EPA/600/R-07/016
March 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park in Springfield, OH
Six-Month Evaluation Report
by
Sarah E. McCall
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0029
for
Thomas J. Sorg
Task Order Manager
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, 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 0029 of Contract 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Any
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems.
NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to envi-
ronmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provid-
ing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed for and the results obtained from the first six months of
the arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
at Springfield, OH. The objectives of the project are to evaluate the effectiveness of AdEdge
Technologies' AD-33 media in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level
(MCL) of 10 ng/L. Additionally, this project evaluates the reliability of the treatment system (Arsenic
Package Unit [APU]-250), the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels, and the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterizes the water in the
distribution system and process residuals produced by the treatment process.
The 250 gal/min (gpm) APU-250 treatment system consisted of two integrated units referred to as AD-26
oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems. The AD-26 pretreatment system was for iron and
manganese removal, followed in series by the AD-33 adsorption system for arsenic removal. Both the
AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems were skid-mounted, each comprised of three
carbon steel pressure vessels of similar construction and configuration but different sizes.
AD-26 media was a manganese dioxide mineral commonly used for oxidation and filtration of iron and
manganese. Because chlorine was added prior to the AD-26 system, it helped precipitate soluble iron,
oxidize As(III) to As(V), and form arsenic-laden solids, which were then filtered by the AD-26 media.
The pre-treated water was subsequently polished by the AD-33 media, an iron-based adsorptive media
developed by Bayer AG for arsenic removal.
The APU-250 system began regular operation on September 21, 2005. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality (both across the treatment train and in the distribution system),
process residuals, and capital and O&M cost. Through the period from September 21, 2005, to March 26,
2006, the system treated approximately 8,184,000 gal (about 9,540 bed volumes) of water with the daily
run time ranging from 3.7 to 15.1 hr/day and averaging 9.2 hr/day. For the most part, the AD-26 system
operated at the well pump flowrates with water supplied by two alternating wells at 130 and 90 gpm. The
AD-33 system operated based on demand from the distribution system, ranging from 9 to 56 gpm and
averaging 33 gpm. Because of the low flowrates, long empty bed contact times (EBCT), averaged at 25.8
min, were experienced by the AD-33 system.
The system reduced total arsenic levels from between 9.5 and 31.3 |o,g/L (averaged 21.5 (ig/L) in raw
water to <10 (ig/L in the treated water. As(III) was the predominating arsenic species in raw water,
ranging from 5.6 to 24.7 (ig/L and averaging 16.4 (ig/L in both wells. The majority of arsenic was
removed in the particulate form by the AD-26 media, leaving only 0.5 to 2.0 (ig/L, existing mainly as
As(V), to be further polished by the AD-33 media. The system also reduced total iron concentrations
from an average of 1,000 (ig/L to less than the method detection limit (MDL) of 25 (ig/L, while the total
manganese concentrations decreased from an average of 40.2 to 0.1 (ig/L.
The AD-26 system was backwashed initially every two days for 15 min with a 2-min service-to-waste
rinse, producing approximately 5,640 gal of wastewater per backwash event. During a power outage, the
backwash settings were reset to default values, prompting the system to produce almost twice as much
wastewater per backwash event. This problem was resolved by manually adjusting the backwash settings,
which, after a short time, were further reduced to every three days for 9 min with a 90-sec rinse.
Assuming that 82 mg/L of total suspended solid (TSS) was produced in 6,000 gal of backwash
wastewater, approximately 4 Ib of solids (including 0.02, 1.45, and 0.03 Ib of arsenic, iron, and
manganese, respectively) would be discharged during each backwash event. The AD-33 system was
backwashed only once during the first six-months of operation.
IV
-------
Comparison of the distribution system sampling results before and after the system startup showed a
significant decrease in arsenic concentration (from an average of 23.7 to 2.0 (ig/L). The arsenic
concentrations in the distribution system were similar to those in the system effluent. Iron and manganese
also were significantly reduced in the distribution system. Neither lead nor copper concentrations
appeared to have been affected by the operation of the system.
The most significant operational issue observed was related to the chlorine injection system. In spite of
repeated efforts on fine-tuning the chlorine injection system and even reconfiguring the system piping to
allow the injection to be controlled by well pump flowrates instead of on-demand flowrates, as much as 4
and 3.8 mg/L (as C12) total and free chlorine, respectively, were measured in the treated water, which
were significantly higher than the 1.5 and 1 mg/L (as C12) of total and free residuals targeted for the
treatment. The vendor continued to troubleshoot this problem.
The capital investment cost for the system was $292,252, including $212,826 for equipment, $27,527 for
site engineering, and $51,899 for installation. This cost included the cost, paid for by the Park owner, to
upgrade the system size from 150 to 250 gpm to meet the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's (Ohio
EPA's) redundancy requirement, upgrade the pressure vessel construction material from fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP) to carbon steel, and add a chlorine injection and control system. Using the
system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (360,000 gal/day [gpd]), the capital cost was $1,170 per gpm of
design capacity ($0.81/gpd) and equipment-only cost was $851 per gpm of design capacity ($0.59/gpd).
The O&M cost included only incremental cost associated with the oxidation/filtration and adsorption
system, such as media replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor.
Although media replacement did not occur during the first six months of system operation, the media
replacement cost would represent the majority of the O&M cost and was estimated to be $34,230 and
$13,140 to change out the AD-33 and AD-26 media, respectively.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
APPENDICES vii
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal 2
1.3 Project Objectives 2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 7
3.1 General Project Approach 7
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 8
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 9
3.3.1 Source Water 9
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water 9
3.3.3 Backwash Water and Solids 9
3.3.4 Spent Media 9
3.3.5 Distribution System Water 9
3.4 Sampling Logistics 11
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 11
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 11
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 11
3.5 Analytical Procedures 12
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13
4.1 Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure 13
4.1.2 Pre-Demonstration Treated Water Quality 17
4.1.3 Distribution System 17
4.2 Treatment Process Description 17
4.3 System Installation 25
4.3.1 Permitting 25
4.3.2 Building Preparation 25
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 25
4.4 System Operation 27
4.4.1 Operational Parameters 27
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection 31
4.4.3 Backwash 32
4.4.4 Residual Management 34
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 34
4.5 System Performance 35
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 35
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling 42
VI
-------
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling 42
4.6 System Cost 45
4.6.1 Capital Cost 45
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 47
5.0 REFERENCES 49
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
OPERATIONAL DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA
FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park 13
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Chlorine and Polyphosphate Addition Systems 14
Figure 4-3. Pre-Existing Storage Tank 15
Figure 4-4. West Well Pump Flowrate and On-Demand Flowrate 15
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Location 21
Figure 4-6. Chlorine Injection System 22
Figure 4-7. AD-26 Treatment System 22
Figure 4-8. Hydropnuematic Tanks 23
Figure 4-9. AD-33 Treatment System 24
Figure 4-10. System Control Panel 24
Figure 4-11. AD-33 Media Loading 26
Figure 4-12. AD-33 Media Supersack, AD-26 Media Bags and Loading of Underbedding 27
Figure 4-13. AD-33 Adsorption System Flowrates 30
Figure 4-14. AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration System Flowrates 30
Figure 4-15. Free and Total Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point 31
Figure 4-16. Volume of Wastewater Produced When Backwashing AD-26 Vessels 33
Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and TT Sampling
Locations 39
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration and AD-33
Adsorption System 41
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Springfield System 48
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. PreDemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 7
Table 3-2. General Types of Data 8
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes 10
Table 4-1. Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park Water Quality Data 16
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-26 Media(a) 19
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media(a) 19
Table 4-4. Design Features of AdEdge Treatment System 20
Table 4-5. Summary of APU-250 System Operation 28
Table 4-6. Settings/Activities Associated with Chlorine Inj ection System 32
vn
-------
Table 4-7. AD-26 Backwash Settings and Volume of Wastewater Produced 33
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results 36
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results 37
Table 4-10. Backwash Sampling Results 43
Table 4-11. Distribution System Sampling Results 44
Table 4-12. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 46
Table 4-13. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System 47
Vlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
Al aluminum
AM adsorptive media process
APU arsenic package unit
As arsenic
ATS Aquativ Treatment Systems
BET Brunauer, Emmett and Teller
bgs below ground surface
BL baseline sampling
BV bed volume
Ca calcium
Cl chloride
C/F coagulation/filtration process
CRF capital recovery factor
DO dissolved oxygen
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
i.d. inner diameter
ID identification
IX ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
Mg magnesium
Mn manganese
mV millivolts
Na sodium
NaOCl sodium hypochlorite
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NS not sampled
IX
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)
O&M
Ohio EPA
OIT
ORD
ORP
psi
PO4
PLC
POU
PVC
QA
QAPP
QA/QC
RO
RPD
Sb
SDWA
SiO2
SM
SMCL
SO42'
SOC
STMGID
STS
TBD
TCLP
TDS
TOC
TSS
operation and maintenance
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Oregon Institute of Technology
Office of Research and Development
oxidation-reduction potential
pounds per square inch
orthophosphate
programmable logic controller
point-of-use
polyvinyl chloride
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality assurance/quality control
reverse osmosis
relative percent difference
antimony
Safe Drinking Water Act
silica
system modification
secondary maximum contaminant level
sulfate
synthetic organic compound
South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
Severn Trent Services
to be determined
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
total suspended solids
voc
volatile organic compound
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the administrator of Chateau Estates Mobile
Home Park in Springfield, OH. The Park Administrator monitored the treatment system and collected
samples from the treatment and distribution systems throughout this reporting period. This performance
evaluation would not have been possible without his efforts.
XI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA estab-
lished a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the SDWA
required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the arsenic MCL
by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA, 2001).
In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25, 2003, to
express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community and non-
transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in Round 1 of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their
water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to 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 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 January 2007, 11 of the 12
systems have been operational and the performance evaluations of six systems have been completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park facility in Springfield, Ohio, was one of those selected.
In September 2003, EPA, again, solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again, through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. AdEdge Technologies (AdEdge), using the Bayoxide E33 media
developed by Bayer AG, was selected for demonstration at the Chateau Estates 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, and 17 point-of-use (POU) units (including
nine under-the-sink reverse osmosis [RO] units at the Sunset Ranch Development site and eight AM units
at the OIT site), and one system modification. Table 1-1 summarizes the locations, technologies, vendors,
system flowrates, and key source water quality parameters (including As, Fe, and pH) at the 40
demonstration sites. An overview of the technology selection and system design for the 12 Round 1
demonstration sites and the associated capital costs is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004;
Chen et al., 2004), which are posted on the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 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 cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of the AdEdge system at the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
in Springfield, OH, during the first six months from September 21, 2005, through March 26, 2006. The
types of data collected included system operational, water quality (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
(HS/L)
Fe
toe/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NY(d)
Newark, OH
Springfield, OH
Springbrook Mobile Home Park
White Rock Water Company
Orchard Highlands Subdivision
Rollinsford Water and Sewer District
Charette Mobile Home Park
Town of Felton
Queen Anne's County
Town of Caneadea
Buckeye Lake Head Start Building
Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (G2)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (A/I Complex)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (ARM 200)
AM (E33)
ATS
ADI
AdEdge
AdEdge
ATS
Kinetico
STS
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
14
70TO
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270W
l,806(c)
l,312(c)
1,615W
8.6
7.7
6.9
8.2
7.9
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.6
7.3
Great Lakes/Interior Plains
Brown City, MI
Pentwater, MI
Sandusky, MI
Delavan, WI
Greenville, WI
Climax, MN
Sabin, MN
Sauk Centre, MN
Stewart, MN
Lidgerwood, ND
City of Brown City
Village of Pentwater
City of Sandusky
Vintage on the Ponds
Town of Greenville
City of Climax
City of Sabin
Big Sauk Lake Mobile Home Park
City of Stewart
City of Lidgerwood
AM (E33)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Aeralater)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F (Macrolite)
C/F&AM(E33)
Process Modification
STS
Kinetico
Siemens
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340(e)
40
375
140
250
20
250
250
14W
13W
16W
20(a)
17
39W
34
25W
42W
146W
127W
466(c)
l,387(c)
l,499(c)
7827(c)
546W
l,470(c)
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325(CJ
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
Arnaudville, LA
Alvin, TX
Bruni, TX
Wellman, TX
Anthony, NM
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Taos, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Tohono O'odham
Nation, AZ
Valley Vista, AZ
United Water Systems
Oak Manor Municipal Utility District
Webb Consolidated Independent School
District
City of Wellman
Desert Sands Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association
Indian Health Services
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90TO
50
37
35W
19W
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of 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 RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POE AM (Adsorbsia/ARM 200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM 200)(g)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (HIX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kenetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
69w
<25
<25
<25
125
125
<25
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.9
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
6.9
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration; HIX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange process; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% due to system being reconfigured from parallel to series operation.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) Replaced Village of Lyman, NE site which withdrew from program in June 2006.
(e) Faculties upgraded Springfield, OH system from 150 to 250 gpm, Sandusky, MI system from 210 to 340 gpm, and Arnaudville, LA system from 385 to 770 gpm.
(f) Including nine residential units.
(g) Including eight under-the-sink units.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information collected during the first six months of system operation, the following
conclusions were made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems:
• Chlorination effectively oxidized As(III) and Fe(II) and formed arsenic-laden particles
filterable by the AD-26 media. Via filtration of particles, the AD-26 system alone was
capable of reducing total arsenic concentrations to < 2 (ig/L, far below the 10-(ig/L MCL.
• Chlorination also was effective in precipitating Mn(II) without an extended contact time,
converting 85 to 98% of Mn2+ to MnO2 in five of six speciation events. This observation was
contrary to the findings of most researchers that due to slow oxidation kinetics upon
Chlorination, Mn2+ would stay in the soluble form for an extended duration (Knocke et al,
1987 and 1990; Condit and Chen, 2006).
• The AD-33 system worked only as a polisher, reducing total arsenic concentrations from 2.0
to 0.5 (ig/L (existing mainly as As(V) in the system effluent).
• In spite of repeated efforts, the automatic chlorine monitor/controller failed to control free
and total chlorine residuals within the target level of 1.0 mg/L (as C12), leaving as much as
3.8 mg/L (as C12) office chlorine and 4 mg/L (as C12) of total chlorine at the entry point
throughout the study period.
Required system O&M and operator skill levels:
• The daily demand on the operator was typically 20 min to visually inspect the system and
record operational parameters.
• The most significant operational issue was related to the chlorine injection system. Many
attempts of fine-tuning the system and even reconfiguring the system piping did not seem to
resolve the significantly high levels office and total chlorine measured in the treated water.
Process residuals produced by the technology:
• Residuals produced by the operation of the treatment system included backwash wastewater
and spent media. Because the media was not replaced during the first six months of system
operation, the only residual produced was backwash wastewater.
• The AD-26 system was capable of running up to three days, with an average run time of over
27 hrs, before it needed to be backwashed. The AD-33 system did not need backwashing
during the six-month study period.
• Assuming an average of 82 mg/L of total suspended solids (TSS) in 6,000 gal of backwash
wastewater, approximately 4 Ib of solids would be discharged during each backwash event.
The solids were comprised of 0.5%, 36.2%, and 0.8% of arsenic, iron, and manganese,
respectively.
-------
Capital and O&M cost of the technology:
• The unit capital cost is $0.21/1,000 gal if the system operates at 100% utilization rate. The
system's real unit cost is $1.69/1,000 gal, based on 8,184,000 gal of water production in the
first six months. The O&M cost is $0.33/1,000 gal, based on labor, chemical usage, and
electricity consumption.
-------
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 General Project Approach
Following the predemonstration activities summarized in Table 3-1, the performance evaluation study
of the AdEdge treatment system began on September 21, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data
collected and considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance
was determined based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic to the target MCL of 10 |o,g/L through
the collection of biweekly 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.
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 preventative maintenance activities, frequency of chemical and/or media handling
and inventory, and general knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and related health and
safety practices. The staffing requirements for the system operation were recorded on an Operator Labor
Hour Log Sheet.
The quantity of aqueous and solid residuals generated was estimated by tracking the volume of backwash
water produced during each backwash cycle. Backwash water was sampled and analyzed for chemical
characteristics.
Table 3-1. PreDemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Second Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Received
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Plans Submitted to Ohio EPA
System Permit Issued by Ohio EPA
Building Construction Began
Final Letter Report Issued
Building Construction Complete
APU Unit Shipped and Arrived
Final Study Plan Issued
System Installation Completed
System Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Began
Date
August 5, 2004
September 9, 2004
October 8, 2004
October 15, 2004
November 5, 2004
November 16, 2004
November 29, 2004
March 1, 2005
June 1, 2005
July 6, 2005
July 15, 2005
July 19, 2005
August 15, 2005
August 19, 2005
August 30, 2005
September 2, 2005
September 9, 2005
September 2 1,2005
Ohio EPA = Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table 3-2. General Types of Data
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 ug/L of arsenic in treated water
-Unscheduled system downtime
-Frequency and extent of repairs including a description of problems, materials
and supplies needed, and associated labor and cost
-Pre- and post-treatment requirements
-Level of automation for system operation and data collection
-Staffing requirements including number of operators and laborers
-Task analysis of preventative maintenance including number, frequency, and
complexity of tasks
-Chemical handling and inventory requirements
-General knowledge needed for relevant chemical processes and health and
safety practices
-Quantity and characteristics of aqueous and solid residuals generated by
system operation
-Capital cost for equipment, engineering, and installation
-O&M cost for chemical usage, electricity consumption, and labor
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gal/min (gpm) (or gal/day [gpd]) of
design capacity and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This task required tracking the capital
cost for equipment, engineering, and installation, as well as the O&M cost for media replacement and
disposal, chemical supply, electrical usage, and labor.
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The plant operator performed daily, weekly, and monthly system O&M and data collection according to
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 problems encountered, course of actions taken, materials
and supplies used, and associated cost and labor required, on a 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), oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and total and free chlorine, and
recorded the data on a Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet. Backwash was set to be performed
automatically for the oxidation/filtration vessels and manually for the adsorption vessels. Backwash was
initially performed every two days for the pre-oxidation vessels, but was reduced to every three days.
The adsorption vessels were backwashed only once during this operational period. The backwash data
were recorded on a Backwash Log Sheet.
The capital cost for the arsenic removal system consisted of the cost for equipment, site engineering, and
system installation. The O&M cost consisted of the cost for 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 routine system O&M,
troubleshooting and repairs, and demonstration-related work, were tracked using an Operator Labor Hour
Log Sheet. The routine system O&M included activities such as completing the field logs, replenishing
the NaOCl solution, 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 the cost analysis.
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate system performance, samples were collected from the source, across the treatment system,
from the distribution system, and during oxidation/filtration vessel backwash. Table 3-3 presents the
sampling schedule 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 site, one set of source water samples from the
West Well was collected and speciated using an arsenic specitation kit (see Section 3.4.1). A second
introductory meeting was held to further discuss the technology selection for the site and a set of source
water samples from the East Well was collected and speciated. The sample taps were flushed for several
minutes before sampling; special care was taken to avoid agitation, which might cause unwanted
oxidation. Analytes for the source water samples are listed in Table 3-3.
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water. During the system performance evaluation study, the plant
operator collected samples on a biweekly basis. For the first biweekly event, samples were taken at the
source (IN), after chlorination (AC), after the oxidation/filtration vessels (OT), and after the adsorption
vessels (TT) and analyzed for the analytes listed in Table 3-3 for the monthly (without speciation)
treatment plant water. For the second biweekly event, samples were collected and speciated on-site at the
same four locations and analyzed for the analytes listed under the monthly (with speciation) treatment
plant water list in Table 3-3.
3.3.3 Backwash Water and Solids. Backwash water samples were collected monthly by the plant
operator from each oxidation/filtration vessel. Over the duration of backwash for each vessel, a side
stream of backwash water was directed from the tap on the backwash water discharge line to a clean, 32-
gal plastic container at approximately 1 gpm. After the content in the container was thoroughly mixed,
one aliquot was collected as is and the other filtered with 0.45-(im disc filters. The samples were
analyzed for analytes listed in Table 3-3.
Backwash solid samples were not collected in the initial six months of this demonstration. Two to three
solid/sludge samples will be collected from the backwash water during the second half of the
demonstration study. The solid/sludge samples will be collected in glass jars and analyzed for total
metals and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests.
No backwash water or backwash solids samples were collected from the adsorption vessels during this
study period. These samples will be collected during the second half of the demonstration study.
3.3.4 Spent Media. The media in the oxidation/filtration and adsorption vessels were not replaced
during the first six months of the demonstration project. Therefore, no spent media were produced as
residual solids.
3.3.5 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 start-up from April to July 2005, four
sets of baseline distribution water samples were collected at three Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) locations
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling Schedule and Analytes
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
Plant Water
Distribution
Water
Backwash
Water
Sampling
Location01'
At Wellhead
(IN)
At Wellhead
(IN),
after
Chlorination
(AC),
after Oxidation/
Filtration
Vessels (OT),
after
Adsorption
Vessels (TT)
Two LCR
Locations
(including Park
Clubhouse and
Lot 76
Residence) and
One Non-LCR
Residence (Lot
16)
Backwash
Discharge Line
from Each
Oxidation/
Filtration
Vessel
No. of
Samples
2 (East
and West
Wells)
4
3
3
Frequency
Once at
West Well
during initial
introductory
visit and
once at East
Well during
second
introductory
visit
Monthly
(Without
speciation)
Monthly
(With
speciation)
Monthly(b)
Monthly
Analyte
On-site: pH,
temperature, DO, and
ORP
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble),
Na, Ca, Mg, NH3, NO3,
NO2, Cl, F, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)(c)
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Ca,
Mg, F, NH3, NO3, SO4,
SiO2, P, turbidity, and
alkalinity
On-site: pH, temperature,
DO, ORP, and C12 (free
and total)(c)
Off-site: As (total and
soluble), As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
Ca, Mg, F, NH3, NO3,
SO4, SiO2, P, turbidity,
and alkalinity
As (total), Fe (total), Mn
(total), Cu (total), Pb
(total), pH, and
alkalinity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
pH, TDS, TSS, turbidity,
Sampling
Date
08/05/04 and
09/09/04
10/11/05, 11/08/05,
12/12/05, 01/16/06,
02/13/06, 03/13/06
09/28/05, 10/25/05,
12/05/05, 01/03/06,
02/01/06, 02/28/06
Baseline sampling:
04/04/05, 05/03/05,
06/08/05, 07/07/05
Monthly sampling:
10/12/05, 11/15/05,
12/12/05, 01/16/06,
02/13/06, 03/13/06
10/13/05, 12/05/05,
01/12/06, 02/02/06,
02/27/06, 03/24/06
(a) Abbreviations in parentheses corresponding to sample locations shown in Figure 4-5.
(b) Four baseline sampling events performed from April to July 2005 before system became operational.
(c) Taken only at AC, OT, and TT locations.
LCR = lead and copper rule; TDS = total dissolved solids; TSS = total suspended solids
10
-------
within the distribution system, including the Park Clubhouse and Lots 12 and 76 Residences. Following
system startup, distribution system sampling continued on a monthly basis at the Park Clubhouse and
Lot 76 Residence. Due to availability issues, the Lot 12 Residence was replaced by a non-LCR location
at the Lot 16 Residence.
The homeowners of the two residences and the Park adminstrator collected samples following an
instruction sheet developed according to the Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for
Public Water Systems (EPA, 2002). The dates and times of last water usage before sampling and sample
collection were recorded for calculation of the stagnation time. All samples were collected from a cold-
water faucet that had not been used for at least 6 hr to ensure that stagnant water was sampled.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method used an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
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, color-coded label consisting of 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 a specific water facility, sampling date, a two-letter code for a specific
sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary). The
sampling locations at the treatment plant were color-coded for easy identification. The labeled bottles for
each sampling location were placed in separate ziplock™ bags and packed in a cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling
instructions, chain-of-custody forms, prepaid/addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were included.
The chain-of-custody forms and airbills were complete except for the operator's signature and the sample
dates and times. After preparation, the sample cooler was sent to the site via FedEx for the following
week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. After sample collection, samples for off-site analyses were
packed carefully in the original coolers with wet ice and shipped to Battelle. Upon receipt, the sample
custodian verified that all samples indicated on the chain-of-custody forms were included and intact.
Sample IDs were checked against the chain-of-custody forms, and the samples were logged into the
laboratory sample receipt log. Discrepancies noted by the sample custodian were addressed with the plant
operator by the Battelle Study Lead.
Samples for metals analyses were stored at Battelle's ICP-MS laboratory. Samples for other water quality
analyses were packed in a cooler and picked up by a courier from American Analytical Laboratories
(AAL) in Columbus, OH, which was 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.
11
-------
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in detail in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004)
were followed by Battelle ICP-MS and AAL. Laboratory quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all
methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in terms of precision, accuracy, method detection
limits (MDL), and completeness met the criteria established in the QAPP (i.e., relative percent difference
[RPD] of 20%, percent recovery of 80 to 120%, and completeness of 80%). The quality assurance (QA)
data associated with each analyte will be presented and evaluated in a QA/QC Summary Report to be
prepared under separate cover upon completion of the Arsenic Demonstration Project.
Field measurements of pH, temperature, DO, and ORP were conducted by the plant operator using a
VWR Symphony SP90M5 Handheld Multimeter, 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 Symphony SP90M5 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.
12
-------
4.1
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Facility Description and Pre-existing Treatment System Infrastructure
The water treatment system has a total of 226 connections and serves a population of approximately 600
in the Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park Community in Springfield, OH. Source water for the Park is
groundwater supplied from two bedrock wells, the West Well and the East Well located near the pump
house (Figure 4-1) at 3454 Folk Ream Road. As reported by the operator, the West Well produces about
150 gpm, and the East Well produces about 90 gpm. Before the installation of the treatment system, only
the West Well was in operation. Both wells are 8-in in diameter and were originally installed to a depth
of 100 ft below ground surface (bgs). In 2001, the East Well was extended to a depth of 220 ft bgs.
Figure 4-1. Pre-Existing Treatment Building at Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park
The pre-existing water treatment system consisted of chlorination using a 12.5%NaOCl solution and
addition of polyphosphate as a sequestering agent for corrosion and scale control. Figure 4-2 shows the
chlorine and polyphosphate storage tanks and chemical metering pumps. Following chlorination and
polyphosphate addition, extracted water was stored in a 2,000-gal hydropnuematic tank (Figure 4-3) prior
to entering the distribution system.
Before the installation of the water treatment system, the West Well typically operated for approximately
5 hr/day, producing around 40,000 gal of water based on estimates provided by the facility. To help
verify the flowrate of the West Well and the average flowrate to the distribution system from the existing
hydropnuematic tank, a flow meter was installed downstream of the hydropnuematic tank in mid-
November 2004. Readings from the flow meter and an hour meter (installed in early December 2004) on
13
-------
Figure 4-2. Pre-Existing Chlorine and Polyphosphate Addition Systems
the West Well pump were collected until the end of February 2005. These readings confirmed that, on
average, the West Well pump operated 5.6 hr/day and produced an average of 43,740 gal.
The average flowrate produced by the supply well was calculated based on the volume of water extracted
and the hours of operation per day; the average flowrate from the supply well was calculated to be 131
gpm, less than the 150-gpm design flowrate assumed for the West Well. The average instantaneous flow
reading collected from the hydropnuematic tank to the distribution system was 33 gpm. Figure 4-4 shows
the instantaneous flow readings and calculated flowrate from the West Well.
Source Water Quality. Source water samples were collected on August 5, 2004, for the West Well and
on September 9, 2004, for the East Well. Samples were analyzed for the analytes shown in Table 3-3.
The analytical results from source water sampling events are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to data
collected by the facility for the EPA demonstration site selection. Historic water quality data at the entry
point and from the distribution system also were obtained from the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (Ohio EPA) and the site owner, respectively, and are summarized in Table 4-1.
Total arsenic concentrations in source water (from both wells) ranged from 14.6 to 25.0 (ig/L. Based on
the sampling results obtained by Battelle, arsenic existed almost entirely as As(III) (24.7 (ig/L) in the
West Well. Arsenic in the East Well existed as As(III) (6.1 (ig/L), As(V) (2.8 (ig/L), and particulate As
(5.7 (ig/L). Total arsenic concentration in the West Well was much higher than that in the East Well (i.e.,
24.6 versus 14.6 (ig/L). The variations in concentration and species between these two wells were
carefully monitored during the course of the demonstration study and are discussed in Section 4.5.1.
Total iron concentrations in source water ranged from 636 to 1,615 |o,g/L, which exceed the secondary
maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 300 |o,g/L. The most recent sampling results obtained by Battelle
show iron concentrations in the West Well at 1,615 (ig/L (existing almost entirely in the soluble form)
14
-------
Figure 4-3. Pre-Existing Storage Tank
f Sf
Date
Figure 4-4. West Well Pump Flowrate and On-Demand Flowrate
15
-------
Table 4-1. Chateau Estates Mobile Home Park Water Quality Data
Parameter
Date
pH
Conductivity
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate
Nitrite
Ammonia
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate
As(total)
As (total soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Sb (total)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
lamhos
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
HB/L
HB/L
HB/L
W?/L
^g/L
HB/L
W?/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Facility
Data
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Battelle Data
West
Well
08/05/04
NA
NA
14.5
0.8
-88
319
256 381
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.3
11.3
NA
25.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,078
NA
35.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
68
21
23.0
418
<1.0
0.04
0.01
0.24
14
1.5
27
19.4
0.10
24.6
24.3
0.3
24.7
0.1
1,615
1,635
18.5
18.8
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
NA
11.3
89
39
East
Well
09/09/04
7.3
NA
12.9
3.4
-25
343
291
6.5
372
0.7
0.04
0.01
0.17
1.4
0.8
15
17.5
0.10
14.6
8.9
5.7
6.1
2.8
636
385
62.3
56
1.45
1.6
0.41
0.27
0.30
14.8
67
30
Historical Data
Entry
Point
1995-2005
7.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
325
NA
1.07-1.4
NA
NA
0.05-0.33
0.05
NA
140
0.85-1.64
20-33
16-18
NA
15-27.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
738-2,570
NA
O.02-43
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<4
10-12
68-73
31-33
Distribution
1998-2004
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3-17.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.0-543
NA
NA
NA
NA
40^4,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N/A = not analyzed
and in the East Well at 636 (ig/L (with 60% existing in the soluble form). The presence of particulate iron
in the East Well water sample was consistent with the presence of particulate arsenic in the same water.
The presence of particulate iron and arsenic in the East Well water, however, needed to be verified during
the demonstration study to ensure that these results were not caused by inadvertent aeration of the sample
during sampling. Note that the DO and ORP values of the East Well sample were significantly higher
than those of the West Well sample.
16
-------
Manganese concentrations in source water ranged from 18.5 to 62.3 |og/L. The sampling results obtained
by Battelle show manganese concentrations in the West Well at 18.5 (ig/L (existing entirely in the soluble
form) and in the East Well at 62.3 (ig/L (with 90% existing in the soluble form). Based on the relatively
high iron and manganese concentrations in source water, the selected vendor proposed to include a pre-
treatment step for iron and manganese removal prior to arsenic removal.
pH values of source water were consistently around 7.3. Typically, the target pH range for the use of
adsorption with iron-based media for arsenic removal is 6.0 to 8.0. The pH value of 7.3 was well within
this range; therefore, pH adjustment was not included for the arsenic treatment system.
Arsenic adsorption may be influenced by the presence of competing anions such as silica, sulfate, and
phosphate. AD-33 was reported to be affected by silica at levels greater than 40 mg/L, sulfate at levels
greater than 150 mg/L, and phosphate at levels greater than 1 mg/L (AdEdge, 2005). The silica levels
ranged from 11.3 to 19.4 mg/L, the sulfate levels ranged from 15 to 27 mg/L, and the orthophosphate
levels were less than the method detection limit; therefore, the presence of these anions should not have a
significant impact on arsenic adsorption.
Other analyzed water quality parameters showed low concentrations or less than method detection limits
of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, fluoride, uranium, vanadium, antimony, and total organic carbon (TOC). The
hardness levels ranged from 256 to 381 mg/L, which existed mainly as calcium hardness.
4.1.2 Pre-Demonstration Treated Water Quality. Results of the treated water samples collected
at the entry point and from the distribution system from 1995 through 2005 were obtained from Ohio
EPA and the facility and are summarized in Table 4-1. The concentrations of some constituents were
considerably higher in the distribution system than those in raw water at the entry point. For example,
arsenic concentrations in the distribution system ranged from 4.0 to 543 (ig/L (versus 14.6 to 26.0 (ig/L in
raw water and 15 to 27.2 (ig/L at the entry point). Iron concentrations in the distribution system ranged
from 40 to 44,800 (ig/L (versus 636 to 1,615 (ig/L in raw water and 738 to 2,570 (ig/L at the entry point).
Elevated arsenic and iron concentrations in the distribution system might be caused by accumulation of
particulate matter and/or corrosion products in the distribution system. The facility has been flushing the
eleven fire hydrants located throughout the distribution system on a monthly basis.
4.1.3 Distribution System. Based on the information provided by the facility, the water mains
within the distribution system are constructed primarily of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) and some copper
piping. There also are a few sections of iron pipe installed at the wellhouse at the entry point to the
distribution system. The laterals coming off the mains and leading to the individual mobile home units
consist of copper and black polyethylene. The piping within the mobile home units is typically PVC,
copper, or polybutylene. No lead pipe or lead solder was installed and/or used. Eleven fire hydrants are
located throughout the distribution system. Fire hydrants are flushed once a month to remove sediment
that builds up in the distribution system.
The LCR samples are collected at five locations every three years. Additional compliance samples
include arsenic and iron collected monthly at locations throughout the distribution system and
bacteria/total coliform collected monthly. The facility also samples for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), synthetic organic compounds (SOCs), inorganics, nitrate, and radionuclides as directed by the
Ohio EPA, typically once every two to three years.
4.2 Treatment Process Description
The treatment system consists of two integrated units referred to as an AD-26 pre-treatment system and
an AD-33 arsenic package unit (APU) adsorption system. The AD-26 pretreatment system is for iron and
17
-------
manganese removal, followed in series by the APU adsorption system for arsenic removal. The treated
water exiting the APU adsorption system is sent to distribution.
AD-26 media is a manganese dioxide mineral commonly used for oxidation and filtration of iron and
manganese. The media has NSF Standard 61 approval for use in drinking water applications. Table 4-2
provides physical and chemical properties of the AD-26 media.
Raw water was first treated with chlorine to provide oxidation prior to the AD-26 media. The use of
chlorine helped precipitate soluble iron and convert As(III) to As(V). The As(V) formed was adsorbed
onto the precipitated iron solids, which in turn, were filtered out by the AD-26 media. Thereby, the media
acted primarily as a filter.
Following the oxidation/filtration system, the pre-treated water was sent to the APU system as a polishing
step. AdEdge's APU arsenic removal system is designed for small systems in the flow range of 10-300
gpm. The APU is a fixed bed adsorption system that uses Bayoxide E33 media, an iron-based adsorptive
media developed by Bayer AG and branded and referred to as AD-33 by AdEdge, for removal of arsenic
in small drinking water systems. Table 4-3 presents physical and chemical properties of the AD-33
media. AD-33 is delivered in a dry crystalline form and has NSF Standard 61 approval for use in
drinking water applications. Once reaching capacity, the spent media may be removed and disposed of
after being subjected to EPA's TCLP test.
Both the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and the APU systems are skid-mounted, each comprised of three
carbon steel pressure vessels of similar construction and configuration but of different sizes. Table 4-4
presents the key system design parameters. Figure 4-5 shows the generalized process flow for the system
including sampling locations and parameters to be analyzed. Six key process components are discussed
as follows:
• Intake. Raw water was pumped from the supply wells, i.e., the West and East Wells,
alternating every cycle, and fed to the AD-26 oxidation/filtration system.
• Chlorination. Prior to the AD-26 oxidation/filtration system, water was chlorinated using a
12.5% liquid NaOCl solution injected to the 4-in PVC line. Chlorine oxidized arsenic and
iron and maintained chlorine residual for disinfection. The automatic chlorine injection
system was composed of a solenoid driven diaphragm metering pump with a maximum
capacity of 2 gal/hr, an in-line chlorine probe, a chlorine monitor/control module equipped
with a flow sensor, and a 75-gal polyethylene chemical feed tank with secondary
containment. A side-stream of water was directed, via 0.188-in inner diameter (i.d.)
polyethylene tubing, from a valve located approximately 12-ft downstream of the chlorine
injection point and an inline mixer to the chlorine monitor/controller module. The chlorine
injection pump was turned on and off initially by the flow sensor (so that chlorine was
injected only when there was on-demand flow flowing through the treatment system and,
therefore, the chlorine monitor/controller module), but later by the well pumps (so that
chlorine was injected only when a well was on). Further, the feedback from the inline probe
to the monitor/controller module relative to a free chlorine set point automatically adjusted
the injection rate (in terms of pulses per minute) of the chlorine metering pump. The proper
operation of the NaOCl feed system was tracked by the operator through measurements of
free and total chlorine across the treatment train and at the entry point. Figure 4-6 is a
composite of photographs of the chlorine feed system and its components.
• Iron/Manganese Removal. When a well was on, prechlorinated water entered the AD-26
oxidation/filtration system at an average flowrate of 130 gpm (Table 4-4) and exited the
18
-------
Table 4-2. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-26 Media(a)
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lbs/ft3)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (U.S. Standard Mesh)
Oxidant
Value
Manganese Dioxide Mineral
(>80% active ingredient)
Dry Granular Media
Black
120
<10 (by weight)
20 x40
12.5%NaOCl
(a) Provided by AdEdge.
Table 4-3. Physical and Chemical Properties of AD-33 Media
(a)
Physical Properties
Parameter
Matrix
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Attrition (%)
Moisture Content (%)
Particle Size Distribution (U.S.
Standard Mesh)
Crystal Size (A)
Crystal Phase
Value
Iron Oxide Composite
Dry Pellets
Amber
35
142
0.3
<15 (by weight)
10 x35
70
a -FeOOH
Ch emical An alysis
Constituents
FeOOH
CaO
MgO
MnO
S03
Na2O
TiO2
Si02
A12O3
P2O5
Cl
Weight (%)
90.1
0.27
1.00
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.01
(a) Provided by Bayer AG.
BET = Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller.
system to the three new hydropnuematic tanks. The AD-26 oxidation/filtration system
consisted of three 36-in-diameter, 60-in-sidewall height carbon steel pressure vessels
configured in parallel. Each vessel was filled with 31 in (19 ft3) of AD-26 media, which was
underlain by 7 in (5 ft3) of fine underbedding. The AD-26 system was controlled by
electrically actuated butterfly valves and a centralized programmable logic controller (PLC)
unit. Figure 4-7 is a photograph of the AD-26 system.
19
-------
Table 4-4. Design Features of AdEdge Treatment System
Parameter
Value
Remarks
Influent Specifications
Peak Design Flowrate (gpm)
West Well Flowrate (gpm)
East Well Flowrate (gpm)
Average Throughput to System (gpd)
Arsenic Concentration (|J.g/L)
Iron Concentration (|J.g/L)
250
130
90
40,000
24.6
1,615
System upsized from 150 gpm at Park
Owner's request
Average flowrate based on totalizer and
well pump hour meter readings
Based on information received from
facility
—
-
-
Prechlorination
Chlorine Dosage (mg/L [as C12])
2.5
1.0 mg/L residual chlorine within
distribution system
AD-26 - Oxidation/Filtration
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ft3/vessel)
Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm)
Backwash Flowrate through Each Vessel
(gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Expected Backwash Frequency
(times/week)
Estimated AD26 Media Life (yr)
o
J
Parallel
36 D x 60 H
AD-26
19
43
130
15
o
J
4
—
—
—
—
57 ft3 total
Total flowrate of 130 gpm through AD-26
system
18.4 gpm/ft2
Per Vessel
Actual backwash frequency to be
determined during system operation
Vendor provided estimate
AD-33 Adsorption
No. of Vessels
Configuration
Vessel Size (in)
Type of Media
Quantity of Media (ft3/vessel)
Flowrate through Each Vessel (gpm)
EBCT (min/vessel)
Backwash Flowrate (gpm)
Backwash Duration (min)
Expected Backwash Frequency (times/60
days)
Bed Volumes (BV)/Day
Estimated Working Capacity (BV)
Estimated Volume to Breakthrough (gal)
Estimated ADS 3 Media Life (yr)
o
J
Parallel
48 D x 60 H
AD-33
38
on-demand
25.8
127
15
1
47
83,500
71,200,000
4.9
—
—
—
Bay oxide E33
114 ft3 total
Based on average on-demand flowrate of
33 gpm measured prior to demonstration
study (Figure 4-4).
10 gpm/ft2
Per Vessel
Actual backwash frequency to be
determined during system operation
Based on throughput of 40,000 gpd,
1BV= 114ft3
Bed volumes to breakthrough at 10 ug/L
based on vendor estimate
Vendor provided estimate
Estimated frequency of media change-out
based on estimated media working
capacity of 83,500 BVs and average
throughput of 40,000 gpd to system
20
-------
Monthly
pHw, temperatureW,
DOW, ORPW, C12 (free and total)1^)
As (total and soluble), As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), Mn (total and"
soluble), Ca, Mg, F, NH3,
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
turbidity, and alkalinity
INFLUENT
Springfield, OH
AD26/AD33 Technology
Design Flow: 250 gpm
Monthly
pH^a\ temperature^,
DO«>, ORPW, C12 (free and total)'"'*),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
Ca, Mg, F, NH3
NO3, SO4, SiO2, P,
alkalinity, and turbidity
LEGEND
IN J At Wellhead
^^S
S~*\
AC 1 After Chlorination
v_X
Y"/\ After Oxidation Vessels
^/ (OA-OC)
'TIN Combined Effluent from AD-26
^J Vessels
A After Adsorption Vessels
^) VA-TC)
TT\ Combined Effluent from AD-33
y^y Vessels
OVA AD-26 Backwash
V^_x Sampling Location
S~\
BW) AD-33 Backwash Sampling
^^ Location
^~\
SS J Sludge Sampling Location
Unit Process
• Process Flow
• Backwash Flow
Footnotes
a) On-site analyses
b) Except at IN location
pH, TDSJSS,
turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), and
Mn (total and soluble)
pH, TDSJSS,
turbidity,
As (total and soluble),
Fe (total and soluble), and
Mn (total and soluble)
i
r
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
TCLP
Figure 4-5. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Location
21
-------
Figure 4-6. Chlorine Injection System
(Clockwise from Top: Chlorine Injection Point; Chlorine Monitor/Control Module; Chlorine Injection
System; Metering Pump; Chlorine Sensor; Chlorine Monitor/Controller)
Figure 4-7. AD-26 Treatment System
22
-------
Hydropnuematic Tanks. The filtered water from the AD-26 system entered the three
hydropnuematic tanks for storage until needed to meet demand. Each tank had a storage
capacity of 528 gal for a total capacity of 1,584 gal. Figure 4-8 is a photograph of the three
hydropnuematic tanks.
Figure 4-8. Hydropnuematic Tanks
Arsenic Adsorption. Upon demand, water stored in the hydropnuematic tanks flowed
through the APU arsenic adsorption system at a varying flowrate. As discussed in
Section 4.1, flowrates ranging from 18.1 to 58.2 gpm and averaging 33.0 gpm (Figure 4-4)
were recorded flowing from the existing hydropnuematic tank to the distribution system
during a pre-demonstration water demand study. The APU system consisted of three 48-in-
diameter, 60-in-sidewall height carbon steel pressure vessels also configured in parallel. Each
of the APU vessels contained approximately 38 ft3 (114 ft3 total) of AD-33 media. Assuming
a flowrate of 33.0 gpm (or 11.0 gpm/vessel), the media empty bed contact time (EBCT) in
each vessel would be 25.8 min, which is at least 5 times higher than that recommended by the
vendor. Figure 4-9 is a photograph of the APU system. Similar to the AD-26 system, the
APU system was controlled by a series of electrically actuated butterfly valves and the PLC
unit. Figure 4-10 presents a photograph of the APU control panel.
Backwash. Both the AD-26 and APU systems required backwashing to remove particulates
and solids that build up in the media beds. Both systems could be set to initiate backwash
automatically based on differential pressure (Ap) measured across the individual pressure
vessels, system run time, or volume of water treated. Each vessel was backwashed one at a
time using water stored in the hydropnuematic tanks.
23
-------
Figure 4-9. AD-33 Treatment System
Figure 4-10. System Control Panel
24
-------
For the AD-26 system that filtered arsenic laden-iron solids and manganese solids, backwash
was performed every two to three days. Backwash was adjusted on February 9, 2006, from
once every 2 days for 15 min per vessel to once every 3 days for 9 min per vessel, with a 2-
or 1.5-min filter-to-waste rinse at a flowrate of 130 gpm. After the adjustment, the amount of
wastewater produced should have been reduced from approximately 6,630 to 4,100 gal for
the three vessels.
For the APU system, backwash was set initially for manual control. The backwash duration
was 15 min and the backwash flowrate was at 127 gpm. The backwash water produced from
the three vessels was approximately 5,850 gal. Due to a power outage at the end of
November 2005, which reverted settings back to default, the APU vessels were backwashed
automatically once every 60 days. The backwash water was collected in two 6,000-gal onsite
storage tanks. A vacuum truck picked up the backwash water weekly and disposed of it off-
site at the Village of North Hampton sewer system.
• Media replacement. When AD-26 and AD-33 media exhaust their capacities, the spent
media will be removed from the vessels and disposed of. Virgin media will be loaded into
the vessels. Media replacement was not performed during the first six-months of operation.
4.3 System Installation
The installation of the treatment system was completed by LBJ Inc., a subcontractor to AdEdge, on
September 2, 2005. The following briefly summarizes some of the system/building installation activities,
including permitting, building preparation, system offloading, installation, shake-down, and start-up.
4.3.1 Permitting. Design drawings and a process description of the proposed treatment system
were submitted to the Ohio EPA by LBJ, Inc., on May 27, 2005. Ohio EPA's review comments were
received on June 21, 2005. The comments were related to redundancy, sampling requirements,
disinfection practice, and minimum empty bed contact time. After incorporating the responses to the
comments, the plans were resubmitted to Ohio EPA on June 30, 2005. Ohio EPA granted the treatment
system permit on July 6, 2005.
4.3.2 Building Preparation. The existing building housing the pre-existing treatment system
needed modifications for the planned arsenic treatment system. The necessary additional preparation
included removing the ceiling joists, cutting into the floor to install sub-floor piping, removing the 2,000-
gal pre-existing hydropnuematic tank, and pouring a pad for the three new hydropnuematic tanks. The
building construction began on July 15, 2005, and was completed on August 15, 2005.
4.3.3 Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. The treatment system arrived at the site on August
10, 2005. The installation activities, which lasted about two weeks, included removing the existing
hydropnuematic tank, offloading and placing the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 APU systems and
the three new hydropnuematic tanks within the building, connecting system piping at the tie-in points,
completing electrical wiring and connections, and assembling the chlorine injection system.
Upon completion of system installation, the media vessels were tested hydraulically before media loading
on September 1, 2005. For the APU system, six 100-lb bags of coarse gravel (for a total of 600 Ib [or 6
ft3]), three 100-lb bags of fine gravel (for atotal of 300 Ib [or 3 ft3]), and one and one fifth 1,100-lb
supersacks of the AD-33 media (for atotal of 1,330 Ib [or 38 ft3]) were loaded sequentially into each
vessel containing approximately half a tank of water. Figure 4-11 shows a photograph of loading the AD-
33 media from a supersack through a hatch on the roof of the building. Each AD-26 vessel was loaded
with five 100-lb bags of fine gravel (for atotal of 500 Ib [or 5 ft3]) and then approximately 41 55-lbbags
25
-------
Figure 4-11. AD-33 Media Loading
of the AD-26 media (for a total of 2,255 Ib [or 19 ft3]) with the vessel containing about half a tank of
water. Figure 4-12 is a composite of pictures showing the media bags and media loading into one of the
AD-33 vessels.
After media loading, the vessels were backwashed one at a time to remove media fines. Backwashing
continued until the backwash water ran clear. Freeboard measurements were then taken from where the
straight side of the tank starts to the top of media. For the AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessels, the
freeboard to the top of the media was measured at 24 to 25 in, which, based on the 5 5-in freeboard to the
top of the underbedding gravel, would yield a bed depth of 30 to 31 in (compared to the design value of
32 in). For the AD-33 adsorption vessels, the freeboard measurements to the top of the media ranged
from 24 to 26 in, which, based on the freeboard measurement of 58 in to the top of gravel, would result in
a bed depth of 32 to 34 in (compared to the design value of 36 in).
After the media was loaded and backwashed, the vendor and plant operator performed system shakedown
and startup work, which included checking system control and interlocking, testing for balanced flows
among individual vessels, and adjusting chlorine injection and control. The system was then sanitized
with a 12.5% NaCIO according to the Ohio EPA procedure. A water sample was collected for bacteria
analysis and the system was bypassed until the results of the bacteria analysis were received.
After the satisfactory results of the bacteria analysis had been forwarded to Ohio EPA, the system was
officially put online on September 21, 2005. Battelle conducted a system inspection and provided
operator training on data and sample collection on September 28, 2005.
The configuration of the system as it was initially installed allowed water to flow from one of the wells
into the three hydropnuematic tanks until demand in the distribution system forced water, after
chlorination, to flow through the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems. Due to
26
-------
difficulties encountered when attempting to maintain a stable chlorine residual level in the treated water
(see discussion in Section 4.4.2), the system was reconfigured on October 26, 2005, to allow the chlorine
addition system and the AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessels to locate prior to the hydropnuematic tanks.
As such, the chlorine injection pump and the AD-26 system could operate based on the well flowrate of
either 130 or 90 gpm (depending on the operating well). Downstream from the hydropnuematic tanks, the
AD-33 adsorption system operated on-demand as before. This configuration improved the chlorine feed
system for a more steady feed into the head of the treatment system.
I
Figure 4-12. AD-33 Media Supersack, AD-26 Media Bags and Loading of Underbedding
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Operational Parameters. The operational parameters for the first six months of the system
operation were tabulated and are attached as Appendix A. Key parameters are summarized in Table 4-5.
As discussed in Section 4.3.3, the AdEdge treatment system operated on-demand from the system startup
on September 21, 2005, through October 25, 2005. Since then, the system piping was retrofitted so that
the chlorine injection system and AD-26 oxidation/filtration system would operate at pump flowrates and
the AD-33 adsorption system would operate on-demand as before. During the first six months of system
operation from September 21, 2005, through March 26, 2006, the West Well pump ran for a total of 974
hr with a daily average of 5.4 hr/day (Note: 5.4 hr/day was used to calculate cumulative hours from
September 28 through October 21, 2005, during which an hour meter was not available at the well pump),
and the East Well pump ran for a total of 686 hr with a daily average of 3.8 hr/day (Note: East Well
stopped running during October 27 through 31 due to replacement of the old well piping). The combined
27
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of APU-250 System Operation
Operational Parameter
Duration
Value/Condition
09/21/05 -03/26/06
Well Pumps
Daily Run Time (hr/day)
Well Range
West 0.7-10.4
East 0.2-7.8
Combined 3.7-15.1
Average
5.4
3.8
9.2
AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration System
Time Operated (hr)
Throughput (gal)
Flowrate before Retrofit (gpm/b'
Flowrate after Retrofit (gpm) (V)
Vessel/System Pressure and AP (psi)
1,421W
Vessel 09/21/05-11/28/05
A 514,502
B 1,330,884
C 1,095,615
Combined 2,941,001
Total 8,776,860
Vessel Range
A 0
B 1 1 - 28
C 6-24
Combined 17-52
Vessel Range
A 14-40
B 17-49
C 18-51
Combined 49 - 140
Cal. Combined(c) 30 - 128
Vessel Inlet Outlet
A 49(36-60) 45(33-58)
B 46(36-58) 46(36-58)
C 47 (28 - 58) 48 (28 - 58)
System 48(16-60) 46(33-55)
11/28/05-03/26/06
1,664,484
2,039,922
2,131,453
5,835,859
Average
NA
17
12
29
Average
29
36
37
102
89
AP
NA
NA
NA
3(0-9)
AD-33 Adsorption System
Throughput (gal)
Bed Volume (BV)
Flowrate (gpm)
EBCT (min)(d)
Vessel/System Pressure and AP (psi)
Vessel 09/21/05-11/28/05
D 884,259
E 1,067,843
F 740,679
Combined 2,742,781
Total 8,184,283
11/28/05-03/26/06
1,728,900
2,152,272
1,560,330
5,441,502
9,540
Vessel Range
D 5-17
E 5-22
F 3-17
Combined 9-56
Vessel Range
D 16.7-56.9
E 12.9-56.9
F 16.7-94.8
Combined 5.1-31.6
Vessel Inlet Outlet
D 48(36-60) 51(31-60)
E 48 (36 - 58) 48 (36 - 58)
F 47 (32 - 56) 47 (36 - 56)
System 47 (35 - 56) 48 (35 - 58)
Average
11
13
9
33
Average
25.8
21.9
31.6
25.8
AP
NA
NA
NA
0
(a) From October 26, 2005, through March 26, 2006.
(b) System piping retrofitted on October 26, 2005.
(c) Totalizer readings divided by sum of West Well and East Well hours.
(d) Calculated based on 114 ft3 of media in adsorption system.
28
-------
daily run times for both wells ranged from 3.7 to 15.1 hr/day and averaged 9.2 hr/day. The operating time
of the APU vessels could not be determined due to the on-demand use of the system; however, since
October 26, 2005 (after the system piping retrofit), the AD-26 system operated for 1,421 hr based on the
hour meters at the well pumps. The system was bypassed for five days from November 29 through
December 3, 2005, due to a power outage that caused problems with the control panel. This issue is
discussed further in Section 4.4.5.
During the first six months, the system treated approximately 8,776,000 gal of water based on the
totalizer readings for each of three AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessels or 8,184,000 gal for the three AD-
33 adsorption vessels. The combined throughput for the AD-26 system was 7.2% higher than that for the
AD-33 system. Significantly imbalanced flow was observed among the three AD-26 (Vessels A, B, and
C) and three AD-33 vessels (Vessels D, E, and F). Before the totalizers were reset on November 28,
2005, due to a power outage, 17.5, 45.3, and 37.3% of the flow passed through Vessels A, B, and C,
respectively. The exceptionally low flow through Vessel A was caused mainly by close to zero
throughput through that vessel before October 26, 2005, when the AD-26 system operated on-demand.
After the totalizer was reset and when the system was operating primarily at pump flowrates, a more even
flow was observed, accounting for 28.5, 35.0, and 36.5% through Vessels A, B, and C, respectively. For
the AD-33 vessels, 32.3, 38.9, and 28.8% of the flow passed through Vessels D, E, and F, respectively,
before the totalizers were reset and 31.8, 39.6, and 28.7% after the totalizer rest.
Using the 8,184,000 gal throughput for calculations, 9,540 bed volumes (BV) of water were treated by the
AD-33 system during the first six months of system operation. BV calculations were performed based on
114 ft3 of media in the adsorption system. The instantaneous on-demand flowrates to the individual
adsorption vessels ranged from 3 to 22 gpm with combined flowrates ranging from 9 to 56 gpm and
averaging 33 gpm (Figure 4-13). This average on-demand flowrate is identical to that obtained just
before the demonstration study.
Flowrates through the three AD-26 vessels were monitored using individual totalizers/flowmeters
installed at the exit side of the vessels. Before the system piping retrofit, instantaneous on-demand
flowrate readings taken from the meters ranged from 6 to 28 gpm for Vessels B and C, with combined
flowrates ranging from 17 to 52 gpm and averaging 29 gpm (Table 4-5 and Figure 4-14). As noted
above, little or no flow passed through Vessel A during this time period. After the system piping retrofit,
the system operated at the well pump flowrates. The instantaneous flowrate readings taken from the
meters ranged from 14 to 51 gpm for the three vessels with combined flowrates ranging from 49 to 140
gpm and averaging 102 gpm. The combined flowrates from the meter readings are compared in Figure 4-
14 with the calculated flowrates derived by dividing the combined throughput values by the
corresponding operating hours. As expected, the calculated flowrates were much less scattered than the
instantaneous readings (i.e., 30 to 128 gpm [averaged 89] versus 49 to 140 gpm). The average flowrate
obtained from the meter readings was closer to the operating time-weighted average (i.e., 117 gpm) of the
West and East Wells flowrates (i.e., 130 and 90 gpm, respectively).
Based on the flowrates to the individual vessels and system, the EBCTs for the individual adsorption
vessels varied from 12.9 to 94.8 min and averaged 26.4; the EBCTs for the system varied from 5.1 to 31.6
min and averaged 25.8 min. This EBCT is at least 5 times higher than what normally would be
recommended by the vendor for iron-based adsorptive media.
The pressure loss across each AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessel ranged from 0-10 psi and averaged 2 psi.
The inlet pressure of the AD-26 system ranged from 16-60 psi and averaged 48 psi, while the outlet
pressure of the AD-26 system ranged from 33-55 psi and averaged 46 psi. The average differential
pressure for the AD-26 system was 3 psi. The pressure loss across each AD-33 oxidation/filtration vessel
29
-------
09/10/05 10/15/05 11/19/05 12/24/05 01/28/06 03/04/06
Date
Figure 4-13. AD-33 Adsorption System Flowrates
160
140
120
— 100
o
60
40
04/08/06
-•- Vessel A
-•-Vessel B
+ Vessel C
-x-Combined
—•—Calculated Combined
09/18/05 10/08/05 10/28/05 11/17/05 12/07/05 12/27/05 01/16/06 02/05/06 02/25/06 03/17/06 04/06/06
Date
Figure 4-14. AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration System Flowrates
30
-------
ranged from 0 to 7 psi and averaged 1 psi. The inlet pressure of the AD-33 system ranged from 35 to 56
psi and averaged 47 psi, while the outlet pressure of the AD-33 system ranged from 35 to 58 and averaged
48 psi. The average differential pressure for the AD-33 system was 0 psi.
4.4.2 Chlorine Injection. As described in Section 4.2, chlorine was added as an oxidant to oxidize
As(III) and Fe(II) using a 12.5%NaOCl solution. The chlorine injection system experienced operational
irregularities during the first six months of system operation, as reflected by a variation of free and total
chlorine residuals measured at the entry point shown in Figure 4-15. After system startup, with a free
chlorine set point of 2.5 mg/L (as C12), free and total chlorine residuals varied considerably from 0.34 to
3.49 mg/L and from 0.43 to 3.91 mg/L (as C12), respectively, which, at the time, were thought to have
been caused by the fluctuating on-demand flow flowing through the treatment system. The system was,
therefore, reconfigured on October 26, 2005, so that the chlorine addition system and the AD-26 system
were located before the hydropnuematic tanks and operated based on the well flowrate of either 130 or 90
gpm. Table 4-6 summarizes timelines of the settings and activities associated with the chlorine injection
system.
6.0
5.0
o
V)
4.0
O)
I 3.0
\.- •
' :Vf *. 4
v •
? ::
r i
|4 — 1.8 mg/Las(Jl2 — i
Moved Chlorine Injection
Unit on 01/03/06
" i.'
^
_, ••• + »
• • •
*•.>!/%:*«
•• . A •
• • .*v
^«*
>»
; •.*• f
x • •
I.V* •'
• * »* ••.
\-m
***** ^:.
• +m
•
-*•
-
4
•
'
.5 mg/L as CI2
•
• _
I**
**» *
\ f
• * • *
*•!
v
•
4 11.25 mg/L as CI2 I *
« Free CI2
• Total CI2
•
• •
*-i : •*.
. • ••• •••
• * m j. »
. •?•*.». *•*•*
;>:*/;
:>••*•. i
:>:*:. '•*•
. *
09/22/05 10/07/05 10/22/05 11/06/05 11/21/05 12/06/05 12/21/05 01/05/06 01/20/06 02/04/06 02/19/06 03/06/06 03/21/06
Figure 4-15. Free and Total Chlorine Residuals at Entry Point
After system reconfiguration, the free chlorine set point was maintained at 2.5 mg/L (as C12). Although
somewhat improved, the free and total chlorine residuals measured at the entry point continued to scatter,
with concentrations ranging from 1.56 to 3.78 mg/L and from 1.81 to 3.95 mg/L (as C12), respectively.
On November 30, 2005, the free chlorine set point was decreased from 2.5 to 1.8 mg/L (as C12), but the
scattering office and total chlorine residuals continued without significant improvement. On December
20, 2005, modification was made to the setting of pump stroke length in an attempt to reduce chlorine
31
-------
residuals. On January 3, 2006, in an attempt to shorten the response time of the chlorine controller, the
chlorine injection system was relocated from the east wall of the wellhouse to approximately 20 ft to the
west wall next to the AD-26 vessels and the chlorine injection point so that the length of the poly tubing
was reduced from 25 to 30 ft to 5 to 10 ft. On January 6, 2006, the chlorine metering pump was
interlocked to the well pumps so that it would operate only when one of the well pumps was on. In
addition, on January 6 and 26, 2006, the free chlorine set point was further reduced from 1.8 to 1.5 and
then, 1.25 mg/L (as C12). The combination of these efforts caused a somewhat decreasing trend for the
chlorine residuals at the entry point but the residuals continued to scatter significantly between 0.29 and
2.60 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and between 0.29 and 3.31 mg/L (as C12) for total chlorine.
In addition to the problems related to elevated free and total chlorine residuals, the presence of iron
particles after chlorination caused the inline chlorine probe and tubing leading from the inline mixer to the
chlorine probe to clog. As a result, erratic readings were taken by the chlorine monitor, causing a wide
variation of chlorine levels in water. The operator has included the cleaning of the relevant system
components as part of the routine system O&M. The vendor has been informed of the problems and
continued to monitor and troubleshoot the problems.
Table 4-6. Settings/Activities Associated with Chlorine Injection System
Operating
Period
From
09/21/05
10/26/05
11/30/05
12/20/05
01/03/06
01/06/06
01/26/06
To
10/26/05
11/30/05
12/20/05
01/03/06
01/06/06
01/26/06
03/26/06
Free
Chlorine
Setting(a)
(mg/L
[as C12])
2.5
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.25
Chlorine
Metering
Pump on/off
Controlled by
Flow Sensor(c)
Flow Sensor
Flow Sensor
Flow Sensor
Flow Sensor
Well Pumps
Well Pumps
Chlorine
Metering
Pump
Stoke
Length
(%)
50
50
50
45
45
45
45
Poly
Tubing
Length^
(ft)
25-30
25-30
25-30
25-30
5-10
5-10
5-10
Remarks
System piping retrofitted on
10/26/05.
Stroke length reduced to 45%
on 12/20/05.
Chlorine injection system
relocated on 01/03/06 to help
reduce distance of poly tubing
and response time of chlorine
controller.
Relay rewired from electrical
panel to pumps on 01/06/06.
(a) Feedback from chlorine probe to controller that automatically adjusted injection rate (pulse/min) of chlorine
metering pump.
(b) Poly tubing that offshoot from main water line approximately 12 ft downstream from in-line mixer to the
chlorine monitor/controller.
(c) Chlorine monitor/controller assembly.
4.4.3 Backwash. Table 4-7 summarizes the backwash settings and volume of wastewater
produced from the three AD-26 oxidation/filtration vessels during the first six months of system
operation. Figure 4-16 plotted the volume of wastewater produced over time. Under the initial settings
(i.e., 15 min backwash and 2 min service-to-waste rinse), an average of 5,640 gal, or 85% of the expected
volume, were produced from the three vessels during a backwash event. When the Park experienced the
32
-------
Table 4-7. AD-26 Backwash Settings and Volume of Wastewater Produced
Operating
Period
From
10/26/05
12/03/05
01/12/06
02/09/06
To
11/28/05
01/12/06
02/09/06
03/26/06
Backwash Settings
Backwash
Duration
(min)
15
20
15
9
Fast Rinse
Duration
(min)
2
25
1.5
1.5
Backwash
Frequency
(times/wk)
o
J
o
J
o
J
2
Average Volume of
Wastewater Produced
per Backwash Event
Expected
Based on
Settings
(gal)
6,630
17,550
6,435
4,095
Actual
(gal)
5,640(a)
13,100
5,890
6,180
Remarks
Piping retrofit
completed on
10/26/05; power
outage occurred on
11/28/05
System operation
resumed on 12/03/05;
PLC fixed on 01/12/06
Backwash settings
adjusted on 02/09/06
First six months of
operation ended
03/26/06
(a) Excluding data from October 28, 2005, October 30, 2005,
volumes of wastewater were recorded.
and November 19, 2005, when abnormally low
16,000
14,000
— 12,000
10,000
m
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
jgXX
* x_
• Vessel A
n Vessel B
A Vessel C
x Total
X** ** X X ., X ... X X X X XXX
X *X
x*x
XX
XX
i
n»
IB 1 1 g 1 g B •••••••
10/20/05 11/09/05 11/29/05 12/19/05 01/08/06 01/28/06 02/17/06 03/09/06 03/29/06
Date
Figure 4-16. Volume of Wastewater Produced When Backwashing AD-26 Vessels
33
-------
power outage on November 28, 2005, the backwash controls apparently were reset so that each vessel
would be backwashed for 20 min and rinsed for an extended duration (the vendor reported 25 min but was
not sure if it was correct). Consequently, more than twice as much wastewater, i.e., 13,100 gal on
average, was produced from each backwash event. Upon request, the backwash settings were adjusted
back to 15 min and 90 sec service-to-waste rinse on January 12, 2006, and the volume of wastewater
produced was restored to an average of 5,890 gal per backwash event. Since the backwash water cleared
up fairly quickly, it was decided on February 9, 2006, to reduce the backwash duration from 15 to 9 min
while the rinse duration remained unchanged. This reduced backwash setting, however, did not result in
the expected reduction in wastewater production per backwash event, with the average volume staying at
6,180 gal. Nonetheless, because the backwash frequency also was reduced from once every two days to
once every three days on February 9, 2006, the overall wastewater production was reduced by 30%. The
vendor was informed of this observation and was expected to look into the PLC for the discrepancies.
The vendor recommended to backwash the AD-33 adsorption vessels approximately once every 60 days.
Automatic backwash could be initiated either by timer or by differential pressure across the vessels.
However, due to the steady pressure in the vessels and the effective arsenic and particulate removal by the
oxidation/filtration vessels, the AD-33 vessels were backwashed only once on February 1, 2006, during this
six-month operational period.
4.4.4 Residual Management. Residuals produced by the operation of the system would include
backwash water and spent media. The media was not replaced during the first six months of system
operation; therefore, the only residual produced was backwash wastewater. Backwash wastewater was
stored in two 6,000-gal storage tanks on-site and a vacuum truck hauled the backwash wastewater for off-
site disposal at the Village of North Hampton sewer system on a weekly basis.
On February 27, 2006, during the system backwash and sample collection, one of the backwash
wastewater storage tanks overflowed, due to the fact that there was already water in the storage tank
before the backwash was manually initiated. The incident was reported to Ohio EPA, which requested a
copy of the latest analytical data. After reviewing the analytical data, the Ohio EPA deemed that the spill
would not adversely affect the environment. The quality of the backwash wastewater is discussed in
Section 4.5.2.
4.4.5 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. The operational issues related to the chlorine
injection system as discussed Section 4.4.2 were the primary factors affecting system/operation reliability
and simplicity.
Unscheduled downtime during the first six months of system operation was caused by a power outage on
November 28, 2005; a power surge was created, causing the master and slave chips within the control
panel to malfunction. The system was shut down and bypassed from November 28 through December 3,
2005, while the vendor and plant operator tried to troubleshoot and fix the problems. On November 30,
2005, a new set of chips was installed and the system was rebooted. The control panel malfunctioned
again and a new set of chips had to be shipped to the Park. On December 1, 2005, the new chips were
installed and the system was rebooted. All totalizer readings were reset and the system became
operational. However, on December 2, 2005, the control panel malfunctioned in the middle of the night,
causing all three vessels to backwash at once. Meanwhile, the system stopped sending water to the
distribution system. The vendor went through the steps to correct the problems to no avail, so on
December 3, 2005, a new master and slave chips were installed and the control panel became operational.
The system O&M and operator skill requirements are discussed below in relation to pre- and post-
treatment requirements, levels of system automation, operator skill requirements, preventive maintenance
activities, and frequency of chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
34
-------
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. The pre-treatment included chlorinating source water to oxidize
arsenic, iron, and manganese, while maintaining chlorine residuals for disinfection. In addition, the AD-
26 media was used to filter arsenic-ladened iron solids and, perhaps, manganese solids and oxidize any
remaining reduced metals, such as Mn(II). Post-treatment was not needed for this system.
System Automation. The APU-250 system included automated controls, which interlocked the well
pump alternating on/off controls. The system also was equipped with an automated chlorine feed and
control unit, which processed the signal from a chlorine sensor and activated a solenoid that drove the
metering pump. In addition, the system was fitted with automated controls to allow for automatic
backwash for both the AD-26 and AD-33 vessels. The backwash wastewater storage tanks did not have
automation associated with them. Because there were no level sensors installed in the tanks, there could
be a potential for the tanks to overflow as observed on February 27, 2006.
Operator Skill Requirements. The skills required to operate the APU-250 system were relatively
complex due to the problems associated with the chlorine injection and the power outage that occurred at
the site. The operator needed to adjust the dosage of the chlorine, adjust the metering pump, clean the
chlorine probe and associated tubing (which would get clogged with iron particulates), and change out the
master chip within the control panel.
Under normal operating conditions, the operator spent approximately 20 min daily to perform visual
inspection and record the system operating parameters on the Daily Field Log Sheets. The operator also
performed routine weekly and monthly maintenance according to the users' manual to ensure proper
system operation. Normal operation of the system did not appear to require additional skills beyond those
necessary to operate the existing water supply equipment.
All Ohio public water systems, both community and nontransient, serving more than 250 people must
have a certified operator. Operator certifications are granted by the State of Ohio after passing an exam
and maintaining a minimum amount of continuing education hours at professional training events on a
biannual basis. Operator certifications are classified by Class I through IV water system operator, Class I
and II water distribution operator, Class I through IV wastewater works operator, and Class I and II
wastewater collection system operator. Class I is the lowest classification with Class IV being the
highest. Chateau Estates has a Class III water system operator.
Preventive Maintenance Activities. Preventive maintenance tasks included such items as periodic checks
of flow meters and pressure gauges and inspection of system piping and valves. The chlorine feed/control
unit tended to build up iron residue which needed to be cleaned out periodically. Typically, the operator
performed these duties only when he was onsite for routine activities.
Chemical/Media Handling and Inventory Requirements. The only chemical required for the system
operation was the NaOCl solution used for chlorination, which was already in use at the site. Every
week, approximately 15 gal of the 12.5% chlorine solution was added to the 75-gal chlorine tank.
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the APU-250 system was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected
from the treatment plant, the media backwash, and distribution system.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. Table 4-8 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, iron,
and manganese measured at the four sampling locations across the treatment train. Table 4-9 summarizes
the results of other water quality parameters. Appendix B contains a complete set of analytical results
35
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Analytical Results
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As
(paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
Sample
Count
13
13
13
13
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
13
13
13
13
6
6
6
6
13
13
13
13
6
6
6
6
Concentration (jig/L)
Minimum
9.5
9.4
0.5
<0.1
8.4
1.9
0.5
0.1
0.7
6.2
0.1
O.I
5.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
O.I
1.5
0.1
O.I
521
535
<25
<25
390
<25
<25
<25
17.9
17.3
0.1
O.I
18.8
0.4
O.I
O.I
Maximum
31.3
29.8
2.0
0.5
25.6
4.8
1.8
0.4
5.7
20.5
0.3
0.2
24.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
2.8
4.3
1.2
O.I
1,595
1,595
25.3
<25
1,463
<25
<25
<25
82.1
77.3
0.4
0.1
81.6
39.6
0.4
0.5
Average
21.5
22.4
Standard
Deviation
6.0
5.5
_(a)
_(a)
17.5
3.3
5.8
0.9
.(a)
_(a)
2.1
15.4
2.0
4.9
.(a)
.(a)
16.4
0.5
6.6
0.2
.(a)
.(a)
1.2
2.9
0.9
0.9
.(a)
.(a)
1,000
1,131
13.5
<25
754
<25
<25
<25
40.2
31.7
0.2
0.1
44.0
9.4
0.2
0.1
431
424
3.5
-
392
-
-
-
22.3
17.1
0.1
0.0
23.3
14.9
0.2
0.2
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
(a) Statistics not provided; see Figure 4-17 for arsenic breakthrough curves.
36
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Water Quality Parameter Results
Parameter
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Ammonia
(asN)
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
pH
Temperature
DO
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
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
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
NTU
NTU
NTU
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
s.u.
°c
°c
°c
°c
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
9
10
10
10
Concentration/Unit
Minimum
329
330
331
334
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.2
14.0
12.0
13.7
22.8
<0.05
0.05
O.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
0.05
0.05
O.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
17.0
17.1
16.9
16.2
5.9
0.7
O.I
0.1
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.1
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
Maximum
361
370
365
365
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
33.0
33.1
30.7
27.6
0.26
0.24
O.05
O.05
0.05
O.05
0.2
0.05
O.03
O.03
O.03
O.03
19.9
19.7
19.2
18.9
25.0
14.0
0.8
1.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.7
Average
344
344
343
343
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
23.0
24.1
24.6
25.3
0.18
0.08
-
-
-
-
0.04
-
-
.
.
-
18.3
18.3
18.1
17.8
13.5
2.4
0.4
0.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
17.3
16.7
16.6
16.6
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.0
Standard
Deviation
8.6
11.2
9.9
7.8
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
5.6
6.8
4.1
1.7
0.08
0.09
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
-
.
.
-
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
7.8
3.6
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.3
3.9
3.8
3.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
37
-------
Table 4-9. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Sampling Results (Continued)
Parameter
ORP
Free
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Chlorine
(as C12)
Total
Hardness
(as
CaCO3)
Ca
Hardness
(as
CaC03)
Mg
Hardness
(as
CaC03)
Sampling
Location
IN
AC
OT
TT
AC
OT
TT
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
IN
AC
OT
TT
Unit
mV
mV
mV
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Sample
Count
11
11
11
10
6
9
10
4
8
10
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Concentration/Unit
Minimum
-131
-77.6
270
281
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
285
282
240
297
170
170
140
166
115
112
101
115
Maximum
232
746
728
718
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.8
365
349
357
360
215
215
215
222
152
141
153
153
Average
76.2
464
525
561
1.8
1.3
1.7
2.2
1.9
2.2
336
335
333
339
204
202
199
203
131
133
134
136
Standard
Deviation
131
293
175
151
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.1
0.9
0.9
20.5
18.4
33.3
19.7
11.7
11.8
21.6
14.6
11.3
8.1
14
10.3
One-half of detection limit used for samples with concentrations less than detection limit for
calculations.
Duplicate samples included in calculations.
through the first six months of system operation. The results of the water samples collected throughout
the treatment plant are discussed below.
Arsenic. The key parameter for evaluating the effectiveness of the arsenic removal system was the
concentration of arsenic in the treated water. Water samples were collected on 13 occasions, including
one duplicate, with field speciation performed during six of the 13 occasions from the four sampling
locations at IN, AC, OT, and TT.
Figure 4-17 contains four bar charts showing the concentrations of total arsenic, particulate arsenic,
As(III), and As(V) at the IN, AC, OT, and TT locations for each speciation event. Total arsenic
concentrations in raw water ranged from 9.5 to 31.3 |o,g/L and averaged 21.5 |o,g/L (Table 4-8). As(III)
was the predominating species, ranging from 5.6 to 24.7 (ig/L and averaging 16.4 |o,g/L. As(V) and
particulate arsenic concentrations were low, averaging 1.2 and 2.1 (ig/L, respectively. The presence of
As(III) as the predominating arsenic species was consistent with the low DO concentrations (averaging
1.7 mg/L) measured (Table 4-9). The ORP readings, however, were high, averaging 76.2 mV. Recall
that the ORP readings obtained during the August 5 and September 9, 2004, source water sampling events
38
-------
Arsenic Speciation at Wellhead (IN)
Arsenic Speciation after Chlorination (AC)
30
? 25
1
.1 20
1
S 15
c
o
o
3 10
5
DAs (particulate)
• As (III)
• As(V)
i
~
J
=
.
JD -
30 -
5 25 -
| 20 '
| 15
o
O
£ 10 -
5 -
DAs (particulate)
DAs (V)
=
9/28/2005 10/25/2005 12/5/2005 1/3/2006 2/1/2006 2/28/2006 9/28/2005 10/25/2005 12/5/2005 1/3/2006 2/1/2006 2/28/2006
Date
Date
Arsenic Speciation after Oxidation/Filtration Vessels (OT) Arsenic Speciation after Adsorption Vessels (TT)
35 T- — , -IK
30 -
i25
o 20-
£
'c
S 15 -
S
3. 10-
5 -
n - -
DAs (particulate)
• As (III)
DAs(V)
, , | 1
1
f
=1
F=
30
? 25
o 20
ro
•£
u 15
8
3 10
5
^^
DAs (particulate)
• As (III)
CAs(V)
, , , _ , ,
9/28/2005 10/25/2005 12/5/2005 1/3/2006 2/1/2006 2/28/2006
Date
9/28/2005 10/25/2005
12/5/2005 1/3/2006
Date
2/1/2006 2/28/2006
Figure 4-17. Concentrations of Various Arsenic Species at IN, AC, OT and TT Sampling Locations
-------
were -88 mV for the West Well and -25 mV for the East Well. The higher than expected ORP readings
might have been caused by aeration of water during sampling.
Similar to the samples collected during the August 5 and September 9, 2004, source water sampling
events, total arsenic concentrations were higher in the West Well than the East Well (28.4 versus 18.0
(ig/L on average). Unlike what was observed during these source water sampling events, As(III) was the
predominating species in both wells. The West Well measured only 2.9 and 18% of As(V) and
particulate arsenic, respectively, (based on one set of speciation results) with the East Well measuring 9.8
and 8.8% on average (based on five sets of speciation results). There was no evidence to suggest that
there were significant differences in arsenic speciation between the two wells. The presence of elevated
particulate arsenic and particulate iron during some of these speciation events and the September 9, 2004,
the East Well source water sampling (as discussed in Section 4.1.1), most likely was caused by
inadvertent aeration of the samples during sampling.
Chlorination oxidized As(III) to As(V) which, in turn, was attached effectively, at an average pH value of
7.3 (see Table 4-9), to iron solids and form particulate arsenic. The samples collected downstream of the
chlorine injection point at the AC location showed a decrease in soluble arsenic concentration from an
average of 17.5 (ig/L in source water to an average of 3.3 (ig/L after chlorination. Particulate arsenic
increased in concentration from an average of 2.1 (ig/L in source water to an average of 15.4 (ig/L after
chlorination. The majority of particulate arsenic was filtered by the AD-26 oxidation/filtration media,
leaving only 0.5 to 2.0 (ig/L of total arsenic, existing mainly as As(V), to be further removed by the AD-
33 adsorption vessels. By the end of the first six months of system operation, total arsenic concentrations
in the treated water after the AD-33 adsorption vessels were reduced to less than 0.5 (ig/L. Figure 4-18
presents arsenic breakthrough curves from the AD-26 oxidation/filtration and AD-33 adsorption systems.
Free and total chlorine were monitored at the AC, OT, and TT sampling locations to ensure that the target
chlorine residual levels were properly maintained. Free chlorine levels at the AC location ranged from
0.3 to 2.5 mg/L (as C12) and averaged 1.8 mg/L (as C12); total chlorine levels ranged from 0.7 to 3.2 mg/L
(as C12) and averaged 2.2 mg/L (as C12) (Table 4-9). The residual chlorine levels measured at the OT and
TT locations were similar to those measured at the AC location, indicating little or no chlorine
consumption through the AD-26 and AD-33 vessels. Repeated attempts had been made to reduce the
levels office and total chlorine residuals to the target levels of 1.5 and 1 mg/L (as C12). However, as of
the end of the first six months of system operation, the chlorine injection system appeared to have not
been able to consistently control the chlorine levels in the treated water.
Comparison of the free and total chlorine levels at the AC location indicated that total chlorine was on
average 0.4 mg/L (as C12) higher than free chlorine. The 0.2 mg/L (as N) of ammonia in source water
apparently had reacted with OC1 to form NH2C1, causing the total chlorine levels to be consistently
higher than those office chlorine throughout the study period.
After chlorination, as expected, DO concentrations remained essentially unchanged; however, ORP
readings increased significantly to 464, 525, and 561 mV, on average, at the AC, OT, and TT locations,
respectively. The high ORP readings were consistent with the presence of high free chlorine levels,
which averaged 1.8 mg/L (as C12) at the AC location, and 1.3 and 1.7 mg/L (as C12) at the OT and TT
locations, respectively.
Iron. Total iron concentrations at the wellhead ranged from 521 to 1,595 (ig/L and averaged 1,000 (ig/L.
Iron concentrations following the prechlorination step at the AC location were similar to those at the
wellhead, with concentrations ranging from 535 (ig/1 to 1,595 (ig/L. Iron was removed from the treatment
train by the AD-26 media with concentrations at the OT sampling point ranging from less than the
method detection limit of 25 (ig/L to 25.3 (ig/L and averaged <25(ig/L at the TT sample point. Dissolved
40
-------
iron levels ranged from 390 to 1,463 (ig/L in the wellhead and were always less than the method detection
limit at the AC, OT, and TT sampling locations. The data indicated that chlorine effectively oxidized
soluble iron to form iron solids, which were then effectively filtered by the AD-26 oxidation/filtration
media. The current backwash frequency of once every 3 days appears to be adequate without having any
iron leakage between backwash cycles.
35
30 -
-Wellhead (IN)
- After Chlorination (AC)
-After Oxidation Tanks (OT)
Total Combined Effluent (TT)
-Arsenic Primary MCL
456
Bed Volume (*103)
10
Figure 4-18. Total Arsenic Breakthrough Curves for AD-26 Oxidation/Filtration
and AD-33 Adsorption System
Manganese. The treatment plant water samples were analyzed for total manganese at each sampling
event and soluble manganese during speciation sampling. Total manganese levels existing almost entirely
in the soluble form ranged from 17.9 to 82.1 (ig/L and averaged 40.2 (ig/L for the source water samples
(IN). After prechlorination, over 70% on average, of soluble manganese was precipated, presumably, to
form MnO2 solids, which, along with unoxidized Mn2+, were removed by the AD-26 media to <0.4 (ig/L.
Total manganese concentrations were further reduced to 0.1 (ig/L after the AD-33 adsorptive media.
Note that 0.45 (im disk filters were used to separate solids from the soluble fraction.
It is interesting to note that the amount of Mn2+ that precipitated upon chlorination varied during the 6
speciation events, with five events ranging from 85.0 to 98% precipitation rates and the remaining one at
48.8%. The 85 to 98% precipitation rates observed during the five speciation events reflected rapid
oxidation kinetics by chlorine, which were contrary to the findings by most researchers who investigated
the oxidation of Mn2+ even with some lengths of contact time (Knocke et al., 1987 and 1990; Condit and
Chen, 2006).
41
-------
Other Water Quality Parameters. pH values of raw water measured at the IN location varied from 7.1 to
7.5. This near neutral pH is desirable for iron removal and adsorption processes which, in general, have a
greater arsenic removal capacity at near or lower than neutral pH values. The pH values remained
essentially unchanged after the AD-26 and AD-33 vessels. Alkalinity, reported as CaCO3, ranged from
329 to 370 mg/L across the treatment train. The results indicate that the adsorptive media did not affect
the amount of alkalinity in water after treatment. The treatment plant samples were analyzed for hardness
only when arsenic speciation was performed. Total hardness, existing primarily as calcium hardness
(about 60%), ranged from 240 to 365 mg/L (as CaCO3), and also remained constant throughout the
treatment train. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 12.0 to 33.1 mg/L, and remained constant throughout
the treatment train. Silica (as SiO2) concentration ranged from 16.2 to 19.9 mg/L, and appeared
unaffected by the chlorine injection and the AD-26 and AD-33 media. Fluoride results ranged from 0.8 to
1.6 mg/L in all samples. Fluoride did not appear to be affected by the AD-33 media. Total phosphorous
was below the detection limit of 0.01 mg/L (as PO4) for all samples
4.5.2 Backwash Water Sampling. Backwash was performed using the AD-26-treated water
stored in the hydropnuematic tanks. The unfiltered samples were analyzed for pH, TDS, TSS, and total
arsenic, iron, and manganese. Samples filtered with 0.45-|o,m disc filters were analyzed for soluble
arsenic, iron, and manganese. As shown in Table 4-10, OW1, the first oxidation vessel, was sampled
every month, while OW2, the second oxidation vessel, was sampled five times and OW3, the third
oxidation vessel, was only sampled the last two times. The pH of the backwash water was similar to that
of the treated water ranging from 7.3 to 7.7. TDS concentrations ranged from 360 to 424 mg/L and
averaged 405 mg/L; TSS concentrations ranged from 18 to 156 mg/L and averaged 82 mg/L. The
unusually low TSS values measured on February 2 and March 24, 2006, for Vessel 2 and on March 24,
2006, for Vessel 3 were thought to be the results of sampling errors caused by insufficient mixing of the
solids/water mixtures in the backwash water collection containers immediately before sampling. Note
that lower TSS values also had lower particulate arsenic, iron, and manganese concentrations. As such,
these three sets of data were not used for further data analyses.
The majority of the total arsenic, iron and manganese were from particulates. Total arsenic
concentrations averaged 405 (ig/L while soluble arsenic concentrations averaged only 4.7 (ig/L. Total
iron levels ranged from 13,545 to 57,464 (ig/L in all three vessels with soluble iron levels ranging from
<25 to 279 (ig/L. Total manganese levels ranged from 342 to 1,357 (ig/L, while soluble manganese levels
ranged from 1.6 to 7.5 (ig/L.
Assuming that 82 mg/L of TSS (average of TSS values for the three oxidation/filtration vessels except for
the three outliers) was produced in 6,000 gal of backwash wastewater, approximately 4 Ib of solids would
be discharged during each AD-33 backwash event. The solids discharged would be composed of 0.02,
1.45, and 0.03 Ib of arsenic, iron, and manganese, respectively, assuming 400 (ig/L of particulate arsenic,
28,900 (ig/L of particulate iron, and 600 (ig/L of particulate manganese in the backwash wastewater.
During the first six months of system operation, the AD-33 adsorption vessels were backwashed only
once in the 20th week, generating approximately 5,800 gal of wastewater. Initially the vendor
recommended that the AD-33 vessels be backwashed once every 60 days. After reviewing the system
operation, it was determined that the media would not need to be backwashed on a regular basis and that
it would be determined based on system pressures. After the power outage at the end of November 2005,
the default setting (which was once every 60 days) was restored causing a backwash on February 1, 2006.
No backwash samples were taken because it was not known that the backwash was going to take place.
4.5.3 Distribution System Water Sampling. Prior to the installation/operation of the treatment
system, first draw baseline distribution system water samples were collected at three locations (2
42
-------
Table 4-10. Backwash Sampling Results
Sampling
Event
Date
M
S.U.
!/5
e
mg/L
!/5
B
mg/L
5«
^
13
I
Hg/L
Soluble As
Hg/L
Particulate As
Hg/L
0)
tL.
13
I
Hg/L
Soluble Fe
Hg/L
I
13
I
Hg/L
Soluble Mn
Hg/L
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel 1 (OW1)
10/13/05
12/05/05
01/12/06
02/02/06
02/27/06
03/24/06
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.4
414
420
408
412
384
400
NS
156
46
96
64
92
NS
296
238
634
536
487
2.7
3.2
5.6
4.3
4.7
5.6
NS
293
232
630
532
482
NS
21,366
13,545
57,464
30,997
24,432
<25
54
161
133
116
279
NS
724
527
1,357
486
443
1.8
3.1
5.0
5.2
1.6
4.5
Oxidation/Filtration Vessel 2 (OW2)
12/05/05
01/12/06
02/02/06
02/27/06
03/24/06
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.3
378
360
416
424
424
54
42
22
64
18
231
269
114
501
133
3.9
4.6
3.2
5.3
4.0
227
265
111
496
129
15,282
15,216
8,226
30,131
6,577
65
102
73
160
170
342
556
183
481
213
3.3
3.3
2.9
2.2
3.0
Oxidation/Filtration Vessels (OW3)
02/27/06
03/24/06
7.5
7.4
414
408
120
28
853
184
7.2
4.3
846
179
51,450
9,869
226
245
414
408
7.5
7.4
NS = Not Sampled; TDS = Total Dissolved Solids; TSS = Total Suspended Solids
OW2 not sampled on 10/13/05.
OW3 not sampled 10/13/05, 12/05/05, 01/12/06, or 02/02/06.
residences and the mobile park clubhouse) on April 4, May 5, June 8, and July 7, 2005. Following the
installation of the treatment system, distribution water sampling continued on a monthly basis. Two of
the three locations, i.e., the clubhouse and one residence, remained the same as the baseline, but the
residence for the third location was changed on October 12, 2005, by a new residence due to availability.
The samples were collected on October 12, 2005, November 15, 2005, December 12, 2005, January 16,
2006, February 13, 2006, and March 13, 2006. The results of the distribution system sampling are
summarized in Table 4-11.
The most noticeable change in the distribution samples since system startup was a decrease in arsenic,
iron, and manganese concentrations. Baseline arsenic concentrations ranged from 9.2 to 68.8 (ig/L and
averaged 23.7 (ig/L for all three locations. After the performance evaluation began, arsenic
concentrations reduced to <0.1 to 4.5 (ig/L (averaged 2.0 (ig/L). The baseline iron concentrations ranged
from 113 to 5,504 (ig/L (averaging 1,359) with the highest concentrations observed in the clubhouse
water samples (ranging from 1,423 to 5,504 (ig/L). After the treatment system became operational, iron
concentrations decreased to less than the method detection limit of 25 (ig/L in all samples except for one
at 28.1 (ig/L. Manganese had a similar trend with baseline concentrations averaging 15.2 (ig/L and after
startup samples averaging 0.1 (ig/L.
43
-------
Table 4-11. Distribution System Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
BL1®
BL2
BL3(C)
BL4
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
04/04/05
05/03/05
06/08/05
07/07/05
10/12/05
11/15/05
12/12/05
01/16/06
02/13/06
03/13/06
DS1
Stagnation Time
hr
25.3
6.1
6.0
6.2
7.8
9.0
6.1
6.3
6.0
7.2
&
S.U.
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
Alkalinity
mg/L
339
355
343
352
343
330
352
348
338
331
<
Hg/L
68.8
43.9
33.2
25.9
3.6
4.5
2.1
3.6
2.0
0.8
PH
Hg/L
0.3
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
o
Hg/L
445
191
83.3
55.4
9.0
78.9
29.5
123
52.5
50.3
DS2
Stagnation Time
hr
8.7
7.8
8.8
8.0
7.8
7.5
10.9
7.3
7.5
8.3
&
S.U.
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
Alkalinity
mg/L
334
355
339
352
352
339
343
356
333
331
<
Hg/L
14.8
13.7
10.6
27.6
1.0
<0.1
1.1
1.0
0.4
0.2
PH
Hg/L
1.4
2.2
0.1
5.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.1
0.4
U
Hg/L
48.4
39.0
10.4
64.9
5.8
28.4
39.0
38.8
14.9
22.9
DS3(a)
Stagnation Time
hr
8.3
10.9
NA
12.0
8.3
6.5
9.0
6.9
7.3
8.0
&
s.u.
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.7
Alkalinity
mg/L
334
364
343
352
352
198
348
356
317
360
<
Hg/L
12.6
9.2
12.0
12.1
2.8
2.3
3.6
2.2
2.5
2.0
PH
Hg/L
3.6
1.7
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.1
0.2
1.4
O
Hg/L
714
1,045
1,353
764
5.2
95.0
125
159
45.9
123
BL = Baseline Sampling; NA = Not Available
Lead action level = 15 |ig/L; copper action level =
(a) DS3 samples collected from Lot 12 until 10;
(b) DS1 collected on 04/03/05.
(c) DS2 collected on 06/09/05.
1.3 mg/L
12/05.
-------
Lead concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 5.2 (ig/L, with none of the samples exceeding the action level of
15 (ig/L. Copper concentrations ranged from 5.2 to 1,353 (ig/L across all sampling locations, with one
sample exceeding the 1,300 (ig/L action level during baseline sampling. The arsenic treatment system
does not seem to have an affect on the Pb or Cu concentrations in the distribution system.
Measured pH values ranged from 7.3 to 8.0 and averaged 7.5. Alkalinity levels ranged from 198 to
364 mg/L (as CaCO3). The arsenic treatment system does not seem to affect these water quality
parameters in the distribution system.
4.6 System Cost
The cost of the system was evaluated based on the capital cost per gpm (or gpd) of the design capacity
and the O&M cost per 1,000 gal of water treated. This required the tracking of the capital cost for the
equipment, site engineering, and installation and the O&M cost for media replacement and disposal,
chemical supply, electricity consumption, and labor. The park owner decided to upgrade the system from
150 gpm to 250 gpm in response to the Ohio EPA's redundancy requirement and to build additional
capacity for future growth of the Park. The additional cost incurred was funded by the park owner and is
listed as system upgrades on Table 4-12.
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for equipment, site engineering, and installation for the
250-gpm treatment system was $292,252. The equipment cost was $212,826 (or 73% of the total capital
investment), including $144,136 for the 150-gpm system (funded by EPA) and $68,690 for the system
upgrades (funded by the facility). The vendor provided cost breakdowns for the 150-gpm system, which
included $87,270 for the skid-mounted APU-150 unit, $54,331 for the skid-mounted AD-26 unit, and
$2,535 for freight (as shown in Table 4-12). The APU-150 system included $35,586 for the skid-
mounted fiberglass vessels, $21,254 for the AD-33 media ($280/ft3 or $5.33/lb), $12,600 for process
valves and piping, $12,075 for instrumentation and controls, and $5,753 for other materials. The AD-26
system included $23,400 forthe skid-mounted AD-26 unit, $7,866 for the AD-26 media ($218.50/ft3 or
$1.75/lb), $10,800 for process valves and piping, $10,600 for instrumentation and controls, and $1,665
for other materials. The $68,690 of equipment upgrades covered the cost of upgrading three 42-in
diameter FRP vessels to three 48-in diameter steel epoxy vessels forthe APU unit and three 30-in
diameter FRP vessels to three 36-in diameter steel epoxy vessels forthe AD-26 unit, adding 38 ft3 of AD-
33 and 21 ft3 of AD-26 media, adding three new hydropnuematic tanks, and adding a chlorine injection
system including a chlorine monitor/controller module.
The engineering cost included the cost for the preparation of a process flow diagram of the treatment
system, mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment, and a schematic of the building footprint and
equipment lay out to be used as part of the permit application submittal (see Section 4.3.1). The
engineering cost was $27,527, which was 9% of the total capital investment.
The installation cost included the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted units,
perform piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media (see Section 4.3.3). The
installation was performed by AdEdge and LBJ, Inc., a local contractor subcontracted by AdEdge. The
installation cost was $51,899, or 18% of the total capital investment.
The capital cost of $292,252 was normalized to $l,170/gpm ($0.81 gpd) of design capacity using the
system's rated capacity of 250 gpm (or 360,000 gpd). The capital cost also was converted to an
annualized cost of $27,590/yr using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.09439 based on a 7% interest
rate and a 20-yr return period. Assuming that the system operated 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk at the design
flowrate of 250 gpm to produce 360,000 gal/day, the unit capital cost would be $0.21/1,000 gal. During
45
-------
Table 4-12. Capital Investment Cost for AdEdge Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Three 42-in Diameter Fiberglass Vessels on
Skid (for APU-150)
AD-33 Media
Gravel Underbedding
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Totalizer for Backwash Line
O&M Manuals
One-Year O&M Support
Subtotal
Three 30-in Diameter Fiberglass Vessels on
Skid (for AD26)
AD26 Media
Gravel Underbedding
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Additional Sample Taps
Subtotal
Freight- ADS 3 Media
Freight- AD26 Media
Freight-System
Subtotal
Upgrades to APU-250 System (Paid by Owner)
Additional AD-33 Media
Additional AD-26 Media
Other Upgrades (Vessels, Hydro Tanks, etc)
Subtotal
Equipment Total
1 unit
76ft3
1
1
1
1
1 unit
36ft3
1
1
1
1
2,430 Ib
4,470 Ib
12,000 Ib
38ft3
21ft3
1
—
$35,586
$21,254
$1,125
$12,600
$12,075
$990
$720
$2,920
$87,270
$23,400
$7,866
$990
$10,800
$10,600
$675
$54,331
$600
$525
$1,410
$2,535
$10,627
$4,588
$53,475
$68,690
$212,826
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
73%
Engineering Cost
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Vendor Material
Subcontractor Labor
Subcontractor Travel
Subcontractor Material
System Upgrade (Paid by Owner)
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$4,534
$2,480
$98
$14,375
$403
$564
$5,074
$27,527
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9%
Installation Cost
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Vendor Material
Subcontractor Mechanical
Subcontractor Electrical
Subcontractor Other Labor
System Upgrade (Paid by Owner)
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
$7,920
$4,200
$925
$9,000
$780
$4,200
$24,874
$51,899
$292,252
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
18%
100%
46
-------
Table 4-13. Operation and Maintenance Cost for AdEdge Treatment System
Cost Category
Volume Processed (gal)
Value
8,184,000
Assumptions
Through March 26, 2006
Media Replacement and Disposal
AD26 Media Unit Cost ($/ft3)
AD26 Media Volume (ft3)
Underbedding Gravel ($)
Subcontractor Labor Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Waste Disposal ($)
Waste Analysis ($)
Subtotal ($)
AD26 Media Replacement and
Disposal cost ($71,000 gal)
AD33 Media Unit Cost ($/ft3)
AD33 Media Volume (ft3)
Underbedding Gravel ($)
Subcontractor Labor Cost ($)
Freight ($)
Waste Disposal ($)
Waste Analysis ($)
Subtotal ($)
AD-33 Media Replacement and
Disposal cost ($71,000 gal)
150
57
1,040
1,950
705
650
245
13,140
0.08
260
114
1,040
1,950
705
650
245
34,230
See Figure 4-19
Vendor quote
To fill three 36-in diameter vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Assume 10-year media life, treating 164
million gal of water
Vendor quote
To fill three 48-in diameter vessels
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
One TCLP test
Chemical Usage
Chemical Cost ($71,000)
0.17
Approximately $1,400 for six months
Electricity
Electricity Cost ($71,000 gal)
0.001
Electrical costs assumed negligible
Labor
Average Weekly Labor (hr)
Labor cost ($71, 000 gal)
Total O&M Cost/1,000 gal
2.33
0.16
See Figure 4-19
20 mm/day
Labor rate = $2 1/hr
Total O&M cost = adsorptive media
replacement cost + 0.08 + 0.17 + 0. 16
the first six months, the system produced 8,184,000 gal of water (see Table 4-5); at this reduced rate of
usage, the unit capital cost increased to $1.69/1,000 gal.
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost included such items as media
replacement and disposal, chemical supply, electricity, and labor, as summarized in Table 4-13. Although
not incurred during the first six months of system operation, the media replacement cost would represent
the majority of the O&M cost. The vendor initially estimated that the AD-26 media would have a 4-yr
life expectancy, but after reviewing the performance of the media, the vendor revised its estimate to a 10-
yr life expectancy before replacement. It is estimated to cost $13,140 for replacement of 57 ft3 media in
three AD-26 vessels. At the current water use rate (i.e., 8,184,000 gal for six month), the system would
treat 164 million gal of water in a 10-yr period. Therefore, the AD-26 media replacement cost would be
equivalent to $0.08/1,000 gal of water treated.
47
-------
The vendor estimated that the AD-33 media would have a 4.9-yr life expectancy before replacement. It
was estimated to cost $34,230 to change out the adsorptive vessels with 114 ft3 of AD-33 media; that
estimate included the cost for media, freight, labor, travel expenses, and media disposal fee. This cost
was used to estimate the media replacement cost per 1,000 gal of water treated as a function of the
projected media run length to the 10-|a,g/L arsenic breakthrough (Figure 4-19).
A 12.5% NaOCl solution was used for chlorination. The cost associated with chlorination was
approximately $1,400 during this period, which translated into a chemical cost of $0.17/1,000 gal of
water treated.
Comparison of electrical bills provided by the park prior to system installation and since startup did not
indicate any noticeable increase in power consumption by the treatment system. Therefore, electrical cost
associated with operation of the APU-250 system was assumed to be negligible. Under normal operating
conditions, routine labor activities to operate and maintain the system consumed 20 min per day, which
translates into 2.33 hr per week, as noted in Section 4.4.6. Therefore, the estimated labor cost is
$0.16/1,000 gal of water treated.
$2.00
$1.75
$1.50
$1.25
sf $1.00
8
o
1.75
$0.50
$0.25
$0.00
AD-33 Media Replacement
Total O&M
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Media Working Capacity, Bed Volumes (xlOOO)
1 BV = 114 cubic feet = 850 gal
Figure 4-19. Media Replacement Cost Curves for Springfield System
48
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
AdEdge. 2005. Operation and Maintenance Manual for Groundwater Treatment System: APUandAD-
26 Package Units for Arsenic, Iron, and Manganese Reduction.
Battelle. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J. Oxenham, and W. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Condit, W.E. and A.S.C. Chen. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Iron Removal, U.S. EPA
Demonstration Project at Climax, MN, Final Performance Evaluation Report.
EPA/600/R-06/152. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor. 1998.
"Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3): 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance for Public Water Systems.
EPA/816/R-02/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Knocke, W.R., Hoehn, R. C.; Sinsabaugh, R. L. 1987. "Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove Dissolved
Manganese from Waters Laden with Organics." J. AWWA, 79(3): 75.
Knocke, W.R., Van Benschoten, J.E., Kearney, M., Soborski, A., and Reckhow, D.A., 1990. Alternative
Oxidants for the Remove of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Final report prepared for the AWWA
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Wang, L., W. 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.
49
-------
APPENDIX A
OPERATIONAL DATA
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 1 of 4)
Week
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Date
09/28/05
09/29/05
09/30/05
10/01/05
10/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
10/05/05
1 0/06/05
1 0/07/05
1 0/08/05
1 0/09/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
10/13/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
10/16/05
10/17/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
10/20/05
10/21/05
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 2 of 4)
Week
No.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 3 of 4)
Week
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Date
01/02/06
01/03/06
01/04/06
01/05/06
01/06/06
01/07/06
01/08/06
01/09/06
01/10/06
01/11/06
01/12/06
01/13/06
01/14/06
01/15/06
01/16/06
01/17/06
01/18/06
01/19/06
01/20/06
01/21/06
01/22/06
01/23/06
01/24/06
01/25/06
01/26/06
01/27/06
01/28/06
01/29/06
01/30/06
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
02/04/06
02/05/06
02/06/06
02/07/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
02/10/06
02/11/06
02/12/06
02/13/06
02/14/06
02/15/06
02/1 6/06
02/1 7/06
02/1 8/06
02/1 9/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Dally Op
Hours
hrs
5.3
6.0
6.2
6.3
6.7
6.0
7.7
7.3
7.2
4.7
6.0
5.5
7.5
5.5
3.7
6.2
6.5
4.0
4.5
5.9
7.5
3.5
4.0
5.5
5.1
4.4
3.8
5.3
6.1
4.5
4.6
5.5
5.3
7.4
5.3
6.3
4.7
6.2
4.9
5.4
6.8
4.3
5.7
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.7
4.9
6.5
Cumulative
Hours'"
hrs
524.9
530.9
537.1
543.4
550.1
556.1
563.8
571.1
578.3
583.0
589.0
594.5
602.0
607.5
611.2
617.4
623.9
627.9
632.4
638.3
645.8
649.3
653.3
658.8
663.9
668.3
672.1
677.4
683.5
688.0
692.6
698.1
703.4
710.8
716.1
722.4
727.1
733.3
738.2
743.6
750.4
754.7
760.4
765.7
771.0
776.3
782.0
786.9
793.4
East Well
Dally Op
Hours
hrs
3.1
6.0
3.8
6.0
4.0
6.0
4.9
6.6
5.1
5.6
3.9
4.5
5.5
3.6
3.3
4.3
5.8
3.3
4.0
3.8
5.6
2.2
3.9
4.0
4.7
3.4
3.9
3.4
5.3
3.8
5.5
3.3
3.6
5.1
3.9
3.8
2.9
4.3
3.4
4.7
4.6
3.3
4.3
3.8
3.9
4.6
3.7
3.6
4.9
Cumulative
Hours'"
hrs
341.4
347.4
351.2
357.2
361.2
367.2
372.1
378.7
383.8
389.4
393.3
397.8
403.3
406.9
410.2
414.5
420.3
423.6
427.6
431.4
437.0
439.2
443.1
447.1
451.8
455.2
459.1
462.5
467.8
471.6
477.1
480.4
484.0
489.1
493.0
496.8
499.7
504.0
507.4
512.1
516.7
520.0
524.3
528.1
532.0
536.6
540.3
543.9
548.8
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flow/rate""'0'
gpm
58
128
113
81
86
125
87
130
121
89
82
79
128
80
91
88
91
91
91
91
128
122
130
129
129
91
78
83
130
86
87
98
126
112
107
100
115
90
87
80
119
84
99
120
114
124
86
81
87
Calculated
Combined
Flow/rate""
gpm
93
79
93
80
93
81
91
81
92
80
93
85
89
93
85
95
89
83
95
93
89
86
91
96
87
89
93
94
88
96
91
93
92
84
93
80
95
85
94
85
100
82
82
95
91
84
128
54
77
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate |e|
gpm
32
37
34
40
48
26
38
56
52
37
43
36
38
52
43
34
43
46
26
35
43
37
26
36
28
26
32
23
31
29
32
37
28
45
42
45
33
26
33
33
37
48
36
48
23
39
40
33
42
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
900
13,241
NA
12,788
NA
12,894
NA
12,898
NA
12,106
NA
6,133
5,402
NA
5,434
NA
5,406
NA
5,343
NA
5,476
NA
5,427
NA
5,348
NA
6,202
NA
6,426
NA
6,355
NA
2,473
7,661
NA
9,244
NA
6,060
NA
6,125
NA
NA
6,150
NA
NA
6,144
NA
NA
6,003
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,752
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
39
56
56
53
43
45
50
52
44
54
58
54
56
42
48
48
54
44
58
48
48
42
16
52
43
46
49
52
50
46
50
52
54
52
44
54
44
46
56
50
48
44
50
56
42
45
55
47
Outlet
Pressure
psi
47
38
55
54
49
43
42
48
46
42
50
54
50
52
42
44
42
52
42
54
44
42
41
42
48
41
44
47
48
48
44
46
48
52
46
42
50
42
43
54
44
42
43
47
50
41
42
53
46
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
39
41
47
43
53
39
48
52
50
48
52
52
54
52
40
46
50
48
48
50
40
44
55
50
54
47
50
43
54
48
48
50
54
54
50
44
54
42
48
54
50
48
44
56
39
50
53
44
51
Outlet
Pressure
psi
39
41
47
43
53
39
48
52
50
48
52
52
54
52
40
48
50
48
48
50
40
44
58
50
56
48
50
44
56
48
46
52
54
54
50
44
54
42
48
54
50
48
45
56
39
50
54
44
51
-------
Table A-l. EPA Arsenic Demonstration Project at Springfield, OH - Daily System Operation Log Sheet (Page 4 of 4)
Week
No.
23
24
25
26
27
Date
02/20/06
02/21/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
02/24/06
02/25/06
02/26/06
02/27/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
03/05/06
03/06/06
03/07/06
03/08/06
03/09/06
03/10/06
03/11/06
03/12/06
03/13/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
03/16/06
03/17/06
03/1 8/06
03/19/06
03/20/06
03/21/06
03/22/06
03/23/06
03/24/06
03/25/06
03/26/06
Hour Meter
West Well
Dally Op
Hours
hrs
5.3
5.8
5.6
6.6
5.4
7.7
6.2
3.6
5.6
5.7
4.6
5.1
5.1
8.1
2.9
4.4
4.9
4.3
6.0
4.8
4.9
1.4
6.3
4.5
4.6
4.4
4.6
6.7
3.6
5.1
5.7
3.6
5.8
6.2
5.1
Cumulative
Hours1"1
hrs
798.7
804.5
810.1
816.7
822.1
829.8
836.0
839.6
845.2
850.9
855.5
860.6
865.7
873.8
876.7
881.1
886.0
890.3
896.3
901.1
906.0
907.4
913.7
918.2
922.8
927.2
931.8
938.5
942.1
947.2
952.9
956.5
962.3
968.5
973.6
East Well
Dally Op
Hours
hrs
3.9
5.1
4.5
4.8
3.7
5.3
4.1
2.4
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.3
5.9
2.3
3.7
3.6
4.6
3.5
5.1
3.8
2.3
3.9
4.1
3.3
3.1
4.2
5.6
2.4
4.0
4.6
2.8
4.2
4.3
3.7
Cumulative
Hours1"1
hrs
552.7
557.8
562.3
567.1
570.8
576.1
580.2
582.6
586.4
590.2
594.1
598.1
601.4
607.3
609.6
613.3
616.9
621.5
625.0
630.1
633.9
636.2
640.1
644.2
647.5
650.6
654.8
660.4
662.8
666.8
671.4
674.2
678.4
682.7
686.4
Service
AD-26
Combined
Flow/rate""'0'
gpm
125
110
92
124
120
93
115
120
87
111
89
129
126
101
77
91
86
92
120
107
81
114
85
86
124
127
90
87
89
132
90
85
128
87
122
Calculated
Combined
Flowrate1"'
gpm
109
87
86
107
74
87
91
92
82
93
91
83
96
91
78
96
92
84
86
102
94
103
84
89
97
93
86
96
92
85
98
86
87
93
92
AD-33
Combined
Flowrate |e|
gpm
42
29
33
43
31
42
42
35
29
30
29
35
34
49
35
28
30
43
40
34
36
32
28
26
37
36
32
39
22
31
37
36
33
37
42
Backwash
AD-26
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
6,167
NA
0
5,976
NA
NA
7,507
NA
NA
6,278
NA
NA
6,250
NA
NA
6,254
NA
NA
6,283
NA
NA
4,808
NA
NA
6,246
NA
NA
6,232
NA
NA
6,222
NA
NA
AD-33
Backwash
Water
Produced
gal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
System Pressure
AD-26
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
54
46
52
54
44
56
52
48
58
48
50
48
56
46
46
50
46
52
60
54
56
48
46
50
56
44
46
48
52
48
48
54
48
52
Outlet
Pressure
psi
48
48
44
48
48
42
52
46
46
54
46
48
44
50
44
44
48
44
48
46
50
52
44
44
48
52
40
42
44
50
44
46
52
44
46
AD-33
Inlet
Pressure
psi
52
54
48
50
54
46
52
52
48
54
48
52
52
52
46
48
48
44
52
48
54
56
48
44
48
52
48
44
48
52
46
46
50
46
50
Outlet
Pressure
psi
54
54
48
50
54
44
52
52
48
54
48
52
52
54
46
48
48
44
50
48
54
54
48
44
48
52
48
44
48
54
46
46
50
46
50
Note: System started on September 21, 2005, at 5:00 pm, but operational readings not taken until September 28, 2005.
(a) In instances where readings not taken for hour meter, average was used to calculate cumulative hours (5.4 hrs for West Well and 3.8 for East Well)
(b) Oxidation Vessel A not in service between September 28,2005 through October 23,2005.
(c) Sum of flowrate readings on each of three AD-26 vessels.
(d) Totalizer readings divided by sum of West and East Wells operating hours.
(e) Sum of flowrate readings of each of three AD-33 vessels.
(f) Hour meter on East Well switched to West Well and a new hour meter installed on East Well on October 21, 2005.
(g) Since October 26, 2005, AD-26 system operated at pump flowrates and AD-33 system continued to operate on-demand.
(h) System by-passed between November 28 (8 a.m.) and 29, 2005, due to power outage/surge. System back online on November 30, 2005.
NA = Not Available
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 1 of 4)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/28/05
IN-
East
-
361
0.3
1.2
14.0
<0.05
<0.05
-
18.3
5.9
7.4
23.1
1.1
107
-
-
285
170
115
9.5
8.4
1.1
5.6
2.8
549
390
77.0
81.6
AC
-
370
0.2
1.2
13.8
<0.05
<0.05
-
18.8
1.4
7.4
17.6
1.8
746
NA(b)
NA(b)
282
170
112
9.4
3.2
6.2
0.3
2.9
535
<25
77.3
39.6
OT
-
365
O.05
1.3
13.7
<0.05
<0.05
-
19.2
<0.1
7.3
17.1
1.4
728
NA(b)
NA(b)
287
171
116
0.5
0.6
<0.1
0.5
0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
0.5
365
O.05
1.5
23.0
<0.05
<0.05
-
17.3
<0.1
7.4
18.0
1.6
718
1.1
1.6
297
166
131
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
10/11/05(a)
IN-
East
-
352
0.2
1.3
17.9
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.5
6.6
7.2
21.4
1.3
232
-
-
339
205
134
19.4
-
-
-
-
521
-
82.1
-
AC
-
356
O.05
1.3
20.1
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.1
0.7
7.2
21.1
1.4
624
1.4
1.8
343
202
141
25.9
-
-
-
-
1,283
-
32.7
-
OT
-
352
<0.05
1.4
23.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
16.9
<0.1
7.1
20.8
1.6
627
1.1
NA(C)
334
198
135
1.4
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
TT
1.1
348
<0.05
1.4
23.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
16.2
0.1
7.1
20.4
1.6
566
3.2
3.3
340
203
137
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
10/25/05
IN-
East
-
343
0.2
1.1
20.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.1
7.6
7.3
25.0
1.9
102
-
-
344
210
134
18.5
17.4
1.1
16.5
0.9
614
519
62.1
58.8
AC
-
330
<0.05
1.4
12.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.2
1.0
7.4
25.0
1.5
734
NA(b)
NA(b)
337
205
131
20.6
3.6
17.0
0.4
3.2
800
<25
47.3
7.1
OT
-
339
O.05
1.2
25.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.2
<0.1
7.4
25.0
1.5
712
2.1
2.2
353
214
139
1.4
1.2
0.1
0.4
0.8
<25
<25
0.2
0.4
TT
1.7
334
O.05
1.2
26.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
16.7
0.1
7.3
25.0
1.2
713
1.3
1.9
343
208
135
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
<0.1
<25
<25
0.1
0.5
(a) Water quality measurements taken on 11/18/05. (b) Water quality measurements not recorded.
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT after oxidation vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 2 of 4)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
11/08/05
IN-
East
-
352
0.2
1.3
20.8
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.6
7.9
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
-
-
333
212
121
16.7
-
-
-
-
671
-
54.3
-
AC
-
343
<0.05
1.5
29.9
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.1
0.9
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
349
212
137
23.6
-
-
-
-
1,595
-
18.3
-
OT
-
352
O.05
1.4
25.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.6
<0.1
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
345
215
130
1.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TT
2.2
343
<0.05
1.4
25.9
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.0
<0.1
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
NA(b)
359
222
138
0.2
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
1 2/05/05
IN -
East
-
343
0.2
0.8
17.1
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.1
7.0
7.5
10.2
NA
145
-
-
322
195
126
16.9
16.0
0.8
14.6
1.5
773
658
42.8
43.5
AC
-
339
0.2
1.1
24.5
<0.05
-
<0.03
19.0
1.1
7.4
10.2
0.9
148
NA(C)
NA(C)
325
189
136
22.4
1.9
20.5
0.4
1.5
1,386
<25
20.0
0.4
OT
-
339
<0.05
1.1
21.6
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.3
<0.1
7.4
10.2
1.2
394
3.1
3.5
240
140
101
0.6
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
0.4
25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
3.2
339
O.05
1.2
22.8
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.3
0.1
7.3
10.2
1.0
468
1.5
2.0
347
194
153
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
12/12/05(a)
IN-
West
-
338
0.2
1.4
30.1
<0.05
-
<0.03
19.7
24.0
7.4
14.4
1.5
132
-
-
331
202
129
24.5
-
-
-
-
1,587
-
19.6
-
AC
-
343
<0.05
1.4
30.3
<0.05
-
<0.03
19.7
1.5
7.4
14.2
1.9
689
NA(C)
NA(C)
326
202
124
25.4
-
-
-
-
1,546
-
19.6
-
OT
-
348
O.05
1.3
25.0
0.20
-
<0.03
18.9
0.8
7.4
14.2
1.9
681
NA(C)
NA(C)
323
203
120
1.7
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.4
-
TT
3.6
339
<0.05
1.3
25.7
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.7
0.4
7.4
14.1
2.3
684
2.7
3.8
320
205
115
0.3
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
01/03/06
IN -
East
-
339
0.2
1.2
22.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.8
9.2
7.2
15.7
1.3
5
-
-
357
214
143
21.9
21.2
0.7
21.5
<0.1
1,260
933
24.7
24.4
AC
-
339
O.05
1.2
22.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.9
1.0
7.2
15.7
2.5
691
2.3
2.8
345
215
131
18.4
3.1
15.3
0.4
2.7
802
<25
36.3
3.8
OT
-
334
<0.05
1.3
27.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.0
0.5
7.2
15.7
2.1
679
1.1
1.6
348
202
146
1.6
1.6
<0.1
0.4
1.2
<25
<25
<0.1
0.3
TT
4.9
339
O.05
1.3
27.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.2
0.7
7.2
15.6
2.6
689
1.8
2.2
354
207
147
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.5
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
0.2
(a) Water quality measurements performed on 12/16/05. (b) Water quality
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT after oxidation vessels; TT =
measurements not recorded.
after adsorption vessels
(c) Operator saw error message while taking readings.
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 3 of 4)
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
01/16/06
IN-
West
-
343
0.2
1.4
29.5
<0.05
-
<0.03
19.4
24.0
7.2
17.1
2.7
-131
-
-
344
209
134
27.0
-
-
-
-
1,595
-
17.9
-
AC
-
352
<0.05
1.4
29.6
<0.05
-
<0.03
19.2
1.1
7.2
16.7
2.7
110
2.1
3.2
349
211
139
26.7
-
-
-
-
1,538
-
17.4
-
OT
-
352
<0.05
1.2
25.2
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.2
0.1
7.2
16.5
2.8
395
0.4
1.8
351
214
137
2.0
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TT
5.7
348
<0.05
1.2
23.9
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.9
0.2
7.1
16.3
2.7
475
1.7
1.8
349
214
135
0.5
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
02/01 /06(a)
IN-
East
-
348
0.2
1.1
22.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.5
11.0
7.2
17.8
1.7
228
-
-
321
201
120
20.0
16.4
3.6
15.3
1.1
650
563
34.4
36.6
AC
-
343
0.2
1.1
22.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.3
1.2
7.3
17.6
1.5
653
-
-
323
197
126
18.7
3.4
15.3
0.7
2.7
660
<25
34.2
2.2
OT
-
335
<0.05
1.3
24.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.5
0.3
7.2
17.4
2.0
341
0.6
0.6
347
194
153
1.9
1.8
<0.1
0.7
1.2
<25
<25
0.2
<0.1
TT
6.6
343
<0.05
1.3
25.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.5
0.2
7.2
17.3
2.6
393
1.4
1.6
305
183
121
0.3
0.4
<0.1
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
02/13/06
IN-
West
-
338
0.1
1.3
28.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
19.1
25.0
7.1
16.6
1.8
-90
-
-
360
208
152
30.8
-
-
-
-
1,573
-
18.9
-
AC
-
342
0.2
1.1
20.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.6
2.0
7.0
16.0
2.1
-78
2.4
NA
349
210
139
18.0
-
-
-
-
728
-
39.0
-
OT
-
338
<0.05
1.2
23.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.5
0.6
7.1
15.8
2.7
600
1.7
2.3
357
213
144
1.6
-
-
-
-
<25
-
0.2
-
TT
7.3
338
<0.05
1.2
25.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.1
0.6
7.1
15.7
2.3
619
1.2
1.7
360
212
148
0.1
-
-
-
-
<25
-
<0.1
-
02/28/06(b)
IN-
West
-
329
0.2
1.5
33.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
19.9
25.0
7.2
13.6
2.6
-84
-
-
365
215
150
31.3
25.6
5.7
24.7
0.9
1,484
1463
18.2
18.8
AC
-
350
<0.05
1.3
23.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.9
1.2
7.2
13.9
2.6
304
2.5
NA
341
208
134
22.9
4.8
18.1
0.6
4.3
703
<25
34.9
3.2
OT
-
338
<0.05
1.5
27.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
18.5
0.5
7.2
14.0
3.0
270
0.3
0.9
349
207
141
2.0
1.7
0.3
0.6
1.0
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
TT
8.1
338
<0.05
1.4
26.0
<0.05
-
<0.03
17.7
0.6
7.1
14.1
2.4
281
0.7
0.8
348
209
139
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
<0.1
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
(a) Water quality measurements taken on 01/30/06. (b) Water quality measurements taken on 02/27/06.
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT after oxidation vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
-------
Table B-l. Analytical Results from Long-Term Sampling at Springfield, OH (Page 4 of 4)
CO
Sampling Date
Sampling Location
Parameter
Bed Volume
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
PH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Free Chlorine
Total Chlorine
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)
Unit
BV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
03/13/06(a)
IN - East
-
351/335
<0.05/<0.05
1.3/1.3
22.8/22.4
<0.05/<0.05
O.01/O.01
17.3/17.0
1 1 .0/1 1 .0
7.3
15.7
-
193
-
-
329/336
206/21 0
123/126
20.9/21 .8
-
-
-
-
829/896
-
35.4/34.7
AC
-
331/331
<0.05/<0.05
1 .5/1 .6
32.5/33.1
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
18.8/18.7
4.3/14.0
7.4
15.4
-
489
0.3
0.7
342/346
204/208
1 38/1 38
29.2/29.8
-
-
-
-
1,561/1,564
-
17.6/17.3
OT
-
331/335
<0.05/<0.05
1 .5/1 .6
30.7/29.2
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
17.8/17.4
0.8/0.7
7.5
15.4
-
347
1.6
2.5
349/344
210/211
1 39/1 33
1 .8/1 .8
-
-
-
-
<25/<25
-
0.2/0.2
TT
8.9
339/343
<0.05/<0.05
1 .4/1 .4
27.5/27.6
<0.05/<0.05
<0.01/<0.01
17.8/17.4
1.4/1.1
7.2
15.5
-
-
2.0
2.5
345/339
211/209
134/130
0.2/0.2
-
-
-
-
<25/<25
-
O.1/O.1
(a) Duplicate samples taken on 03/13/06
IN = at Wellhead; AC = after chlorination; OT after oxidation vessels; TT = after adsorption vessels
------- |