1.0
Non-solvent cation exchange resin
0.7
25
15
1
0.014
0.014
Non-electric use meter
Counter-current
Inlet Water Quality
Pressure Range (psi)
Temperature Range (°F)
pH Range (S.U.)
Free Chlorine (max, mg/L [as C12])
Hardness (max, grains per gallon [as
CaC03])
15-125
35-120
5-10
2
66
Operation Specifications
Flow Range (gpm)
Flow Configuration
Regeneration Frequency (gal)
Regeneration Waste Volume (gal)
Regeneration Time (min)
11.5-18.0
Alternating
625
35
45
Brine Tank Specifications
No. of Brine Tanks
Brine Tank Size (in)
Brine Tank Construction
Salt Capacity (Ib)
1
Varying (12-inD x 40-in H, 18-inD x
35-inH)
High-density polyethylene
Varying (100, 200)
Data source: Kinetico
radium 226/228, cadmium, copper, cysts, fluoride, nitrate/nitrite, TDS, turbidity, and other contaminants.
Table 4-4 summarizes the key performance specifications for the RO Plus Deluxe unit.
4.3
System Permitting and Installation
4.3.1 Permitting. The engineering plans for the systems were prepared by Kinetico and submitted
to IDEQ for approval on June 10, 2005. The plans included a written description of the Kinetico's POE
water softener and the POU RO unit, a schematic diagram of the system, system specification sheets,
Notice to the Public, an executive summary of managed POU treatment systems, and a Maintenance,
Monitoring, and Sampling Plan for POU treatment systems. The permit approval was granted by IDEQ
on June 20, 2005.
18
-------
Figure 4-6. Under-the-Sink RO Plus Deluxe Unit
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. Water softeners and RO units were
delivered to the site on June 24, 2005. Kinetico's local dealer in Meridian, ID, performed the off-loading
and installation. The installation consisted of plumbing, initial salt filling, outside faucets isolation (from
water softener systems), and equipment inspections. The shakedown/start-up consisted of pressurizing
the systems and making all necessary adjustments to bring the systems on-line and operational. While
on-site, Kinetico technicians provided training to two homeowners for hands-on operation and routine
maintenance. The mechanical installation and shakedown of the systems were completed on July 1, 2005.
On July 8, 2005, a Kent Model C-700 TP water meter was installed at the Rl residence. The performance
evaluation officially began on July 15, 2005. Battelle staff members were on-site on September 20, 2005,
to inspect the systems and conduct operator training, which included calibration and use of a WTW field
hand-held meter, collection of field data, collection of water samples from the treatment systems, field
arsenic speciation, and proper handling of chain-of-custodies.
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Permeate Water Production. Based on the totalizer installed at the Rl residence, the RO
unit produced approximately 242 gal of water from July 15, 2005, through January 17, 2006, an average
of 40 gal/month (Figure 4-7). At the R9 residence, the water production reached 500 gal on January 9,
2006, and the pre- and post-filters were replaced on January 11, 2006, before water production resumed.
Water production at the other seven participating homes were not tracked, but had not reached the 500-gal
level before the end of this six-month study period.
19
-------
Table 4-4. Kinetico RO Plus Deluxe Unit Performance
Specifications
Parameter
Value
System Components
No. of Pre-filters
Pre-filter Size (um)
No. of RO Membrane Elements
RO Membrane Construction
Membrane Element Size (in)
No. of Post-filters
Permeate Flush
Element Configuration
System Shutoff Control
System Shutdown Volume (gal)
System Controller
1
20
1
Thin film composite
1.7-inDxll-inH
1
Internal Permeate Reservoir
Single
Hydraulic
500
Hydraulic
Inlet Water Quality
Pressure Range (psi)
Temperature Range (°F)
pH Range (S.U.)
Free Chlorine (max, mg/L [as C12])
Hardness (max, mg/L [as CaCO3])
Silica (max, mg/L)
Iron (max, mg/L)
TDS (max, mg/L)
40-100
35-100
3-11
0.05
<170
10
<0.01
<4,000
Operating Specifications
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Daily Production (gpd)
Discharge Water (or Feed
Water)/Product Water Ratio
Normal Operating Pressure (psi)
75
35.5
2.7 to 1
60
Storage Tank
Storage Tank Volume (gal)
Storage Tank Footprint (in)
Storage Tank Material
o
J
8-inDx 17-inH
Zytel
Data source: Kinetico
4.4.2 Reject Water Production. Due to the lack of a water meter on the reject water discharge
line, the actual amount of reject water produced was not tracked. However, based on the 2.7:1 ratio, it
was estimated that 411 gal of water has discharged to the septic system while producing 242 gal of
permeate water at the Rl residence. Reject water samples were collected monthly at the Rl residence by
the homeowner from a sampling tap on the reject water discharge line leading from the RO unit to the
home septic system.
20
-------
500
450 -
7/1/2005
8/20/2005
10/9/2005
11/28/2005
1/17/2006
3/8/2006
4/27/2006
6/16/2006
Date
Figure 4-7. RO Totalizer Readings at Rl Residence
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. Operational problems were encountered
during the first month of system operation. On July 26, 2005, the undersink storage tanks at two
residences were replaced due to low water flow at the respective RO taps. The undersink storage tank at
one of these residences had to be replaced again on August 8, 2005, for the same problem. Under
warranty, Kinetico technicians were on-site from August 10 to 11, 2005, to address this and other
problems. Table 4-5 summarizes the problems encountered and corrective actions taken. No additional
operational problems were encountered.
Table 4-5. Summary of Kinetico Service Report
Problem
Water Pulsing from Faucet
Incorrect Outlet Elbow Installed
Water Quality Monitor Malfunction
Loose Wire on TDS Monitor Indicator Light
Low Flow from a Previously Replaced
Undersink Storage Tank
Corrective Action Taken
Faucet upgraded to include new high
flow gasket
Correct flow control elbow installed
Sensor replaced
TDS monitor replaced
Faulty check valve replaced
Residences
R1-R9
Rl
R9
R6
R2&R3
The system O&M requirements are discussed according to pre-and post-treatment activities, levels of
system automation, operator skill requirements, preventative maintenance activities, and frequency of
chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
21
-------
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Softening of raw water was required before treatment by the
RO unit to prevent scaling of the RO membranes. Water softeners were placed upstream of the RO units.
System Automation. The Model 2060s softeners were regenerated automatically after 625 gal of water
treated. Hydraulic signals within the RO units controlled the operational sequences such as pressurization
and depressurization of the membranes and flushing of the membranes following the system shut down.
The unit shut down automatically once 500 gal of water had been treated. A Puremometer indicator
visibly indicated the remaining filter capacity.
Operator Skill Requirements. The POE water softeners and POU RO units were designed for residential
use; therefore, the skill requirements to operate both systems were minimal. There was no need for the
homeowners to inspect the systems on a daily basis. The operation of the systems did not appear to
require additional skills beyond adding salt to the water softeners and replacing pre- and post-filters of the
RO units. Operations of the POE/POU systems were handled well by all homeowners.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance activities were minimal for Kinetico's
water softeners and RO units. The water softeners used an inline filter to remove particles from raw
water and would require periodical replacement. The frequency of the filter replacement was determined
by water usage and content of solids. The amount of salt in the brine tank needed to be checked and salt
added as needed. The pre- and post-cartridge filters for the RO units required changing every 500 gal, as
the units would shut down when reaching the 500-gal production level. On January 11, 2006, the RO unit
at one residence reached the 500-gal mark and replacement of the pre- and post-cartridge filters was
required to resume normal operation.
Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Salt was used for the water softeners. The
homeowners needed to check and maintain salt levels in the brine tanks and contact Kinetico for salt
delivery. On August 30, 2005, 2,450 Ib of salt was delivered to the site and stored in the well house.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the RO units was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the
POE/POU systems.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. A total of 20 locations were sampled at the site, including
locations at the wellhead (IN), after the water softener at each of the nine residences (WS1-WS9), after
the RO unit at each of the nine residences (RO1-RO9), and at the reject water discharge line at the Rl
residence (RW1). Water samples were collected monthly on seven occasions during the first six months
of system operation. Sample collection was discontinued at the WS3 and RO3 locations after October 19,
2005, due to vacancy of the R3 residence.
Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, nitrate, uranium, vanadium, and TDS, and Figures
4-8 to 4-12 are plots of the results of these constituents across the treatment train. Note that the
concentrations plotted for "after water softener" and "after RO unit" are the average of the respective
results for the nine homes except for uranium and vanadium, which were measured at the Rl residence
only.
Field arsenic speciation was performed at the Rl residence on two occasions, and the results are
summarized in Table 4-7. Also, pH (Figure 4-13) and temperature were measured on-site at the wellhead
(IN) and in the Rl residence at the WS1 and RO1 locations.
22
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Nitrate, Uranium, Vanadium, and TDS Results
at Sunset Ranch Development
Parameter
As (total)
Nitrate (as N)
U (total)
V (total)
TDS
Sampling
Location
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
7
60
60
7
60
60
7
16
16
7
16
16
7
60
60
Concentration
Minimum
53.0
48.1
0.1
8.7
8.7
O.05
24.3
21.3
0.1
30.1
30.4
0.1
648
492
<1.0
Maximum
61.7
66.8
8.7
11.6
11.7
2.2
31.0
31.9
0.1
39.0
38.9
1.3
694
842
0.5
Average
56.1
54.6
0.5
10.1
10.2
0.8
28.3
28.4
0.1
33.3
33.7
0.3
670
696
19.7
Standard
Deviation
2.7
8.1
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.6
2.6
3.0
0.0
2.8
1.9
0.5
18.5
46.8
21.2
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Note: Uranium and vanadium measured at Rl residence only.
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60-
50 -
20 -
10 -
10[jg/LMCL
50
100
150
Gallons Treated
200
250
Figure 4-8. Total Arsenic Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development
23
-------
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
at
o
8
z
o
/
10mg/LMCL
4 -
50
100
150
Gallons Treated
200
Figure 4-9. Nitrate Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development
250
50
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
-At Wellhead
-After Water Softener
- After RO Unit
-RO Reject
Date
Figure 4-10. Uranium Concentrations at Rl Residence
24
-------
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
> 20-
10 -
-At Wellhead
-After Water Softener
- After RO Unit
-RO Reject
Date
1200 -
Figure 4-11. Vanadium Concentrations at Rl Residence
1000 -
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
oF
Date
-At Wellhead
-After Water Softener
-After RO Unit
-RO Reject
Figure 4-12. TDS Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development
25
-------
Table 4-7. Speciation Sampling Results at Rl Residence
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/20/05
IN
58.8
59.1
<0.1
2.7
56.4
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
26.9
27.2
29.1
31.5
WS1
54.7
59.3
<0.1
3.0
56.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
26.2
26.6
29.8
30.4
RO1
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
12/14/05
IN
55.1
51.1
4.0
1.7
49.5
370
<25
0.6
0.5
28.9
28.0
30.1
30.0
WS1
53.2
51.3
1.9
1.3
50.0
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
25.7
25.5
30.4
30.6
RO1
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.2
O.I
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
7 -
-At Wellhead
-After Water Softener
-After RO Unit
-RO Reject
*F
Date
Figure 4-13. pH Levels at Rl Residence
26
-------
Results of other water quality parameters measured are provided in Table 4-8. Appendix A contains a
complete set of analytical results through the first six months of system operation. The results of the
water samples collected throughout the POE/POU systems are discussed as follows.
Arsenic. Total As concentrations in raw water ranged from 53.0 to 61.7 (ig/L and averaged 56.1 (ig/L
(Table 4-6). Based on arsenic speciation results obtained on September 20 and December 14, 2005,
As(V) was the predominating species, ranging from 49.5 to 56.4 (ig/L and averaging 52.9 (ig/L. Only a
trace amount of As(III) existed, ranging from 1.7 to 2.7 (ig/L and averaging 2.2 |o,g/L (Table 4-7). The
arsenic concentrations measured during the six-month period were consistent with those in the raw water
sample collected on December 1, 2004 (Table 4-1).
Total arsenic concentrations after the water softeners ranged from 48.1 to 66.8 |o,g/L, with one outlier of
<0.1 ng/L, and averaged 54.6 |o,g/L, which were at the same levels as those in raw water (Figure 4-8). As
expected, the softeners did not remove any arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations after the RO units were
<0.1 |o,g/L for all samples, except for two measurements at 5.1 and 8.7 (ig/L. Based on the average
arsenic concentration in raw water, the RO units achieved over 99% arsenic removal. After 242 gal of
water production at the Rl residence, the RO unit continued to perform well, with arsenic reported at 0.2
Mg/L.
Nitrate. Nitrate concentrations at the wellhead and after water softeners exceeded the MCL of 10 mg/L,
averaging at 10.1 and 10.2 mg/L (as N), respectively (Table 4-6). Nitrate was consistently removed by
the RO unit throughout the first six months of operation (Figure 4-9). Nitrate concentrations in RO
permeate ranged from <0.05 to 2.2 mg/L (as N) and averaged 0.8 mg/L (as N), representing 92%
removal. After 242 gal of water production at the Rl residence, nitrate continued to be removed to levels
as low as 1.1 mg/L (as N).
Uranium and Vanadium. Uranium concentrations ranged from 24.3 and 31.0 (ig/L in raw water and
from 21.3 to 31.9 |o,g/L after softening, which exceeded the MCL of 30 (ig/L (Table 4-6). Uranium
existed in the soluble form (Table 4-7) and was completely removed by the RO units to below 0.1 (ig/L
throughout the first six months (Figure 4-10).
Average vanadium concentrations in raw water and after water softeners were 33.3 and 33.7 (ig/L,
respectively; and vanadium concentrations in RO permeate ranged from <0.1 to 1.3 (ig/L and averaged
0.3 (ig/L (Table 4-6). Vanadium existed in soluble form (Table 4-7), and more than 99% of vanadium
was removed from raw water (Figure 4-11).
After 242 gal of water production at the Rl residence, samples indicated <0.1 (ig/L of uranium and 0.5
(ig/L of vanadium.
TDS. When evaluating the performance of the RO units, a critical parameter is their ability to remove
TDS from raw water. TDS concentrations averaged 670 and 696 mg/L in raw water and after softening,
respectively (Table 4-6). The average TDS concentration after the RO units was 19.7 mg/L. On average,
the RO units achieved 97% TDS removal (Figure 4-12).
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from <25 to 252 (ig/L and averaged
78 (ig/L (Table 4-8). In the WS and RO samples, total iron concentrations were <25 (ig/L for all samples,
except for two measurements (i.e., 56.4 (ig/L at the WS6 location on August 24, 2005, and 45.9 (ig/L at
the WS4 location on November 16, 2005). The average manganese concentration in raw water was 0.6
(ig/L. In the WS samples, total manganese concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 1.3 (ig/L and averaged 0.1
(ig/L. Total manganese concentrations in RO permeate water ranged from <0.1 to 28.2 (ig/L and
27
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
at Sunset Ranch Development
Parameter
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Phosphorous
(total)
(as PO4)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Turbidity
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
Unit
HB/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
7
60
60
7
60
60
7
60
60
7
60
60
7
60
60
3
27
27
4
33
33
7
59
59
7
60
60
7
60
60
7
60
60
7
60
60
Concentration
Minimum
<25
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
<0.1
286
264
1.0
0.6
0.6
<0.1
151
140
<1.0
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.03
0.03
0.03
60.1
59.0
0.8
0.1
O.I
O.I
228
0.2
0.0
182
0.25
0.25
45.9
O.I
0.1
Maximum
252
56
<25
1.9
1.3
28.2
308
312
55.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
188
195
2.2
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.03
0.1
0.1
95.9
108
8.2
2.3
2.1
0.7
247
241
5.6
193
189
2.8
59.9
94.9
2.8
Average
78
14
<25
0.6
0.1
2.4
294
291
11.1
0.7
0.7
0.1
163
163
0.6
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.03
0.03
0.03
68.0
67.8
2.7
0.7
0.4
0.2
238
15.9
0.5
187
10.9
0.3
50.7
5.0
0.2
Standard
Deviation
111
7.1
-
0.6
0.2
4.4
9.7
10.7
7.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
13.8
13.7
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.5
11.5
1.5
0.8
0.4
0.2
7.5
55.1
0.7
4.5
38.8
0.4
4.9
18.3
0.4
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
28
-------
averaged 2.4 (ig/L, indicating that leaching of manganese from the RO units, possibly the pre- and/or
post-cartridge filters.
pH. pH values averaged 7.2 for raw water and 7.5 after softening at the Rl residence. pH values of the
RO permeate water at the Rl residence were 6.5, 6.7, a probable outlier of'7.7, and 6.5 (Figure 4-13).
The RO units reduced the alkalinity values from 294 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water to 11.1 mg/L (as
CaCO3) in RO permeate, causing a drop in the pH levels.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-8 and Figure 4-14, silica concentrations in raw
water ranged between 60.1 and 95.9 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 68.0 mg/L (as SiO2). Silica
concentrations after softening averaged 67.8 mg/L (as SiO2), which was above the vendor-suggested
maximum value of 10 mg/L in the influent to the RO units. Silica concentrations in RO permeate water
ranged from 0.8 to 8.2 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 2.7 mg/L (as SiO2), indicating effective removal by
the RO units (Figure 4-14).
Fluoride and sulfate were consistently removed by the RO units (below 0.1 and 1.0 mg/L, respectively)
throughout the first six months of operation. Total hardness in raw water ranged from 228 to 247 g/L (as
CaCO3), consisting of approximately 78% of calcium hardness and 12% of magnesium hardness. Total
hardness was reduced to an average of 15.9 mg/L (as CaCO3) by the water softeners and further reduced
to an average of 0.5 mg/L by the RO units.
120.0
I
o
p
'&>
100.0 -
80.0 -
60.0 -
40.0 -
20.0 -
0.0
,/
-At Wellhead
-After Water Softener
-After RO Unit
Date
Figure 4-14. Total Silica Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development
4.5.2 Reject Water Sampling. Reject water was collected monthly at the Rl residence. The
analytical results from the reject water sampling are summarized in Table 4-9. As expected, the reject
water contained higher concentrations of TDS, arsenic, uranium, and nitrate than raw water.
29
-------
Table 4-9. Reject Water Sampling Results
ug/L
35.7
31.2
31.4
42.3
41.7
26.8
38.0
(soluble)
£>
ug/L
-
-
40.1
42.1
41.2
26.3
37.6
"B
>
ug/L
50.5
40.6
35.8
43.8
41.8
31.8
44.9
(soluble)
>
ug/L
-
-
44.3
42.6
41.6
32.8
45.3
30
-------
4.5.3 Mass Balance Calculations. The mass balance for total arsenic and nitrate across the RO
unit was conducted based on the data collected from the Rl residence. The equation used for the
calculations is shown as follows:
where Cf = feed water total arsenic or nitrate concentration
Vf = volume of feed water
Cp = permeate water total arsenic or nitrate concentration
Vp = volume of permeate water
Cr = reject water total arsenic or nitrate concentration
Vr = volume of reject water.
The total arsenic and nitrate mass balance was calculated for each sampling date. During the first six
months of system operation, the mass balance ranged from 66% to 114% for total arsenic and from 83%
to 99% for nitrate. The total arsenic mass balance data are tabulated in Table 4-10 and graphically
presented in Figure 4-15. The total nitrate mass balance data are tabulated in Table 4-11 and graphically
presented in Figure 4-16.
Table 4-10. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance
Date
07/20/05
08/24/05
09/20/05
10/19/05
11/16/05
12/14/05
01/17/06
Feed
cf
Hg/L
53.3
63.3
54.8
54.9
50.9
53.2
51.6
vf
gal
85.1
90.2
80.2
90.5
105
84.2
126
Permeate
CD
Hg/L
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.2
0.2
VD
gal
31.5
33.4
29.7
33.5
38.9
31.2
46.8
Re
cr
Hg/L
75.1
75.5
66.6
76.5
92.3
55.9
80.1
ect
vr
gal
53.6
56.8
50.5
56.9
66.1
53.0
79.6
r v +r v
^p " p ^-T " r
Mg
15.2
16.4
12.8
16.5
23.1
11.2
24.1
CfVf
mg
17.1
21.6
16.6
18.8
20.2
16.9
24.7
Mass
Balance
%
89
76
77
88
114
66
98
Table 4-11. Monthly Nitrate (as N) Mass Balance
Date
07/20/05
08/24/05
09/20/05
10/19/05
11/16/05
12/14/05
01/17/06
Feed
Cf
mg/L
11.6
10.9
10.6
10.2
9.2
9.1
8.8
Vf
gal
85.1
90.2
80.2
90.5
105
84.2
126
Permeate
CD
mg/L
0.03
1.9
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.1
VD
gal
31.5
33.4
29.7
33.5
38.9
31.2
46.8
Re.
cr
Mg/L
15.7
16.0
15.3
13.4
13.0
11.1
12.8
ect
vr
gal
53.6
56.8
50.5
56.9
66.1
53.0
79.6
r v + r v
\^p Vp T \^rVr
mg
3,181
3,674
2,999
3,075
3,411
2,402
4,044
CfVf
mg
3,729
3,716
3,213
3,487
3,653
2,898
4,203
Mass
Balance
%
85
99
93
88
93
83
96
31
-------
30 -
«
re
m
25 -
20 -
15 -
I 101
5 -
Date
Figure 4-15. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance at Rl Residence
4500 -
4000 -
3500 -
3000 -
re 2500 -
2000 -
g 1500 -
1000 -
500 -
Date
Figure 4-16. Monthly Nitrate (as N) Mass Balance at Rl Residence
32
-------
4.6
System Cost
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for purchasing and installing six water softeners and
nine RO units was $31,877.50 (see Table 4-12) as provided by Kinetico in a cost proposal to Battelle
dated April 8, 2005. The equipment cost was $21,732.50 (or 68% of the total capital investment), which
included cost for nine RO units, six water softeners, initial salt fill, additional sample taps and a water
meter, and freight. Each water softener unit cost $1,585 and each RO unit cost $1,025.
Table 4-12. Summary of Capital Investment
Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
RO Plus Deluxe Systems
Model 2060s Water Softeners
Initial Salt Fill (9 units 250 Ib each)
Additional Sample Taps and Water Meter
Freight
Equipment Total
9
6
2,250
1
1
$1,025
$1,585
$0.23
$9,225
$9,510
$517.50
$355
$2,125
$21,732.50
68%
Installation Costs
Material
Softener Installation
RO Installation
Vendor Travel (days)
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
6
9
6
-
$810
$195
$480
-
$650
$4,860
$1,755
$2,880
$10,145
$31,877.50
32%
100%
The installation cost included the cost for the material and labor to install nine RO units and six water
softeners by Kinetico (Section 4.3.2). The installation cost was $10,145, or 32% of the total capital
investment. The installation of each water softener and RO unit cost $810 and $195, respectively
(excluding material and vendor travel).
For home installation of a water softener and a RO unit, total equipment ($2,610) and installation
($1,005) cost amounted to $3,615. If the cost of materials and vendor travel was added, the total cost for
each household system was near $4,000.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the water softener consisted of salt usage
and system maintenance. The O&M cost for the RO unit consisted of pre- and post-filter replacement,
RO element replacement, and system maintenance. The yearly service contract with the vendor for salt
was $57.50 for a six month delivery. Pre- and post-cartridge filter replacement at 500 gal of treated water
was quoted at $86.50.
Only one homeowner used 500 gal of treated water during this six month reporting period. For this
homeowner with the largest water usage, the six month O&M cost for salt usage ($57.50) and filter
replacement ($86.50) was $144 or $24 per month. The systems were under warranty for one year;
therefore, no maintenance cost was incurred during this six-month evaluation period.
33
-------
Table 4-13. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Value
Assumption
Salt Replenishment for Water Softener
Salt Cost ($)
Salt Consumption Rate (lbs/1,000
gal)
Salt Unit Cost ($/lb)
Salt Cost ($71,000 gal)
$57.50
5.77
$0.12
$0.69
Vendor quote for 6-month salt delivery
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Cartridge Filter Replacement
Pre- and Post-Cartridge Filter
Replacement
$86.50
Replacement required every 500 gal
34
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. EPA NRMRL.
September 17.
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, RC. 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). 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 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S. EPA
NRMRL, Cincinnati, OH.
35
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (as SiOa)
Turbidity
IDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
i-ig/L
Mg/L
M9/L
Month 1 : 07/20/05
Wellhead
IN
290
0.8
151
11.6
<0.05
60.1
<0.1
664
-
-
232
185
47.5
53.0
<25
0.3
26.0
39.0
R1
WS1
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
59.4
<0.1
672
-
-
0.6
0.5
0.2
53.3
<25
<0.1
21.3
38.9
R01
8
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.8
0.5
8
-
-
0.3
<0.25
0.1
0.3
<25
3.1
<0.1
1.3
R1
WS2
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
60.7
<0.1
678
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
53.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
R02
11
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.05
2.3
0.2
10
-
-
0.4
<0.25
0.1
0.2
<25
3.9
-
-
R3
WS3
295
0.8
147
11.3
<0.05
59.2
0.2
672
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
52.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R03
17
<0.1
<1
0.4
<0.05
2.0
0.6
16
-
-
0.6
<0.25
0.3
0.2
<25
3.6
-
-
R4
WS4
286
0.8
153
11.7
<0.05
59.0
<0.1
706
-
-
1.8
<0.25
1.5
52.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
R04
11
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.05
1.8
0.4
4
-
-
0.5
<0.25
0.2
5.1
<25
7.1
-
-
R5
WS5
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
60.5
0.8
676
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
52.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
R05
11
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.6
<0.1
2
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
4.4
-
-
R6
WS6
286
0.8
151
11.6
<0.05
60.7
<0.1
708
-
-
2.2
0.6
1.6
52.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
R06
10
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.4
<0.1
10
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
6.2
-
-
R7
WS7
282
0.8
153
11.6
<0.05
-
<0.1
656
-
-
239
190(a)
49.8(a)
66.8
<25
0.2
-
-
R07
14
<0.1
<1
0.4
<0.05
2.9
0.2
22
-
-
1.1
<0.25
0.8
8.7
<25
11.6
-
-
R8
WS8
277
0.8
154
11.7
<0.05
61.3
0.1
652
-
-
0.5
<0.25
0.3
59.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R08
12
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.05
2.7
<0.1
14
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
1.6
-
-
R9
WS9
286
0.8
154
11.7
<0.05
62.4
0.5
698
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
51.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
R09
8
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.4
<0.1
14
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
1.4
-
-
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
(a) Softener might have run out of salt.
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
IDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 2: 08/24/05
Wellhead
IN
286
0.8
153
10.9
<0.05
95.9
<0.1
694
-
-
247
187
59.9
61.7
<25
0.4
31.0
33.8
R1
WS1
286
0.8
140
10.9
<0.05
91.0
0.1
724
-
-
1.0
1.0
0.1
63.3
<25
0.2
29.6
34.7
RO1
25
<0.1
2.2
1.9
0.2
8.2
<0.1
48
-
-
0.4
0.3
0.1
1.2
<25
1.6
<0.1
<0.1
R2
WS2
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
92.5
0.1
732
-
-
1.2
1.1
0.1
62.4
<25
0.2
29.9
34.7
RO2
11
<0.1
1.3
1.7
<0.05
5.7
<0.1
34
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.1
<25
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
R3
WS3
273
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
91.4
0.2
714
-
-
1.1
0.9
0.2
62.9
<25
0.2
29.5
34.1
RO3
9
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
3.5
0.2
6
-
-
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
<25
5.2
<0.1
<0.1
R4
WS4
286
0.8
152
11.7
<0.05
91.8
0.1
712
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.2
61.6
<25
0.2
29.4
34.1
RO4
17
<0.1
<1
1.2
0.4
6.1
<0.1
26
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.4
<25
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
R5
WS5
277
0.7
155
10.8
<0.05
92.7
0.8
700
-
-
0.9
0.8
0.1
58.5
<25
0.1
31.9
32.9
RO5
11
<0.1
<1
1.2
<0.05
5.4
<0.1
20
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.1
<25
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
R6
WS6
277
0.8
155
10.9
<0.05
93.6
0.2
698
-
-
1.0
0.9
0.1
60.8
56.4
0.5
31.4
33.8
RO6
11
<0.1
<1
0.4
0.1
5.2
0.1
18
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
R7
WS7
286
0.8
151
10.9
<0.05
91.2
<0.1
710
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.1
61.1
<25
0.2
30.3
34.2
RO7
12
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.05
4.4
<0.1
28
-
-
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.3
<25
7.4
<0.1
<0.1
R8
WS8
282
0.8
150
11.2
<0.05
90.1
0.6
842
-
-
0.8
0.8
0.1
61.0
<25
0.2
29.8
34.1
RO8
17
<0.1
1.3
1.8
<0.05
6.7
0.3
86
-
-
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
<25
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
R9
WS9
264
0.8
153
11.5
<0.05
108.0
0.2
822
-
-
0.8
0.7
0.1
62.7
<25
0.2
30.4
34.5
RO9
6
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.05
4.0
<0.1
30
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
IDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 3: 09/20/05
Wellhead
IN
308
0.8
152
11.1
<0.05
62.5
0.3
694
7.2
16.6
242
190
52.4
55.1
<25
0.3
26.9
32.9
R1
WS1
312
0.8
152
10.6
<0.05
62.6
0.3
692
7.6
18.8
1.4
1.3
0.1
54.8
<25
<0.1
27.4
33.7
RO1
11
<0.1
<1
0.7
<0.05
3.1
0.2
10
6.5
21.2
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.5
<25
0.6
<0.1
1.2
R2
WS2
290
0.8
153
11.2
<0.05
62.9
<0.1
698
-
-
1.6
1.4
0.2
56.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
12
<0.1
<1
1.6
<0.05
2.7
0.3
16
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.5
-
-
R3
WS3
286
0.8
152
11.4
<0.05
63.3
2.1
700
-
-
0.5
0.4
0.1
53.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO3
9
<0.1
<1
<0.05
0.1
2.3
<0.1
14
-
-
5.6
2.8
2.8
<0.1
<25
28.2
-
-
R4
WS4
290
0.8
153
10.6
<0.05
63.4
0.2
694
-
-
1.7
1.3
0.4
56.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO4
14
<0.1
<1
0.5
<0.05
3.1
<0.1
22
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.4
-
-
R5
WS5
277
0.8
152
11.1
<0.05
62.5
1.2
704
-
-
1.5
1.3
0.2
60.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
11
<0.1
<1
1.6
<0.05
3.2
0.6
8
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.4
-
-
R6
WS6
286
0.8
158
11.4
<0.05
62.6
0.3
730
-
-
0.8
0.6
0.2
52.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
9
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.05
1.6
0.1
34
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.4
-
-
R7
WS7
308
0.8
155
10.5
<0.05
62.3
0.3
712
-
-
8.9
7.3
1.6
54.9
<25
1.0
-
-
RO7
13
<0.1
<1
0.4
<0.05
1.4
0.3
6
-
-
0.5
<0.25
0.3
0.2
<25
8.4
-
-
R8
WS8
295
0.8
155
11.0
<0.05
63.1
1.5
720
-
-
0.7
0.6
0.1
55.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
11
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.05
2.7
0.1
28
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.4
-
-
R9
WS9
299
0.8
155
10.7
<0.05
64.1
0.1
708
-
-
0.5
0.4
0.1
54.7
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
10
<0.1
<1
1.2
<0.05
2.1
<0.1
16
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month4:10/19/05
Wellhead
IN
290
0.8
171
10.1
<0.03
61.9
0.9
676
_
_
247
194
53.3
54.6
<25
0.2
30.1
31.1
R1
WS1
295
0.7
165
10.2
<0.03
62.2
0.5
706
_
_
0.9
0.8
<0.1
54.9
<25
<0.1
27.6
30.8
RO1
8
0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
2.4
0.2
2
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.5
<25
0.6
<0.1
0.3
R2
WS2
290
0.7
168
10.3
0.03
62.4
0.3
682
_
_
1.2
1.1
<0.1
57.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
11
0.1
<1
2.0
<0.03
3.5
0.2
24
_
_
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.7
<25
0.2
-
-
R3
WS3
290
0.8
165
9.9
0.05
61.8
0.8
650
_
_
241
186
55.3
58.6
<25
0.5
-
-
RO3
14
0.7
<1
0.1
0.04
0.8
0.4
<1
_
_
1.2
0.9
0.2
0.5
<25
7.4
-
-
R4
WS4
290
0.8
166
10.1
0.03
61.2
0.4
656
_
_
220
138
82.1
56.0
<25
0.7
-
-
RO4
8
<0.1
<1
0.8
<0.03
1.3
0.6
<1
_
_
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.5
<25
0.2
-
-
R5
WS5
290
0.7
177
10.0
0.04
60.7
0.5
690
_
_
1.6
1.5
0.1
56.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
9
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
2.1
0.2
2
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.5
<25
0.3
-
-
R6
WS6
264
0.8
170
10.2
<0.03
60.4
0.5
680
_
_
1.5
1.3
0.2
53.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
1
<0.1
1
1.2
<0.03
1.4
0.2
<1
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<25
0.3
-
-
R7
WS7
286
0.7
166
10.0
0.04
60.8
0.3
692
_
_
1.9
1.9
<0.1
55.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
8
<0.1
<1
0.4
0.1
1.5
0.3
12
_
_
1.6
1.3
0.3
0.6
<25
9.2
-
-
R8
WS8
290
0.7
189
10.0
0.1
60.6
0.4
674
_
_
1.3
1.2
<0.1
58.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
14
0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
3.3
0.5
16
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.6
<25
0.2
-
-
R9
WS9
286
0.8
170
9.9
0.04
60.5
0.7
724
_
_
1.2
1.1
<0.1
58.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
55
<0.1
<1
0.8
<0.03
1.3
0.5
<1
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
MonthS: 11/16/05
Wellhead
IN
286
0.7
188
9.2
<0.03
62.6
1.1
658
7.2
22.1
240
193
46.9
56.3
229
1.9
30.9
33.4
R1
WS1
295
0.7
191
9.2
<0.03
63.2
0.3
698
7.3
13.2
1.3
1.3
0.1
50.9
<25
<0.1
30.9
32.8
RO1
11
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
2.7
<0.1
98
6.7
18.6
0.4
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
<0.1
0.3
R2
WS2
304
0.7
190
9.2
<0.03
61.6
<0.1
658
_
_
1.2
1.1
0.1
53.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
12
<0.1
<1
1.3
<0.03
2.7
<0.1
36
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
286
0.7
188
9.2
<0.03
62.4
0.1
740
_
_
2.1
1.8
0.3
53.7
45.9
<0.1
-
-
RO4
6
<0.1
<1
0.8
<0.03
1.2
<0.1
8
_
_
0.5
0.4
0.1
<0.1
<25
0.2
-
-
R5
WS5
290
0.7
191
9.5
<0.03
62.3
0.4
492
_
_
1.1
1.0
<0.1
51.6
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
6
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.03
2.4
<0.1
<1
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
-
-
R6
WS6
286
0.7
195
9.3
<0.03
61.5
0.2
764
_
_
1.5
1.4
0.1
48.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
3
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
2.0
<0.1
32
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
295
0.7
192
9.4
<0.03
61.9
<0.1
722
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
13
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.03
1.4
<0.1
<1
_
_
0.8
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<25
7.4
-
-
R8
WS8
286
0.7
191
9.3
<0.03
62.4
0.2
784
_
_
1.0
1.0
<0.1
50.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
22
<0.1
<1
2.2
<0.03
3.6
<0.1
74
_
_
0.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
-
-
R9
WS9
295
0.7
193
9.3
<0.03
62.0
0.3
678
_
_
1.3
1.2
0.1
48.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
7
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.03
1.8
<0.1
<1
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
IN = wellhead.
WS = after water softener.
RO = RO permeate.
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
MonthS: 12/14/05
Wellhead
IN
290
0.6
160
8.7
<0.03
67.2
2.3
656
7.2
25.1
233
184
48.8
55.1
252
0.6
28.9
30.1
R1
WS1
295
0.6
160
9.1
<0.03
67.5
0.5
700
7.6
12.7
1.3
1.2
<0.1
53.2
<25
0.1
25.7
30.4
RO1
17
<0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
4.6
0.2
26
7.7
16.4
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
R2
WS2
295
0.6
161
9.2
<0.03
69.0
0.5
698
_
_
1.0
0.9
<0.1
54.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
11
<0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
3.5
0.2
18
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
304
0.6
162
9.1
<0.03
69.9
1.4
696
_
_
10.3
5.8
4.5
54.5
<25
0.1
-
-
RO4
7
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.03
1.1
0.4
6
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.1
<25
0.2
-
-
R5
WS5
295
0.6
161
8.8
0.03
68.2
0.7
726
_
_
1.3
1.2
0.1
52.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
9
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.03
2.7
0.5
8
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.1
-
-
R6
WS6
295
0.6
161
8.7
0.04
64.1
0.5
700
_
_
1.8
1.6
0.2
55.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
3
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.03
1.3
0.3
<1
_
_
0.5
0.5
<0.1
0.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
290
0.6
161
8.7
<0.03
65.7
0.6
700
_
_
1.2
1.1
<0.1
54.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
4
<0.1
<1
0.2
<0.03
1.4
0.4
12
_
_
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.2
<25
3.0
-
-
R8
WS8
295
0.6
164
8.7
0.03
63.8
0.4
702
_
_
0.9
0.9
<0.1
55.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
8
<0.1
<1
0.5
<0.03
2.8
0.7
18
_
_
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.3
-
-
R9
WS9
290
0.6
162
9.4
0.03
67.3
0.4
710
_
_
1.3
1.1
0.2
52.6
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
11
<0.1
<1
1.3
<0.03
3.3
0.6
74
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 7: 01/17/06
Wellhead
IN
308
0.6
172
8.9
<0.03
65.5
0.4
648
7.2
25.3
228
182
45.9
56.5
<25
0.5
24.3
32.6
R1
WS1
308
0.6
169
8.8
<0.03
66.1
0.3
706
7.5
14.3
0.8
0.7
0.1
51.6
<25
<0.1
23.7
31.9
RO1
12
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
3.2
0.2
28
6.5
19.3
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
<0.1
0.5
R2
WS2
304
0.6
168
8.8
<0.03
66.7
0.4
660
-
-
0.6
0.6
0.1
53.7
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
11
<0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
3.4
0.1
48
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
312
0.6
169
8.8
<0.03
65.5
0.6
716
-
-
1.9
1.5
0.4
54.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO4
6
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
1.9
0.3
25
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.3
-
-
R5
WS5
312
0.6
160
8.8
<0.03
65.7
0.5
614
-
-
0.9
0.7
0.1
54.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
8
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.03
2.4
0.5
26
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
-
-
R6
WS6
304
0.6
171
8.7
<0.03
63.5
0.3
666
-
-
173
78.5
94.9
56.0
<25
1.3
-
-
RO6
2
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.03
1.5
0.1
2
-
-
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<25
0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
308
0.6
169
8.9
<0.03
66.7
0.5
664
-
-
0.9
0.8
0.2
52.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
3
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.03
1.1
0.1
<1
-
-
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
<25
6.5
-
-
R8
WS8
304
0.6
171
8.8
<0.03
64.8
0.2
624
-
-
0.5
0.4
<0.1
52.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
9
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.03
2.6
0.4
2
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.2
-
-
R9
WS9
308
0.6
169
8.8
<0.03
65.2
0.3
680
-
-
0.9
0.7
0.1
56.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
15
<0.1
<1
<0.05
0.04
2.7
0.6
36
-
-
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
<25
3.5
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
------- |