EPA/600/R-07/082
August 2007
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Point of Use Reverse Osmosis (POU RO)
U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at
Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID
Final Performance Evaluation Report
by
Gary M. Lewis
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 (TO) 0029 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This report documents the activities performed during and the results obtained from the arsenic removal
technology demonstration project at the Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID. The objectives of
the project are to evaluate: 1) the effectiveness of a point of use (POU) reverse osmosis (RO) technology
in removing arsenic, nitrate, and uranium to meet the respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of
10 (ig/L, 10 mg/L (as N), and 30 (ig/L, 2) the reliability of the treatment units, 3) the required system
operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill levels, and 4) the capital and O&M cost of the
technology. The project also characterizes process residuals, i.e., reject water, produced by the RO units.
The treatment system at Sunset Ranch Development consisted of one POU RO unit at each of nine
participating residences to remove arsenic, nitrate, and uranium from source water. Softening of source
water was performed as pretreatment to meet the feed water quality requirements for the RO units. Six
point of entry (POE) softeners (note that three homes had existing softeners) and nine POU RO units were
provided by Kinetico. Each POU RO unit consisted of a 20-(im pre-filter, an RO module with a 1.7-in x
11-in thin film composite, semi-permeable membrane element, a 3-gal storage tank, and a MACguard
post-filter. The RO units were capable of producing up to 35.5 gal/day (gpd) of permeate water and had a
feed water to permeate water ratio of 2.7 to 1, a 37% recovery rating. The RO units automatically shut
down production after 500 gal of permeate water have been processed and resume operation only after the
replacement of pre- and post-filters.
The POU RO units began regular operation on July 15, 2005. The types of data collected included
volume of permeate water produced; quality of feed, permeate, and reject water; required system
operation and maintenance (O&M); and capital and O&M cost. Through the period of July 15, 2005, to
January 17, 2006, one residence used 481 gal of water from the RO tap; another residence used 500 gal of
water and the pre- and post-filters had to be replaced before the unit resumed operation. The rest of seven
units were not tracked for water usage, but had not reached the 500-gal level.
Source water at the Sunset Ranch Development contained elevated levels of arsenic, nitrate, and uranium.
Arsenic speciation results indicated that As(V) was the predominant species in raw water, ranging from
49.5 to 64.8 (ig/L and averaging 56.3 (ig/L. Only a trace amount of As(III) existed, ranging from 0.5 to
2.7 and averaging 1.5 (ig/L. Nitrate concentrations averaged 10.2 mg/L (as N), just over the 10-mg/L (as
N) MCL. Uranium concentrations ranged from 23.4 to 31.0 (ig/L, very close to the 30-(ig/L MCL.
As expected, the softeners did not remove any arsenic, but reduced the water hardness from 216 to 251
mg/L (as CaCO3) to an average of 1.7 mg/L (as CaCO3). Total arsenic concentrations in the permeate
water were less than 0.1 (ig/L for all samples except for four at 8.7, 5.1, 1.2, and 1.2 (ig/L. Based on the
average arsenic concentrations in the feed and permeate water, the RO units achieved higher than 99%
removal efficiency for arsenic.
Nitrate was consistently removed by the RO units from an average of 10.2 mg/L (as N) in raw water to an
average of 1.0 mg/L (as N) in the permeate water, representing a 90% reduction. Uranium was removed
from 23.4 to 31.0 (ig/L in raw water to below 0.1 (ig/L in the permeate water. In addition, the RO units
achieved 100% removal for iron, 99% for vanadium, 96% for silica, and 96% for total dissolved solids
(TDS). pH values also were reduced to between 6.4 and 6.9, due to the reduction of alkalinity by the RO
units.
Regeneration brine waste from the softener and reject water from the RO units was discharged to the
septic tank at each residence. The RO reject water contained 55.9 to 92.3 (ig/L of arsenic, 8.3 to 19.2
mg/L (as N) of nitrate, 23.0 to 42.3 (ig/L of uranium, and 740 to 1,080 mg/L of TDS. The mass balance
IV
-------
across the RO unit was calculated for total arsenic and nitrate for each sampling event. During the entire
study period, the mass balance data in terms of the mass recovered in the permeate and reject water
against the mass in the raw water ranged from 63% to 114% and averaged 83% for total arsenic and from
66% to 100% and averaged 89% for nitrate.
Operational problems encountered during the reporting period included water pulsing from the faucet,
incorrect outlet elbow installation, water quality monitor malfunction, a loose wire on the TDS monitor
indicator light, and reduced flow from the RO tap. These problems were corrected promptly by the
vendor; any cost incurred was covered under warranty.
The capital investment for this project was $31,877.50, including $21,732.50 for equipment and $10,145
for installation. Each water softener cost $2,395, including $1,585 for equipment and $810 for
installation. Each RO unit cost $1,220, including $1,025 for equipment and $195 for installation. If the
cost of materials and vendor travel was included, the total cost for each household system was near
$4,000, which is equivalent to an annualized cost of $570 based on a 10-year life and a 7% interest rate.
O&M cost per household during the performance evaluation period was near $202 or $17/month, which
included salt usage and RO filter replacement. Neither electricity nor labor cost was incurred because the
water softener and the RO unit did not consume electricity and did not require a certified operator.
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
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 6
3.1 General Project Approach 6
3.2 System O&M and Cost Data Collection 6
3.3 Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules 7
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.2 Treatment Plant Water Sample Collection 7
3.3.3 Reject Water Sample Collection 10
3.4 Sampling Logistics 10
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits 10
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers 10
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling 10
3.5 Analytical Procedures 11
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
4.1 Facility Description 12
4.1.1 Source Water Quality 13
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality 14
4.1.3 Wastewater Disposal 15
4.2 Treatment Process Description 15
4.2.1 Water Softener 16
4.2.2 RO Plus Deluxe Unit 16
4.3 System Permitting Installation 18
4.3.1 Permitting 18
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup 19
4.4 System Operation 20
4.4.1 Permeate Water Production 20
4.4.2 Reject Water Production 20
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity 20
4.5 System Performance 22
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling 22
4.5.2 Reject Water Sampling 29
4.6 System Costs 33
4.6.1 Capital Costs 33
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost 33
VI
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
.35
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Sunset Ranch Development 9
Figure 4-1. Central Pump House at the Sunset Ranch Development Site 12
Figure 4-2. Plumbing from Well and Sample Tap at the Sunset Ranch Development Site 13
Figure 4-3. Schematic of Kinetico's POE Water Softener and POU RO Unit 15
Figure 4-4. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener 16
Figure 4-5. Under-the-Sink RO Plus Deluxe Unit 18
Figure 4-6. RO Totalizer Readings at Rl Residence 20
Figure 4-7. Total Arsenic Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 23
Figure 4-8. Nitrate Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 24
Figure 4-9. Uranium Concentrations at Rl Residence 24
Figure 4-10. Vanadium Concentrations at Rl Residence 25
Figure 4-11. TDS Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 25
Figure 4-12. pH Levels at Rl Residence 27
Figure 4-13. Total Silica Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development 29
Figure 4-14. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance at Rl Residence 31
Figure 4-15. Monthly Nitrate (as N) Mass Balance at Rl Residence 32
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Round 1 and Round 2 Arsenic Removal Demonstration Locations,
Technologies, and Source Water Quality 3
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates 6
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities 7
Table 3-3. Sampling and Analysis Schedule for Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID 8
Table 4-1. Sunset Ranch Development Water Quality Data (Well 3370032) 14
Table 4-2. Water Softener Systems at Participating Sunset Ranch Development Homes 15
Table 4-3. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener Performance Specifications 17
Table 4-4. Kinetico RO Plus Deluxe Unit Performance Specifications 19
Table 4-5. Summary of Kinetico Service Report 21
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Nitrate, Uranium, Vanadium, and TDS Results 23
Table 4-7. Speciation Sampling Results at Rl Residence 26
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements at Sunset Ranch
Development 28
Table 4-9. Reject Water Sampling Results 30
Table 4-10. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance 31
Table 4-11. Monthly Nitrate (as N) Mass Balance 32
Table 4-12. Summary of Capital Investment 33
Table 4-13. Summary of O&M Cost 34
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAL American Analytical Laboratories
AM adsorptive media
As arsenic
ATS Aquatic Treatment Systems
bgs below ground surface
Ca calcium
C/F coagulation/filtration
Cl chlorine
Cu copper
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F fluoride
Fe iron
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HDPE high-density polyethylene
HIX hybrid ion exchanger
hp horsepower
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ID identification
IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
IX ion exchange
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
MEI Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Mg magnesium
mg/L milligrams per liter
|o,g/L micrograms per liter
jam micrometer
Mn manganese
Na sodium
NA not available
ND not detectable
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NO2 nitrite
NO nitrate
NSF NSF International
O&M operation and maintenance
Vlll
-------
OIT Oregon Institute of Technology
ORD Office of Research and Development
PO4 orthophosphate
POC point of contact
POE point of entry
POU point of use
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
Rl Residence 1
RO reverse osmosis
RPD relative percent difference
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SiO2 silica
SO4 sulfate
STS Severn Trent Services
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
U uranium
V vanadium
VOC volatile organic compound
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to extend their sincere appreciation to the president and homeowners of the Sunset
Ranch Development in Homedale, ID. They assisted in monitoring the system's performance and
collected samples regularly from nine point-of-use reverse osmosis (POU RO) units throughout this study
period. This performance evaluation study would not have been possible without their support and
dedication.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) identify and regulate drinking water contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and
are known or anticipated to occur in public water supply systems. In 1975, under the SDWA, EPA
established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.05 mg/L. Amended in 1996, the
SDWA required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and publish a proposal to revise the
arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA,
2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA revised the rule text on March 25,
2003, to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The final rule requires all community
and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by January 23, 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in the first round of this EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on
their water systems. In June 2002, EPA selected 17 out of 115 sites to host the demonstration studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for cost-effective arsenic
removal treatment technologies for the 17 host sites. EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host
sites, with each site receiving from one to six proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical panel
reviewed the proposals and provided its recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined
were acceptable for 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 June 2007, all 12 systems were
operational and the performance evaluations of nine systems were completed.
In 2003, EPA initiated Round 2 arsenic technology demonstration projects that were partially funded with
Congressional add-on funding to the EPA budget. In June 2003, EPA selected 32 potential demonstration
sites and the Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID, was one of them.
In September 2003, EPA again solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for arsenic
removal technologies. EPA received 148 technical proposals for the 32 potential host sites, with each site
receiving from two to eight proposals. In April 2004, another technical panel was convened by EPA to
review the proposals and provide recommendations to EPA with the number of proposals per site ranging
from none (for two sites) to a maximum of four. The final selection of the treatment technology at the
sites that received at least one proposal was made, again through a joint effort by EPA, the state
regulators, and the host site. Since then, four sites have withdrawn from the demonstration program,
reducing the number of sites to 28. In December 2004, the point of use (POU) reverse osmosis (RO)
treatment technology from Kinetico was selected for demonstration at the Sunset Ranch Development site
in Homedale, ID.
-------
1.2 Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
The technologies selected for the Round 1 and Round 2 demonstration host sites include 25 adsorptive
media (AM) systems (the Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT] site has three AM system), 13
coagulation/filtration (C/F) systems, two ion exchange (IX) systems, and 17 POU units (including nine
under-the-sink 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 cost is provided in two EPA reports (Wang et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004), which are
posted on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/dw/arsenic/tech/index.html.
1.3 Project Objectives
The objective of the Round 1 and Round 2 arsenic demonstration program is to conduct 40 full-scale
arsenic treatment technology demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water
supplies. The specific objectives are to:
• Evaluate the performance of the arsenic removal technologies for use on small
systems.
• Determine the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skill
levels.
• Characterize process residuals produced by the technologies.
• Determine the capital and O&M cost of the technologies.
This report summarizes the performance of Kinetico's POU RO system operation from July 15, 2005,
through June 28, 2006, at the Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID. The types of data collected
included system operation, water quality, and capital and 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
(HS/L)
PH
(S.U.)
Northeast/Ohio
Wales, ME
Bow,NH
Goffstown, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Dummerston, VT
Felton, DE
Stevensville, MD
Houghton, NYW
Buckeye Lake, 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
70(b)
10
100
22
375
300
550
10
250W
38W
39
33
36W
30
30W
19W
27W
15W
25W
<25
<25
<25
46
<25
48
270(c)
1,806(CJ
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
USFilter
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
AdEdge
Kinetico
640
400
340W
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
1,470(CJ
3,078(c)
1,344W
1,325W
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.7
7.2
Midwest/Southwest
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
Nambe Pueblo Tribe
Town of Taos
Arizona Water Company
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Arizona Water Company
C/F (Macrolite)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
Kinetico
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
STS
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
770(e)
150
40
100
320
145
450
90(b)
50
37
35W
19w
56(a)
45
23(a)
33
14
50
32
41
2,068(c)
95
<25
<25
39
<25
59
170
<25
<25
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.7
8.5
9.5
7.2
8.2
7.8
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of 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
(MS/L)
Fe
(HS/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
California Water Service Company
Golden Hills Community Service District
C/F (Macrolite)
IX (A300E)
POU RO(1)
C/F (Electromedia-I)
POEAM
(Adsorbsia/ARM
200/ArsenXnp)
and POU AM (ARM
200)(B)
IX (Arsenex II)
AM (GFH)
AM (A/I Complex)
AM (fflX)
AM (Isolux)
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Filtronics
Kinetico
Kinetico
Siemens
ATS
VEETech
MEI
250
250
75gpd
750
60/60/30
525
350
12
50
150
64
44
52
18
33
17
39
37W
35
15
<25
<25
134
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; C/F = coagulation/filtration; GFH = granular ferric hydroxide; FflX = hybrid ion exchanger; IX = ion exchange; RO = reverse osmosis
ATS = Aquatic Treatment Systems; MEI = Magnesium Elektron, Inc.; STS = Severn Trent Services
(a) Arsenic existing mostly as As(III).
(b) Design flowrate reduced by 50% after system was switched from parallel to serial configuration.
(c) Iron existing mostly as Fe(II).
(d) 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 one year of system operation, the following conclusions were
made relating to the overall objectives of the treatment technology demonstration study.
Performance of the arsenic removal technology for use on small systems
• The RO units were effective in removing arsenic from raw water, reducing its concentrations
from 57.8 to <0.1 (ig/L (on average) for all but four samples (i.e., with concentrations ranging
from 1.2 to 8.7 (ig/L), achieving over 99% removal efficiency for arsenic.
• The RO units also were effective in reducing nitrate concentrations from 5.8 to 13.6 mg/L (as
N) in raw water to an average of 1.0 mg/L (as N) in the permeate water, achieving 90%
removal for nitrate.
• The RO units were capable of removing uranium to below its analytical quantitation limit of
0.1 (ig/L. This level of system performance was sustained throughout the entire study period.
• The RO units also were capable of achieving high levels of removal efficiency for total
dissolved solids (TDS) (at 96%), iron (at 100%), vanadium (at 99%), and silica (at 96%).
• As expected, pH values were reduced to levels ranging from 6.4 to 6.9. The decrease in
permeate pH values was due to the reduction of alkalinity by the RO units.
• Although not effective at removing arsenic or nitrate, the water softeners removed almost all
calcium and magnesium hardness in raw water, reducing the hardness values from 216 to 251
mg/L (as CaCO3) to an average of 1.7 mg/L (as CaCO3). Removal of hardness was necessary
to meet the RO feed water quality requirements.
Process residuals produced by the technology
• Two types of residuals were produced from the point of entry (POE) softening and POU RO
processes. The water softener spent brine wastewater and the RO reject water were allowed
to discharge directly to the septic tanks at individual homes. As expected, the RO reject
water contained elevated levels of TDS, arsenic, nitrate, and other inorganic salts when
compared with those in raw water.
Required system operation and maintenance
• The POE water softeners and POU RO units were designed for residential use; therefore, the
skill requirements to operate both systems were minimal. Each home required the addition of
salt to the water softener periodically and replacement of pre- and post-filters for the RO unit
every six to 12 months.
Capital and O&M cost
• For home installation of a water softener and a RO unit, total equipment ($2,610) and
installation ($1,005) cost amounted to $3,615. If the cost of materials and vendor travel was
added, the total cost for each household system was near $4,000, which is equivalent to an
annualized cost of $570 based on a 10-year life and a 7% interest rate.
• Only five homeowners used 500 gal of treated water during this six month reporting period.
For these homeowners with the largest water usage, the one year O&M cost for salt usage
($115) and filter replacement ($86.50) was $201.50, or $17 per month.
-------
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 POU systems began on July 15, 2005. Table 3-2 summarizes the types of data collected and
considered as part of the technology evaluation process. The overall system performance was evaluated
based on its ability to consistently remove arsenic and nitrate to below the target MCL of 10 (ig/L for
arsenic and 10 mg/L (as N) for nitrate. The reliability of the system was evaluated by tracking the
unscheduled system downtime and frequency and extent of repair and replacement activities. The
unscheduled downtime and repair information were recorded by a designated homeowner on a Repair and
Maintenance Log Sheet.
The O&M and operator skill requirements were evaluated based on a combination of quantitative data
and qualitative considerations, including the need of 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.
Table 3-1. Predemonstration Study Activities and Completion Dates
Activity
Introductory Meeting Held
Project Planning Meeting Held
Draft Letter of Understanding Issued
Final Letter of Understanding Issued
Request for Quotation Issued to Vendor
Vendor Quotation Submitted to Battelle
Purchase Order Completed and Signed
Engineering Package Submitted to IDEQ
Final Study Plan Issued
Permit issued by IDEQ
Initial System Installation and Shakedown Completed
Performance Evaluation Begun
Date
December 1, 2004
February 10, 2005
February 2 1,2005
February 28, 2005
March 15, 2005
April 1, 2005
May 24, 2005
June 10, 2005
June 18, 2005
June 20, 2005
July 1, 2005
July 15, 2005
IDEQ = Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
3.2
System O&M and Cost Data Collection
The routine O&M activities for the water softeners and RO units included visual inspections of the
systems for leaks or faults and checking for the salt tank levels for the softeners and the TDS monitors for
the RO units. The Residence 1 (Rl) homeowner, who also is the President of the Sunset Ranch
Development and designated point of contact (POC) for this demonstration project, recorded weekly flow
totalizer readings on the RO permeate line. If any problems occurred at any residences, homeowner Rl
would contact the Battelle Study Lead, who would then determine if Kinetico should be contacted for
troubleshooting. Homeowner Rl recorded all relevant information on the Repair and Maintenance Log
Sheet. Each month, homeowner Rl measured pH and temperature using a handheld meter and recorded
the data on an On-Site Water Quality Parameters Log Sheet.
-------
Table 3-2. Evaluation Objectives and Supporting Data Collection Activities
Evaluation Objective
Performance
Reliability
System O&M and Operator
Skill Requirements
Residual Management
Cost-Effectiveness
Data Collection
-Ability to consistently meet 10 (o,g/L of arsenic and 10 mg/L of nitrate
(as N) 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 O&M cost consisted of cost for salt usage for regeneration of the water softeners and replacement of
pre- and post-RO filter cartridges. Labor cost was not included because the treatment systems were
maintained by individual homeowners. Electricity was not required because the treatment systems were
non-electrical and operated by water pressure.
3.3
Sample Collection Procedures and Schedules
To evaluate the system performance, samples were collected monthly at the wellhead, after the water
softener, and after the RO unit at each of the nine participating homes, and from the reject water discharge
line at the Rl residence. The sampling schedules and analytes measured for each sampling event are
listed in Table 3-3. In addition, Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system along with the
analytes and schedules at each sampling location. Specific sampling requirements for analytical methods,
sample volumes, containers, preservation, and holding times are presented in Table 4-1 of the EPA-
endorsed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Battelle, 2004). The procedure for arsenic speciation
is described in Appendix A of the QAPP.
3.3.1 Source Water Sample Collection. During the initial site visit on December 1, 2004, one set
of source water samples was collected and speciated using an arsenic speciation kit (see Section 3.4.1).
The sample tap was flushed for several minutes before sampling was performed; 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 Sample Collection. During the system performance study,
homeowner Rl collected monthly water samples at the wellhead (IN), after the water softener (WS), and
after the RO unit (RO) at each of the nine participating homes. On-site arsenic speciation also was
performed at the IN and Rl residence's WS and RO sampling locations on a quarterly basis. Analytes for
the treatment system water samples are shown in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-1.
-------
Table 3-3. Sampling and Analysis Schedule for Sunset Ranch Development in Homedale, ID
Sample
Type
Source
Water
Treatment
System
Water
Reject Water
Sampling
Locations
At Wellhead (IN)
At Wellhead (IN)(a)
After Water Softener
at Nine Homes
(WS1-WS9)
After RO units at
Nine Homes (RO1-
T?OQN1
K\Jy)
At Wellhead (IN)(a)
After Water Softener
at Rl residence
(WS1)
After RO unit at Rl
residence (RO1)
RO Reject Water
Discharge Line at
Rl residence (RW1)
No. of
Sampling
Locations
1
19
3
1
Frequency
Once during
Initital Site
Visit
Monthly
Quarterly
Monthly
Analytes
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, F, Cl, NH3
NO2, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TDS, TOC,
turbidity, and alkalinity
On-site: pH and
temperature (at Wellhead
and Rl residence only)
Off-site: As (total), Fe
(total), Mn (total), Ca,
Mg, F, NO3, SO4, SiO2,
PO4, TDS, turbidity and
alkalinity (U [total] and
V [total] at Wellhead and
Rl residence only)
On-site: pH and
temperature (Wellhead
and Rl residence only)
Off-site:
As (total and soluble),
As(III), As(V),
Fe (total and soluble),
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble), and
V (total and soluble)
Off-site:
As (total and/or soluble),
Fe (total and/or soluble),
Mn (total and/or soluble),
U (total and/or soluble),
V (total and/or soluble),
NO3, SO4, TDS,
turbidity, and pH
Sampling Date(s)
12/01/04
07/20/05, 08/24/05,
09/20/05, 10/19/05,
11/16/05, 12/14/05,
01/17/06, 02/15/06,
03/15/06, 04/19/06,
05/17/06, 06/28/06,
09/20/05, 12/14/05,
03/15/06, 06/28/06
07/20/05, 08/24/05,
09/20/05, 10/19/05,
11/16/05, 12/14/05,
01/17/06, 02/15/06,
03/15/06, 04/19/06,
05/17/06, 06/28/06
(a) One wellhead sample taken monthly at pump house.
-------
Quarterly
pHH temperature^),
As (total, soluble, particulate),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), -
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble)
pH(a), temperature^3),
As (total, soluble, particulate),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), ^
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble)
(Rl Only)
pH(a), temperature1^),
As (total, soluble, particulate),
As (III), As (V),
Fe (total and soluble), __
Mn (total and soluble),
U (total and soluble),
V (total and soluble)
(Rl Only)
Footnote
(a) On-site analyses
INFLUENT
(WELL 3370032)
Sunset Ranch Development
Homedale, ID
POE Model 2060s Water Softener
(design flow: 12 gpm)
and POU RO Plus Deluxe Unit
(design flow: 35 gpd)
Monthly
pHH temperature^,
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
-U (total), V (total),
Ca, Mg, NO3, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
IDS, turbidity, alkalinity
WATER SOFTENER
1
03
O
CJ3
03
00
S
03
( IN )
v_y
fws)
(RO)
WATER
SOFTENER
^~
LEGEND
At Wellhead
After Water Softener
After Reverse Osmosis
Reject Water
Unit Process
Process Flow
Reject Water Flow
pHH temperature^),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
-U (total), V (total),
Ca, Mg, NO3, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
IDS, turbidity, alkalinity
REVERSE
OSMOSIS
SYSTEM
As (total and/or soluble),
Fe (total and/or soluble),
Mn (total and/or soluble),
U (total and/or soluble),
NO3, SO4, IDS, turbidity, and pH
pH^a), temperature^3),
As (total), Fe (total), Mn (total),
-U (total), V (total),
Ca, Mg, NO3, F, SO4, SiO2, PO4,
IDS, turbidity, alkalinity
KITCHEN TAP
Figure 3-1. Process Flow Diagram and Sampling Locations for Sunset Ranch Development
-------
3.3.3 Reject Water Sample Collection. Reject water samples were collected monthly at the Rl
residence by the homeowner from a sampling tap on the reject water discharge line leading from
the RO unit to the home septic system. For each sampling event, an unfiltered sample from the RO reject
water line was collected in an unpreserved 1-gal wide-mouth high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle for
water quality analyses, and a 60-mL sample filtered on-site with 0.45-(im filters in a 125-mL HDPE bottle
preserved with nitric acid for metal analyses. Analytes for the reject water samples are listed in Table 3-3
and Figure 3-1.
3.4 Sampling Logistics
All sampling logistics including arsenic speciation kit preparation, sample cooler preparation, and sample
shipping and handling are discussed as follows.
3.4.1 Preparation of Arsenic Speciation Kits. The arsenic field speciation method uses an anion
exchange resin column to separate the soluble arsenic species, As(V) and As(III) (Edwards et al., 1998).
Resin columns were prepared in batches at Battelle laboratories according to the procedures detailed in
Appendix A of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004).
3.4.2 Preparation of Sampling Coolers. For each sampling event, a cooler was prepared with an
appropriate number and type of sample bottles, disc filters, and/or speciation kits. All sample bottles
were new and contained appropriate preservatives. Each sample bottle was affixed with a pre-printed,
colored-coded label consisting of the sample identification (ID), date and time of sample collection,
collector's name, site location, sample destination, analysis required, and preservative. The sample ID
consisted of a two-letter code for a specific water facility, the sampling date, a two-letter code for a
specific sampling location, and a one-letter code designating the arsenic speciation bottle (if necessary).
The labeled bottles then were grouped separately into ziplock bags according to the sampling locations
and placed in the cooler.
In addition, all sampling- and shipping-related materials, such as disposable gloves, sampling instructions,
chain-of-custody forms, prepaid and addressed FedEx air bills, and bubble wrap, were packed in the
coolers. The chain-of-custody forms and prepaid FedEx air bills were completed with the required
information, except for the operator's signature and the sample date and time. After preparation, sample
coolers were sent to the site via FedEx for the following week's sampling event.
3.4.3 Sample Shipping and Handling. 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 water quality analyses by Battelle's subcontract laboratories were packed in separate coolers
and picked up by couriers from American Analytical Laboratories (AAL) in Columbus, OH, and TCCI
Laboratories in New Lexington, OH. Samples for metal analyses were stored at Battelle's inductively
coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) laboratory. The chain-of-custody forms remained with the
samples from the time of preparation through analysis and final disposition. All samples were archived
by the appropriate laboratories for the respective duration of the required hold time and disposed of
properly thereafter.
10
-------
3.5 Analytical Procedures
The analytical procedures described in Section 4.0 of the EPA-endorsed QAPP (Battelle, 2004) were
followed by the Battelle ICP-MS Laboratory, AAL, and TCCI Laboratories. Laboratory quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of all methods followed the prescribed guidelines. Data quality in
terms of precision, accuracy, method detection limits (MDLs), 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 were conducted by homeowner Rl using a WTW Multi 340i handheld meter,
which was calibrated for pH prior to use following the procedures provided in the user's manual.
Homeowner Rl collected a water sample in a clean plastic beaker and placed the WTW probe in the
beaker until a stable value was obtained.
11
-------
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Facility Description
Homedale is located in Owyhee County, Idaho, approximately 40 miles west of Boise at the intersection
of U.S. Highway 95 and Idaho Route 19. The Sunset Ranch Development, composed of 10 homes, is
located approximately three miles west of Homedale, on Route 19 at Northside Road. Nine homes
participated in the EPA demonstration; one homeowner opted to use a private well.
The residents of the Sunset Ranch Development are served by a 10-in diameter well (No. 3370032)
installed to a depth of 130 ft below ground surface (bgs) with a screen interval from 50 to 130 ft bgs. The
static water level was measured at 46 ft bgs on December 14, 2004. The well is equipped with a 15-
horsepower (hp) submersible pump, providing a flowrate of approximately 20 gal/min (gpm). Figure 4-1
shows the exterior of the central well house, and Figure 4-2 shows the plumbing and sample tap within
the well house. There is no centralized water treatment system currently in place.
Water from the well is stored in a pressure tank located in the community pump house (Figure 4-2). The
tank maintains pressure to the individual homes. When water is consumed and the tank pressure
decreases to a pre-set level, the well pump is activated by a pressure switch. The pump continues to run
until the tank pressure returns to a specified level.
Figure 4-1. Central Pump House at Sunset Ranch Development Site
12
-------
Figure 4-2. Plumbing from Well and Sample Tap at Sunset Ranch Development Site
4.1.1 Source Water Quality. The analytical results from the source water sampling event on
December 1, 2004, are presented in Table 4-1 and compared to those submitted by the facility to EPA for
the demonstration site selection and to those provided by the vendor. The treatment process consists of
POE water softeners and POU RO units for arsenic, nitrate, and uranium removal. Results of the source
water analyses and implications for water treatment are discussed below.
Arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations in source water ranged from 51.6 to 80 |o,g/L. Based on the
December 1, 2004, sampling results obtained by Battelle, the total arsenic concentration in the source
water was 51.6 |o,g/L with most of the soluble fraction present as As(V) (i.e., 46.8 |og/L). A small amount
of the total arsenic also existed as particulate As (1.9 ng/L). Because arsenic was present primarily as
As(V), oxidation of the water prior to the water softeners and POU RO units was not required.
Nitrate and Uranium. Nitrate concentrations in source water ranged from 8.9 to 11.5 mg/L (as N).
Uranium concentration was 30.1 |o,g/L, existing primarily in the soluble form. Both nitrate and uranium
were monitored monthly during the one-year performance evaluation study to determine if their
concentrations in the treated water would be reduced to less than their respective MCLs of 10 mg/L and
30 ng/L.
Other Water Quality Parameters. TDS concentrations in source water ranged from 692 to 698 mg/L,
which were composed primarily of calcium (91.5 to 98.2 mg/L), magnesium (15.7 to 17.0 mg/L), sodium
(102 to 132 mg/L), sulfate (195 to 210 mg/L), silica (65.5 to 66.3 mg/L), nitrate (8.9 to 11.5 mg/L [as N]),
chloride (19.0 to 21.7 mg/L), and fluoride (0.90 to 0.94 mg/L). Other ions present in source water
included iron (134 to 330 ug/L) and vanadium (30.3 to 31.2 ug/L). Because relatively high
concentrations of vanadium were measured, its concentrations were monitored monthly during the one-
year performance evaluation study. Hardness values of 310 and 198 mg/L (as CaCO3) were recorded by
Battelle and Kinetico, respectively. Softening of this water prior to the RO systems was recommended by
the vendor to prevent scaling of the RO membrane.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Sunset Ranch Development Water Quality Data (Well 3370032)
Parameter
Date
pH
Temperature
DO
ORP
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Turbidity
TDS
TOC
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia (as N)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Silica (as SiO2)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As(III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U(total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Na (total)
Ca (total)
Mg (total)
Unit
-
S.U.
°c
mg/L
mV
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
HB/L
Hg/L
HB/L
Hg/L
HB/L
Hg/L
tig/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
tig/L
Hg/L
HB/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Kinetico
Source Water
Data
-
7.6
NA
NA
NA
300
298
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.7
0.94
195
66.3
<0.5
65.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
<30
NA
<10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
125
91.5
17
Facility
Source Water
Data
-
7.3
NA
NA
NA
252
NA
NA
692
NA
11.5
NA
NA
19.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
80.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
330
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
102
NA
NA
Battelle
Source Water
Data
12/01/04
7.5
12.7
5.4
249
305
310
0.8
698
1.8
8.9
<0.01
0.05
21.0
0.9
210
65.5
O.06
51.6
49.7
1.9
2.9
46.8
134
<25
2.1
1.5
29.3
30.1
30.3
31.2
132
98.2
15.7
Battelle
Treated Water
Data(a)
12/01/04
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
0.10
0.1
48
NA
1.1
<0.01
0.05
<1.0
0.10
4.0
7.9
O.06
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
<25
NA
0.1
NA
O.I
NA
0.7
NA
16.5
0.02
0.006
(a) Sample taken at a cold water tap at Rl residence with water already treated by undersink RO unit.
NA = not available; ND = not detectable; TOC = total organic carbon; TDS = total dissolved solids
4.1.2 Treated Water Quality. As noted above, although there was no centralized treatment
system at Sunset Ranch Development, several homeowners had installed a softener and/or an RO unit. A
sample was collected from the kitchen tap at the Rl residence after the water had been treated by a
softener and an RO unit on December 1, 2004. Total arsenic, nitrate, and uranium concentrations in the
treated water were <0.1 ug/L, 1.1 mg/L (as N), and 0.1 ug/L, respectively. Other cations and anions also
were removed to low levels as shown in Table 4-1.
14
-------
4.1.3 Wastewater Disposal. The individual homes within the Sunset Ranch Development
employed septic systems for wastewater disposal. Regeneration wastewater from the softeners and reject
water from the RO units were discharged to the septic system at each home.
4.2
Treatment Process Description
The treatment train for the Sunset Ranch Development site included a POE water softener and a POU RO
unit at each of the nine participating homes. This POE/POU combination at each home was a
modification to the originally proposed approach that would use a centralized water softening system in
the pump house for all participating homes. The POE approach was preferred because it utilized the
existing septic system at each residence for the regeneration waste disposal, thus eliminating the need to
construct a septic system at the pump house.
RO processes typically are used to remove dissolved salts and other dissolved materials from drinking
water. Softening was performed as a pretreatment to prevent scaling of the RO membranes using either a
new or an existing water softener (Table 4-2). Figure 4-3 is a schematic of the treatment train. Figure 3-1
presents a process flowchart, including sample locations, frequency, and analytes.
Table 4-2. Water Softener Systems at Participating Sunset
Ranch Development Homes
Residence ID
Rl
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
Water Softener
Culligan
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico
Kinetico,
Mark 100 (existing)
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
Model 30 (existing)
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
Model 2060s
model unknown (existing)
Raw Water from
To Home
Well >60 psi
Sample
Backwash Waste
~*" to Septic
2060S/or Existing
Softener
Typical (9) Homes
Reject
Waste to
Septic
Sample
RO
Typical (9) Homes
-»• Sample
Sample
Figure 4-3. Schematic of Kinetico's POE Water Softener and POU RO Unit
15
-------
4.2.1 Water Softener. Kinetico's Model 2060s water softener consisted of two 8-in x 40-in
polyethylene wrapped resin tanks and one 12-in x 40-in or 18-in x 35-in brine tank (Figure 4-4). Each
resin tank contained 0.7 ft3 of non-solvent cation exchange resin. The water softener was equipped with a
built-in water meter and did not require electricity to operate. The system was configured for alternating
flow between the two resin tanks at a maximum flowrate of 12 gpm. After processing 625 gal of water,
water production was switched to the standby tank while the exhausted tank was being regenerated.
Regeneration used approximately 3.6 Ib of salt and 35 gal of softened water and took 45 min to complete.
The two preexisting Kinetico units at the R4 and R9 residences also were regenerated based on volume
throughput. The regeneration of the Culligan system at the Rl residence was based on a time setting,
which was set to regenerate twice a week. The Model 2060s water softener has been tested and listed
under NSF International (NSF) Standard 44; the key performance specifications of the unit are
summarized in Table 4-3.
Figure 4-4. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener
4.2.2 RO Plus Deluxe Unit. The softened water was further treated prior to the kitchen tap by a
RO unit for arsenic, nitrate, and uranium removal. The RO Plus Deluxe unit from Kinetico consisted of a
prefilter cartridge, an RO module, a storage tank, and a post-filter cartridge (Figure 4-5).
• Prefilter Cartridge - Prior to entering the RO module, water passed through a 20-|om
prefilter to remove particles.
• RO Module - After passing through the prefilter, water was forced through a 1.7-in x 11-in
thin film composite, semi-permeable membrane element where most soluble minerals and
chemicals were removed. The RO unit could produce up to 35.5 gal/day (gpd) of permeate
water. While yielding permeate water, the RO unit also produced reject water, which
16
-------
Table 4-3. Kinetico Model 2060s Water Softener Performance Specifications
Parameter
Value
System Components
No. of Media Vessels
Media Vessel Size (in)
Media Vessel Construction
Tank Volume (ft3)
Media Type
Media Volume (ft3)
Bed Depth (in)
Free Board Depth (in)
Riser Tube (in)
Upper Distributor (in)
Lower Distributor (in)
Regeneration Control
Regeneration Type
2
8-in D x 40-in H
Wrapped polyethylene
1.0
Non-solvent cation exchange resin
0.7
25
15
1
0.014
0.014
Non-electric use meter
Counter-current
Inlet Water Quality
Pressure Range (psi)
Temperature Range (°F)
pH Range (S.U.)
Free Chlorine (max, mg/L [as C12])
Hardness (max, grains per gallon [as
CaCO3])
15-125
35-120
5-10
2
66
Operation Specifications
Flow Range (gpm)
Flow Configuration
Regeneration Frequency (gal)
Regeneration Waste Volume (gal)
Regeneration Time (min)
Brine Tank S
No. of Brine Tanks
Brine Tank Size (in)
Brine Tank Construction
Salt Capacity (Ib)
11.5-18.0
Alternating
625
35
45
pecifications
1
Varying (12-inD x 40-in H,
18-inD x35-inH)
High-density polyethylene
Varying (100, 200)
Data source: Kinetico
included water rejected by the RO membrane and rinse water used to rinse the RO
membrane. The reject water produced represented approximately 63% of the volume
reaching the RO unit. The RO unit was rated as 2.7:1, that is, for every 2.7 gal of feed water,
1 gal of permeate water and 1.7 gal of reject water (including approximately 400 mL of
permeate water to flush the membrane) were produced. The volume of reject water produced
daily was dependent on the volume of water consumed at the kitchen tap.
Storage Tank - Permeate water was stored in a 3-gal QuickFlo storage tank, which used
water pressure to ensure a constant flow at the tap.
17
-------
Figure 4-5. Under-the-Sink RO Plus Deluxe Unit
• Post-Filter - The water from the storage tank flowed to a Metered Automatic Cartridge
Guard Filter (MACguard), which contained activated carbon to remove any volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and unpleasant taste and odor. The MACguard filter was equipped with
an automatic shut-off, which discontinued water production after 500 gal of water had been
processed. Water production resumes only after the pre- and post-filters have been replaced.
In addition to the above-mentioned system components, the system also was equipped with a
PureMometer Filter Life Indicator to alert the user for the remaining capacity of the filter cartridge.
Further, a TDS monitor installed at the kitchen tap measured TDS levels in the treated water. A green
light on the monitor indicated that a proper amount of reject water was generated and a yellow light
indicated that it was not. A non-standard Kent Model C-700 TP water meter was installed between the
RO module and the storage tank at the Rl residence to track the permeate production. The RO Plus
Deluxe system has been tested and listed under NSF Standard 58 for the reduction of arsenic, barium,
radium 226/228, cadmium, copper, cysts, fluoride, nitrate/nitrite, TDS, turbidity, and other contaminants.
Table 4-4 summarizes the key performance specifications for the RO Plus Deluxe unit.
4.3
System Permitting and Installation
4.3.1 Permitting. The engineering plans for the systems were prepared by Kinetico and submitted
to IDEQ for approval on June 10, 2005. The plans included a written description of Kinetico's POE
water softener and the POU RO unit, a schematic diagram of the system, system specification sheets,
Notice to the Public, an executive summary of managed POU treatment systems, and a Maintenance,
Monitoring, and Sampling Plan for POU treatment systems. The permit approval was granted by IDEQ
on June 20, 2005.
18
-------
Table 4-4. Kinetico RO Plus Deluxe Unit Performance Specifications
Parameter
Value
System Components
No. of Pre-filters
Pre-filter Size (um)
No. of RO Membrane Elements
RO Membrane Construction
Membrane Element Size (in)
No. of Post-filters
Permeate Flush
Element Configuration
System Shutoff Control
System Shutdown Volume (gal)
System Controller
1
20
1
Thin film composite
1.7-inDxll-inH
1
Internal Permeate Reservoir
Single
Hydraulic
500
Hydraulic
Inlet Water Quality
Pressure Range (psi)
Temperature Range (°F)
pH Range (S.U.)
Free Chlorine (max, mg/L [as C12])
Hardness (max, mg/L [as CaCO3])
Silica (max, mg/L)
Iron (max, mg/L)
TDS (max, mg/L)
40-100
35-100
3-11
0.05
<170
10
0.01
<4,000
Operating Specifications
Maximum Daily Production (gpd)
Daily Production (gpd)
Discharge Water (or Feed
Water)/Product Water Ratio
Normal Operating Pressure (psi)
75
35.5
2.7 to 1
60
Storage Tank
Storage Tank Volume (gal)
Storage Tank Footprint (in)
Storage Tank Material
3
8-inDx 17-inH
Zytel
Data source: Kinetico
4.3.2 System Installation, Shakedown, and Startup. Water softeners and RO units were
delivered to the site on June 24, 2005. Kinetico's local dealer in Meridian, ID, performed the off-loading
and installation. The installation consisted of plumbing, initial salt filling, outside faucet isolation (from
water softener systems), and equipment inspections. The shakedown/start-up consisted of pressurizing
the systems and making all necessary adjustments to bring the systems on-line and operational. While
on-site, Kinetico technicians provided training to two homeowners for hands-on operation and routine
maintenance. The mechanical installation and shakedown of the systems were completed on July 1, 2005.
On July 8, 2005, a Kent Model C-700 TP water meter was installed at the Rl residence. The performance
evaluation officially began on July 15, 2005. Battelle staff members were on-site on September 20, 2005,
to inspect the systems and conduct operator training, which included calibration and use of a WTW field
handheld meter, collection of field data, collection of water samples from the treatment systems, field
arsenic speciation, and proper handling of chain-of-custodies.
19
-------
4.4
System Operation
4.4.1 Permeate Water Production. Based on the totalizer installed at the Rl residence, the RO
unit produced approximately 481 gal of water from July 15, 2005, through June 28, 2006, an average of
40 gal/month (Figure 4-6). Water production reached 500 gal at the Rl, R4, R5, R6, and R9 residences
during the performance evaluation; the pre- and post-filters were replaced before water production
resumed. Water production at the other four participating homes was not measured, but none reached the
500-gal level before the end of this performance evaluation period.
500
450 -
7/1/2005
8/20/2005
10/9/2005
11/28/2005
1/17/2006
3/8/2006
4/27/2006
6/16/2006
Date
Figure 4-6. RO Totalizer Readings at Rl Residence
4.4.2 Reject Water Production. Due to the lack of a water meter on the reject water discharge
line, the actual amount of reject water produced was not tracked. However, based on the 2.7:1 ratio, it
was estimated that 818 gal of water was discharged to the septic system while producing 481 gal of
permeate water at the Rl residence. Reject water samples were collected monthly at the Rl residence by
the homeowner from a sampling tap on the reject water discharge line leading from the RO unit to the
home septic system.
4.4.3 System/Operation Reliability and Simplicity. Operational problems were encountered
during the first month of system operation. On July 26, 2005, the RO taps of two residences experienced
low water flow and the respective undersink storage tanks had to be replaced in order to solve the
problem. The undersink storage tank at one of these residences had to be replaced again on August 8,
2005, for the same problem. While under warranty, Kinetico technicians were on-site from August 10 to
11, 2005, to address this and other problems. On June 22, 2006, the low flow problem was encountered
at two more residences and the undersink storage tanks at both of these residences had to be replaced and
a check valve at one of the residence had to be replaced. Table 4-5 summarizes the problems encountered
and corrective actions taken.
20
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of Kinetico Service Report
Time
07/26/05
08/08/05
08/10/05
08/10/05
08/10/05
08/10/05
6/22/06
Problem Encountered
Low flowrate at faucet
Water pulsing from faucet
Incorrect outlet elbow installed
Water quality monitor malfunction
Loose wire on TDS monitor
indicator light
Low flowrate at faucet
Corrective Action Taken
Undersink storage tank
replaced
Faucet upgraded to include
new high flow gasket
Correct flow control elbow
installed
Sensor replaced
TDS monitor replaced
Replaced undersink storage
tanks and a check valve
Residences
R2&R3
R1-R9
Rl
R9
R6
R1&R6
The system O&M requirements are discussed according to pre- and post-treatment activities, levels of
system automation, operator skill requirements, preventative maintenance activities, and frequency of
chemical/media handling and inventory requirements.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Requirements. Softening of raw water was required before treatment by the
RO unit to prevent scaling of the RO membranes. Water softeners were placed upstream of the RO units.
System Automation. The Model 2060s softeners were regenerated automatically after 625 gal of water
treated. Hydraulic signals within the RO units controlled the operational sequences, such as
pressurization and depressurization of the membranes and flushing of the membranes following the
system shut down. The unit shut down automatically once 500 gal of water had been treated. A
Puremometer™ indicator visibly indicated the remaining filter capacity.
Operator Skill Requirements. The POE water softeners and POU RO units were designed for residential
use; therefore, the skill requirements to operate both systems were minimal. There was no need for the
homeowners to inspect the systems on a daily basis. The operation of the systems did not appear to
require additional skills beyond adding salt to the water softeners and replacing pre- and post-filters of the
RO units. Operations of the POE/POU systems were handled well by all homeowners.
Preventative Maintenance Activities. Preventative maintenance activities were minimal for the water
softeners and RO units. The water softener used an inline filter to remove particles from raw water and
would require periodical replacement. The frequency of the filter replacement was determined by water
usage and content of solids. The amount of salt in the brine tank needed to be checked and salt added as
needed. The pre- and post-cartridge filters for the RO unit required changing every 500 gal, as the unit
would shut down when it reaches the 500-gal production level. During the performance evaluation study,
the RO units at five residences reached the 500-gal mark and replacement of the pre- and post-cartridge
filters was required to resume normal operation.
Chemical Handling and Inventory Requirements. Salt was used for the regeneration of the water
softeners. The homeowners needed to check and maintain salt levels in the brine tanks and contact
Kinetico for salt delivery. On August 30, 2005, 2,450 Ib of salt was delivered to the site and stored in the
well house.
21
-------
4.5 System Performance
The performance of the RO units was evaluated based on analyses of water samples collected from the
POE/POU systems.
4.5.1 Treatment Plant Sampling. A total of 20 locations were sampled at the site, including
locations at the wellhead (IN), after the water softener at each of the nine residences (WS1-WS9), after
the RO unit at each of the nine residences (RO1-RO9), and at the reject water discharge line at the Rl
residence (RW1). Water samples were collected monthly on 12 occasions during the one-year study
period. Sample collection was discontinued at the WS3 and RO3 locations after October 19, 2005, due to
vacancy of the R3 residence.
Table 4-6 summarizes the analytical results of arsenic, nitrate, uranium, vanadium, and TDS, and Figures
4-7 to 4-11 are plots of the results of these constituents across the treatment train. Note that the
concentrations plotted for "after water softener" and "after RO unit" are the average of the respective
results for the nine homes except for uranium and vanadium, which were measured at the Rl residence
only.
Field arsenic speciation was performed at the Rl residence on four occasions, and the results are
summarized in Table 4-7. Also, pH and temperature were measured on-site at the wellhead (IN) and in
the Rl residence at the WS1 and RO1 locations on nine occasions, and the results are plotted in
Figure 4-12.
Results of other water quality parameters measured are provided in Table 4-8. Appendix A contains a
complete set of analytical results for the one year performance evaluation. The results of the water
samples collected throughout the POE/POU systems are discussed as follows.
Arsenic. Total As concentrations in raw water ranged from 53.0 to 64.3 (ig/L and averaged 57.8 (ig/L
(Table 4-6). Based on arsenic speciation results of the soluble fraction (Table 4-7), As(V) was the
predominating species, ranging from 49.5 to 64.8 (ig/L and averaging 56.3 (ig/L. Only a trace amount of
As(III) existed, ranging from 0.5 to 2.7 (ig/L and averaging 1.5 |o,g/L. The arsenic concentrations
measured during the one year performance evaluation were consistent with those in the raw water sample
collected on December 1, 2004 (Table 4-1).
Total arsenic concentrations after the water softeners ranged from 48.1 to 97.2 |o,g/L (with one outlier of
<0.1 ng/L occurring at the R7 Residence [WS7] on November 16, 2005) and averaged 57.2 |o,g/L, which
were at similar levels as those in raw water (Figure 4-7). As expected, the softeners did not remove any
arsenic. Total arsenic concentrations after the RO units were <1.0 |o,g/L for all samples, except for four
occurrences measured at 8.7 |o,g/L at the R7 Residence on July 20, 2005, 1.2 (ig/L at the Rl Residence on
August 24, 2005, 5.1 ng/L at the R4 Residence on July 20, 2005, and 1.2 ng/L at the Rl Residence on
August 24, 2005. Based on the average arsenic concentration in raw water, the RO units achieved over
99% arsenic removal.
Nitrate. Nitrate concentrations at the wellhead and after water softeners exceeded the MCL of 10 mg/L,
averaging at 10.2 and 10.3 mg/L (as N), respectively (Table 4-6). Nitrate was consistently removed by
the RO units during the performance evaluation with concentrations in RO permeate ranging from <0.05
to 3.7 mg/L (as N) and averaging 1.0 mg/L (as N), representing 90% removal (Figure 4-8).
22
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Arsenic, Nitrate, Uranium, Vanadium, and TDS Results at
Sunset Ranch Development
Parameter
As (total)
Nitrate (as N)
U (total)
V (total)
TDS
Sampling
Location
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Number
of
Samples
12
100
100
12
100
100
12
22
22
12
22
22
12
100
100
Concentration
Minimum
53.0
48.1
0.1
5.81
0.62
0.03
23.4
19.5
<0.1
29.1
29.9
<0.1
648
492
<1.0
Maximum
64.3
97.2
8.7
13.6
13.6
3.7
31.0
31.9
<0.1
39.0
38.9
1.3
730
946
98
Average
57.8
57.2
0.4
10.2
10.3
1.0
27.4
27.2
<0.1
32.4
33.1
0.2
685
704
26.2
Standard
Deviation
3.4
8.6
1.0
2.1
2.0
0.7
2.4
3.5
-
2.5
2.1
0.4
26.7
49.0
21.0
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
Note: Uranium and vanadium measured at Rl residence only.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 [jg/L MCL
> ^ 3>
-------
25 -
20 -
15 -
0 10-
5 -
-At Wellhead
-After Water Softener
- After RO Unit
- RO Reject
Date
Figure 4-8. Nitrate Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development
45 -
40 -
35 -
_. 30 -
25 -
20-
15 -
10 -
5 -
-* *-
N°X NNX 4>
Date
Figure 4-9. Uranium Concentrations at Rl Residence
24
-------
50 -
_ 40-
1
I
E 30
S
20 -
10 -
1200 -
1000 -
I
I
600 -
400 -
200 -
Date
Figure 4-10. Vanadium Concentrations at Rl Residence
N\N
-------
Table 4-7. Speciation Sampling Results at Rl Residence
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
09/20/05
IN
58.8
59.1
<0.1
2.7
56.4
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
26.9
27.2
29.1
31.5
WS1
54.7
59.3
<0.1
3.0
56.3
<25
<25
<0.1
<0.1
26.2
26.6
29.8
30.4
RO1
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.8
<0.1
<25
<25
0.8
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
12/14/05
IN
55.1
51.1
4.0
1.7
49.5
370
<25
0.6
0.5
28.9
28.0
30.1
30.0
WS1
53.2
51.3
1.9
1.3
50.0
<25
<25
0.1
<0.1
25.7
25.5
30.4
30.6
RO1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Parameter
As (total)
As (soluble)
As (paniculate)
As (III)
As(V)
Fe (total)
Fe (soluble)
Mn (total)
Mn (soluble)
U (total)
U (soluble)
V (total)
V (soluble)
Unit
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
03/15/06
IN
64.3
55.6
8.7
1.2
54.4
<25
<25
0.4
1.1
26.0
25.6
29.1
29.4
WS1
63.7
58.9
4.8
1.0
57.9
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
25.7
25.2
29.9
31.2
RO1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
<25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
06/28/06
IN
60.3
65.3
0.1
0.5
64.8
<25
<25
0.3
0.8
27.4
26.5
31.5
30.6
WS1
54.2
64.6
0.1
0.7
63.9
<25
<25
0.2
0.2
26.1
24.4
30.8
28.5
RO1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
<25
<25
0.9
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Uranium and Vanadium. Uranium concentrations ranged from 23.4 and 31.0 (ig/L in raw water and
from 19.5 to 31.9 |o,g/L after softening (at the Rl Residence), which exceeded the MCL of 30 (ig/L (Table
4-6). Uranium existed in the soluble form (Table 4-7) and was completely removed by the RO unit at the
Rl Residence to below 0.1 (ig/L for all sampling events (Figure 4-9).
Average vanadium concentrations in raw water and after the water softener at the Rl Residence were 32.4
and 33.1 (ig/L, respectively. Vanadium concentrations in RO permeate ranged from <0.1 to 1.3 (ig/L and
averaged 0.2 (ig/L (Table 4-6). Vanadium existed in soluble form (Table 4-7), and more than 99% of
vanadium was removed from raw water (Figure 4-10).
TDS. When evaluating the performance of the RO units, a critical parameter is their ability to remove
TDS from raw water. TDS concentrations averaged 685 and 704 mg/L in raw water and after softening,
respectively (Table 4-6). The average TDS concentration after the RO units was 26.2 mg/L. On average,
the RO units achieved 96% TDS removal (Figure 4-11).
26
-------
Iron and Manganese. Total iron concentrations in raw water ranged from <25 to 568 (ig/L and averaged
112 (ig/L (Table 4-8). In the WS and RO samples, total iron concentrations were <25 (ig/L for all
samples, except for two measurements (i.e., 56.4 (ig/L at the WS6 location on August 24, 2005, and 45.9
(ig/L at the WS4 location on November 16, 2005). The average manganese concentration in raw water
averaged 0.6 (ig/L. In the WS samples, total manganese concentrations ranged from <0.1 to 1.3 (ig/L and
averaged 0.1 (ig/L. Total manganese concentrations in RO permeate water ranged from <0.1 to 28.2 (ig/L
and averaged 1.5 (ig/L, indicating leaching of manganese from the RO units, possibly the pre- and/or
post-cartridge filters.
8.5
-? 7.5 -
tri
6.5 -
-Inlet
-Water Softener
- After RO Unit
-RO Reject
\N
Date
of
N
Figure 4-12. pH Levels at Rl Residence
pH. pH values averaged 7.3 for raw water and 7.6 after softening at the Rl residence. pH values of the
RO permeate water at the Rl residence averaged 6.6 with two probable outliers at 7.7 and 7.1 (Figure 4-
12). The RO units reduced the alkalinity values from 295 mg/L (as CaCO3) in raw water to 12.4 mg/L (as
CaCO3) in RO permeate, causing a drop in the pH levels.
Other Water Quality Parameters. As shown in Table 4-8 and Figure 4-13, silica concentrations in raw
water ranged between 59.8 and 95.9 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 66.5 mg/L (as SiO2). Silica
concentrations after softening averaged 66.6 mg/L (as SiO2), which was above the vendor-suggested
maximum value of 10 mg/L in the influent to the RO units. Silica concentrations in RO permeate water
ranged from 0.8 to 8.2 mg/L (as SiO2) and averaged 2.8 mg/L (as SiO2), indicating effective removal by
the RO units.
Fluoride in raw water was consistently removed to <0.1 mg/L by the RO units except for the
measurement of 0.7 mg/L at R3 on October 19, 2005, and 0.2 mg/L at Rl on April 19, 2006. Sulfate
concentrations in RO permeate water ranged from <1.0 to 2.2 mg/L and averaged 0.6 mg/L. Total
hardness in raw water ranged from 216 to 251 mg/L (as CaCO3) and averaged 238 mg/L (as CaCO3).
27
-------
Table 4-8. Summary of Water Quality Parameter Measurements
at Sunset Ranch Development
Parameter
Fe (total)
Mn (total)
Alkalinity
Fluoride
Sulfate
Orthophosphate
(as PO4)
Total Phosphorous
(as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
pH
Turbidity
Total Hardness
Ca Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness
(as CaCO3)
Sampling
Location
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
IN
WS
RO
Unit
HB/L
ug/L
HB/L
ug/L
HB/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
S.U.
S.U.
S.U.
NTU
NTU
NTU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Count
12
100
100
12
100
100
12
100
100
12
98
100
12
100
100
3
27
27
9
73
73
12
100
100
9
9
7
12
100
100
12
95
100
12
100
100
12
100
100
Minimum
<25
<25
<25
0.1
0.1
<0.1
283
264
1.0
0.6
0.1
0.1
151
140
<1.0
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.03
0.03
O.03
59.8
58.5
0.8
7.2
7.3
6.4
0.1
O.I
0.1
216
0.2
0.0
169
O.25
O.25
45.9
0.1
0.1
Maximum
568
56.4
<25
1.9
1.3
28.2
317
326
63.0
5.2
4.3
0.7
210
226
2.2
0.05
O.05
0.05
O.03
0.1
0.4
95.9
108
8.2
7.8
7.7
6.9
7.2
2.1
1.2
251
21.4
5.6
194
189.6
2.8
62.6
94.9
2.75
Average
112
13.3
<25
0.6
0.1
1.5
295
294
12.4
1.2
0.8
0.1
167
168
0.6
0.05
O.05
0.05
-
0.0
0.0
66.5
66.6
2.8
7.3
7.6
6.6
1.4
0.5
0.3
238
1.7
0.5
185
8.0
0.3
52.5
3.4
0.1
Standard
Deviation
173
5.5
-
2.5
0.2
3.6
11.7
11.4
8.2
1.3
0.5
0.1
17.5
19.1
0.2
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.0
9.6
9.5
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.9
0.4
0.2
9.9
2.5
0.6
7.1
31.2
0.3
6.0
13.8
0.3
One-half of detection limit used for non-detect samples for calculations.
pH values were only measured at the Rl residence.
Hardness in raw water consisted of approximately 78% of calcium hardness and 22% of magnesium
hardness. Total hardness was reduced to an average of 1.7 mg/L (as CaCO3) by the water softeners and
further reduced to an average of 0.5 mg/L by the RO units.
28
-------
120.00
100.00 -
=! 80.00
I
•S 60.00 -
40.00 -
20.00 -
0.00
c&
Date
Figure 4-13. Total Silica Concentrations at Sunset Ranch Development
4.5.2 Reject Water Sampling. Reject water was collected monthly at the Rl residence. The
analytical results from the reject water sampling are summarized in Table 4-9. As expected, the reject
water contained higher concentrations of TDS, arsenic, uranium, and nitrate than raw water did.
Calculations of mass balance for total arsenic and nitrate across the RO unit were done using the data
presented in Tables 4-6 and 4-9 and the equation shown as follows:
where Cf = feed water total arsenic or nitrate concentration
Vf = volume of feed water
Cp = permeate water total arsenic or nitrate concentration
Vp = volume of permeate water
Cr = reject water total arsenic or nitrate concentration
Vr = volume of reject water.
Calculations were done for each of the 12 sampling dates. The total arsenic mass balance data are
tabulated in Table 4-10 and graphically presented in Figure 4-14. The total nitrate mass balance data are
tabulated in Table 4-11 and graphically presented in Figure 4-15. During the one year performance
evaluation, mass balance data in terms of the mass recovered in the permeate and reject water against the
mass in the raw water ranged from 63% to 1 14% and averaged 83% for total arsenic and from 66% to
100% and averaged 89% for nitrate.
29
-------
Table 4-9. Reject Water Sampling Results
Sampling Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
07/20/05
08/24/05
09/20/05
10/19/05
11/16/05
12/14/05
01/17/06
02/15/06
03/15/06
04/19/06
05/17/06
06/28/06
S
=2
"3
to
mg/L
217
214
176
252
265
211
229
266
167
214
267
210
Z
if*
03
£
1
Z
mg/L
15.7
16.0
15.3
13.4
13.0
11.1
12.8
14.0
8.6
8.3
18.9
19.2
Turbidity
NTU
0.5
6.0
0.4
0.9
0.4
1.5
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.5
0.8
1.1
VI
Q
H
mg/L
980
1,050
1,020
998
1,060
892
976
928
740
846
1,080
954
o.
S.U.
7.9
7.7
7.7
8.1
7.9
7.4
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.7
8.0
7.7
Total
Hardness(a)
mg/L
1.6
1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ca Hardness00
mg/L
1.1
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mg Hardness(a)
mg/L
0.5
<0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"3
o
^-^
{*)
<
Mg/L
75.1
75.5
66.6
76.5
92.3
55.9
80.1
77.5
63.9
59.9
79.0
86.9
As (soluble)
Mg/L
-
-
88.3
78.8
87.5
55.8
79.2
73.2
58.9
70.8
82.4
105
Fe (total)
MS/L
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
Fe (soluble)
Mg/L
-
-
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
"3
1,
1
MS/L
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
s*
fi
_s
"o
^
1
Mg/L
-
-
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
f
£
P
Mg/L
35.7
31.2
31.4
42.3
41.7
26.8
38.0
29.7
25.4
23.0
28.7
31.7
s*
2
_s
"3
^
P
Mg/L
-
-
40.1
42.1
41.2
26.3
37.6
27.3
25.7
24.9
27.3
25.2
f
£
>
Mg/L
50.5
40.6
35.8
43.8
41.8
31.8
44.9
47.3
30.0
34.3
44.1
36.9
V (soluble)
Mg/L
-
-
44.3
42.6
41.6
32.8
45.3
43.6
30.1
40.3
44.7
36.6
OJ
o
(a) asCaCO3
-------
Table 4-10. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance
Date
07/20/05
08/24/05
09/20/05
10/19/05
11/16/05
12/14/05
01/17/06
02/15/06
03/15/06
04/19/06
05/17/06
06/28/06
Feed
cf
fig/L
53.3
63.3
54.8
54.9
50.9
53.2
51.6
57.2
64.3
58.2
61.2
60.3
vf
gal
85.1
90.2
80.2
90.5
105
84.2
126
103
104
122
114
97
Permeate
CD
Hg/L
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.05
0.2
0.3
VD
gal
31.5
33.4
29.7
33.5
38.9
31.2
46.8
38.1
38.5
45.2
42.2
35.9
Re
cr
Hg/L
75.1
75.5
66.6
76.5
92.3
55.9
80.1
77.5
63.9
59.9
79.0
86.9
ect
vr
gal
53.6
56.8
50.5
56.9
66.1
53.0
79.6
64.9
65.5
76.8
71.8
61.1
r v +
V'PVP
crvr
Mg
15.2
16.4
12.8
16.5
23.1
11.2
24.1
19.0
15.8
17.4
21.5
20.1
CfVf
mg
17.1
21.6
16.6
18.8
20.2
16.9
24.7
22.3
25.3
26.8
26.4
22.1
Mass
Balance
%
89
76
77
88
114
66
98
86
63
65
81
91
Total Arsenic Mass Balance
30
25 -
20 -
15 -
5 -
Date
Figure 4-14. Monthly Total Arsenic Mass Balance at Rl Residence
31
-------
Table 4-11. Monthly Nitrate (as N) Mass Balance
Date
07/20/05
08/24/05
09/20/05
10/19/05
11/16/05
12/14/05
01/17/06
02/15/06
03/15/06
04/19/06
05/17/06
06/28/06
Feed
Cr
mg/L
11.6
10.9
10.6
10.2
9.2
9.1
8.8
11.3
8.9
5.8
12.6
13.6
vf
gal
85.1
90.2
80.2
90.5
105
84.2
126
103
104
122
114
97
Permeate
CP
mg/L
0.03
1.9
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.1
1.8
1.3
0.1
1.8
0.2
VP
gal
31.5
33.4
29.7
33.5
38.9
31.2
46.8
38.1
38.5
45.2
42.2
35.9
Re
cr
Mg/L
15.7
16.0
15.3
13.4
13.0
11.1
12.8
14.0
8.6
8.3
18.9
19.2
ect
vr
gal
53.6
56.8
50.5
56.9
66.1
53.0
79.6
64.9
65.5
76.8
71.8
61.1
r v +
«-pVp T
r v
\^rvr
mg
3,181
3,674
2,999
3,075
3,411
2,402
4,044
3,692
2,318
2,427
5,415
4,460
QVf
mg
3,729
3,716
3,213
3,487
3,653
2,898
4,203
4,399
3,499
2,675
5,430
4,987
Mass
Balance
%
85
99
93
88
93
83
96
84
66
91
100
89
Total Nitrate (as N) Mass Balance
6000
o"
5000 -
B 4000
3000 -
2000 -
1000 -
& ,
-------
4.6
System Cost
4.6.1 Capital Cost. The capital investment for purchasing and installing six water softeners and
nine RO units was $31,877.50 (see Table 4-12) as provided by the vendor in a cost proposal to Battelle
dated April 8, 2005. The equipment cost was $21,732.50 (or 68% of the total capital investment), which
included cost for nine RO units, six water softeners, initial salt fill, additional sample tap and a water
meter, and freight. Each water softener unit cost $1,585 and each RO unit cost $1,025.
Table 4-12. Summary of Capital Investment
Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
RO Plus Deluxe Systems
Model 2060s Water Softeners
Initial Salt Fill (9 units 250 Ib each)
Additional Sample Taps and Water Meter
Freight
Equipment Total
9
6
2,250
1
1
-
$1,025
$1,585
$0.23
-
-
-
$9,225
$9,510
$518
$355
$2,125
$21,733
-
-
-
-
-
68%
Installation Costs
Material
Softener Installation
RO Installation
Vendor Travel (days)
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
1
6
9
6
-
-
-
$810
$195
$480
-
-
$650
$4,860
$1,755
$2,880
$10,145
$31,878
-
-
-
32%
100%
The installation cost included the cost for the material and labor to install nine RO units and six water
softeners by the vendor (Section 4.3.2). The installation cost was $10,145, or 32% of the total capital
investment. The installation of each water softener and RO unit cost $810 and $195, respectively
(excluding material and vendor travel).
For home installation of a water softener and an RO unit, total equipment ($2,610) and installation
($1,005) cost amounted to $3,615. If the cost of materials and vendor travel was added, the total cost for
each household system was nearly $4,000. Based on a 10-year life for both softener and RO unit and a
7% interest rate, the annualized cost is $570 (i.e., multiplying $4,000 by a capital recovery factor [CRF]
ofO.142378).
4.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost. The O&M cost for the water softener consisted of salt
usage and system maintenance. The O&M cost for the RO unit consisted of pre- and post-filter
replacement, RO element replacement, and system maintenance. The yearly service contract with the
vendor for salt was $115 for a one year supply. Pre- and post-cartridge filter replacement at 500 gal of
treated water was quoted at $86.50.
Only five homeowners used 500 gal of treated water during the performance evaluation period. For these
homeowners with the largest water usage, the one year O&M cost for salt usage ($115) and filter
replacement ($86.50) was $201.50 or $17 per month. The systems were under warranty for one year;
therefore, no maintenance cost was incurred during the performance evaluation period.
33
-------
Table 4-13. Summary of O&M Cost
Cost Category
Value
Assumption
Salt Replenishment for Water Softener
Salt Cost ($)
Salt Consumption Rate (lb/ 1,000 gal)
Salt Unit Cost ($/lb)
Salt Cost ($71,000 gal)
$115
5.77
$0.12
$0.69
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Cartridge Filter Replacement
Pre- and Post-Cartridge Filter
Replacement
$86.50
Replacement required every
500 gal
34
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004. Revised Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Arsenic Removal Technology.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-C-00-185, Task Order No. 0029, for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Chen, A.S.C., L. Wang, J.L. Oxenham, and W.E. Condit. 2004. Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal
Technologies: U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.
EPA/600/R-04/201. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Edwards, M., S. Patel, L. McNeill, H. Chen, M. Frey, A.D. Eaton, R.C. Antweiler, and H.E. Taylor.
1998. "Considerations in As Analysis and Speciation." J. AWWA, 90(3) 103-113.
EPA. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance
and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142.
EPA. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic.
Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141.
Wang, L., W.E. Condit, and A.S.C. Chen. 2004. Technology Selection and System Design: U.S. EPA
Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1. EPA/600/R-05/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
35
-------
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
IDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as
CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
i-ig/L
Mg/L
M9/L
Month 1 : 07/20/05
Wellhead
IN
290
0.8
151
11.6
<0.05
60.1
<0.1
664
-
-
232
185
47.5
53.0
<25
0.3
26.0
39.0
R1
WS1
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
59.4
<0.1
672
-
-
0.6
0.5
0.2
53.3
<25
<0.1
21.3
38.9
R01
8
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.8
0.5
8
-
-
0.3
<0.25
0.1
0.3
<25
3.1
<0.1
1.3
R1
WS2
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
60.7
<0.1
678
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
53.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
R02
11
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.05
2.3
0.2
10
-
-
0.4
<0.25
0.1
0.2
<25
3.9
-
-
R3
WS3
295
0.8
147
11.3
<0.05
59.2
0.2
672
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
52.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R03
17
<0.1
<1
0.4
<0.05
2.0
0.6
16
-
-
0.6
<0.25
0.3
0.2
<25
3.6
-
-
R4
WS4
286
0.8
153
11.7
<0.05
59.0
<0.1
706
-
-
1.8
<0.25
1.5
52.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
R04
11
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.05
1.8
0.4
4
-
-
0.5
<0.25
0.2
5.1
<25
7.1
-
-
R5
WS5
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
60.5
0.8
676
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
52.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
R05
11
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.6
<0.1
2
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
4.4
-
-
R6
WS6
286
0.8
151
11.6
<0.05
60.7
<0.1
708
-
-
2.2
0.6
1.6
52.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
R06
10
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.4
<0.1
10
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
6.2
-
-
R7
WS7
282
0.8
153
11.6
<0.05
-
<0.1
656
-
-
239
190(a)
49.8(a)
66.8
<25
0.2
-
-
R07
14
<0.1
<1
0.4
<0.05
2.9
0.2
22
-
-
1.1
<0.25
0.8
8.7
<25
11.6
-
-
R8
WS8
277
0.8
154
11.7
<0.05
61.3
0.1
652
-
-
0.5
<0.25
0.3
59.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R08
12
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.05
2.7
<0.1
14
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
1.6
-
-
R9
WS9
286
0.8
154
11.7
<0.05
62.4
0.5
698
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
51.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
R09
8
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
1.4
<0.1
14
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
1.4
-
-
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
(a) Softener might have run out of salt.
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
IDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 2: 08/24/05
Wellhead
IN
286
0.8
153
10.9
<0.05
95.9
<0.1
694
-
-
247
187
59.9
61.7
<25
0.4
31.0
33.8
R1
WS1
286
0.8
140
10.9
<0.05
91.0
0.1
724
-
-
1.0
1.0
0.1
63.3
<25
0.2
29.6
34.7
RO1
25
<0.1
2.2
1.9
0.2
8.2
<0.1
48
-
-
0.4
0.3
0.1
1.2
<25
1.6
<0.1
<0.1
R2
WS2
286
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
92.5
0.1
732
-
-
1.2
1.1
0.1
62.4
<25
0.2
29.9
34.7
RO2
11
<0.1
1.3
1.7
<0.05
5.7
<0.1
34
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.1
<25
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
R3
WS3
273
0.8
152
11.6
<0.05
91.4
0.2
714
-
-
1.1
0.9
0.2
62.9
<25
0.2
29.5
34.1
RO3
9
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.05
3.5
0.2
6
-
-
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
<25
5.2
<0.1
<0.1
R4
WS4
286
0.8
152
11.7
<0.05
91.8
0.1
712
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.2
61.6
<25
0.2
29.4
34.1
RO4
17
<0.1
<1
1.2
0.4
6.1
<0.1
26
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.4
<25
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
R5
WS5
277
0.7
155
10.8
<0.05
92.7
0.8
700
-
-
0.9
0.8
0.1
58.5
<25
0.1
31.9
32.9
RO5
11
<0.1
<1
1.2
<0.05
5.4
<0.1
20
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.1
<25
0.8
<0.1
<0.1
R6
WS6
277
0.8
155
10.9
<0.05
93.6
0.2
698
-
-
1.0
0.9
0.1
60.8
56.4
0.5
31.4
33.8
RO6
11
<0.1
<1
0.4
0.1
5.2
0.1
18
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.9
<0.1
<0.1
R7
WS7
286
0.8
151
10.9
<0.05
91.2
<0.1
710
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.1
61.1
<25
0.2
30.3
34.2
RO7
12
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.05
4.4
<0.1
28
-
-
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.3
<25
7.4
<0.1
<0.1
R8
WS8
282
0.8
150
11.2
<0.05
90.1
0.6
842
-
-
0.8
0.8
0.1
61.0
<25
0.2
29.8
34.1
RO8
17
<0.1
1.3
1.8
<0.05
6.7
0.3
86
-
-
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
<25
1.2
<0.1
<0.1
R9
WS9
264
0.8
153
11.5
<0.05
108.0
0.2
822
-
-
0.8
0.7
0.1
62.7
<25
0.2
30.4
34.5
RO9
6
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.05
4.0
<0.1
30
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Orthophosphate (as PO4)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
IDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 3: 09/20/05
Wellhead
IN
308
0.8
152
11.1
<0.05
62.5
0.3
694
7.2
16.6
242
190
52.4
55.1
<25
0.3
26.9
32.9
R1
WS1
312
0.8
152
10.6
<0.05
62.6
0.3
692
7.6
18.8
1.4
1.3
0.1
54.8
<25
<0.1
27.4
33.7
RO1
11
<0.1
<1
0.7
<0.05
3.1
0.2
10
6.5
21.2
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.5
<25
0.6
<0.1
1.2
R2
WS2
290
0.8
153
11.2
<0.05
62.9
<0.1
698
-
-
1.6
1.4
0.2
56.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
12
<0.1
<1
1.6
<0.05
2.7
0.3
16
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.5
-
-
R3
WS3
286
0.8
152
11.4
<0.05
63.3
2.1
700
-
-
0.5
0.4
0.1
53.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO3
9
<0.1
<1
<0.05
0.1
2.3
<0.1
14
-
-
5.6
2.8
2.8
<0.1
<25
28.2
-
-
R4
WS4
290
0.8
153
10.6
<0.05
63.4
0.2
694
-
-
1.7
1.3
0.4
56.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO4
14
<0.1
<1
0.5
<0.05
3.1
<0.1
22
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.4
-
-
R5
WS5
277
0.8
152
11.1
<0.05
62.5
1.2
704
-
-
1.5
1.3
0.2
60.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
11
<0.1
<1
1.6
<0.05
3.2
0.6
8
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.4
-
-
R6
WS6
286
0.8
158
11.4
<0.05
62.6
0.3
730
-
-
0.8
0.6
0.2
52.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
9
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.05
1.6
0.1
34
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.4
-
-
R7
WS7
308
0.8
155
10.5
<0.05
62.3
0.3
712
-
-
8.9
7.3
1.6
54.9
<25
1.0
-
-
RO7
13
<0.1
<1
0.4
<0.05
1.4
0.3
6
-
-
0.5
<0.25
0.3
0.2
<25
8.4
-
-
R8
WS8
295
0.8
155
11.0
<0.05
63.1
1.5
720
-
-
0.7
0.6
0.1
55.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
11
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.05
2.7
0.1
28
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.4
-
-
R9
WS9
299
0.8
155
10.7
<0.05
64.1
0.1
708
-
-
0.5
0.4
0.1
54.7
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
10
<0.1
<1
1.2
<0.05
2.1
<0.1
16
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month4:10/19/05
Wellhead
IN
290
0.8
171
10.1
<0.03
61.9
0.9
676
_
_
247
194
53.3
54.6
<25
0.2
30.1
31.1
R1
WS1
295
0.7
165
10.2
<0.03
62.2
0.5
706
_
_
0.9
0.8
<0.1
54.9
<25
<0.1
27.6
30.8
RO1
8
0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
2.4
0.2
2
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.5
<25
0.6
<0.1
0.3
R2
WS2
290
0.7
168
10.3
0.03
62.4
0.3
682
_
_
1.2
1.1
<0.1
57.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
11
0.1
<1
2.0
<0.03
3.5
0.2
24
_
_
0.8
0.7
<0.1
0.7
<25
0.2
-
-
R3
WS3
290
0.8
165
9.9
0.05
61.8
0.8
650
_
_
241
186
55.3
58.6
<25
0.5
-
-
RO3
14
0.7
<1
0.1
0.04
0.8
0.4
<1
_
_
1.2
0.9
0.2
0.5
<25
7.4
-
-
R4
WS4
290
0.8
166
10.1
0.03
61.2
0.4
656
_
_
220
138
82.1
56.0
<25
0.7
-
-
RO4
8
<0.1
<1
0.8
<0.03
1.3
0.6
<1
_
_
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.5
<25
0.2
-
-
R5
WS5
290
0.7
177
10.0
0.04
60.7
0.5
690
_
_
1.6
1.5
0.1
56.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
9
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
2.1
0.2
2
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.5
<25
0.3
-
-
R6
WS6
264
0.8
170
10.2
<0.03
60.4
0.5
680
_
_
1.5
1.3
0.2
53.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
1
<0.1
1
1.2
<0.03
1.4
0.2
<1
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<25
0.3
-
-
R7
WS7
286
0.7
166
10.0
0.04
60.8
0.3
692
_
_
1.9
1.9
<0.1
55.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
8
<0.1
<1
0.4
0.1
1.5
0.3
12
_
_
1.6
1.3
0.3
0.6
<25
9.2
-
-
R8
WS8
290
0.7
189
10.0
0.1
60.6
0.4
674
_
_
1.3
1.2
<0.1
58.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
14
0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
3.3
0.5
16
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.6
<25
0.2
-
-
R9
WS9
286
0.8
170
9.9
0.04
60.5
0.7
724
_
_
1.2
1.1
<0.1
58.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
55
<0.1
<1
0.8
<0.03
1.3
0.5
<1
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
MonthS: 11/16/05
Wellhead
IN
286
0.7
188
9.2
<0.03
62.6
1.1
658
7.2
22.1
240
193
46.9
56.3
229
1.9
30.9
33.4
R1
WS1
295
0.7
191
9.2
<0.03
63.2
0.3
698
7.3
13.2
1.3
1.3
0.1
50.9
<25
<0.1
30.9
32.8
RO1
11
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
2.7
<0.1
98
6.7
18.6
0.4
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
<0.1
0.3
R2
WS2
304
0.7
190
9.2
<0.03
61.6
<0.1
658
_
_
1.2
1.1
0.1
53.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
12
<0.1
<1
1.3
<0.03
2.7
<0.1
36
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
286
0.7
188
9.2
<0.03
62.4
0.1
740
_
_
2.1
1.8
0.3
53.7
45.9
<0.1
-
-
RO4
6
<0.1
<1
0.8
<0.03
1.2
<0.1
8
_
_
0.5
0.4
0.1
<0.1
<25
0.2
-
-
R5
WS5
290
0.7
191
9.5
<0.03
62.3
0.4
492
_
_
1.1
1.0
<0.1
51.6
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
6
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.03
2.4
<0.1
<1
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
-
-
R6
WS6
286
0.7
195
9.3
<0.03
61.5
0.2
764
_
_
1.5
1.4
0.1
48.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
3
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
2.0
<0.1
32
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
295
0.7
192
9.4
<0.03
61.9
<0.1
722
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
13
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.03
1.4
<0.1
<1
_
_
0.8
0.6
0.2
<0.1
<25
7.4
-
-
R8
WS8
286
0.7
191
9.3
<0.03
62.4
0.2
784
_
_
1.0
1.0
<0.1
50.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
22
<0.1
<1
2.2
<0.03
3.6
<0.1
74
_
_
0.3
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
-
-
R9
WS9
295
0.7
193
9.3
<0.03
62.0
0.3
678
_
_
1.3
1.2
0.1
48.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
7
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.03
1.8
<0.1
<1
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
IN = wellhead.
WS = after water softener.
RO = RO permeate.
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
MonthS: 12/14/05
Wellhead
IN
290
0.6
160
8.7
<0.03
67.2
2.3
656
7.2
25.1
233
184
48.8
55.1
252
0.6
28.9
30.1
R1
WS1
295
0.6
160
9.1
<0.03
67.5
0.5
700
7.6
12.7
1.3
1.2
<0.1
53.2
<25
0.1
25.7
30.4
RO1
17
<0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
4.6
0.2
26
7.7
16.4
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
R2
WS2
295
0.6
161
9.2
<0.03
69.0
0.5
698
_
_
1.0
0.9
<0.1
54.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
11
<0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
3.5
0.2
18
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
304
0.6
162
9.1
<0.03
69.9
1.4
696
_
_
10.3
5.8
4.5
54.5
<25
0.1
-
-
RO4
7
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.03
1.1
0.4
6
_
_
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.1
<25
0.2
-
-
R5
WS5
295
0.6
161
8.8
0.03
68.2
0.7
726
_
_
1.3
1.2
0.1
52.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
9
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.03
2.7
0.5
8
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.1
-
-
R6
WS6
295
0.6
161
8.7
0.04
64.1
0.5
700
_
_
1.8
1.6
0.2
55.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
3
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.03
1.3
0.3
<1
_
_
0.5
0.5
<0.1
0.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
290
0.6
161
8.7
<0.03
65.7
0.6
700
_
_
1.2
1.1
<0.1
54.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
4
<0.1
<1
0.2
<0.03
1.4
0.4
12
_
_
0.5
0.4
<0.1
0.2
<25
3.0
-
-
R8
WS8
295
0.6
164
8.7
0.03
63.8
0.4
702
_
_
0.9
0.9
<0.1
55.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
8
<0.1
<1
0.5
<0.03
2.8
0.7
18
_
_
0.4
0.3
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.3
-
-
R9
WS9
290
0.6
162
9.4
0.03
67.3
0.4
710
_
_
1.3
1.1
0.2
52.6
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
11
<0.1
<1
1.3
<0.03
3.3
0.6
74
_
_
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter Unit
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 7: 01/17/06
Wellhead
IN
308
0.6
172
8.9
<0.03
65.5
0.4
648
7.2
25.3
228
182
45.9
56.5
<25
0.5
24.3
32.6
R1
WS1
308
0.6
169
8.8
<0.03
66.1
0.3
706
7.5
14.3
0.8
0.7
0.1
51.6
<25
<0.1
23.7
31.9
RO1
12
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
3.2
0.2
28
6.5
19.3
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
<0.1
0.5
R2
WS2
304
0.6
168
8.8
<0.03
66.7
0.4
660
-
-
0.6
0.6
0.1
53.7
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
11
<0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
3.4
0.1
48
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
312
0.6
169
8.8
<0.03
65.5
0.6
716
-
-
1.9
1.5
0.4
54.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO4
6
<0.1
<1
1.1
<0.03
1.9
0.3
25
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.3
-
-
R5
WS5
312
0.6
160
8.8
<0.03
65.7
0.5
614
-
-
0.9
0.7
0.1
54.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
8
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.03
2.4
0.5
26
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
-
-
R6
WS6
304
0.6
171
8.7
<0.03
63.5
0.3
666
-
-
173
78.5
94.9
56.0
<25
1.3
-
-
RO6
2
<0.1
<1
0.3
<0.03
1.5
0.1
2
-
-
0.4
0.4
<0.1
0.4
<25
0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
308
0.6
169
8.9
<0.03
66.7
0.5
664
-
-
0.9
0.8
0.2
52.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
3
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.03
1.1
0.1
<1
-
-
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
<25
6.5
-
-
R8
WS8
304
0.6
171
8.8
<0.03
64.8
0.2
624
-
-
0.5
0.4
<0.1
52.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
9
<0.1
<1
0.6
<0.03
2.6
0.4
2
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.2
-
-
R9
WS9
308
0.6
169
8.8
<0.03
65.2
0.3
680
-
-
0.9
0.7
0.1
56.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
15
<0.1
<1
<0.05
0.04
2.7
0.6
36
-
-
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
<25
3.5
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as SiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month8:02/15/06
Wellhead
IN
283
1.3
210
11.3
<0.03
66.1
7.2
692
7.2
24.3
232
182
49.8
57.2
568
0.9
26.5
32.4
R1
WS1
320
1.3
211
11.7
<0.03
66.4
1.0
716
7.5
12.2
1.5
1.4
<0.1
63.9
<25
<0.1
22.7
35.2
RO1
18
<0.1
<1
1.8
<0.03
4.1
0.2
36
6.6
18.2
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
R2
WS2
308
0.9
219
11.6
<0.03
65.7
1.0
946
-
-
1.7
1.5
0.2
67.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
13
<0.1
<1
1.7
<0.03
3.0
0.3
36
-
-
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
299
<0.1
217
11.6
<0.03
66.9
1.8
696
-
-
2.6
2.2
0.4
69.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO4
10
<0.1
<1
1.5
<0.03
2.2
0.5
30
-
-
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
0.1
<25
0.2
-
-
R5
WS5
295
0.9
220
11.8
<0.03
66.5
0.5
688
-
-
1.2
1.1
<0.1
60.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
17
<0.1
<1
1.2
<0.03
2.3
0.3
36
-
-
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
0.3
<25
0.1
-
-
R6
WS6
283
0.9
222
12.0
<0.03
67.0
0.6
716
-
-
1.8
1.6
0.2
66.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
6
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.03
1.6
0.2
28
-
-
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
299
0.9
226
11.9
<0.03
67.9
0.5
706
-
-
1.3
1.2
0.1
60.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
7
<0.1
<1
0.2
<0.03
1.6
0.3
26
-
-
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
0.1
<25
1.9
-
-
R8
WS8
295
0.9
224
12.1
<0.03
67.7
0.7
668
-
-
1.1
1.0
<0.1
61.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
11
<0.1
<1
1.3
<0.03
2.9
1.0
46
-
-
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
0.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
R9
WS9
287
0.9
222
12.2
0.1
66.2
1.3
728
-
-
1.2
1.0
0.2
52.7
<25
0.1
-
-
RO9
19
<0.1
<1
0.1
0.4
3.3
0.9
30
-
-
<0.7
<0.6
<0.1
1.2
<25
0.5
-
-
>
oo
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
PH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 9 :03/15/06
Wellhead
IN
305
0.8
168
8.9
<0.01
59.8
0.9
714
7.3
21.2
216
169
46.5
64.3
<25
0.4
26.0
29.1
R1
WS1
305
0.8
168
8.8
<0.01
59.2
0.6
692
7.6
11.7
1.5
1.4
<0.1
63.7
<25
0.2
25.7
29.9
RO1
17
<0.1
<1
1.3
<0.01
3.6
0.4
44
7.1
17.0
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
R2
WS2
305
0.8
172
9.0
<0.01
59.2
0.6
744
-
-
1.2
1.1
<0.1
62.3
<25
0.1
-
-
RO2
63
<0.1
<1
1.7
<0.01
3.6
0.5
36
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
-
-
R4
WS4
326
1.0
176
9.0
0.1
60.0
1.0
834
-
-
109
82.0
26.9
97.2
<25
0.5
-
-
RO4
13
<0.1
<1
1.4
<0.01
2.2
0.5
28
-
-
2.3
1.6
0.7
0.1
<25
0.3
-
-
R5
WS5
309
0.8
167
8.9
<0.03
59.8
0.4
742
-
-
1.3
1.2
0.1
63.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
21
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.01
29.0
0.3
26
-
-
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.1
<25
1.0
-
-
R6
WS6
297
0.8
169
8.8
<0.01
58.5
0.3
710
-
-
1.5
1.4
0.2
60.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
10
<0.1
<1
<0.05
<0.01
1.6
0.5
98
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
1.0
-
-
R7
WS7
301
0.8
171
8.8
<0.01
59.2
0.4
740
-
-
1.2
1.1
<0.1
60.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
10
<0.1
<1
0.2
<0.01
1.3
0.4
14
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.2
-
-
R8
WS8
297
0.8
172
8.9
<0.01
58.7
0.7
746
-
-
1.1
1.0
<0.1
64.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
17
<0.1
<1
1.6
<0.01
2.8
1.2
38
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
R9
WS9
301
0.8
169
8.8
<0.01
59.1
0.7
606
-
-
1.4
1.3
0.2
63.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
10
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.03
2.3
1.0
30
-
-
<0.35
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.4
-
-
>
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (asSiO2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 10:04/19/2006
Wellhe
ad
IN
317
5.2
155
5.8
0.1
62.9
1.6
676
7.3
20.8
238
176
62.6
58.2
200
1.3
23.4
32.0
R1
WS1
313
4.3
166
6.3
0.1
62.3
0.3
706
7.8
14.0
1.6
1.5
0.1
53.0
<25
<0.1
19.5
31.8
RO1
19
0.2
<1
0.1
<0.01
4.7
0.1
44
6.5
19.1
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
R2
WS2
308
4
169
6.8
<0.01
61.9
0.7
728
-
-
1.2
1.1
0.1
53.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
9
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.01
2.1
0.5
28
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
308
0.4
16
0.6
<0.01
62
0.3
680
-
-
5.1
3.9
1.2
53.6
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO4
9
<0.1
<1
0.9
<0.01
1.7
0.2
20
-
-
1.0
0.5
0.5
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R5
WS5
308
0.8
171
6.4
<0.01
61.8
0.2
692
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.1
53.6
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
17
<0.1
<1
0.3
0.1
3.9
0.2
30
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R6
WS6
313
0.8
169
6.5
<0.01
62.5
0.2
694
-
-
1.6
1.4
0.3
54.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
9
<0.1
<1
0.1
<0.03
1.9
0.1
10
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R7
WS7
313
0.8
161
6.2
<0.01
62.7
0.3
716
-
-
1.2
1.1
<0.1
53.9
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
8
<0.1
<1
0.5
<0.01
1.4
0.2
14
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R8
WS8
317
7.9
174
7.4
<0.01
61.9
0.3
692
-
-
0.9
0.8
<0.1
51.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
11
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.01
2.6
0.1
20
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
R9
WS9
308
10.4
173
7.9
<0.01
62.6
0.2
672
-
-
1.5
1.2
0.3
51.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
12
0.1
<1
1.1
<0.01
3.1
0.4
14
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
<0.1
-
-
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as S\O2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 1 1 : 05/1 7/06
Wellhead
IN
288
0.8
164
12.6
<0.01
65.8
1.2
730
7.4
17.4
243
187
55.3
61.2
<25
0.1
27.3
30.8
R1
WS1
292
0.7
170
12.7
<0.01
66.5
0.3
700
7.6
19.1
2.0
1.8
<0.1
62.0
<25
<0.1
23.8
31.0
RO1
16
<0.1
<1
1.8
<0.01
4.7
0.2
66
6.4
23.0
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.1
<0.1
0.1
R2
WS2
291
0.7
166
12.7
<0.01
64.7
0.2
738
-
-
1.8
1.7
<0.1
60.5
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO2
20
<0.1
1
3.7
<0.01
3.6
0.6
68
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
283
0.7
165
12.1
<0.01
64.3
0.3
728
-
-
21.4
13.9
7.5
59.5
<25
0.1
-
-
RO4
18
<0.1
<1
1.6
<0.01
3.0
0.4
50
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.1
-
-
R5
WS5
291
0.7
164
12.3
<0.01
65.8
0.3
732
-
-
1.8
1.7
0.1
62.7
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
13
<0.1
1
1.5
<0.01
3.4
0.4
42
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.4
<25
0.4
-
-
R6
WS6
287
0.6
168
12
<0.01
68.7
0.2
698
-
-
2.1
1.9
0.2
62.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO6
5
<0.1
<1
1.3
<0.01
2.5
0.2
44
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
<0.1
<25
0.3
-
-
R7
WS7
291
0.7
165
12.5
<0.01
66.2
0.2
676
-
-
2.4
2.2
<0.1
54.4
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
8
<0.1
<1
1.9
<0.01
2.6
0.3
52
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.3
-
-
R8
WS8
291
0.7
166
12.1
<0.01
65.4
0.7
670
-
-
2.2
2.1
<0.1
58.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO8
18
<0.1
1
2.7
<0.01
4.5
0.7
60
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
R9
WS9
283
0.7
166
12.6
<0.01
65.2
0.3
706
-
-
2.9
2.8
0.2
51.0
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO9
13
<0.1
1
1.9
<0.01
3.7
0.3
46
-
-
0.4
<0.25
<0.1
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
-------
Table 1. Analytical Results from Monthly Sampling at Homedale, ID (Continued)
Sampling Date
Sampling Residence
Sampling Location
Parameter
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Total P (as PO4)
Silica (as S\O2)
Turbidity
TDS
pH
Temperature
Total Hardness (as
CaC03)
Ca Hardness (as CaCO3)
Mg Hardness (as CaCO3)
Total As
Total Fe
Total Mn
Total U
Total V
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
S.U.
°C
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
M9/L
Month 12: 06/28/06
Wellhead
IN
283
0.9
155
13.6
<0.01
67.4
0.9
720
7.4
17.0
251
190
61.3
60.3
<25
0.3
27.4
31.5
R1
WS1
283
0.9
156
13.4
<0.03
66.2
0.3
752
7.5
21.1
1.5
1.4
0.1
54.2
<25
0.2
26.1
30.8
RO1
27
<0.1
<1
0.2
<0.01
5.2
0.3
42
6.9
22.1
0.4
<0.25
0.1
0.3
<25
0.9
<0.1
0.1
R2
WS2
288
0.9
156
13.4
<0.01
65.6
0.3
694
-
-
1.1
1.1
0.1
66.6
<25
0.1
-
-
RO2
14
<0.1
<1
2.5
<0.01
4.1
0.5
40
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.04
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
R4
WS4
292
0.3
155
13.1
<0.01
66.2
0.6
698
-
-
1.5
1.3
0.2
65.1
<25
0.1
-
-
RO4
15
<0.1
<1
2.1
<0.01
3.8
0.4
30
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.04
0.2
<25
<0.1
-
-
R5
WS5
292
0.8
154
13.2
<0.01
65.1
0.5
722
-
-
1.2
1.1
0.1
64.8
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO5
12
<0.1
<1
1.8
<0.01
2.9
0.4
36
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.04
0.3
<25
0.2
-
-
R6
WS6
292
0.8
155
13.4
<0.01
66.8
0.5
706
-
-
1.3
1.2
0.1
61.8
<25
0.1
-
-
RO6
7
<0.1
<1
2.3
<0.01
3.4
0.3
28
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.04
0.2
<25
0.3
-
-
R7
WS7
288
0.8
154
13.2
<0.01
66.7
0.3
728
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.1
62.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
RO7
9
<0.1
<1
2.3
<0.01
3.1
0.2
26
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.04
0.2
<25
0.1
-
-
R8
WS8
292
0.8
150
12.8
<0.01
67.1
1.0
696
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.0
63.5
<25
0.1
-
-
RO8
15
<0.1
<1
2.0
<0.01
4.2
0.7
24
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.04
0.3
<25
<0.1
-
-
R9
WS9
288
0.9
153
13.6
<0.01
67.3
0.6
686
-
-
1.1
1.0
0.1
67.8
<25
0.1
26.0
30.9
RO9
7
<0.1
<1
1.0
<0.01
2.1
0.3
16
-
-
0.3
<0.25
<0.04
0.2
<25
0.1
<0.1
0.1
IN = wellhead
WS = after water softener
RO = after RO unit
------- |