EPA/600/R-07/003
January 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Jody P. Lipps
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 provid-
ing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on meth-
ods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sedi-
ments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environ-
ment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the operator of Charette Mobile Home Park in
Dummerston, Vermont, the owner of P2 Environmental, and the manager of the Vermont State Housing
Authority (VSHA). The operator of the park monitored the treatment system and collected samples from
the treatment and distribution system on a regular schedule throughout this reporting period. The owner
of P2 Environmental provided timely communication and assistance in system operation and performed
bimonthly arsenic speciation across the treatment trains. This performance evaluation would not have
been possible without their support and dedication.
IV
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the first six months
(from June 22, 2005 through December 22, 2005) of the arsenic removal treatment technology
demonstration project at Charette Mobile Home Park (CMHP) in Dummerston, Vermont. The objectives
of the project are to evaluate 1) the effectiveness of an Aquatic Treatment Systems's (ATS) arsenic
removal system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10
(ig/L, 2) the reliability of the treatment system, 3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M)
and operator's skills, and 4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterizes
water in the distribution system and residuals produced by the treatment process.
The ATS system consisted of two parallel treatment trains, each having three 10-inch diameter, 54-inch
tall, sealed polyglass columns connected in series to treat up to 11 gal/min (gpm) of water. Water
supplied from three source water wells was chlorinated to provide chlorine residuals and then passed
through a 25-(im sediment filter and the three adsorption columns in each train. Each adsorption column
was loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media, which consisted of an activated alumina
substrate and a proprietary iron complex. Based on the design flowrate of 11 gpm, the empty bed contact
time (EBCT) in each column was 1 min and the hydraulic loading rate to each column was 20.4 gpm/ft2.
The actual flowrate was much lower, averaging only 4.4 and 3.2 gpm for Trains A and B, respectively,
for the first 23 weeks from June 27 through November 26, 2005, and 1.4 and 1.9 gpm for the remainder of
the reporting period. As a result, each adsorption column had a much longer EBCT, ranging from 1.8 to
34 min throughout the entire study period. The highly variable and slow flowrates from the wells might
be attributed, in part, to slow recovery rates of the aquifer resulting from a dry summer.
Between June 22, 2005, and December 22, 2005, the system operated an average of 5.9 hr/day for a total
of 1,100 hr, treating approximately 302,000 gal of raw water containing 30.4 to 72.2 (ig/L of arsenic
existing predominately as As(V). Arsenic concentrations after the lead columns reached 10 (ig/L at
approximately 5,400 bed volumes (BV) from Train A and 5,000 BV from Train B. (Note that BV was
calculated based on 1.5ft3 [or 11.2 gal] of media in each column.) Arsenic existing mostly as As(V)
approached complete breakthrough (concentration equal to those in the influent) following the lead
columns at approximately 12,000 BV. Arsenic breakthrough from the lead columns occurred sooner than
projected (at 40,000 BV) by the vendor. It is presumed that relatively high pH values of source water
(averaging 7.8), competing anions, such as silica, and higher influent arsenic concentrations (i.e., 45.1
(ig/L, on average, compared to 30 (ig/L observed during the initial site visit) might have contributed to
early arsenic breakthrough from the adsorption columns.
Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in the soluble form) in the treated water following
adsorption columns were approximately 10 to 30 (ig/L higher than those in raw water, indicating leaching
of aluminum from the adsorptive media. Leaching of aluminum continued throughout the study period;
however, there was a decreasing trend in aluminum in the treated water during the six months of
evaluation.
Comparison of distribution system sampling results before and after operation of the system showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentrations at two of the three residences during the first six months of
system operation. One residence had arsenic concentrations ranging from 16.3 to 26.0 (ig/L through the
first three months of system operation. Starting from the fourth month, all three residences had arsenic
concentrations below 3.1 (ig/L. Lead and copper levels did not appear to have been impacted by the
treatment system.
-------
The capital investment cost of $14,000 included $8,990 for equipment, $2,400 for site engineering, and
$2,610 for installation. Using the system's rated capacity of 22 gpm (or 31,680 gal/day [gpd]), the capital
cost was $636/gpm (or $0.44/gpd).
O&M costs included only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media
replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. The incremental cost for
electricity was negligible. Although media replacement and disposal did not take place during the first
six months of operation, the cost to change out two lead adsorption columns was estimated at $2,785
based on information provided by the vendor. This cost was used to estimate the media replacement cost
per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the media run length to the 10-(ig/L arsenic breakthrough
from the third column in series.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
FIGURES viii
TABLES viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 8
3.3.1 Source Water 8
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Residuals 9
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 12
4.1.2 Distribution System 13
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.3 Permitting and System Installation 17
4.4 System Operation 20
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 20
4.4.2 Residuals Management 20
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity 21
4.5 System Performance 23
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 23
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling 34
4.6 System Cost 34
4.6.1 Capital Cost 34
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 36
5.0 REFERENCES 39
APPENDIX A: OPERATIONAL DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES B-l
vn
-------
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Charette Mobile Home Park 12
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Pressure Tanks and Booster Pumps 13
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/2200CS System with Series Operation 16
Figure 4-4. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations 18
Figure 4-5. As/2200CS System with Adsorption Columns Shown in Foreground and Sediment
Filters Attached to Wall 19
Figure 4-6. Close-up View of a Sample Tap (TE), a Pressure Gauge, and Copper Piping at End
of Treatment Train A 19
Figure 4-7. Average Flowrate of Three Source Wells and the Treatment System 22
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Trains A and B and
Entire System 26
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Trains and Entire System 28
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Mass Removed for Columns A and B 29
Figure 4-11. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire System 31
Figure 4-12. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire
System 32
Figure 4-13. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire System 33
Figure 4-14. O&M and Media Replacement Cost (for Replacement of Two Columns at a Time) 38
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedules and Analyses 9
Table 4-1. Source and Treated Water Quality Data for Charette Mobile Home Park Site 14
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of A/I Complex 2000 Adsorption Media 15
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of As/2200CS System 17
Table 4-4. Summary of As/2200CS System Operations 21
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results 24
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements 25
Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed by Columns A and B 30
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results 35
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment Cost 36
Table 4-10. Summary of O&M Cost 37
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
BV bed volume(s)
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
CMHP Charette Mobile Home Park
Cu copper
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR (EPA) Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
N/A not analzyed
Na sodium
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
ND not detected
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF NSF International
IX
-------
O&M operation and maintenance
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
Pb lead
PO4 orthophosphate
POU point-of-use
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SBMHP Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TO Task Order
VDEC Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
VSHA Vermont State Housing Authority
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) mandates that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule required all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in 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 project. Using the
information provided by the review panel, EPA, in cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water
programs of the respective states, selected one technical proposal for each site. As of December 2006, 11
of the 12 systems were operational and the performance evaluations of six systems were completed.
Upon additional congressional funding, EPA published another announcement in the Federal Register
soliciting water utilities interested in participating in the Round 2 demonstration program. Among the
32 water systems selected by EPA in June 2003 was Charette Mobile Home Park (CMHP) in
Dummerston, Vermont.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. The As/1400CS arsenic treatment system from Aquatic Treatment
System, Inc. (ATS) was selected for demonstration at the CMHP site in September 2004.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM systems), 13 coagula-
tion/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including nine
under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units at
the OIT site), and one 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
demonstration sites and the associated capital cost is reported in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/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.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M costs of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the ATS system at the CMHP site in Vermont during the first
six months from June 22 through December 22, 2005. The types of data collected included system
operation, water quality data (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system), residuals, and
capital and preliminary O&M cost.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations, Technologies, and Source Water Quality
Demonstration
Location
Site Name
Technology (Media)
Vendor
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Source Water Quality
As
(ug/L)
Fe
(ug/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
10
150
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
l,312(c)
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM(E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
USFilter
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14(a)
13(a)
16W
20W
17
39(a)
34
25W
42W
146W
127(c)
466W
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827W
546(c)
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Lyman, NE(cl)
Arnaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
Village of Lyman
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Indian Health Services
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
Kinetico
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
350
385
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(e>
50
37
20
35W
19W
56
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
<25
2,068(c)
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
(HS/L)
Fe
(ug/L)| PH
Far West
Three Forks, MT
Fruitland, ID
Homedale, ID
Okanogan, WA
Klamath Falls, OR
Vale, OR
Reno, NV
Susanville, CA
Lake Isabella, CA
Tehachapi, CA
City of Three Forks
City of Fruitland
Sunset Ranch Development
City of Okanogan
Oregon Institute of Technology
City of Vale
South Truckee Meadows General
Improvement District
Richmond School District
Upper Bodfish Well CH2-A
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU ROW
C/F (Electromedia-I)
AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenX) and POU AM®
IX (A520)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kenetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a reduced flowrate of 40 gpm.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Withdrawn from program in June 2006.
(e) System reconfigured from parallel to series operation due to a reduced flowrate of 30 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of operation, the following conclusions
were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media was effective in removing arsenic to below its MCL
of 10 (ig/L. The run length to breakthrough at 10 (ig/L, however, was short, ranging from
5,000 to 5,400 bed volumes (BV) for the two lead columns. Complete breakthrough
from the lead columns occurred at approximately 12,000 BV, resulting in an adsorptive
capacity of approximately 0.46 (ig of As/mg of media. Note that the number of BV was
calculated based on the volume of media in each column.
• Arsenic breakthrough from the lead columns occurred much sooner than projected (at
40,000 BV) by the vendor. It is presumed that relatively high pH values of the source
water (averaging 7.8), competing anions, such as silica (see discussion under next bullet),
and higher-than-expected influent arsenic concentrations (ranging from 30.4 to 72.2 (ig/L
and averaging 45.1 (ig/L) might have contributed to the early arsenic breakthrough. The
vendor's estimate was based on an influent arsenic concentration of 30 (ig/L. However,
the vendor's arsenic breakthrough also was projected using an EBCT of 1 min/column
based on a flowrate of 11 gpm per treatment train. This EBCT was 2.6 to 8.1 times
shorter than the actual EBCT that was caused by the low flowrates experienced by the
source water we 11s.
• The presence of competing anions also might have contributed to the early arsenic
breakthrough. The media was shown to be especially selective for silica, which
continued to be removed even after the arsenic removal capacity was completely
exhausted. Similar observations also were made at the Spring Brook Mobile Home Park
(SBMHP) site in Wales, Maine, where similar concentrations of silica were measured in
source water (Lipps et al, 2006).
• Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in the soluble form) following the
adsorptive columns were appoximately 10 to 30 (ig/L higher than those in raw water,
indicating leaching of aluminum from the adsorptive media. The concentrations detected
were below its secondary drinking water standard.
Simplicity of required system operation and maintenance and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters. Due to the small size of the system, operational
parameters were only recorded three days per week.
• Operation of the As/2200CS did not require additional skills beyond those necessary to
operate the existing water supply equipment.
-------
Process residuals produced by the technology:
Because the system did not require backwash to operate, no backwash residuals were
produced.
The only residuals produced by the operation of the As/2200CS treatment system would
be spent media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of operation;
therefore, no residual waste was produced during this period.
Technology Costs:
Using the system's rated capacity of 22 gal/min (gpm) (or 31,680 gal/day [gpd]), the
capital cost was $636/gpm (or $0.44/gpd).
Although media replacement and disposal did not take place during the first six months
of operation, the cost to change out two adsorption columns at a time was estimated to be
$2,785 based on information provided by the vendor.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
General Project Approach
Following the pre-demonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study of
the ATS treatment system began on June 22, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and
considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall performance of the system was
evaluated based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to below the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through
the collection of water samples across the treatment train. The reliability of the system was evaluated by
tracking the unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement. The
unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by the plant operator on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
Table 3-1. Pre-Demonstration 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
Final Study Plan Issued
Engineering Package Submitted to VDEC
Permit issued by VDEC
System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
September 14, 2004
November 18, 2004
December 2, 2004
January 12, 2005
January 28, 2005
February 28, 2005
March 9, 2005
April 1, 2005
April 29, 2005
May 23, 2005
June 22, 2005
June 22, 2005
VDEC = Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objectives
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
System Cost
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 |ag/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems,
materials and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of system automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number,
frequency, and complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed of relevant chemical processes and health
and safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated
by process
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical and/or media usage, electricity, and labor
-------
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need for pre- and/or post-treatment, level of system
automation, extent of the preventive maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital cost for equipment,
engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal, chemical
usage, electricity consumption, and labor. The O&M cost was limited to electricity and labor because
media replacement did not take place during the first six months of operation.
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, biweekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
the instructions provided by the vendor and Battelle. On a daily basis, the plant operator recorded system
operational data, such as pressure, flowrate, totalizer and hour meter readings on a Daily System
Operation Log Sheet; checked the sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) level; and conducted visual inspections
to ensure normal system operations. If any problems occurred, the plant operator contacted the Battelle
Study Lead, who determined if the vendor should be contacted for troubleshooting. The plant operator
recorded all relevant information, including the problem encountered, course of actions taken, materials
and supplies used, and associated cost and labor, on the Repair and Maintenance Log Sheet. On a
biweekly basis, the plant operator measured several water quality parameters on-site, including pH,
temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and recorded the data on a
Biweekly On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for media replacement and spent media disposal,
chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor. Consumption of NaOCl was tracked on the Daily
System Operation Log Sheet. Electricity consumption was determined from utility bills. Labor for
various activities, such as the routine system O&M, troubleshooting and repair, and demonstration-related
work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included
activities such as completing field logs, ordering supplies, performing system inspections, and others as
recommended by the vendor. The labor for demonstration-related work, including activities such as
performing field measurements, collecting and shipping samples, and communicating with the Battelle
Study Lead and the vendor, was recorded but not used for cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected from the wellhead, across the treatment
plant, and from the distribution system. Table 3-3 provides the sampling schedules and analytes
measured during each sampling event. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods, sample
volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-endorsed
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation is
described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water. During the initial visit to the CMHP site, one set of source water samples
was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit described in Section 3.4.1. The sample tap
was flushed for several minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might
cause unwanted oxidation. Analyses for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
-------
Table 3-3. Sample Collection Schedules and Analyses
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Residual
Solids
Sample
Locations'3'
At Wellhead
(IN)
At Wellhead
(IN), after
Chlorination
(AC), after
Each
Adsorption
Column (TA
to TF), and
after Entire
System (TT)
Three LCR
Residences
Spent Media
from
Adsorption
Columns
No. of
Samples
1
4-9
3
6
Frequency
Once during
initial site
visit
Weekly or
Biweekly
Monthly(b)
Once
Analytes
Off-site: As (total, and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble), Na,
Ca, Mg, V, Sb, Cl, F,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
TOC, alkalinity, and pH.
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total).
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Al (total and soluble), Ca,
Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, turbidity, and/or
alkalinity.
pH, alkalinity, As, Fe,
Mn, Al, Cu, and Pb.
TCLP metals
Collection Date(s)
9/14/04
06/22/05, 07/05/05,
07/19/05, 08/03/05,
08/16/05, 08/29/05,
09/19/05, 09/27/05,
10/13/05, 10/25/05,
11/01/05, 11/08/05,
11/28/05,12/13/05
Baseline sampling:
12/07/04, 01/04/05,
02/01/05, 04/05/05,
Monthly sampling:
07/27/05, 08/16/05,
09/20/05, 10/13/05,
11/08/05, 11/27/05
To be determined
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses correspond to the sample locations shown in Figure 4-4.
(b) Four baseline sampling events were performed before the system became operational.
Bold font indicates that speciation was performed.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, weekly or bi-
weekly samples were collected by the plant operator at four to nine locations across the treatment train,
including at the wellhead [IN], after chlorination [AC], after each adsorption column [TA to TF], and
after the entire system [TT]. Speciation was performed for As, Fe, Mn, and Al approximately every other
month. On-site measurements for pH, temperature, DO, and ORP also were performed during each
sampling event.
3.3.3 Residuals. Because the system did not require backwash, no backwash residuals were
produced during system operation. Additionally, because media replacement did not take place during
the first six months of operation, there were no spent media samples collected.
3.3.4 Distribution System Water. Samples were collected from the distribution system to
determine the impact of the arsenic treatment system on the water chemistry in the distribution system,
specifically, the arsenic, lead, and copper levels. Prior to the system startup from December 2004 to April
-------
2005, four sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected from three residences within the
distribution system. Following the system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly
basis at the same three locations. The three homes selected were residences that were included in the
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling in the past.
The home owners collected samples following an instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and
Copper Rule Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). First-draw
samples were collected from cold-water faucets that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that
stagnant water was sampled. The dates and times of last water usage prior to sampling and sample
collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation time. Analytes for the baseline samples
coincided with the monthly distribution system water samples as described in Table 3-3. Arsenic
speciation was not performed for the distribution water samples.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation 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 sample cooler was prepared
with the appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample
bottles were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-
printed, colored-coded, waterproof label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of
sample collection, collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative.
The sample ID consisted of a two-letter code for the specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter
code for a specific sampling location, and a one-letter code for designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if
necessary). The sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The
labeled bottles for each sampling location were placed in a ziplock bag (each corresponding to a specific
sample location) in the cooler. On a monthly basis, the sample cooler also included bottles for the
distribution system sampling.
In addition, all sampling and shipping-related supplies, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/pre-addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were placed in each
cooler. The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were completed except for the operator's signature and
the sample date and time. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the
following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectroscopy
(ICP-MS) Laboratory. Samples for other water quality analyses were packed in separate coolers and
picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, Ohio, and TCCI
10
-------
Laboratories in New Lexington, Ohio, both of which were under contract with Battelle for this
demonstration study. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the samples from the time of
preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived by the appropriate
laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of properly thereafter.
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by Battelle ICP-MS, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy,
method detection limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative
percent difference [RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80-120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality
assurance (QA) data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary
Report to be prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
WTW Multi 340i handheld meter, which was calibrated for pH and DO prior to use following the
procedures provided in the user's manual. The ORP probe also was checked for accuracy by measuring
the ORP of a standard solution and comparing it to the expected value. The plant operator collected a
water sample in a clean, plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the beaker until a stable value was
obtained. The plant operator also performed free and total chlorine measurements using Hach chlorine
test kits following the user's manual.
11
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
The CMHP water system at Dummerston, Vermont, supplies water to approximately 14 mobile homes.
The water treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, is located on Dummerston Station Road. The water
source is groundwater from three bedrock supply wells (Wells No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3) installed in 1999.
The total combined flowrate from the three wells was estimated to be approximately 22 gpm based on a
flow test conducted by the plant operator. The average daily use rate was estimated to be approximately
2,500 gpd. The pre-existing system included a 5,500-gal atmosphere storage tank, two booster pumps,
and four pressure tanks (Figure 4-2). The only treatment for the pre-existing water system was
chlorination via injection of a 0.625% NaOCl solution for disinfection.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Charette Mobile Home Park
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on September 14, 2004, and
subsequently analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 4-1. The results of the source water analyses,
along with those provided by the facility to EPA for the demonstration site selection and those obtained
from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC), are presented in Table 4-1.
Total arsenic concentrations of source water ranged from 7.0 to 30.0 |o,g/L. Based on the September 14,
2004, sampling results, the total arsenic concentration in the source water was 30.0 |og/L, of which
28.6 ng/L (or 95%) was As(V).
12
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Pressure Tanks and Booster Pumps
Concentrations of iron (<25 (ig/L) and other ions in raw water were sufficiently low meaning that
pretreatment prior to the adsorption process would not be required. Concentrations of orthophosphate and
fluoride also were sufficiently low (i.e., <0.05 and <0.1 mg/L, respectively) and, therefore, should not
affect the arsenic adsorption on the A/I Complex 2000 media. Silica concentration was 12.3 mg/L,
similar to the level measured in source water at the SBMHP site in Wales, Maine. Because the A/I
Complex 2000 media was shown to be especially selective for silica at the SBMHP site (Lipps et al.,
2006), the effect of silica to the media for arsenic adsorption was carefully monitored throughout the
study period.
4.1.2 Distribution System. Information provided by P2 Environmental indicated that the
distribution system consisted of a looped distribution line constructed of approximately 950 ft of 3-in lead
pipe, 850 ft of 2-in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, and 500 ft of 1-in polyethylene pipe, according to a
VDEC Sanitary Survey (P2 Environmental, 2005).
Compliance samples from the distribution system are collected monthly for bacterial analysis. Under the
EPA LCR, samples are collected from customer taps at four residences and the pump station every three
years. A summary of the distribution system water sampling results collected by VDEC is presented in
Table 4-1. Arsenic concentration measured was 30 (ig/L, similar to those in source water. Lead
concentrations ranged from the method reporting limit to 6 (ig/L; copper concentrations ranged from the
method reporting limit to 300 (ig/L. Radium-226 and Radium-228 were present at 0.2 and 0.5 pCi/L,
respectively, which were less than the 5-pCi/L MCL.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Source and Treated Water Quality Data for Charette Mobile Home Park Site
Parameter
Date
pH
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As(total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Pb (total)
Cu (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Ra-226
Ra-228
Radon
Gross Alpha
Unit
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Facility
Source
Water Data(a)
-
8.0
135
188
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
45
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.07
27
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
32
75
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Battelle
Source
Water Data
9/14/04
7.9
137
156
0.4
246
<0.7
0.24
0.01
O.05
51
<0.1
20.0
12.3
O.06
30.0
30.1
<0.1
1.5
28.6
<25
<25
5.1
4.2
<10
<10
2.0
2.0
0.8
0.6
N/A
N/A
22
28
21
<1
<1
N/A
N/A
VDEC
Source
Water Data
1999-2004
7.8-8.1
190-215
N/A
0.4-1.8
200-210
N/A
<0.1
0.002
N/A
0.2-53
O.2
17-18
N/A
N/A
7-28
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60-150
N/A
20-60
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<5
<30
17-23
23-39
N/A
N/A
N/A
ND-2.8
ND-3
VDEC
Treated
Water Data
2000-2004
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<5-6
<30-300
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.5
N/A
N/A
(a) Provided by facility to EPA for demonstration site selection.
N/A = not analyzed
ND = not detected
14
-------
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The ATS As/2200CS adsorption system used A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media for arsenic removal.
The A/I Complex 2000 media consisted of a substrate of activated alumina onto which a proprietary iron
complex was chemically "grafted." Table 4-2 presents physical and chemical properties of the adsorptive
media. The media has NSF International Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water.
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorption Media
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
Specific Gravity
Hardness (kg/in2)
Particle Size Distribution (mesh)
Particle Size Distribution (mm)
BET Surface Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Value
Activated alumina/iron complex
Granular solid
Light brown/orange granules
51
1.5
14-16
28 x48(<2% fines)
0.589x0.295
320
<0.1
<5
Ch emical An alysis
Constituent
A1203 (%, dry)
NaIC-4 (%, dry)
Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2'6H2O (%, dry)
Value
90.89
3.21
5.90
The ATS As/2200 CS system was a six-column, fixed-bed downflow adsorption system designed for the
CMHP with flowrates of around 22 gpm. The system consisted of two parallel treatment trains, each
having three 10-in by 54-in, sealed polyglass columns connected in series (Figure 4-3). The system
design planned for the lead column in each treatment train to be removed upon exhaustion and each of the
lag columns to be moved forward one position (i.e. the first lag column became the lead column and the
second lag column became the first lag column). A new column loaded with virgin media was then
placed at the end of each treatment train as the second lag tank. This configuration should maximize the
usage of the media capacity before its replacement. The spent media may be disposed of after being
subjected to the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test.
Water pumped from the three wells was pre-chlorinated to maintain required chlorine residuals in the
distribution system. The chemical feed system consisted of a day tank and a chemical feed pump with a
maximum capacity of 1.0 gal/hr. The proper operation of the NaOCl feed system was tracked by the
operator through measurements office chlorine across the treatment train. To maintain a target-free
chlorine residual of 0.2 to 0.4 mg/L (as C12), a 0.625% NaOCl solution was injected into raw water at a
rate of 0.44 mL/min when the well pumps were running.
After chlorination, water passed through a 25-(im sediment filter located at the head of each treatment
train before going into the three adsorption columns, each containing 1.5 ft3 of A/I Complex 2000
15
-------
Water is supplie
bv ..veils 1 25.3
Treated Water To
Atmospheric Tank
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3
Sediment
Filter
JUUUUL
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3
Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic
Adsorption Adsorption Adsorption
Worker Guard Guard
Column Column Column
10"x54" 10"xS4" 10"x64"
Notes:
1) Trains A and B are duplicate parallel treatment trains.
2) All treatment columns have ahead assembly that can be adjusted for Inflow, outflow and by-pass.
3) Each 10" X 54" tank has 1.5 cubic feet of media.
4) The System is made with 1" I.D. fittings and connections.
Q ATS 2005
021506
N/O
....
Symbol Key
IB Ball Valve
•t Drain
O Pressure Gauge
(^ Check Valve
C3 I Flow Rate Meter Totalizer
I I 11 gpmFlowRestrictor
Sample Port
NIQ Normally Open
NIC Normally Closed
M. CNorination Tap
:
J
Schematic is NOT TO SCALE
design by TJB/ATS
As2200cs dummerstonwk4
Figure 4-3. Schematic of ATS As/2200CS System with Series Operation
-------
adsorptive media. A flowmeter/totalizer was located on the downstream end of each treatment train to
record the volume of water treated and measure the flowrate through each train.
Pressure gauges located at the system inlet just prior to the split to the two treatment trains, at the head of
each column, and at the system outlet just after the two trains were combined, were used to monitor the
system pressure and pressure drop across the treatment train. The treated water from each train combined
before entering a 5,500-gal atmospheric storage tank. The system was constructed using 1-in copper
piping and fittings. The design features of the treatment system are summarized in Table 4-3, and a flow
diagram along with the sampling/analysis schedule are presented in Figure 4-4. A photograph of the
system installed at the CMHP site is shown in Figure 4-5 and a close-up view of one of the adsorption
columns is shown in Figure 4-6.
Table 4-3. Design Specifications of As/2200CS System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Adsorption Columns
Column Size (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (ft2/column)
Number of Columns
Configuration
Media Type
Media Quantity (Ibs)
Media Volume (ft3)
10 D x 54 H
0.54
6
Series
A/I Complex 2000
83
1.5
-
-
3 columns per train, 2 trains in parallel
3 columns in series per train
-
Per column
Per column
Service
System Flowrate (gpm)
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
EBCT (min)/column
Average Use Rate (gpd)
Estimated Media Life (months)
22
20.4
1.0
2,500
12
1 1 gpm per train
-
Per column, 3.0-min total EBCT for 3
adsorption columns in each train
Based on usage estimate provided by park
Estimated frequency of media change-out in
lead column based on throughput of 1,250
gpd per train
Backwash
Backwash
-
No system backwash required
4.3
Permitting and System Installation
Engineering plans for the system were prepared by ATS and its subcontractor, Roberts & Franzoni
Engineering, and submitted to VDEC for approval on April 29, 2005. The plans included a schematic of
the As/2200CS system along with a written description of the system. The approval was granted by
VDEC on May 23, 2005.
The system was placed in the existing treatment building, shown in Figure 4-1, without any
modifications. The As/2200CS system, consisting of factory-packed adsorption columns and pre-
assembled system valves, gauges, and sample taps, was delivered to the site by ATS on June 21, 2005.
The system installation began that same day, including some re-work of the existing system piping. The
sediment filters were attached to the wall at the head of each treatment train (Figure 4-5). The adsorption
columns were then set into place and plumbed together using copper piping and connections. The
17
-------
INFLUENT
(WELLS 1,2, and 3)
Charette Mobile Home Park in
Dummerston, VT
As/2200CS Arsenic Removal System
Design Flow: 22 gpm
1
F
SEDIMENT FILTER
1
F
1
r
SEDIMENT FILTER
i
r
I ADSORPTION)
COLUMN A
(ADSORPTION!
COLUMN C
(ADSORPTION!
COLUMN E
Weekly or Biweekly
pHW, temperature^, DOW, ORP
-------
Figure 4-5. As/2200CS System with Adsorption Columns Shown in
Foreground and Sediment Filters Attached to Wall
Figure 4-6. Close-up View of a Sample Tap (TE), a Pressure Gauge,
and Copper Piping at End of Treatment Train A
19
-------
mechanical installation was complete on June 22, 2005. Before the system was put online, the system
piping was flushed and the tanks were filled one at a time to check for leaks. Once all tanks were filled,
the system was operated for a short period with the treated water going to the sewer. After it was
determined that the system had been operating properly, a sample was collected for the total coliform
measurement. Upon receipt of the test result (that indicated absence of bacteria), the treated water was
directed to the distribution system. The first set of treatment plant water samples was collected on June
22, 2005, after installation and shakedown of the system were complete; but the system was by-passed
until June 24, 2005, after the total coliform sample result was obtained.
4.4 System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters of the system are tabulated and
attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-4. From June 22, 2005, through
December 22, 2005, the treatment system operated for 1,100 hr based on hour meter readings of the well
pumps. The operational time represented a utilization rate of approximately 25% over the 26-week study
period with the well pumps operating an average of 5.9 hr/day. The total system throughput during this
26-week period was approximately 302,000 gal (or 151,000 per train).
Except for a few outliers, flowrates of the three source water wells ranged from 0.2 to 1.2 gpm and
averaged 0.6 gpm for Well 1; from 0.8 to 3.1 gpm and averaged 1.9 gpm for Well 2; and from 3.7 to 5.0
gpm and averaged 4.3 gpm for Well 3 during the first 23 weeks of system operation. For unknown
reasons, the flowrates of the source water wells reduced approximately by half (from 6.8 to 3.5 gpm for
average combined flowrate) after the 23rd week of operation and remained low for the last four weeks of
the study period. As shown in Figure 4-7, the average flowrate of Well 1 dropped from 0.7 to 0.2 gpm,
Well 2 from 1.9 to 0.9 gpm, and Well 3 from 4.2 to 2.3 gpm.
The treatment system showed a similar drop in flowrates coinciding with the wells. The flowrate of
Treatment Train A dropped from 4.4 to 1.4 gpm and Treatment Train B from 3.2 to 1.9 over the same
time period. The ranges of flowrates throughout the first 23 weeks for Trains A and B were 0.6-5.6 and
0.3-6.4 gpm, respectively (compared to the design flowrate of 11 gpm per train) (Figure 4-7). These
resulted in EBCT values ranging from 2.1 and 18 min per column for Train A and from 1.8 and 34 min
per column for Train B (compared to the design EBCT of 1.0 min per column or 3.0 min for three
columns). The average EBCT per column in Train A increased from 2.6 to 8.1 min and Train B from 3.6
to 5.9 min after the 23rd week of operation.
The highly variable flowrates are believed to have been caused, in part, by drying up and slow recovery
rates of the source water wells. Based on the average flowrate and average daily operating time, the
average daily use rate was approximately 1,641 gpd, which was about 65% of that provided by the park.
The pressure loss across each column ranged from 0 to 15 pounds per square inch (psi) and averaged 4
psi. The total pressure loss across each treatment train (three columns in series) averaged 13 psi. The
average influent pressure at the head of the system from the wells was 13.5 psi, and the average pressure
following the last column in each treatment train was 5 psi. The treated water was fed into a 5,500 gal
atmospheric storage tank so the pressure was 0 psi at the tank and pre-existing pressure tanks and booster
pumps were used to feed the distribution system from the atmospheric storage tank.
4.4.2 Residuals Management. The only residuals produced by the operation of the As/2200CS
treatment system would be spent media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of
operation; therefore, no residual waste was produced during this period. Because the system did not
require backwash to operate, no backwash residuals were produced.
20
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of As/2200CS System Operations
Operational Parameter
Operating Duration
Total Operating Time (hr)
Average Daily Operating Time (hr/day)
Throughput (gal for both trains)
Throughput (BV per train)(a)
Range of Flowrate of Source Water Wells
(gpm)
Average Flowrate of Source Water Wells
(gpm)
Range of Flowrates of Treatment Trains
(gpm)
Average Flowrate of Treatment Trains
(gpm)
Range of EBCT (min)(a) per column
Average EBCT (min)(a) per column
Range of Daily Use Rate (gpd)
Average Daily Use Rate (gpd)
Average Pressure Loss across Each Column
(psi)
Value
June 24, 2005 to December 22, 2005
1,100
5.9
302,000
13,600(b)
08/27/05-11/26/05
0.22-1.22 Welll
0.77-3.06 Well 2
3.66-5.00 Well 3
08/27/05-11/26/05
0.63 Well 1
1.93 Well 2
4.33 Well 3
06/27/05-11/26/05
0.6-5.6 Train A
0.3-6.4 Train B
06/27/05-11/26/05
4.4 Train A
3.2 Train B
06/27/05-11/26/05
2.1-18 Train A
1.8-34 Train B
06/27/05-11/26/05
2.6 Train A
3.6 Train B
11/29/05-12/22/05
0.17-0.23
0.78-0.90
1.11-2.77
11/29/05-12/22/05
0.19
0.87
2.34
11/29/05-12/22/05
0.8-4.1
0.6-3.3
11/29/05-12/22/05
1.4
1.9
11/29/05-12/22/05
2.7-14
3.4-20
11/29/05-12/22/05
8.1
5.9
300-4,500
1,641
4
(a) Calculated based on 1.5 ft3 (or 11.22 gal) of media in lead column.
(b) Arsenic breakthrough at 10 ug/L from lead columns at 5,000-6,000 BV and from the
first lag columns at 12,500 BV.
4.4.3 System Operation, Reliability and Simplicity. One operational difficulty encountered was
insufficient water from the three wells used to supply the treatment system. This might have been caused
by a low water table resulting from a dry summer in Vermont. There also was an imbalance of flow to
the two treatment trains during the first month of the demonstration. Train A was treating approximately
30% more water than Train B. Additional discussion regarding system operation and operator skill
requirement are provided below.
21
-------
Source Water Wells
_ 4.0
I
Flow rate decreased by
about half in all three wells
8/16/2005 9/5/2005 9/25/2005 10/15/2005 11/4/2005
Date
11/24/2005 12/14/2005
1/3/2006
Treatment Trains
16.0
14.0
6/27/2005 7/22/2005 8/16/2005 9/10/2005 10/5/2005 10/30/2005 11/24/2005 12/19/2005
Date
Figure 4-7. Average Flowrate of Three Source Wells and the Treatment System
22
-------
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Because arsenic existed predominately as As(V), oxidation of
As(III) to As(V) was not required. However, for disinfection purposes, prechlorination was performed
using the pre-existing chlorine addition system. No other pre- or post-treatment was required for this
system.
System Controls. The As/2200CS adsorption system was a passive system, requiring only the operation
of the supply well pumps to send water through the adsorption columns to the 5,500-gal atmospheric
storage tank and booster pumps to supply water to the distribution system. The media columns
themselves required no automated parts and all valves were manually activated. The inline flowmeters
were battery powered so that the only electrical power required was that needed to run the supply well
pumps and booster pumps, which were in place prior to the installation of the ATS treatment system. The
system operation was controlled by a float valve in the atmospheric storage tank.
Operator Skill Requirements. Under normal operating conditions, the skills required to operate the
As/2200CS system were minimal. The operation of the system did not require additional skills beyond
those necessary to operate the existing water supply system in place at the site.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. The only regularly scheduled preventative maintenance activity
recommended by ATS was to inspect the sediment filters monthly and replace as necessary. The
treatment system operator visited the site about three times per week to check the system for leaks, and
record flow, volume, and pressure readings.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. NaOCl was used for pre-chlorination. The
operator ordered chemicals as had been done prior to the installation of the As/2200CS system.
4.5 System Performance
The system performance was evaluated based on analyses of samples collected from the raw and treated
water from the treatment and distribution systems.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-5 summarizes the arsenic, iron, manganese, and
aluminum results from samples collected throughout the treatment plant. Table 4-6 summarizes the
results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results
through the first six months of system operation. The results of the treatment plant sampling are
discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the As/2200CS adsorption system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. The treatment plant water was sampled on 15 occasions
during the first six months of system operation (including one event with duplicate samples taken), with
field speciation performed on four of the 15 occasions.
Figure 4-8 contains four bar charts each showing the concentrations of total As, particulate As, As(III),
and As(V) across Treatment Trains A and B and the entire system. Total As concentrations in raw water
ranged from 30.4 to 72.2 (ig/L and averaged 45.1 (ig/L (Table 4-5). As(V) was the predominating
species, ranging from 29.1 to 44.4 (ig/L and averaging 39.3 (ig/L. As(III) also was present in source
water, ranging from 0.4 to 3 (ig/L and averaging 1.8 (ig/L. Particulate As was low with concentrations
typically less than 1 (ig/L. The influent arsenic concentrations measured during this six-month period
were generally higher than those in the raw water sample collected on September 14, 2006 (Table 4-1).
Arsenic concentrations after the lead columns reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 5,400 BV from Train A
(TA) and 5,000 BV from Train B (TB) (Figure 4-9) (Note that BV was calculated based on the amount of
23
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TD
TT
No. of
Samples
15(a)
1
4-15(a)
12
4
1
2-3
2
4
1
2-3
2
4
1
2-3
2
15(a)
1
l-ll(a)
12(a)
4
1
2-3
2
15(a)
1
l-ll(a)
12(a)
4
1
2-3
2
15(a)
1
l-ll(a)
12(a)
4
1
2-3
2
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
30.4
25.7
Maximum
72.2
25.7
Average
45.1
25.7
Standard
Deviation
12.7
-
(b)
<0.1
<0.1
1.20
O.I
0.34
O.I
0.58
-
(b)
0.4
0.5
3.0
0.5
1.8
0.5
1.1
-
(b)
29.1
25.5
44.4
25.5
39.3
25.5
6.9
-
(b)
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
1.7
12.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
1.2
O.I
O.I
<10
<10
<10
12.1
<10
10.2
<10
14.1
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
35.9
12.1
0.8
0.3
9.5
1.2
0.8
0.2
<10
<10
30.3
27.4
<10
10.2
20.8
20.9
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
7.8
12.1
0.2
0.1
4.8
1.2
0.3
0.1
<10
<10
17.1
21.0
<10
10.2
13.5
17.5
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
8.5
-
0.2
0.1
4.8
-
0.3
0.1
0.0
-
5.6
4.9
0.0
-
5.4
4.8
Duplicate samples were included in the calculations.
(a) Including one duplicate sample
(b) Statistics not provided; see figure 4-8 for As breakthrough curves.
24
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Phosphorus
(total)
Silica
(as SiO2)
Nitrate (as N)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
Free Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Chlorine
(as C12)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TD
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
AC
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
AC
TT
AC
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
IN
TA-TF
TT
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
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
No. of
Samples
12
1-10
9
12
1-10
9
12
1-10
9
8
2-8
7
5
2-3
o
J
14
4-13
11
11
1-9
8
12
1-10
9
13
2
1-9
10
13
1-8
10
7
10
6
7
13
1-11
10
13
1-11
10
13
1-11
10
Minimum
110
44
110
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
16
15
17
O.05
<0.05
O.05
<0.03
O.03
<0.03
10.6
0.4
0.3
<0.05
O.05
<0.05
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
7.0
7.7
6.5
7.0
10.2
10.6
10.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
147
143
150
69.5
62.9
67.6
77.4
79.1
82.4
Maximum
141
163
154
<0.1
3.7
0.1
24
70
28
O.05
O.05
O.05
O.03
O.03
O.03
16.8
14.7
9.2
0.20
0.10
0.40
1.3
1.6
0.5
8.2
7.7
8.4
8.3
15.9
16.3
17.2
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.5
205
211
214
92.8
96.2
92.6
113
116
125
Average
128
132
136
0.05
0.28
0.06
20.3
24.6
21.7
O.05
<0.05
O.05
<0.03
O.03
<0.03
12.8
9.4
5.9
0.10
0.08
0.13
0.3
0.2
0.2
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.6
12.9
12.9
13.8
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
175
170
173
80.9
78.9
79.3
93.8
91.5
93.8
Standard
Deviation
8.2
26.5
13.7
0.00
0.86
0.02
2.5
12.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
2.9
3.4
0.05
0.03
0.12
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
-
0.6
0.5
1.9
1.9
2.6
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
16.0
19.6
19.1
7.2
9.5
8.0
10.7
11.1
13.1
One-half of detection limit used for nondetect samples for calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
25
-------
Arsenic Species at Wellhead (IN)
Arsenic Species After Tank A (TA)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
• As (particulate)
OAs(V)
—
6/22/2005 8/16/2005 10/13/2005 12/13/2005
Date
45
40
35
I! 30
| 25
(3 20
15
10
5
0
• As (particulate)
DAs (V)
OAs (III)
I I
^^
6/22/2005 8/16/2005 10/13/2005
Date
Arsenic Species After Tank B (TB)
Arsenic Species After Entire System (TT)
45
40
35
130
g
125
(3 20
15
10
5
0
• As (particulate)
OAs(V)
OAs (III)
6/22/2005
8/16/2005
Date
45
40
35
^^^
|
|
| 25
(3 20
15
10
5
• As (pa
OAs(V)
nAs(lll)
10/13/2005 8/16/2005 12/13/2005
Date
rticulate)
Figure 4-8. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species Across Treatment Trains A and B and Entire System
-------
media, i.e., 1.5 ft3, in each lead column.) Arsenic, existing almost entirely of As(V) (Figure 4-8),
approached complete breakthrough (concentrations equal to those in the influent) after the lead columns
at approximately 12,000 BV. Arsenic breakthrough from the lead columns occurred much sooner than
projected by the vendor (i.e., at 40,000 BV). Although within the vendor-provided effective range of
<9.0, the relatively high pH values of source water (averaging 7.8; see Table 4-6) might have contributed
to early arsenic breakthrough from the adsorption columns. Influent arsenic concentrations during the
six-month evaluation also were, on average, higher than those collected historically by the facility,
Battelle, and VDEC. The vendor-estimated breakthrough was based on approximately 30 (ig/L of As,
compared to the average raw water arsenic concentration of 45.1 (ig/L during the first six-months of
operation. However, the vendor's arsenic breakthrough also was projected using an EBCT of 1
min/column based on a flowrate of 11 gpm per treatment train; this EBCT was much shorter than the
actual EBCT and this flowrate was much higher than the actual flowrate (see Table 4-4).
Based on the breakthrough curves shown in Figure 4-9, the arsenic loading on the adsorption media was
estimated to be between 0.44 and 0.47 (ig of As/mg of media in the lead columns. The loading was
calculated by dividing the arsenic mass represented by the shaded areas in Figure 4-10 by the amount of
media (1.5 ft3) in each lead column. The arsenic mass removed by Columns A and B were estimated to
be 16.4 and 15.1 g, respectively, as shown in Table 4-7.
Breakthrough curves for the first and second sets of lag columns (TC-TF) and the entire system (i.e., TT
after Trains A and B combined) also are presented in Figure 4-9. Arsenic concentrations from the first set
of lag columns (TC and TD) reached 10 (ig/L at approximately 13,000 and 12,500 BV, respectively (or
6,500 and 6,250 BV, respectively, if considering the set of the lead and first lag columns in each train as
one large column). Arsenic concentrations from the second lag column in each treatment train (TE and
TF) and the system effluent remained below 10 (ig/L throughout the first six months of evaluation.
Competing Anions. Among the anions analyzed, silica, sulfate, alkalinity (existing primarily as HCO3" at
pH values between 7.0 and 8.2), and nitrate were present in raw water with significant concentrations
(Table 4-6) and could compete with arsenic for adsorption sites. As shown in Figure 4-11, silica was
consistently removed by, and did not reach complete breakthrough from the adsorption columns
throughout the first six months of system operation. Of the other competitive anions, including HCO3",
SO42", and NO3", the adsorptive media showed little or no capacity (Figure 4-12).
Aluminum. As shown in Table 4-5, total aluminum concentrations in source water were below detection.
Aluminum concentrations (existing primarily in soluble form) in the treated water following the
adsorption columns were about 10 to 30 (ig/L higher than those in raw water, indicating leaching of
aluminum from the adsorptive media. With the increase in aluminum concentration following the
treatment system, the concentrations, however, were below the secondary drinking water standard for
aluminum of 50 to 200 (ig/L. Leaching of aluminum continued throughout the study period; however,
there was a decreasing trend in aluminum concentration in treated water during the six months of
evaluation (Figure 4-13).
Iron and Manganese. Iron concentrations, both total and dissolved, were consistently less than the
reporting limit of 25 |o,g/L in source water and across the treatment trains (Table 4-5). Manganese
concentrations in source water also were low, ranging from 1.7 to 35.9 (ig/L and averaging 7.8 (ig/L.
Manganese concentrations in the treated water following the adsorption columns were typically below the
reporting limit (<1 (ig/L), indicating complete removal of manganese by the adsorptive media.
Other Water Quality Parameters. Fluoride, orthophosphate, total phosphorus, total chlorine and
hardness concentrations remained relatively constant throughout the treatment train.
27
-------
Train A
Bed Volumes (x103)
Train B
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-9. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for Treatment Trains and Entire System
(Each Column Breakthrough Curve Calculated Using Bed Volume of Each Column, i.e., 1.5 ft3)
28
-------
Column A
Bed Volumes (x103)
Column B
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-10. Arsenic Mass Removed by Columns A and B
29
-------
Table 4-7. Arsenic Mass Removed by Columns A and B
Volume
Treated
(BV)(a)
0.0
900
1,100
1,000
1,100
900
1,400
700
1,100
800
500
500
1,600
Concentration (jig/L)
Raw
44.30
39.90
52.30
61.90
46.60
36.90
72.20
30.40
43.00
57.80
32.90
56.20
40.20
After
Column
A
0.70
0.30
4.40
1.20
2.10
6.00
12.60
16.90
31.40
30.80
30.80
30.10
37.30
Difference
43.60
39.60
47.90
60.70
44.50
30.90
59.60
13.50
11.60
27.00
2.10
26.10
2.90
Total Arsenic Removed by Column A
Mass Removed
(Mg)
-------
Train A
Bed Volumes (x103)
Train B
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-11. Silica Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire System
31
-------
Alkalinity
200
180 -
160 -
_ 140 -
120-
8
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
Bed Volumes (x103|
200
180 -
160 -
j 140 -
I 120-
I 100-
I 80 -
$ 60 -
40 -
20
0
Bed Volumes (x10J|
Nitrate
Bed Volumes (x103)
Figure 4-12. Alkalinity, Sulfate and Nitrate Concentrations
Across Treatment Trains and Entire System
32
-------
Train A
-IN -X-TA -«-TC
I! • • • • • • • • • • •-
6 8
Bed Volumes (x103)
Train B
-IN -X-TB -»-TD -*-TT
I! • • • • • • • • • • •-
Bed Volumes (x10J)
Figure 4-13. Total Aluminum Concentrations Across Treatment Trains and Entire System
33
-------
4.5.2 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, baseline distribution water samples were collected from three LCR residences on December 7,
2004; January 4, 2005; February 1, 2005; and April 5, 2005. Following the installation of the treatment
system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis at the same three locations. The results
of the distribution system sampling are summarized in Table 4-8.
As expected, prior to the installation of the arsenic adsorption system, arsenic concentrations in the
distribution system were similar to those measured in raw water, ranging from 25.9 to 51.0 (ig/L. After
the treatment system was installed and put into service, arsenic concentrations ranged from 0.8 to
26.0 (ig/L. One residence (Lot 1) had arsenic concentrations ranging from 16.3 to 26.0 (ig/L for the first
three months of operation. By the fourth month, all three residences had arsenic concentrations below 3.1
jig/L.
For the most part, iron and manganese concentrations in the distribution system were low and similar to
those in raw water. Two residences (Lots 4 and 6) had elevated iron (as high as 602 (ig/L) and
manganese concentrations (as high as 83.2 (ig/L) in the baseline samples. After the treatment system was
installed and put into service, one sample taken from Lot 4 had an elevated iron concentration (i.e., 346
(ig/L) and one taken from Lot 1 had an elevated manganese concentration (i.e., 50.1 (ig/L). Other than a
few exceptions (Lot 6, in particular), aluminum concentrations were higher in water collected after the
startup of the treatment system.
One of each sample collected during the baseline sampling exceeded the lead action level of 15 (ig/L, i.e.,
37 (ig/L from Lot 6 on January 4, 2005, and 22.1 (ig/L from Lot 4 on December 7, 2005. After the
treatment system was installed and put into service, lead levels in all samples were below 7.5 (ig/L.
Copper values were low and did not appear to be affected by the treatment system. The pH and alkalinity
also remained fairly constant throughout the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of design capacity and
the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This included the tracking of the capital cost for the
treatment system such as equipment, engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for chemical supply,
electrical power usage, and labor. No cost was incurred for building and discharge-related infrastructure
improvements. If required, these costs would have been funded by the demonstration site and would not
be included in the following cost analyses.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment cost for equipment, site engineering, and installation
were $14,000 (see Table 4-9). The equipment cost was $8,990 (or 64% of the total capital investment),
which included $4,060 for the treatment system mechanical hardware, $2,880 for the A/I Complex 2000
adsorption media (i.e., $320/ft3 or $5.82/lb to fill six columns), and $2,050 for the vendor's labor and
shipping cost.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of the
piping connections to the distribution tie-in points, and assembling and submission of the engineering
plans for the permit application (Section 4.3). The engineering cost was $2,400, which was 17% of the
total capital investment.
The installation cost included the cost to unload and install the treatment system, complete the piping
installation and tie-ins, and perform the system start-up and shakedown (Section 4.3). The installation
costs were $2,610, or 19% of the total capital investment.
34
-------
Table 4-8. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
BL1
BL2
BL3
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sampling
Location
Sampling Date
12/7/2004
1/4/2005
2/1/2005
4/5/2005
7/27/2005
8/16/2005
9/20/2005
10/13/2005
11/8/2005
1 1/27/2005
DS1 (Lot 1)
1st Draw
,->
6
g
H
g
'ca
ex
S
20.5
12.0
16.0
11.0
14.0
8.8
11.0
NA
7.0
7.0
S3
7.9
7.7
7.3
7.7
8.2
8.2
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.9
,-,
g
,->
8
U
ca
^>
d
a
•fl!
142
136
138
132
110
110
141
154
132
141
S
~gjj
£
•^
*
27.7
25.9
30.8
30.7
16.3
26.0
20.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
S
~gv
A.
fe
ca
15
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
-
OX
^
g
S
4.1
3.7
2.2
0.8
50.1
6.7
0.6
0.3
1.0
0.1
£
~Sii
A.
^
ca
13
0.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.9
5.0
5.0
15.4
56.6
54.1
3
ex
A,
—
ca
13
2.2
4.0
2.5
1.2
1.0
2.2
1.3
0.3
1.4
0.2
2"
ox
Aj
9
o
s
82.0
85.9
84.9
81.3
32.3
72.3
82.5
18.8
33.6
16.5
DS2 (Lot 6)
1st Draw
,->
g
H
§
S
11.8
13.0
12.0
11.8
12.3
12.5
12.8
13.0
11.4
11.3
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.5
8.0
,-,
g
,->
8
U
ca
^
g
a
142
132
138
132
132
132
150
145
110
145
3
~8i)
£
*
29.0
40.8
34.3
30.6
2.5
2.5
2.1
1.5
0.8
1.2
21
~~St>
A.
fe
ca
•s
<25
339
43.9
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
-
OX
^
g
S
1.7
83.2
10.6
0.8
0.2
0.5
<0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
£
~Sii
A.
^
ca
2.2
82.2
53.4
10.9
11.9
13.9
14.1
13.9
199
12.6
3
~DJD
A,
—
*
0.3
37.0
5.1
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
06
0.9
2"
ex
Aj
9
U
^
18.9
138
43.3
29.6
20.9
29.6
20.9
21.6
183
37.1
DS3 (Lot 4)
1st Draw
,->
6
g
H
g
'ca
ex
S
8.8
8.9
17.5
20.0
20.3
11.4
7.7
21.4
938
10.8
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.7
79
8.1
,-,
g
,->
8
U
ca
^
g
a
142
132
133
141
132
141
141
145
139
145
2~
~5l)
£
*
51.0
34.0
39.3
33.3
4.7
11.2
6.5
2.9
3 1
2.7
21
~~St>
A.
fe
ca
•s
602
139
175
25.9
34.4
346
128
<25
48.8
<25
-
WJ
^
g
^
33.8
13.6
10.4
4.9
4.1
16.6
2.7
1.2
40
0.5
£
~Sii
A.
if,
ca
19.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.9
17.6
18.5
5.0
197
18.4
3
~DJD
A,
—
*
22.1
8.9
7.3
2.5
1.6
7.5
3.6
0.4
93
0.4
2"
ex
Aj
9
O
s
105
38.6
36.5
17.2
25.9
55.5
35.0
18.9
28.2
20.8
NS = not sampled; NA = not available.
Lead action level =15 fig/L; copper action level = 1.3 mg/L
The unit for analytical parameters is fig/L except for alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3).
BL = Baseline Sampling
-------
Using the system's rated capacity of 22 gpm (or 31,680 gpd), the capital cost was $636/gpm (or
$0.44/gpd). The capital cost of $14,000 was converted to an annualized cost of $l,321/yr using a capital
recovery factor of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest rate and a 20-yr return. Assuming that the system was
operated 24 hr a day, 7 days a week at the design flowrate of 22 gpm to produce 11.6 million gal of water
per year, the unit capital cost would be $0.11/1,000 gal. However, since the system was operated an
average of 5.9 hr/day with an average daily use rate of 1,641 gal/day (see Table 4-4), producing
approximately 300,000 gal of water during the six-month period, the unit capital cost was increased to
$2.20/1,000 gal at this reduced rate of production.
Table 4-9. Summary of Capital Investment Cost
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Cost
Adsorption Media Tanks
A/I Complex 2000 Adsorptive Media
25-jim Sediment Filters
Piping and Valves
Flow Totalizers/Meters
Hour Meters
Procurement, Assembly, Labor
Freight
Equipment Total
6
9ft3
2
1
2
3
1
1
-
$720
$2,880
$750
$1,020
$1,120
$450
$1,600
$450
$8,990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
64%
Engineering Cost
Design/Scope of System
Travel and Miscellaneous Expenses
Subcontractor Labor
Engineering Total
10 hr
1
-
-
$1,500
$300
$600
$2,400
-
-
17%
Installation Cost
Plumbing Supplies/Parts
Vendor Installation Labor (hr)
Vendor Travel (day)
Subcontractor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
10
2
-
-
-
$500
$1,300
$710
$100
$2,610
$14,000
-
-
-
19%
100%
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the As/2200CS treatment system
includes only incremental cost associated with the adsorption system, such as media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor (Table 4-10). Although the media was not actually
replaced during the first six months of the study, the first set of tanks ("lead") reached exhaustion around
12,000 BV. The cost to replace the media in the two lead tanks is estimated to be $2,785 for media and
labor.
For a three-column system operating in series, the media in the lead column is ideally replaced when the
arsenic concentration in the lead column effluent equals the raw water concentration but before the
arsenic concentration following the final lag column reaches the 10 (ig/L target value. Once the lead
column is exhausted, the first and second lag columns are moved up to the lead and first lag positions and
a column containing new media is placed in the final lag position. This method allows the media's
36
-------
capacity for arsenic removal to be exhausted before its replacement. If the media exhibits a sharp
adsorption front (with a typical S-shaped breakthrough curve) and if the anticipated run length is
relatively short, replacement may be more cost-effective to wait until the first two or all three columns in
the series need to be replaced.
Sodium hypochlorite was added to the water prior to the installation of the system so the cost was not
tracked for the chemical addition. There were no additional electrical requirements added by ATS with
the exception of the hour meters on each well. The well pumps and booster pumps were in place at the
treatment building prior to the installation of the As/2200CS treatment system. Therefore, the electrical
cost associated with the system operation was assumed to be negligible.
The routine, non-demonstration-related labor activities consumed about 20 min/day, 3 day/week as noted
in Section 4.4.3. Therefore, the estimated labor cost was $1.80/1,000 gal of water treated (Table 4-10).
Table 4-10. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
300,000
Remarks
From June 24, 2005 through
December 22, 2005
Media Replacement and Disposal
Media ($/ft3)
Media Volume (ft3)
Total Media Replacement ($)
Labor ($)
Travel and Delivery ($)
Subtotal
Media Replacement and Disposal
($71,000 gal)
$517
3.0
$1,550
$390
$845
$2,785
See Figure 4-14
For replacement columns and spent
media disposal
Amount of media in two lead columns
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Based upon media run length at 10-
ug/L arsenic breakthrough from third
adsorption column
Chemical Usage
Chemical ($)
$0.000
No additional chemical required
Electricity
Electricity ($71,000 gal)
$0.001
Electrical cost assumed negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor Cost ($)
Labor Cost ($71,000 gal)
Total O&M cost ($71,000 gal)
1
$540
$1.80
See Figure 4-14
20 min/day, 3 day/week
27 hr at $20/hr
-
Based upon media run length at 10-
ug/L arsenic breakthrough from third
adsorption column
37
-------
$25.00
$20.00
o
o
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
•O&M Cost (including Media
Replacement)
• Media Replacement Cost Only
5,000
10,000 15,000 20,000
Media Working Capacity (BV)
25,000
30,000
Note: 1 BV = media volume in lead
Figure 4-14. O&M and Media Replacement Cost (for Replacement of
Two Columns at a Time)
38
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L.Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA,90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed. Register, 66:14:6975.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Lipps, J.P., A.S.C. Chen, and L. Wang. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive
Media, U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Spring Brook Mobile Home Park in Wales, ME. Six-
Month Evaluation Report. EPA/600/R-06/090. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
P2 Environmental. Email communication dated February 27, 2005.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH.
39
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation
Week
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Date
06/23/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
06/26/05
06/27/05
06/28/05
06/29/05
06/30/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
07/03/05
07/04/05
07/05/05
07/06/05
07/07/05
07/08/05
07/09/05
07/10/05
07/11/05
07/12/05
07/13/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/16/05
07/17/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/23/05
07/24/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
9.1
12.9
NM
NM
37.2
43.1
48.1
50.6
55.3
58.5
NM
74.7
79.9
84.1
NM
96.6
101.9
NM
118.0
130.2
135.2
138.8
145.4
150.6
NM
172.0
192.0
201.2
210.8
220.3
224.9
NM
Operational
Hours
hr
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
System was bypassed
3.8
NM
NM
24.3
5.9
5.0
2.5
4.7
3.2
NM
16.2
5.2
4.2
NM
12.5
5.3
NM
16.1
12.2
5.0
3.6
6.6
5.2
NM
21.4
20.0
9.2
9.6
9.5
4.6
NM
0.00
NM
NM
4.54
4.10
2.62
4.97
4.32
5.18
NM
4.76
2.62
2.87
5.42
4.03
2.24
NM
4.09
4.49
2.62
5.15
4.92
4.48
NM
0.83
0.40
0.52
2.79
2.02
4.23
NM
263.4
NM
NM
3134.2
NM
4913.2
5583.5
6602.5
7237.8
NM
9090.6
10156.7
10995.5
11745.2
12750.6
13914.9
NM
15355
16337.9
17248.9
17801
18794
19710
NM
21918
22663
23453
24355
25509
25972
NM
23
NM
NM
279
NM
438
498
588
645
NM
810
905
980
1047
1136
1240
NM
1369
1456
1537
1587
1675
1757
NM
1953
2020
2090
2171
2274
2315
NM
0.00
NM
NM
4.42
4.26
1.81
5.52
4.32
5.79
NM
5.25
2.49
2.44
6.21
4.38
1.28
NM
4.43
5.03
2.23
5.93
5.59
5.07
NM
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.64
0.00
4.60
NM
236.2
NM
NM
1876.7
NM
3223.7
3776.9
4682.4
5210.2
NM
6414.2
7874
8082.5
8436.5
9282.1
10062.1
NM
10930
11384
12136.5
12524
13238
14015
NM
15279
15279
15461
15759
16365
16524
NM
0
NM
NM
168
217
286
333
413
464
NM
572
702
720
752
827
897
NM
974
1015
1082
1116
1180
1249
NM
1362
1362
1378
1405
1459
1473
NM
499.6
NM
NM
4973.4
6470.1
8111.3
9276.7
11188.1
12448
NM
15504.8
18030.7
19078
20181.7
22032.7
23977
NM
26285
27721.9
29385.4
30325
32032
33725
NM
37197
37942
38914
40114
41874
42496
NM
22
NM
NM
221
288
361
413
498
554
NM
691
803
850
899
982
1068
NM
1171
1235
1309
1334
1410
1485
NM
1640
1673
1717
1770
1849
1876
NM
0
NM
NM
3.1
4.2
5.5
7.8
6.8
6.6
NM
3.1
8.1
4.2
NM
3.9
6.1
NM
2.4
2.0
5.5
4.4
4.3
5.4
NM
2.7
0.6
1.8
2.1
3.1
2.3
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
6
7
8
9
Date
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/30/05
07/31/05
08/01/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
08/07/05
08/08/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
08/11/05
08/12/05
08/13/05
08/14/05
08/15/05
08/16/05
08/17/05
08/18/05
08/19/05
08/20/05
08/21005
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
236.9
241.7
245.2
247.7
251.6
254.0
NM
258.8
260.7
262.8
264.5
265.9
268.2
NM
281.2
289.9
NM
NM
NM
NM
320.6
NM
NM
335.3
NM
343.6
349.4
NM
Operational
Hours
hr
12.0
4.8
3.5
2.5
3.9
2.4
NM
4.8
1.4
2.1
1.7
1.4
2.3
NM
13.0
8.7
NM
NM
NM
NM
30.7
NM
NM
14.7
NM
8.3
5.8
NM
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.01
4.62
4.79
5.39
5.11
5.71
NM
4.88
5.43
5.67
5.69
6.21
5.50
NM
2.27
1.74
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.45
NM
NM
4.41
NM
4.8
4.15
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
27746
28590
29248
29856
30653
31240
NM
32670
33252
33952
34485
34951
35688
NM
38160
39155
NM
NM
NM
NM
43426
NM
NM
46110
NM
47570
48773
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
2473
2548
2607
2661
2732
2784
NM
2912
2964
3026
3074
3115
3181
NM
3401
3490
NM
NM
NM
NM
3870
NM
NM
4110
NM
4240
4347
NM
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.46
5.25
5.54
6.14
5.90
6.64
NM
5.57
6.27
5.81
6.50
7.08
6.32
NM
2.23
1.30
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.16
NM
NM
5.19
NM
5.63
4.87
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
17826
18506
19141
19792
20618
21246
NM
22858
23522
24322
24932
25507
26302
NM
28868
29504
NM
NM
NM
NM
33403
NM
NM
36249
NM
37823
39162
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
1589
1649
1706
1764
1838
1894
NM
2037
2096
2168
2222
2273
2344
NM
2573
2630
NM
NM
NM
NM
2977
NM
NM
3231
NM
3371
3490
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
45572
47096
48389
49648
51271
52486
NM
55528
56774
58274
59417
60458
61990
NM
67028
68659
NM
NM
NM
NM
76829
NM
NM
82359
NM
85393
87935
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
2013
2081
2139
2195
2267
2321
NM
2457
2513
2579
2630
2677
2745
NM
2969
3042
NM
NM
NM
NM
3406
NM
NM
3653
NM
3788
3901
NM
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
4.3
5.3
6.2
8.4
6.9
8.4
NM
10.6
14.8
11.9
11.2
12.4
11.1
NM
6.5
3.1
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.4
NM
NM
6.. 3
NM
6.1
7.3
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
10
11
12
13
Date
08/22/05
08/23/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
08/26/05
08/27/05
08/28/05
08/29/05
08/30/05
08/31/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
09/03/05
09/04/05
09/05/05
09/06/05
09/07/05
09/08/05
09/09/05
09/10/05
09/11/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
09/14/05
09/15/05
09/16/05
09/17/05
09/18/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour Meter
Reading
hr
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
376.4
379.1
382.7
NM
NM
395.4
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
421.0
NM
430.9
NM
437.1
NM
NM
448.9
NM
456.7
NM
Operational
Hours
hr
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
27
2.70
3.6
NM
NM
12.7
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
25.6
NM
9.9
NM
6.2
NM
NM
11.8
NM
7.8
NM
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.15
2.75
4.97
NM
NM
4.45
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.57
NM
2.53
NM
4.82
NM
NM
4.93
NM
3.52
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
54360
55015
55680
NM
NM
58366
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
63652
NM
65655
NM
66815
NM
NM
69190
NM
70877
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4845
4903
4963
NM
NM
5202
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5673
NM
5852
NM
5955
NM
NM
6167
NM
6317
NM
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.75
2.97
5.80
NM
NM
5.21
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.1
NM
2.76
NM
5.70
NM
NM
5.91
NM
4.04
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
45330
46070
46805
NM
NM
49832
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
55492
NM
58060
NM
59377
NM
NM
62080
NM
64023
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4040
4106
4172
NM
NM
4441
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4946
NM
5175
NM
5292
NM
NM
5533
NM
5706
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
99690
101085
102485
NM
NM
108198
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
119144
NM
123715
NM
126192
NM
NM
131270
NM
134900
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4425
4487
4550
NM
NM
4804
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5292
NM
5496
NM
5606
NM
NM
5832
NM
5994
NM
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
7.3
8.6
6.5
NM
NM
7.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
7.1
NM
7.7
NM
6.7
NM
NM
7.2
NM
7.8
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
14
15
16
17
Date
09/19/05
09/20/05
09/21/05
09/22/05
09/23/05
09/24/05
09/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
09/28/05
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/01/05
10/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
10/06/05
10/07/05
10/08/05
10/09/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
10/16/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
504.6
511.0
514.1
NM
NM
NM
537.3
NM
543.5
NM
NM
610.4
NM
NM
621.7
626.9
NM
635.9
NM
NM
Operational
Hours
hr
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
47.9
6.4
3.1
NM
NM
NM
23.2
NM
6.2
NM
NM
66.9
NM
NM
11.3
5.2
NM
9.0
NM
NM
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.47
1.72
4.45
NM
NM
NM
2.53
NM
2.69
NM
NM
0
NM
NM
2.98
3.46
NM
5.21
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
79269
80353
80820
NM
NM
NM
85029
NM
86105
NM
NM
88468
NM
NM
90515
91446
NM
92810
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
7065
7162
7203
NM
NM
NM
7578
NM
7674
NM
NM
7885
NM
NM
8067
8150
NM
8272
NM
NM
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.05
1.9
5.25
NM
NM
NM
2.96
NM
3.2
NM
NM
0
NM
NM
3.48
4.13
NM
6.1
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
73666
74960
75445
NM
NM
NM
80311
NM
81548
NM
NM
82784
NM
NM
85165
86253
NM
87791
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6566
6681
6724
NM
NM
NM
7158
NM
7268
NM
NM
7378
NM
NM
7590
7687
NM
7825
NM
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
152935
155313
156265
NM
NM
NM
165340
NM
167653
NM
NM
171252
NM
NM
175680
177699
NM
180601
NM
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6798
6904
6946
NM
NM
NM
7351
NM
7454
NM
NM
7614
NM
NM
7811
7901
NM
8031
NM
NM
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6.3
6.2
5.1
NM
NM
NM
6.5
NM
6.2
NM
NM
0.9
NM
NM
6.5
6.5
NM
5.4
NM
NM
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
18
19
20
21
Date
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
10/22/05
10/23/05
10/24/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
10/27/05
10/28/05
10/29/05
10/30/05
10/31/05
11/01/05
1 1/02/05
1 1/03/05
11/04/05
11/05/05
11/06/05
1 1/07/05
1 1/08/05
1 1/09/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
11/12/05
11/13/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
648.9
NM
NM
662.3
NM
671.0
NM
682.9
NM
693.6
NM
NM
NM
NM
713.6
NM
718.7
NM
726.5
NM
NM
737.1
NM
NM
749.1
752.8
NM
NM
Operational
Hours
hr
13.0
NM
NM
13.4
NM
8.7
NM
11.9
NM
10.7
NM
NM
NM
NM
20.0
NM
5.1
NM
7.8
NM
NM
10.6
NM
NM
12.0
3.7
NM
NM
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.01
NM
NM
4.35
NM
5.15
NM
4.97
NM
3.07
NM
NM
NM
NM
4.53
NM
5.33
NM
4.48
NM
NM
2.95
NM
NM
5.14
3.13
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
95282
NM
NM
97585
NM
99146
NM
101107
NM
102973
NM
NM
NM
NM
106521
NM
107784
NM
109647
NM
NM
112837
NM
NM
114255
115121
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
8492
NM
NM
8697
NM
8837
NM
9011
NM
9178
NM
NM
NM
NM
9494
NM
9606
NM
9772
NM
NM
10057
NM
NM
10183
10260
NM
NM
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.73
NM
NM
5.2
NM
6.11
NM
5.85
NM
3.79
NM
NM
NM
NM
5.36
NM
6.21
NM
5.23
NM
NM
3.41
NM
NM
6.07
3.67
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
90615
NM
NM
93223
NM
95020
NM
97249
NM
99449
NM
NM
NM
NM
103520
NM
104978
NM
107129
NM
NM
109887
NM
NM
112423
113429
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
8076
NM
NM
8309
NM
8469
NM
8667
NM
8864
NM
NM
NM
NM
9226
NM
9356
NM
9548
NM
NM
9794
NM
NM
10020
10110
NM
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
185897
NM
NM
190808
NM
194166
NM
198356
NM
202422
NM
NM
NM
NM
210041
NM
212762
NM
216776
NM
NM
222724
NM
NM
226678
228550
NM
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
8267
NM
NM
8485
NM
8635
NM
8822
NM
9003
NM
NM
NM
NM
9343
NM
9464
NM
9643
NM
NM
9908
NM
NM
10084
10167
NM
NM
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
6.8
NM
NM
6.1
NM
6.4
NM
5.9
NM
6.3
NM
NM
NM
NM
6.3
NM
8.9
NM
8.6
NM
NM
9.4
NM
NM
5.5
8.4
NM
NM
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
22
23
24
Date
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
11/20/05
11/21/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
11/24/05
11/25/05
11/26/05
11/27/05
11/28/05
11/29/05
11/30/05
12/01/05
12/02/05
12/03/05
12/04/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
769.6
NM
777.7
NM
NM
793.8
NM
NM
805.9
NM
NM
NM
827.6
NM
NM
857.4
NM
875.7
NM
892.6
NM
Operational
Hours
hr
16.8
NM
8.1
NM
NM
16.1
NM
NM
12.1
NM
NM
NM
21.7
NM
NM
29.8
NM
18.3
NM
35.2
NM
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
4.43
NM
3.33
NM
NM
2.45
NM
NM
4.53
NM
NM
NM
2.71
NM
NM
1.67
NM
NM
NM
1.38
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
117705
NM
119370
NM
NM
122048
NM
NM
124135
NM
NM
NM
127650
NM
NM
130728
NM
NM
NM
133941
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
10491
NM
10639
NM
NM
10878
NM
NM
11064
NM
NM
NM
11377
NM
NM
11651
NM
NM
NM
11938
NM
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
5.31
NM
3.98
NM
NM
2.95
NM
NM
5.40
NM
NM
NM
3.23
NM
NM
1.92
NM
NM
NM
1.56
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
116456
NM
118410
NM
NM
121612
NM
NM
124112
NM
NM
NM
128301
NM
NM
131846
NM
NM
NM
135440
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
10379
NM
10553
NM
NM
10839
NM
NM
11062
NM
NM
NM
11435
NM
NM
11751
NM
NM
NM
12071
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
234161
NM
237780
NM
NM
243660
NM
NM
248247
NM
NM
NM
255951
NM
NM
262574
NM
NM
NM
269381
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
10417
NM
10579
NM
NM
10841
NM
NM
11045
NM
NM
NM
11388
NM
NM
11684
NM
NM
NM
11987
NM
Avg
Flow rate
gpm
5.6
NM
7.4
NM
NM
6.1
NM
NM
6.3
NM
NM
NM
5.9
NM
NM
3.7
NM
NM
NM
2.1
NM
>
-------
EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at CMHP in Dummerston, VT - Summary of Daily System Operation (Continued)
Week
No.
25
26
27
Date
12/05/05
12/06/05
12/07/05
12/08/05
12/09/05
12/10/05
12/11/05
12/12/05
12/13/05
12/14/05
12/15/05
12/16/05
12/17/05
12/18/05
12/19/05
12/20/05
12/21/05
12/22/05
12/23/05
12/24/05
12/25/05
Supply Well Hour Meter 2
Cumulative
Hour
Meter
Reading
hr
912.7
NM
NM
938.6
NM
963.8
NM
NM
NM
994.8
1004.2
1016.0
NM
NM
1043.9
1054.1
NM
1072.7
NM
NM
NM
Operational
Hours
hr
37.0
NM
NM
25.9
NM
21.2
NM
NM
NM
35.0
9.4
11.8
NM
NM
27.9
10.2
NM
18.6
NM
NM
NM
Treatment Train A
Flow
Rate
gpm
1.63
NM
NM
1.25
NM
0.63
NM
NM
NM
1.45
1.35
1.43
NM
NM
0.63
1.85
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
135688
NM
NM
138004
NM
139937
NM
NM
NM
142815
143840
144911
NM
NM
146251
148778
NM
149837
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
12093
NM
NM
12300
NM
12472
NM
NM
NM
12729
12820
12915
NM
NM
13035
13260
NM
13354
NM
NM
NM
Treatment Train B
Flow
Rate
gpm
2.05
NM
NM
1.33
NM
0
NM
NM
NM
1.63
1.5
1.72
NM
NM
0.00
2.17
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
137403
NM
NM
140006
NM
142197
NM
NM
NM
145542
146437
147605
NM
NM
148567
150613
NM
151736
NM
NM
NM
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
12246
NM
NM
12478
NM
12674
NM
NM
NM
12972
13051
13156
NM
NM
13241
13424
NM
13524
NM
NM
NM
System
Total
Cumulative
Volume
Treated
gal
273091
NM
NM
278010
NM
282134
NM
NM
NM
288357
290277
292516
NM
NM
294818
299391
NM
301573
NM
NM
NM
Total
Cumulative
Bed
Volumes
Treated
BV
12152
NM
NM
12372
NM
12555
NM
NM
NM
12833
12918
13058
NM
NM
13208
13412
NM
13600
NM
NM
NM
Avg
Flowrate
gpm
1.7
NM
NM
3.2
NM
3.2
NM
NM
NM
3.0
3.4
3.2
NM
NM
1.4
7.5
NM
2.0
NM
NM
NM
>
NM = not measured
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
Total P (as
P04)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
Mg Hardness
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Total Fe
Soluble Fe
Total Mn
Soluble Mn
Total Al
Soluble Al
10"3
mg/L|a|
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L|b|
mg/L|bl
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L(a|
mg/L|a)
mg/L|a|
M9/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
M9/L
M9/L
ug/L
M9/L
ug/L
M9/L
M9/L
6/22/2005
IN
110
0.1
20
0.1
0.05
12.9
0.3
7.7
13.9
5.8
173
178
83.9
94.4
44.3
45.0
0.1
3.0
42.1
<25
<25
9.7
9.5
<10
<10
TA
47W
3.7|cl
70'°'
0.1
0.05
0.4
O.1
6.5
14.2
5.6
449
169
69.0
100
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.8
<10
<10
TB
441=1
3.2«»
59'°'
0.1
<0.05
0.6
1.6
6.6
14.0
5.8
322
188
74.0
114
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.8
<10
<10
7/5/2005
IN
132
0.1
21
-
0.05
12.0
0.4
7.8
15.9
-
177
85.5
91.8
39.9
-
-
<25
4.2
<10
-
TA
0.9
141
0.1
23
-
0.05
4.7
O.1
7.6
11.9
-
172
80.1
91.9
0.3
-
-
<25
0.2
22.9
-
TB
0.7
132
0.1
23
-
0.05
5.1
0.1
NA™
NA™
-
177
79.3
97.4
0.3
-
-
<25
0.3
22.5
-
TT
0.8
132
0.1
21
-
0.05
0.3
0.1
7.0
15.2
-
0.3
NA™
164
73.7
90.2
0.3
-
-
<25
0.3
12.1
-
7/19/2005
IN
132
0.1
23
0.1
0.05
11.8
1.3
7.0
15.6
-
159
80.1
78.7
52.3
-
-
<25
13.4
<10
-
TA
2.0
132
0.1
24
0.1
0.05
6.6
0.7
7.0
16.3
-
161
81.0
80.0
4.4|c|
-
-
<25
0.2
23.0
-
TB
1.4
145
0.1
24
0.1
0.05
7.3
0.4
7.2
17.1
-
165
82.2
82.5
6.3(cl
-
-
<25
0.3
23.5
-
TT
1.7
145
0.1
28
0.4
0.05
1.1
0.5
7.0
16.0
-
0.2
NA™
164
80.2
83.4
13.7|cl
-
-
<25
0.3
26.7
-
8/3/2005
IN
123
0.1
23
0.2
0.05
12.2
0.2
7.5
15.7
-
183
89.5
93.8
61.9
-
-
<25
4.4
<10
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
3.0
123
0.1
23
0.1
0.05
8.7
O.1
7.4
12.3
-
169
82.2
87.1
1.2
-
-
<25
O.1
18.6
-
TB
2.2
128
0.1
22
0.1
0.05
9.2
O.1
7.5
12.3
-
183
88.1
95.1
1.2
-
-
<25
O.1
17.9
-
TT
2.6
128
0.1
23
0.1
0.05
2.2
O.1
7.6
16.0
-
0.3
NA™
214
88.8
125
0.9
-
-
<25
0.1
27.4
-
8/16/2005
IN
119
0.1
20
0.1
0.05
13.3
0.1
8.1
12.8
-
205
92.8
112
46.6
46.8
0.1
2.3
44.4
<25
<25
8.4
8.4
<10
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
4.1
119
0.1
19
0.1
0.05
10.4
0.6
8.4
14.8
-
211
95.4
116
2.1
2.2
0.1
0.6
1.6
<25
270
0.1
0.1
30.3
16.0
TB
3.2
123
0.1
20
0.1
0.05
10.5
0.1
6.9
14.5
-
209
96.0
113
3.1
3.3
0.1
0.5
2.8
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
18.9
16.7
TC
132
0.1
21
0.1
0.05
6.5
O.1
NAM
NA'C1
-
203
94.2
109
0.6
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.2
<25
<25
0.4
0.3
27.9
20.8
TD
136
0.1
20
0.1
0.05
6.7
O.1
NA|C1
NA|C1
-
206
96.2
110
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.5
0.4
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
24.6
20.0
TT
3.7
110
0.1
22
0.1
0.05
3.7
0.1
6.5
17.2
-
0.0
0.0
197
92.6
105
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.4
<25
<25
0.1
0.2
22.9
20.9
Cd
(a) As CaCO3.
(b) As PO4.
(c) Rerun results were similar. Data is questionable.
(d) Water quality measurement not recorded by operator.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as
CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Unit
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
Hg/L
ra/L
Hg/L
M9/L
fg/L
M9/L
H9/L
M9/L
ra/L
08/29/05
IN
-
123
-
<0.1
-
21.1
-
0.1 lc)
-
<0.05
-
-
-
16.8
-
0.2
-
7.7
13.8
-
-
-
0.4
191
-
88.7
-
103
-
36.9
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
4.1
-
-
<10
-
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
5.0
132
-
0.1
-
21.2
-
01t=)
-
<0.05
-
-
-
14.7
-
<0.1
-
7.2
13.7
-
-
-
-
191
-
89.0
-
102
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
16.6
-
-
TB
4.4
132
-
0.1
-
21.2
-
01 to
-
<0.05
-
-
-
14.6
-
0.1
-
7.5
13.5
-
-
-
-
193
-
91.8
-
101
-
7.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
17.0
-
-
TT
4.6
132
-
0.1
-
23.3
-
0.1 lc)
-
<0.05
-
-
-
8.3
-
<0.1
-
7.6
16.2
-
-
0.3
0.4
171
-
83.7
-
87.2
-
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
26.5
-
-
09/19/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.5
12.7
-
-
-
-
147
-
69.5
-
77.4
-
72.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
35.9
-
-
<10
-
-
TA
6.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
NAla)
-
-
-
-
155
-
71.6
-
83.6
-
12.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
14.7
-
-
TB
5.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
NAla)
-
-
-
-
153
-
69.7
83.1
-
14.8
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
23.0
-
-
TT
6.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.8
11.8
-
-
0.2
0.2
171
-
78.9
-
92.1
-
1.1
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
0.2
-
-
23.1
-
-
09/27/05
IN
-
132
132
<0.1
<0.1
16.0
16.2
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
14.4
14.7
0.1
0.1
NAla)
NAla)
-
-
-
-
163
164
73.7
73.2
89.1
91.3
30.4
30.4
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
2.2
2.1
-
<10
<10
-
TA
7.1
163
163
<0.1
<0.1
16.9
17.1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
13.1
13
<0.1
<0.1
NAla)
NAla)
-
-
-
-
146
147
65.2
66.0
80.6
81.3
16.9
18.0
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
13.3
13.8
-
TB
6.6
154
158
<0.1
<0.1
17.8
17.9
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
12.8
13.1
<0.1
0.1
NAla)
NAla)
-
-
-
-
143
145
62.9
65.5
79.7
79.1
19.7
19.8
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
15.5
15.9
-
TT
6.8
154
154
<0.1
<0.1
17.3
17.3
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
-
-
8.6
8.6
<0.1
0.3
NA(a)
NAla)
-
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
155
150
71.0
67.6
83.6
82.4
0.5
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
<25
-
<0.1
<0.1
-
21.9
20.6
-
10/04/05
TC
7.8
132
-
<0.1
-
14.5
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
-
11.1
-
0.1
-
NAla)
NAla)
-
-
-
-
153
-
70.2
-
82.7
-
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
15.5
-
-
TD
7.2
141
-
<0.1
-
17.5
-
<0.05
-
<0.05
-
-
-
8.3
-
<0.1
-
NAla)
NAla)
-
-
NA(d)
NA(d)
158
-
73.8
-
84.0
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
16.1
-
-
10/13/05
IN
-
132
-
<0.1
-
20.3
-
0.1
-
-
-
<0.03
-
11.8
-
0.2
-
8.1
11.8
-
-
-
-
177
-
81.5
-
95.4
-
43.0
-
43.1
<0.1
1.5
41.6
<25
-
<25
5.1
-
1.4
<10
-
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
8.2
163
-
<0.1
-
45.4
-
0.1
-
-
-
<0.03
-
10
-
0.1
-
8.0
11.1
-
-
-
-
152
-
70.2
-
82.1
-
31.4
-
29.8
1.6
0.7
29.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
11.8
-
11.3
TB
7.7
154
-
<0.1
-
30.0
-
0.1
-
-
-
<0.03
-
10.5
-
0.1
-
8.0
11.1
-
-
-
-
157
-
72.8
-
84.2
-
33.4
-
31.3
2.2
0.8
30.5
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
11.9
-
12.3
TC
-
132
-
<0.1
-
23.1
-
0.1
-
-
-
<0.03
-
8.8
-
0.1
-
NAla)
NAla)
-
-
-
-
173
-
80.3
-
92.4
-
0.9
-
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.1
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
13.4
-
14.9
TD
-
132
-
<0.1
-
21.5
-
0.1
-
-
-
<0.03
-
8.9
-
0.3
-
NAla)
NAla)
-
-
-
-
174
-
80.9
-
93.4
-
1.1
-
1.1
<0.1
0.5
0.6
<25
-
<25
<0.1
-
<0.1
14.0
-
12.5
(a) Reanalyzed outside of holding time.
(b) Water quality measurement not recorded by operator.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as
CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate
(as P04)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Chlorine
(as CI2)
Total Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
LJg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ng/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
ng/L
Mg/L
ng/L
10/25/05
IN
-
141
<0.1
24
0.1
;
<0.03
10.6
<0.1
8.2
11.0
-
-
-
-
166
79.5
86.6
57.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<10
-
AC
-
-
;
-
-
;
-
;
-
.
.
.
.
1.0
0.3
-
-
;
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
;
.
-
-
TA
9.0
141
<0.1
22
0.1
;
<0.03
10.2
0.1
8.2
10.7
-
-
-
-
165
77.2
87.6
30.8
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
13.5
-
TB
8.7
136
<0.1
22
0.1
;
<0.03
10.3
0.2
8.2
10.6
-
-
-
-
164
77.0
86.5
32.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
14.0
-
TT
8.8
136
<0.1
22
0.2
;
<0.03
7.3
0.1
8.1
12.9
-
-
0.3
0.5
174
83.4
90.3
0.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
20.8
-
11/01/05
IN
-
132
<0.1
18.5
0.1
;
<0.03
12.4
0.2
8.1
11.7
-
-
-
-
194
81.0
113
32.9
-
-
-
-
<25
-
4.1
-
<10
-
TA
9.5
-
;
-
-
;
-
;
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
;
30.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
TB
9.2
-
;
-
-
;
-
;
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
;
30.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
TC
-
132
<0.1
20.7
0.1
;
<0.03
10.0
<0.1
8.0
11.8
-
-
-
-
165
79.1
85.7
1.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
15.6
-
TD
-
136
<0.1
20.6
0.1
;
<0.03
10.0
<0.1
8.1
11.6
-
-
-
-
167
81.0
86.5
2.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
15.8
-
TE
-
132
<0.1
20.8
0.1
;
<0.03
8.4
<0.1
8.1
11.3
-
-
-
-
168
80.8
87.3
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
18.3
-
TF
9.3
132
<0.1
20.6
0.1
;
<0.03
8.3
<0.1
8.1
11.7
-
-
-
-
171
82.1
88.9
0.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.3
-
18.5
-
11/08/05
IN
-
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
11.8
-
8.0
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
56.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
5.6
-
<10
-
TA
10.0
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
9.7
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
30.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
TC
-
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
9.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
9.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
2.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
TE
-
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
7.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
7.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
;
.
-
-
TT
9.9
-
;
-
-
;
<0.03
7.4
-
8.3
11.7
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
;
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
18.1
-
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling, Dummerston, VT (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as
CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as
P04)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Chlorine (as
CI2)
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as
CaCO3)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (particulate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Al (total)
Al (soluble)
Unit
10A3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
UC
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
ra/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
ng/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
LJg/L
M9/L
Mg/L
11/28/05'"
IN
-
132
-
<0.1
-
20.8
-
0.1
-
-
-
<0.03
-
12.4
-
0.7
-
7.8
10.2
-
-
-
-
165
-
72.4
-
92.9
-
40.2
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
11.9
-
-
<10
-
-
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.6
10.7
-
-
0.5
0.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
11.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
11.7
136
-
<0.1
-
21
-
0.1
-
-
-
<0.03
-
8.2
-
0.4
-
7.7
10.5
-
-
0.5
0.4
172
-
73.2
-
98.5
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
<25
-
-
<0.1
-
-
16.5
-
-
12/13/05
IN
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
-
7.3
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30.8
-
29.6
1.2
0.4
29.1
<25
-
<25
1.7
-
<0.1
<10
-
<10
AC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.7
10.7
-
-
0.1
0.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
25.7
-
26.0
<0.1
0.5
25.5
<25
-
<25
12.1
-
1.2
<10
-
10.2
TA
12.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TB
12.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TC
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TD
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TT
12.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.2
-
-
-
7.9
10.4
-
-
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
0.6
0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
-
<25
0.1
-
<0.1
14.8
-
14.1
(a) Water quality measurements taken on 11/27/05.
IN = influent; TA = after Tank A; TB = after Tank B; TC = after Tank C; TD = after Tank D; TT = after combined effluent;
NA = Not available
------- |